Planning staff (Speaker 1) told the Planning and Zoning Commission that two technical paths exist to provide water service to the proposed lots on the south side of College Street: either a single public meter at the frontage with private on‑lot piping and shared access easement for meter reading and maintenance, or construction of a full public water line with individual meters at each home.

On sanitary service, staff explained the site’s elevation and proximity to a creek mean each new home would need a private grinder pump to lift wastewater to the existing 8‑inch sanitary trunk on College Street. "They would have to install a private grinder pump to facilitate flow from those proposed spots up to the existing line on College Street," Speaker 1 said. Staff said the property owner must deliver an agreement among future owners for maintenance and access to any shared grinder pump and manhole.

Staff also identified preliminary costs and procedural steps. They said a $13,500 escrow is required to begin civil review and planning assistance, and that water and wastewater impact fees will apply because the development will provide new lines to the site. "You have a $13,500 fee for escrow," Speaker 1 said. Staff told commissioners the full impact‑fee total for Sections 4–6 is being confirmed but estimated it to be substantial and said they would confirm the exact amount after the meeting.

Commissioners asked about who is proposing the work; staff said most correspondence has been with builder Jordan McDonald, working on behalf of KIH (referred to in the record as "Richie Rich"), and that the property owner has told staff he intends to build houses for his daughters, effectively a family compound rather than public subdivision sales. On the historic‑overlay question, staff said the overlay derives from GIS and historical records and that staff would ensure preservation requirements are observed if construction falls inside the formally designated area. Staff also said that running a water line and sewer through the site is acceptable from a preservation standpoint when it does not alter public‑facing historic elements.

The presentation was informational: staff said the report had been presented to the developer and to city council (at a November meeting) and that council "did accept our findings," but staff clarified that acceptance was informational and not a binding approval. The developer must choose a water approach, then proceed through preliminary and final platting and the building permit process. No formal land‑use approvals were taken on this item; staff characterized the meeting discussion as feasibility review rather than approval.