Nibley City Planning Commission

Hi. Welcome, everybody. Our new the time got mission meeting for July '9. We will start by point me to order and then meet local.

Mike, Wayne?

Robert, city planner.

Tom Dickinson, city engineer. Tom Bigelow, assistant city recruiter.

Alright. I will ask for a consideration on tonight's agenda. Do I have any consideration or looking on the agenda?

Move to approve tonight's agenda.

I'll second. Yeah. I'll take her. Alright. Alright.

We will proceed as scheduled. Did you get the minute?

No. There was no minutes to review.

So Is there? We will move that to the next

second. Second. They happen. I think they

moved. Oh, I see. I see. Okay.

Yeah.

We will look at last meeting's minutes, in our meeting. With that, we'll move to item three on our agenda, which is a public hearing for ordinance twenty six twenty two, which is a development agreement for the Dove Creek subdivision. 14 lots, open space subdivision at approximately thirty four fifty south, four fifty west, setting four terms and conditions for the development, including exceptions to the new city code for open space parcel site and internal requirements.

And that would be my belief you said. Yeah. And just for context, I'm I'm gonna present really for the whole subdivision. So items three, four, and five are altogether in this in this slide deck here. The app just so you know, the applicant is also here if you wanna give him a chance to to explain anything further. And but but I'll I'll go over just just for the all the the context, the whole the whole subdivision, and then the development agreement mostly I'm gonna mostly focus in on those two exceptions. The the the rest of the development agreement is is pretty standard, language, but there there's a few exceptions there that I wanna focus on, and I'll touch on in the presentation. So, yeah, so what's being proposed is a 14 lot, subdivision and open space subdivision. This it's in an r two zone, and this was submitted prior to the last update to the open space subdivision code. And so it's being evaluated, and it has been evaluated by staff and should be by by the commission as well based upon the previous version of the open space code, not not what's what you see currently in Unicode. That's why in the packet, there's a there's a a document in there that's the open space subdivision code code that was previous to that amendment. Just we can go into more detail on it, but just in general, it meets the minimum lot size and frontage requirements, give given given the open space dedication, which they're proposing 40% of the net available acreage be open space. So so that's all that's all met. The utilities and and the public infrastructure has all been reviewed and refined and and subject to further engineering review at final plat. There's several conditions that I'll go through at the end of of this for recommendations that can be addressed at the final plat. The canal the the canal impacts, they've been acknowledged by the irrigation company, but they are subject to final review during the final plat process with the with the canal company there. So I'm gonna show up on the screen. I felt was the it gives you the most context. This is the you know, shows the civil plan, but it also shows the the lots for the subdivision. So you can see there coming off of 450 West to the to toward the right of the screen, there's there's a proposed cul de sac. There's a whether they're proposing a a trail connecting through, to the Mount Vista Trail system and then also a trail that connects, from the Apple Creek sidewalk that goes into that, cul de sac and then and then over to the the east toward 450 West. So I'll get into more detail. There's a stormwater basin on on the north in the north area there as well with integrated into that open space. The red is is what shown as the sensitive land areas, so steep steeper slopes and as well as well as canal corridor there on the North. So, anyway, that's that's just general context. So you can see the the 14 lots there. That generally are, you know, around nine eight, nine thousand. Most of them are about 9,000 square feet. Some are a little more, some a little bit less, but averaging a little over 9,000 square feet there. Little bit more on on transportation. So there is a master plan street, 450 West, and they are providing sidewalk, curb, and gutter, for the front of the development. And as much as they can, they're so maybe I'll kinda go back here so I can point to this. So 450 West for a section of it, the recently developed subdivision provided a half road, the Johnson Johnson Lane subdivision. But and so they're they're going to finish that part out, and and there'll be a full road adjacent to Johnson Lane. But then as you go south, there's a section that this property owner doesn't control to get really to align that roadway. And so what what staff's recommending in that section well, one, and they've they've proposed it here is to provide the sidewalk curb and gutter. But the actual roadway, at at least providing a a a fire safe roadway 20, you know, 20 feet wide, they don't have they don't control the land to do that. So what we're proposing is a fee in lieu for the just just for that pavement, of about a 100 foot section of that. But for now, it's going there's gonna be a gap because it's they don't control that, that piece of the of the, the road where where the the right of way would go or it's where it's master planned. Street trees are provided as required. There is a preliminary street tree plan in there. We will need to provide more detailed final plat, but that's addresses the condition. There's a pedestrian right of way that connects the cul de sac the cul de sac to Mount Vista. There is a little gap between the trail and where this property is. And so one of the recommended conditions is is to record an easement on that Mount Vista property for a pedestrian right of way so it could connect through. It's a short, I don't know, twenty, thirty foot wide, gap there, yeah, that that's needed, to do that. So that that's also a recommended condition. Next, so on the active transportation plan, there there's a trail that goes along the north border of the subdivision, and it can it would it connects from Mount Vista and that that trail system and that subdivision over to 450 West. The applicant has has proposed to omit the set the section that goes between Mount Vista and that Apple Creek cul de sac, Apple Tree Fort is what the, you know, the the cul de sac there is that sidewalk. They've they've cited some grading issues. They they you you might give them a chance to go into more detail, but staff recommends requiring that trail in as as it is required by by the city code and by and and is shown on the active transportation plan there. So this is this is the section, really, we're talking about. And and just in general, you know, the staff is the there it doesn't quite follow that exact property line, but that that's not necessarily the ideal location for it given the context of the area. There's there's there's trees in there. There's a there's a canal corridor. And so if we go back to to this, if you can see kinda more toward the north end where that trail is, how it kinda meanders it. It borders where the those tree the tree stand is there. So so that, you know, staff support of of that Kind of meandering of the trail it it it preserves that that corridor, which is really one of the goals of the open space subdivision, but but staff does recommend that it would continue to the West, you know, be be required to to provide in that area. And there's a great change, definitely there that that they would have to deal with, but that is what's recommended there. And and now and that is one of the exceptions that's in the development agreement in front of you tonight and and, you know, what this public hearing is for. A little bit about the open space. As you can see, there's two open space areas, and the the open space subdivision code, it does recommend and and encourage that open space be integrated and as much as possible congruent to other open space. And in this area in this area, you know, there's preserved open space to the north, a private open space in the Apple Creek subdivision as well as Mount Vista. And I'm I'm talking I guess I'm talking about the North area first on the screen. It says South South, but I I'm talking about the North area. So you you've got the there's there's really two open space parcels. One that's point four four acre and then one that's point eight three acre, and they're split by that trail corridor. There's also a, you know, a stormwater basin in there that they'd mentioned. The the open space subdivision code requires point five acre for these open space parcels. And so this is the other exception that's in that development agreement. Now staff is is supportive of this exception given the fact there's there's really a couple of factors here. One is it's already adjacent to other open space to the north. And the only reason really that it's that it's the size that it is is because of that trail corridor, which really is the preferred location for the trail. So that that's that's it. And it would require moving that trail corridor to increase that to above the half acre minimum, and that that really isn't ideal because the given the context of it, that trail corridor is is in the right location. So so staff is is definitely in support of of granting that exception of that five or point five acre minimum half acre minimum. And then there's that south, about two thirds acre, also also conservation space that's contiguous that mount this open space. The there are and this isn't on the screen here, but there are open space design standards, which these these meet according to staff's analysis. That's that's all in the agenda item report. If you wanna read further, it requires that three of them be met. And according to, you know, staff's interpretation, four of them have been met. So those open space design standards are being met. Other than the trails, none of this would be dedicated to the city. They they would be they would be dedicated, you know, or or they they'd be privately held or they could be if if if there were an HOA, the HOA could maintain it, but but that's that's that's the plan for maintenance of those areas. So as far as the development agreement goes and I maybe I think I'll I'll just focus on this recommendation now and then maybe go into the recommendation for the subdivision later when you take up that item. But as far as the development agreement, which is the you know, what what the public hearing is for, the staff's recommendation is to recommend approval of this development agreement. It because it does have exceptions to the city code, this requires city council approval. But staff's recommendation is to recommend approval with the condition of removing, term 11, which allows that exception for the for the trail connection and instead provide that trail connection. And just to clarify a little bit further, both from that that connection and maybe I'll so I can point here where I get do we do we still have the

I don't know what happened to the

yeah. We hate cap, but the pointer but so it would be required both from this section and then also widening this this sidewalk here from five feet to eight feet that would complete really from northeast to northwest that that section of the trail. So that's what staff's recommending as far as the development agreement goes.

Yep.

Thanks, Yvette. Alright. With that, we will open our public hearing, or let's open up our color talk. I do have one name on the list, but I am terrible at reading, and I can't read or writing. So if you have signed up to comment and you would like to comment, please comment the microphone. Prior to meeting. K. Please state your name and address for the break for the break. Ben Johnson. 1648 North 1578. Uh-huh. I won't do the development. Just to get over what I think this, Levi already touched on. The main reason that we were wanting to reroute the trail to connect to the Northwest corner. Well, several reasons. One, we can talk with the engineer. We're gonna have to put up a retaining wall. He put the rough ads on that about a $150,000 pertaining wall and bridge. We have Google account. And so we were hoping to avoid that. Also, if we placed it in a running all the way along that line, I guess, kinda designed to be, it, in our opinion, eliminates the open space purpose, which is beautifying and opening opening everything up. We're gonna tear down trees. You know, you know, cover the canal, all the things people like in that area and get knowledge. There's always kids in there, and there's little forts all that. So we like to preserve that. So, you know, we wanted to help people on both sides. That's why we put the green space in both the north side and south side. People want a little bit extra in the backyard. You're happy to come in, But this is kinda what we're gonna do is just that northwest corner. So that's the the only thing that we ever I guess. On. And then then, obviously, they it was a full size piece. I didn't know we were gonna have to cut in half when we put that track. So it was the we did hit the the point five. So let me think heads on that. Right now? Okay. I I guess maybe we'll come back to questions if that's alright. I will we'll we'll we'll see if there's any more public comment, and then then we can come back to your questions. Anybody else like to make a comment? With this agenda item? K. If not, we will close our public comment and move on to our next agenda item, which is the discussion and consideration for this or the recommendation of this ordinance of '26. So with that, we will open it up for discussion on the commission. So open up the commission and board questions for you. Okay. You mean, go go

to the mic?

I'm gonna be able to be completed because I want them to be regularly. They're almost every day. And you get a cut off back there between out between, you know, this do it unless you want to go to a backyard to get over and get down there. Okay? And your comment about that that area in the incident. You know? You know? They have worked on the keys, so they should've missed that part. And with market now, all they have is more essential jobs. They said they're not supposed to really have all the cable system to begin with. Mhmm. And so I just assume that all of them to the end. Okay. So we have a very high. I live right there. I'm watching what he works. Yeah. It is there are clients that's been staying on the field because there's so much sci fi that we need and stuff up there that you and and they're using that property to make a track race track and run around, and then they hit the trail and go down the other end and race around all instances and look for that. And so I would be you know, I think it I and I would miss having the access to water all the way through the areas, and and I know that a lot of people have a big water through our trail. It come in. So you became all that. You know? People getting in getting through and stuff. So I would, you know, you know, I think I'm still putting the trail in. It fits with our city plan center and what we what we'd like to be able to talk and and access to ready to send to all system memory cards when we're connecting a lot of different places. So yeah. Mhmm. Yeah. Let's let you know that I I think it's important that we need, you know, we can have that field. You know I don't yeah. I don't care if you were to pay it down. We didn't get that straight down. There is a figure. Now this is showing that it's up there to now and it's probably Why? To tell across the catalog along the

Can you can you can you You talking here, Michael? No. Yeah. We've I mean, if we did that, then we'd have to just eliminate that because that's all lot all the logs down, which, you know, we could do with that. We did we were trying to accommodate these people here so that they got a little bit of these, you know Yeah. Fairlies. That's sort of the people. Right? No. That here. Yeah. Yeah. So would would you guys mind bringing the microphone just so that Yeah.

Yeah. They probably don't hear you if anyone's online.

Oh,

That that's still that you know, we've we've got still that very new process. If remember the rules from I can see if we're able to see What's the slope you you if I do that, I mean, you know, into here. But that's a it's a slow going on all the way to here, and it's still the name of the canyon wall. We can go look past that and sand. Maybe you want us to walk in the fall of the Well, I know what you do. I'm with the trend. Is there a

Yeah. I think it's not you're supposed to be slow.

I think it's taken.

So k. What's what's the slow one in traveling? What can we leave it?

Typically, we care about 10%. So it's a little steeper than a ramp. Though if if it's a 30 footer, I mean, ten thirty three and a 300 per transition, we need to have three per

Yeah. I don't believe it is that that means from the top of that one. So but but I still don't favor the trail. So I think you'll find most people in two subdivisions

who would be I believe so sorry to interrupt you, but I believe that a red marking there, that that that's a steep slope area. I believe that's 20%.

Over 30 is what red means. The 30%. So that's I mean, it's a steep slope. We we have the trail that's 100 feet down, like, the next

loop. And then that transition can be a combination fill, cut with a landscape block or something retained. There's ways to do it. It does get challenging.

Also, the bike jumps are probably let's say Oh, with the trail cutting through there also creating more seven seven half eight robots? Probably.

Yep. We're just.

We can. And then the more likely thing is what we'll have to do is we'll just push the whole the whole development all the way to the South, and people on the South don't get open space there.

Well okay. It doesn't have to be that way. We can't fail straight down the the north of down the North Side.

Isn't what he's proposing? We're still not in the trailer. It's not taking away anything that's already there. And then Sure.

I know what I'm seeing here. Yeah. We we we did close the town close commentary. It's and I don't have water in here right now.

I'm not sure what's going on. We didn't

It it depends on some spring water that flows through there.

Here. It it comes from the. So there's some land rights and things that I should There's constant flow there.

I think we have this. Mine, sir, if the trail is bleeding, That may never get completed or will be completed, then cities cost.

That's that's that's the status that we we

How much would you would we would trail our first? Let's see. I mean, it's under big. Yeah. What's that?

We need a 30. Yeah. We need a 30. Yeah. We need a 30. Yep. The connection then is already getting off this point with any mix. So

You you just wanted to go to Fox two down there.

There's a pipeline of where you're suggesting you can do that. Mhmm. Okay. I just I just see a lot of pushback now in the investigating of of, you know, their the timing. Is that

it could be more than putting it over in in there down below where it flows.

For for the new spot or for the so you're saying it's gonna be over. Right? Right. And I understand that's that's the rule, but, you know, I just plan that we're we're suggesting a change that is not on the plan already if we have the, you know, the plan the plan currently is for this trail to connect. It was originally, I believe, supposed to go, like, this. And, possibly, is that correct? I think it was supposed to be on on Pataprix.

No. No. No. No. It was going to be the property that was going to the property.

So so where does the plan currently show, though? I understand it's Mhmm.

The plan that show connecting here across the here. Correct? It's basically just the north border of your property Yeah. Is what it is what it shows. Yeah.

You're suggesting it can't be here, which of the things we give when we are able to achieve here. So

But I mean, when you want to do yourself within all function.

Where's where's that? Do you wanna shorten your walk with that problem? No. This this allows you to have, you know, completely nature walk all through here. You have to be honest with that. You're here if you wanna go. But, you know, we're not gonna be touching this to the end. So if you're gonna walk me through here, I'm ready. K.

Yes. We don't want to be down to to there. You know? Because there is a trailer. So it's it's a week. Well No. It's not legal at all. No. Yeah. Either of them are. But what I didn't want more than that. You know? There there's people walking, so that's a business there. Right. Yeah. I mean, they don't want trails. Right. K. Okay.

My my will, though, is if we forget to change if we're changing the the the overall plan of this, I think it's easier to to do this one. It's more cost effective. It's let's say, this would be the easiest thing for me to do the bad ones, and we've been going all the way to this borderline, which

you have a I've never been to the meeting. Didn't know that I have on it before I had to see. Can it reopen at all? We would change the rule.

Sure. We The chair the chair like, it's it's it's up to

the chair.

Okay. Alright. So I would like to buy the lower property. And from everything I've heard, that benefits many, many people because that open space that all these other people would like to have. I understand that the trail goes through, but it's not the purpose of our walks to go through beauty trails, get to know other areas. You walk by my house very often. You get to know new neighbors and come through this. So I understand right now, it's like, yeah, this is appealing, but I don't think if you left it the way that it was or the way that it is, you can make other trails. You can walk around other ways. I'm really in favor of this.

Engagement. Oh, yeah. Can you please state your name and your address for the record?

535 West 3500.

This is me. Perfect. Thank you.

I have a question for Deepa. Yeah. In Apple Apple Creek, do they where does everybody else, Dan or Scott?

Right here. So they they just have one kinda similar to this where it just comes out from the cul de sac. Is that the one you're talking about?

Yeah.

Yeah. Yep. This is Yeah. That's the only one that they provided. Now there is and and may maybe to fill in some of the detail on on what Ben was saying, there was a trail easement recorded with Apple Creek Subdivision, part partial of a and I wasn't here when that when that was approved, but it was kind of a wedge that started at 20 feet on the furthest eath east and then diminished to to zero feet on the furthest west. So it's kind of a triangular. And so it goes on this is this is Ryan Warner's property and then and then Sean Dessen's property, but there was no requirement for a trail. Since that time, we've had an updated trail master plan, active transportation plan. We have updated standards. So in our viewpoint, it's it's warranted to require the trail in conjunction with this, you know, new subdivision in spite of what may have happened with that older subdivision.

So

if it goes west, requi west, what is it connecting to? Mount Vista Street. Mount Vista. Mount Vista. Yeah. I mean, there's even a stub right there. You can see it from from Mount Vista. So it could it could potentially connect to that. Now there there's some challenges, obviously, with the grading and the piping canal. And then, you know, just kind of looking broader, maybe I'll go back to this this screen. You know, this trail,

that that'll be that'll be a a pretty decent connection

eventually going through here because the the Johnson Meadows Lane subdivision, they they provided oh, it's frozen. This section in the trail right here. Now there's a little gap here on this under is it Anderson Yes. Property? That would take probably that that developing for this section. But but there there's a a pretty good continuous trail connection there if if you can, you know, complete that. Now this the cul de sac trail, that's something that's required regardless of the trail master plan. Anytime you have a cul de sac, you have to have that just for connectivity.

But but the

really, the the trail master plan is more pointing to the north area of that. They wouldn't need that would they wouldn't need that if they didn't have a cul de sac. Now I understand this constraint. It's probably the only way to develop feasibly the property is with with cul de sac like that, with this, you know, this the constraints there. But but anytime you have a cul de sac, you need to have it connect through the pedestrian have some pedestrian connectivity to go through. Troy, Ryan's

Sure. We'll we'll give you a couple minutes.

Good. Danny, your thirty days down.

Back here. I think, perhaps, I'm I'm here to speak of developers in general. I think it's really generous developer to try and put on this end because it it for them from my perspective, I'm not a developer. It'd be cheaper for them just to shut it all to the south end and and keep your walkway up here. But this benefit's obvious. I mean, it's quite obvious because if you want one of these locks or if you want one of these ones, you're gonna come back for between you and you. Similarly, like again, this is a property here. For these ones, I'll be even further from my property. So this but but I'm I'm an advocate for this, and and I think it's a requirement to put in any walkway down here just because you can get anywhere you want to go. You might have to walk past four or five houses to get there, but you're gonna be out of the walk I mean, walking is to you know, I don't think we need to come through and create

more divisions in order to accommodate

people that wanna get somewhere, you know, minute and a half faster at least necessary. Yeah. We call this section of your property at least, the Mike Wing Trail. Absolutely. Why is this isn't just me? Yeah. Why Why would you be also the vision that Because it's gonna cost me a $150,000. That's Yeah. So how's that gonna be your cost if you don't open yet?

Because then I can I can run the metric exactly what you're saying? I mean, I can connect it. This is gonna move it that far down, and I can connect that right here without any dirt. No no organic noise, any dirt, any brick, any you know, you mess with the canal and the news because I already I mean, it's in there already.

Already have that that already on on some of this.

And so that's that's the easiest for me. And if we actually like, when you go look at this sub right here, the aiming list don't actually, it doesn't touch

my property

anywhere on here where I should have to do them. If you're continuing here, it's gonna be built where the plan originally was. And so the plan has changed since Apple Creative already. I was here for the need to hear them. Thanks, bud. I think, Ben.

That was still there before the the investment on the.

Right. Do we have do we have a motion any motion from the? I think we have enough information to contact.

I do like the conservative.

I think that's a nice touch.

A kind of a mind. The trail's not done, and it's on the batch of plan, which means they will never be done. It's all.

So I'm gonna tell you, mate. Are you talking about anywhere that maybe far more to the number or or Mike's new new We're we're all thinking.

Yeah. That's

Yeah. I think now it's

Yeah. Thanks, Benny. Yeah. We'll we'll just need to the commission. So can you is there anybody

This actually has to go to the

to the Yeah. The city council. Yes. The recommendation. We're not.

We make a motion for approval with the conditions set by the staff on or boards.

I don't know if I have the right number on there. Someone changed them on me. But 2622.

2622. K. Now we have a motion by commissioner there for recommendation or approval of ordinance twenty six twenty two with the conditions mentioned and stated by staff. Do I have a second? I'll check if you do. K. Discussion on the motion.

Probably honestly, this is a big deal. Right? We're just I have a trail here in the house. It's kind of I don't know. It's, becomes problematic. People feel like it's theirs. I don't know. I I think put it through there. It's fine. Probably as many people use the trail behind my house. It's a use for a sidewalk. So that's I think it's good.

Any more discussion? K. We're ready for both then. Alright.

All on paper of the rep

using other motion? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Alright. That's one favor. None of those.

On the Mike Green Trail. Yeah. I just got the sign up with it. Alright.

Alright. We move on to the next item. You you know what I'm saying?

So so it so that this they just recommended approval of the development agreement. It it still goes to city council. City council will make a final say, but with with the emission of, item 11, which allows you not to build that section of the trail. So you you would be if city council approves it the same way that the planning commission has recommended, you would be required to build a section of trail connecting all the way across the North end somehow. So K. And the wider side. But but that's just the development agreement. There's still another item, which is the the subunit itself, and the planning commission is the approval authority for that.

Yeah. Could I

Yes. Just just for the the commissioners and and kind of helping to explain the structure under Robert's rules, Once we have a a public hearing and the chair is open and close that, then the commission has discussion. And once it starts to get to a point that one or more commissioners have a specific point or decision, it's it's best recommended to make a motion, continue that debate. And then because one commissioner might have one opinion, and the commission may have a different vote. And so it's appropriate to make a motion, debate, call for a vote, and then continue on that. And then if it's unanimous and the item's done, and if it's not, then it continues debate until the motion has been been passed. So Thanks, Alan.

Alright. Go ahead. Sorry. Go ahead. No. You go ahead. Alright. We'll move on to plan number five, which is a discussion and consideration for the preliminary plat for the The Creek subdivision as, previously discussed.

Turn that over to Levi if there's anything there's Yeah. Yeah. So I already gave all the background of the subdivision, but I just wanted to go over the actual recommendation. There's there's quite a bit of detail here with with findings and conditions, so I'm just gonna go over them one by one. A lot of these, you know, they're engineering items that are gonna get addressed at at final plat, but we just wanted to have them on the record, so that it was clear going into the final plat phase of the subdivision. So, staff's recommendation is approval of the preliminary plat for for the Dove Creek subdivision with the findings and conditions as follows. The findings are preliminary plat during their adheres to zoning and space requirements except for exceptions to noted in the draft development agreement. The proposed open space meets open space design requirements, of city code. The proposed public improvements are subject to further review in conjunction with final flat application, and additional trail improvements are needed to fulfill requirements of city code. Conditions, there's several of them. Just gonna go through all of them. One is provide a stormwater maintenance agreement that we record with the final plat, provide water use calculations and equivalent water shares or rights with final approval, provide an engineer's estimate of the development cost that's middle for final plat, provide a means convey overflow from the roadside swells in 3450 South to the stormwater pond. More detailed stormwater analysis of the Southeast and Northeast Northeast areas along 450 West will need to be addressed. The final plat and the construction drawings replaced doghouse style manhole with one allowed by nearly city engineering design standards and specifications. Curb gutter and roadway improvements on 450 West should continue to the south boundary of the development. The the pro you provide a payment in lieu to cover costs when the roadways continue to the south. I should clarify this one. Really, it's it's not curb gutter. It's it's more roadway improvements. The curb gutters are being provided. Correct? So it's it's more of the roadway improvements on 450 West to continue to the South. I need to specify tree species that meets tree policy plan on on final plat on final plan that this sidewalk from cul de sac must have a fence along each side of the right of way as required by by our code. Hydrants placed in swale should be burned five feet each way. This this eleven one is about the groundwater. So where where the estimated groundwater elevation is within 48 inches of the existing ground surface as shown in cities, groundwater GIS layer, the lowest crawl space or finished floor for any building or structure within such area shall be built, and an elevation at least six inches above finished curve or center line of the street, whichever is higher. Required final plat and note restricting floor elevations for specific lots or symbology, such as hatching shall be added to the final plot denoting areas in which groundwater elevations are within 48 inches of the existing surface. That's really a wordy way just just so you understand this condition. No no basements are allowed if according to the the the data from the n r NRCS GIS. Yeah. The GIS layer there that is within 48 inches of of groundwater, then then no no basements are allowed. So, I mean, that's that's just kinda the the quick quick and dirty. If if if it's if they're greater than 48 inches, they can as long as they complete a study that shows that that it's greater than 48 inches, the the store groundwater level. So need to specify dimensions and size of lot I put six. I think it's eight. So one of the lots actually doesn't show on the plans the the the exact size. So that that'll that'll just need to be verified at. They have shown calculations as that that meet the zoning and space requirements, but they omitted it on the plan. So they need to add that that one lot that that was omitted. Complete applications for final review with fork irrigation company. Work with the canal owners, engineers through the final design and acceptance of impacts to canals and pay associated canal review fees. Provide the complete section and trail. This is what we we just discussed in detail. So connecting the Northeast to Northwest border, including additional eight foot wide trail connecting Apple Tree Fort sidewalk to Mount Vista Trails and winding sidewalk to eight feet along 450 West between Northeast border and proposed trail inlet. But this condition is based upon the decision on the development agreement by city council. So if city council goes with the applicant, then then, you know, this this wouldn't apply. A public trail easement will need to be reported on Mount Vista HOA owned open space to connect the sidewalk and the proposed cul de sac to the Mount Vista Trail. And then, lastly, the development agreement and open space agreement for the subdivision must be approved by city council. So sorry to hear near full, but we just wanted to have all of those things on the record so it was clear going into the final plat.

K. Thank you, Levi. Open up to the commission for discussion.

Is it the black before irrigation that we sign up from all that?

Yeah. So they so they you can go ahead. You can address. So they have acknowledged it, but they haven't given final approval. So that's not required at this time. It's required a final plat. With preliminary plat, they need to provide a letter that acknowledges that they've seen it, that they can provide comments. And that that's I mean, I'm not you can comment if they've gotten any further than that, but that but that's that's as far as they're required to. Since you're not touching it now.

Mhmm. And let them They offer stone drain on them. So there is an impact there in that.

But, you

know, widening the road of 450 West can then require some culvert work as well.

A neutral. A neutral.

It will still require a whole.

If that if that's required, then that would do. Yeah. I

don't see that. They make a guy, but Yeah.

But either way, they have to they they have to approve it, and I guess is is what that condition is at at the final plat stage.

I thought it let's well be done. That is well done.

I don't. Do you

Yeah. Just just to clarify, are you adopting the findings and conditions? Or

Okay.

What Which which I didn't mention earlier.

No. No. Which so so would you have some hang up? It sounds like there's a little confusion on what's gonna happen south of that cul de Sac entry road. But actually, right where the the Johnson Meadows Road Improvement stop. So instead of building the entire road and having curb gutter sidewalk and a little narrow piece of asphalt for that road, they're gonna build the curb gutter and sidewalk and then pay an in lieu payment for the road improvements, the construction, the borrow, and stuff. So this is very important because getting the curb and gutter and the sidewalk in because if we go down later and do that, it's people build things and it just doesn't match up whether it it just becomes a really intrusive process to do it later. So and then building the road also has issues. Now you have a road that's just degrading and it's unusable. By the time you ever it could be twenty years before the road actually widens and continues through. Now you have a roadway that's worn out and it's never had any traffic on it.

Commissioner, I might need to restate your motion, please.

I move to approve the preliminary plat for the upgrade subdivision as outlined in our discussions and by the by staff.

K. So we have a motion to approve the preliminary plan for the Duck Creek subdivision with the recommended condition by staff, items one through 14. There is a second. Second. Second. Alright. K. Discussion on that motion and or any of the recommended condition? Discuss.

You know, we were trying to defend them on it. We already knew Kevin since I was going to get there.

Sure. Yeah. You've gone, David. Yeah. Never. No. K. If no further discussion, any opposition to both? K. All in favor of the motion? Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Right. That is four to zero. All in favor? Alright. So

Sorry. Just real quick for the applicant. So so, Ben, just so you know, this will be on next week's agenda for city council. The the development agreement, the preliminary plat has been approved k. Subject to all of these conditions, but the but that development agreement will be discussed at city council. That's the same. No. There won't be a public hearing. It's for the But but there but what was that? Item number four, the city council always has a Yeah. Public hearings. No. They don't. They don't. They won't have a public hearings. I mean, they could, but they not signing specifically. Public comment period. Yeah.

Agreed. It's like you're not free to speak on the. You're not I thought you were talking about.

Yeah. But they don't there isn't a specific public hearing to when this item's going to be discussed, but you can, at the public comment period, provide comments.

And you can request to speak on it later at that point. It it's all up to the mayor and council.

So, anyway, just wanted to be clear about that. Thanks. Thanks, Beth. Yeah.

K. Alright. Moving to item number six, which is a not a public hearing. This is for Oregon's b b 21, and this is for amending city code nineteen twenty four two fifty, which is accessory dwelling unit standards, including impact fee provisions, lot size requirements, and conversion of accessory buildings. And turn that to be viable for intro nine. Alright. So

the number one thing that spurred this this ordinance was a change in state code. So in general, Nibley City code was ahead of the state about six years because back in 2020, Nibley City started allowing detached accessory dwelling units. And now, starting this year, the state has is requiring all cities over 5,000 population allow detached accessory dwelling units with certain standards. Now there's a couple of of exceptions, some things that the the state said that the city has to do. They're pretty minor. Don't don't don't really wouldn't necessarily change the code all that much as, as far as the state requirements. One is that we currently allow ADUs on any lot 12,000 square feet or greater. Well, the state said you have to allow them on lots 11,000 square feet or greater. I almost brought a code in front of you that just had one numeric change from a two to a one. I I almost I almost was able to justify it that way, but there's some other things we wanted to fold in here. The second one also I've, came from the state, and that's there's an added process and allowance for those converting exist existing accessory structures to ADUs. Now I don't feel like our existing code necessarily prohibits someone from converting an ex existing structure, but it just one thing that it does that at least in my reading of state code and our our attorney still needs to re review this, but they'll they'll get if you decide to make a recommendation tonight, it'll it'll get reviewed between now and when city council takes it up. But but in my reading of state code, the thing that's different with converting an existing accessory structure, so someone has a shed, they wanna convert into an ADU. They only have to meet the setback requirements of the accessory structure, not of the ADU. That's that's the way I'm reading state code. I want I wanna have the attorney review that, but that's the way it's written currently. If I mean, the turn depending on what the attorney says, there that could be adjusted. Now it's not all that different anyway. The ADU, setbacks typically are pretty similar to what they are for a shed because if it's over 15 feet in height, they have to be 10 feet from the property line if it and if it's a if it's an accessory structure anyway, and that's what the ADUs generally are. So it's not a huge difference anyway, but there's just a little bit of a process in there that just states you can convert. You know, if you have a a you know, attached garage and you can you know, obviously, you need to bring it up to residential code, you can do that. Few other things that staff is recommending with this. One is to clarify that so we have this provision in the code that says that if you don't connect a separate you know, have a separate water or sewer connection to your ADU, then you pay half the impact fee of what a multifamily dwelling is. Well, the and this this was reviewed by our our treasurer and our city manager, and they, just wanna clarify that the the half impact fee rate really is just for the water and sewer impact fees. The remaining impact fees, the transportation and the park impact fees, those are the only ones we have. Right? There's no no no stormwater. So the so the the park and the the the transportation would be assessed at the the normal rate for a multifamily dwelling. So that's what's being clarified here. It's a little bit unclear, I guess, to some the way it was written before. So that's being recommended. Also, staff's recommending removing a requirement to notify budding properties. There there's currently a requirement in the code. This was I think this was put in here when it was originally put into place in 2020 that abutting properties need to be notified, and then they have fourteen days to comment to staff, and we have to wait those fourteen days. It's a pretty peculiar requirement. It's an administrative decision. It's really just based on it's it's it's based on whether they meet the code or not. I mean, we're bound to approve these. We don't require this for sheds. We don't require it really for any, like, anything else, this type of notification. And we don't really see a whole lot of value in this other than it delays getting it approved by fourteen days. I mean, that's what we've seen. So we're just we're just suggesting to remove that notification requirement. I think that I think when it was originally approved, the ADU ordinance, I think there were some that were worried about, you know, some of the impacts of of nearby neighbors. They wanted them to know. They wanted them to have a chance to to comment. But, really, where this is an administrative decision, it's probably not the best time to open it up for that that comment. You know, it's not really very discretionary decision. So, anyway, that that removing that requirement is is being recommended. And then, also, there's a restriction that only 25% of the rear yard can be covered with an ADU. Really, with all the setback requirements and the side the lot size requirement, It this doesn't really seem to be necessary.

There's there's not there there I

I felt like that was sufficient to, you know, for to have spacing between ADUs and the home and the and the adjacent properties. So just removing that that restriction. So staff's recommendation is to recommend approval of this ordinance. Not sure if I got the number right. I think it's been changed. 21. Whatever.

But, yeah, that's it. K. Thanks, Deepak. Alright. We will open our public hearing, on this item. Anyone wanting to comment? Do you care to comment? Alright. Alright. We got nobody else, so we will close that public hearing. And we move on to item number seven, which is the discussion and consideration for the recommendation of or the twenty twenty one. And then up for discussion.

Mission.

Pretty straightforward, I mean.

Yeah. I I I'll say I have never been a fan of the items number two and three. I've always wanted to remove those. I thought those were overly restricted. Yeah. Which is the removal of the notifications and the the percentage. Two or three. Okay.

Yeah. Two or three. Any,

you know, carry, make, motion? Now I I I will propose a motion. I will make a motion

for

approval other recommendation for ordinance twenty six twenty one with staff's recommendations and adjustment for the minimum lot square footage from 11,000 to 10,000.

Well, if it what's up with the second?

You're making you're making it smaller?

Yeah. So just opening it up for more for more opportunity to be able to get the option. This is Forza.

Next year, we don't have to change it. Yeah.

It's fine. The the state is recommending why I I just well, have a second.

It's the the state is recommending the bare minimum. So are we are we going to bare minimum is my is my opinion. Or are we we're already we're ahead of the state. We can't

let's stay in it. That's a that's a

No. My only but But if you're speaking, you can't take up more 25% of the user. That is the number three other recognitions to remove that.

Okay.

They still they still have to meet all those setbacks, and they're and they're pretty yeah. There's

but maybe Yeah. Yeah. It would be a smaller bit small. That was a big could be a. Yeah. It's not a normal check. Any further discussion? Or The only my only concern about well, that's just gonna do with all of this. It's a parking for cars.

Yeah. And and we already have ordinances for the if you need to.

And you're only allowed one driveway in one street. You can't have two driveways separating. Your own paths would have to be adjacent to.

It might be something to pick about. Okay. I don't know if you have anything. Yeah.

Right? Did you get a second? Did you get a second? Yep.

Are are we clear on the motion for tenth? The tenth? I'll have David. Four zero David.

Mhmm. I had a question. Did we city council pass the amended code for sheds and accessory?

Yeah. I believe they I believe they passed it as recommended by by planning commission. I don't think they had any any adjustments.

I just put up a cardboard. Alright.

K. Moving on. Item number eight is a workshop on signed regulations. You and I. Okay. You guys in this discussion.

Yeah. So, again, what spurred this originally is is is the change in state code, which is really a small corner of our sign code, but I felt like it the sign code had been a while. It had been it had been a while since it really been amended and looked at, reviewed. I know I hadn't been since I've been here the six years, and I think it'd been several years before that. I mean, we did we did get an application for an adjustment on you know, when Maverick came in with their their sign for EMD signs. But other than that, it really hasn't been a very hard look at our sign code. And so first of all, the state came through and said that the city cannot prohibit placing political signs in the part strip if the adjacent property owner permits it. So before I mean and and we've always pulled signs when they've been in the park strip. If they're in the public right away, we we pull them. We notify them, say, hey. Come get your sign. It's it was in the public right away. It's not allowed there. Well, now the state has said that if it's a political sign, they're special, and we gotta treat them differently. Now now the diff the That's so the odd thing about this is the training that I've been through, and this kinda speaks to this second bullet point, is that cities need need to be as much as possible, and I I want some kind of legal review on this, content neutral when it comes to signs. So although the state tells us that, yes, we we we need to look at political signs differently, Really, we should be looking at content of signs all the same, and we should just be regulating things like setbacks and size and maybe lighting, height, things like that, not what it says on the sign. Now I know that there's some exceptions to that because I know there's something different with on premise signs or soft premise signs, you know, advertising billboards that you see on the freeway. So that's why this one, I wanna get some legal review on. I think there's a lot of provisions in our code that point to content. And in 2015, there was this case, Reed versus Towne and Gilbert that that really set, you know, this content neutrality provisioning points back to the first amendment of

Yeah. I think we should. Long people become.

Yeah. Well, we have to allow them now. I mean and and that's the thing is, realistically, the city isn't gonna go ask the property owner. Hey. Did you allow them to put the sign in? There we're we're just unless unless it's in front of a park or, you know, city property, we're just not gonna touch it as far as political signs go. And even if we even if this wasn't passed, like, state code already says that. So we're already not touching them, the ones that are out there now.

But political science is pretty broad. You that's everything. And it's running for office. It's political opinions.

Yeah. And and they and they do define it and say code what they mean by by a political sign, but I still I at least what I've been told is, okay. Well, if you can't if you can't touch political signs, you can't touch any signs. Really? So So there could be some

context. Okay.

Yeah. Right. It's just it's it's a tricky thing. Somewhat related to this is there's there's a provision on temporary signage. And and, really, the this a lot of this does speak to, you know, the yard signs that you put up that are advertising a sale or something like that. The I think the way it's currently written is you can have a temporary sign, but it needs to be taken down within twenty four hours of the event that that it's advertising. We see a lot of different types of temporary signage. It's not necessarily for an event. It might be someone that you know, they're advertising their business. They're trying to drum up business or whatever. We just feel like this needs to be clarified a little more. If it's temporary, does it is it thirty days? I mean, something more more objective when we mean what we what do we mean by temporary signage, and how do we allow that? Yeah. That's

not it.

Banners. Yeah. Banners too. There's there's some there's temporary temporary signage, and and there's another provision on banners. We just need to get a look at this. And I'll I can pull up the code after I go through this, if you wanna.

No.

They just do it. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, we don't and we don't necessarily dis we don't disallow temporary signage. You can put it up. Now now they can't technically, you can't put it up on the public right of way. You can't put it on a, you know, what most people do on a telephone pole or something like that. But yeah. Can you do?

Good point. I don't know. I don't know. Good question.

My question was if if you can put political signs on street signs

and telephone poles and things. I don't I don't think that you could, but I I think it I think it's just a part of strip. Like like, I still Typically, those are located in the park. Yeah. Yeah. But I but I think that's a different provision that says you can't affix things to utility poles and the like, but I don't know. We probably wouldn't we probably wouldn't touch them. So the the other thing that's in the sign code is it gets into detail on on, you know, which signs of our building per per a building permit, which don't. And in talking with our with our building inspector, Austin, and in in some cases, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to get a building permit for some of the signs we have there. And, really, the building code will tell us whether whether a structure needs a building permit. And so we're just we're just suggesting to reference the building code for building permits rather than going down the list of every single type of sign and saying, well, does this need a building permit? Does this not need a building permit? So that was one thing. The sign setback requirement. So across the board, signs are required to be 10 have a 10 foot setback. Seems a little seems a little restrictive. Right? So I don't know if we ought to go through, and maybe it depends on the type of sign or the size, the height. Yeah. Yeah. But but, I mean, a 10 foot setback for a lot of signage, you're you're gonna miss it. Right? I mean, especially especially when we require such a small sign, and then it's set back 10 feet. I don't know. The street? Setbacks are always measured from the property line. So

Yeah. I didn't remember. Input from the side. Preview. I don't care.

Yeah. We can look at other examples. But Yeah. Or clear or a clear view or yeah. So, anyway, that seemed a little little excessive. And then this last one really is on process. So, you know, we don't see a ton of signs just because we don't have a lot of commercial we haven't had a lot of commercial development in Nibley. And when we do have commercial development, a lot of times, they'll submit their sign plans with their site plan, and so it can be kind of reviewed at that time. But, currently, if you want to get a sign permit, almost across the board, they're conditional use. So any almost any sign, with with a few exceptions, temporary signs and, like, small nameplates and a few things, they have to come in, you know, to this body and and get a conditional use permit. It seems like and it it seems like it's more general practice to have a sign permit that's administrative. The I mean, there's a lot of good, standards in the sign code already, and staff feels like we could handle making sure that they meet all of those requirements, and they could just get a signed permit similar to what we do with fences and accessory buildings and, you know, business licensing, those kind of things. So we're just suggesting and I don't know. Maybe there maybe there's some exception. Maybe if it's maybe if it's over a certain square footage, maybe it does require a conditional use permit, but I don't know. I I feel like there's already standards there that delineate the square footage. It's pretty clear, and so really could just be an administrative decision by staff. So, anyway, though those are are there any concerns? I just wanted I wanted to lay those out there. Are there any concerns with these? And then we could, if you'd like, you know, open up the code. Or if you wanted to spend a minute to review it between now and the next meeting, see if there's anything else, you know, that you'd like to to review or change. But at least in staff's kind of initial review, those those are some things that

Yeah. Wanna draft up. That should have been put. That should have

Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. It's behind the sidewalk, not Yeah.

I mean, even the Maverick one seemed to lift I mean, that's an EMD. So maybe that should have more of a setback, but that seemed a little excessive for them. It it worked out because that's kinda where it was, and I think it's because the city had already required that several years ago to have it set back from the road. But Even that 50.

Yeah. Yeah. I I I agree with all of these. It should be it should be administrative, and I don't feel that needs to come to planning commission for approval in science. The the setbacks. Then on item number two on there, I have number one on the agenda on restricting based on content. Like, I I feel like that's that's gonna get into some First Amendment issues. And

so

And who's gonna police them? Yeah. And who's gonna police? And and so I I agree with what you had said. Just, you know, have we're already we're already basing things off of size and setbacks and all that kind of stuff. And that should be pretty sufficient unless unless we're all over the place to be super terrible, but I think

that's all. Yeah. I mean, the thing with the conditional use permits is you still have to hang your hat on adopted standards. So I don't I don't know what it would accomplish by bringing it in for conditional use. And let I mean yeah.

Well, if city canceled it after pre coaching.

Sorry? If you made a coaching, Yeah. By state account. Yeah. Yeah.

And and and it would go through a planning commission at that point. So yeah.

Yeah. We're just doing a discussion, so Scott can come up with that.

So.

Actually, I think the serious. Yeah. I think the temporary one is maybe the most tricky one.

Yeah. I mean, do you have any opinions on temporary signs? Like, how long can they be up? Is there a size limitation? Is there a location? See, we can't do that now, though. Political signs can be up at any time. So the election signs in particular, we can't do that. We that's what we have done in the past. That's what we've done in the past. But the way that I'm reading state code, we can't touch them. Political signs are sacred. If as long as as long as the as long as the adjacent property owner is okay with it, we gotta allow it. Correct. Yeah. There's no there's no I don't see any limitation.

Yeah. You could.

Yeah. May maybe we can we can explore that.

Yeah. Every time it's like, you're looking at, like, book of time, but then you're also looking at things like people celebrating their their their kid in sports or a movement or what

Yeah. It's true. There's people that knows something weird.

Okay.

Great. Good.

Yeah. I don't know, but it's it's a weird

From 2020 to the top.

I've I've seen a dog lost dog sign up right off the street site for, like, over a month and find out how all of it's lost. It's lost for good, so I wouldn't depend on something.

But but We'll probably you know, we'll take a stab at it. We'll probably look at some examples.

The direct code, work temporary vanish. Is this regardless of its location or only in specific location? Let's pull it up.

Sorry to

We're getting the whole experience.

Yeah. It's all good. I'm just We're probably gonna do that. Just gonna pull up this version.

I think it's in the definitions. So any sign, pattern, patent, balloon balloons, even balloons, or advertising display constructed of paper, cloth, canvas, light fabric, cardboard, wallboard, or other light materials with or without light frames, tended to be displayed outdoors for short periods of time. Examples include political signs, grand openings, garage sales, school activities, chuck wagon breakfasts, or other city sponsored events. That's pretty

that's pretty.

Temporary signs must be removed within twenty four hours of the event for which it is erected. Gas filled balloons, unmanned, must be secured tethered. Must not exceed 50 feet in height at the end of the tether. So it's specific on things that

15.

15 feet. Sorry. You're saying stop. I don't know if we need to get into balloons, but Yeah. We don't want to.

That would be for

Where? For the.

No. And they so, I mean, as far as where they're allowed, temporary signs, I think, are they're they're allowed everywhere. Now there is a square footage limitation. Three 30 square feet.

Never know quite what their reference is.

Yeah. We'll we'll take it we'll take a stab at it. Hopefully, we don't make it worse.

Pretty pretty big. Yeah. So you it's a sheet of plywood, basically. Eight eight by eight? Yeah. Eight eight by four is 32. Yeah. It's roughly the size of a piece of plug. That's not true.

You never

They got it there forever as long as as long as it's not there for twenty four hours after the event.

Yeah. Temporary. Yeah.

Mhmm. Yeah. Temporary.

I don't know. Yeah. I I just wanna

I think temporary would have to be, like, I don't know. Like, complaints from somebody. Like, this time has been up for a long time, and then that cost that starts the clock. And then you have, like, a time from the time of complaint, like, thirty days or something. Well, that we're only gonna we're only gonna count it for when we see it anyway.

So however, it's

Well, like, I mean, we have Will we be constantly policing that or, like, you know, the city code enforcement

question, and I'm not that's not me anymore. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. Please.

We so code enforcement

Oh.

Historically, it's been through code enforcement. And we have I mean, the city has enforced signage through code enforcement. The temporary signs, honestly, a lot of different staff members have helped out just clean them up, but we gotta we gotta be careful with that now. Do you have anything for some, like, sandwich board style sitting outside? Not allowed. Not allowed. That that's one more thing. Do we wanna say sand sandwich boards no matter what are not allowed? I know that there's some out there that

Okay. It's just

what it says. I I think I think he pulled it in with the temporary signage, and you could allow it, but it doesn't block.

Whatever. I mean, I don't I think they'd be pretty clean. Yeah.

Or something. Even if it's just off in the bar strip or right in the entrance. But to prohibit them altogether

Yeah. It seems a little I mean, we we allow we we allow yard signs. We don't allow sandwich signs. I don't know. That seems a little odd. I don't know if we're gonna get into speed limit signs in this. This is not yeah. As long as it's a temporary sign that you take down twenty four hours after the event.

The

flash lights around is being loaded.

We got up to 30 square feet, Michael, if you wanna

Okay.

And that's a Chuck Wagon. Right?

Logan is running those lines.

What? Logan was running. It had the closest speed limit that near traffic is kind of they had to shut them down because people are seeing how fast they get. Yeah. Yeah.

So they I remember instead of that My friend's been in this next

five months. Anything above that five months.

It became

a competition.

That's why they do that.

That you

So by the way, you do that,

I know what you're gonna pay attention to.

By the way, if you have to strip roads that are self regulating. Maybe it's involves in the middle of the Yeah.

The. Six hours.

Okay. Any other hand, suggestion, comments for staff on We we my recommendation that

we we help them out. Just to clarify, would would you like staff to just draft something and bring it back in a public hearing, or do you wanna review it further and give any more suggestions before then? GPS specific

items that he might be approved.

Yeah. Or or additional items.

I personally find with what's been recommended. Yeah. And trust that with draft. Whatever.

Okay. So we'll do.

We're just hearing you the same code.

Yeah. Well, no. It's more it it's more than that. So the state code really was just the political signage stuff, and this is this is kind of opening up the can of worms and reviewing it a little further than that. Yeah. I mean, we do get complaints, but that is that yeah. That yeah. That's that's good. So so we'll we'll just draft something up and bring it back. Hopefully, by next meeting, it might be the meeting after if it takes a little longer to do some some homework on that. But

Okay. Well, thank you. Bye. Alright. We'll lose item number nine for the accurate reports and action items.

I don't think I have anything specific myself unless unless you have any questions. You know?

What what

If it's if it's a substantial change, we would we'd bring it back. So we kinda have to make that call. And, really, I think the approval authority who is is Justin, our city manager, would have to make that call on the final plat if if it was to if if the change is substantial enough to bring it back to to planning commission. Yeah. Which I don't know if I buy that that's the only way to do it. But that's how it was presented by the applicant. But but yeah. No. I mean, a change that big, I would think, would come back to to planning commission because that's that's pretty substantial, especially because the open space subdivision really is tied to the open space and how that's configured.

If you changed it that much, would you have to abide by the current

open space requirements?

Good question. I don't Yeah. I don't

I I think you would if if you're only invested on the initial application. If you're changing it substantially and has come back, I I think that you have to go back and meet the current code requirements.

Yeah. Yeah. So, really, he should just find a way to put the trail in.

If he's thinking about him, yeah,

yeah, him. Not yet. Alright. I'm gonna hear about it. I'm only walking up with you. That's the other one.

Yeah. Yeah. You might get a press pass. What? You might get stress test next time you check on that.

Alright. Any other questions for stat? Do you have any Yeah. And so

maybe even the transportation master plan, Next week, we're gonna be looking at the mostly, the the road network, so the streets master plan mapping. Trying to figure out how to ensure connectivity, road function classification. So then it's gonna be a big deal. I mean, this is the whole basis of the transportation industry plan. So Troy is representing the planning commission on that. So we're again, we're we're kinda knee deep in this whole process, but there is also a link on our city website. I don't know if anyone's been on it, but you can actually identify locations, intersections, roadways if you feel unsafe change. So, for example, here's if you if you feel like your your speeds are too fast on your road, go to click on that. Go to the map. You drag the map until it hits that pin, and then you can add your comments. Yeah. If you look at or

or you can go back. I'm a go ahead. Yeah.

This is the transportation transportation master plan. That'll continue to be up there for a couple more months, and we're trying to gather as much public input as we can. So, please, if you haven't done it already, take

You know? Yeah.

2,600 slots of 60, whatever it is. But And then so I was just kicking on some updates to the the street's design standards. So what that's going to include is some specific details that'll supplement the transportation aspect. We are gonna be working with intersection treatments or road treatments, traffic calming, so we'll provide some detail with them. We'll also address driveway locations, facing of intersections, things of that sort. So I haven't selected a a gauge meeting permit, but just know there's something that that's coming. And it should be timed pretty well with the transportation aspect of it so we can still match. Those are two things I'm really working on.

And then what again, when when does the survey link close?

I believe they're trying to keep it open through August, but don't quote me on that.

Do do we see other comments?

No. You don't see those comments, so we might get a 100 of the same one.

Because I wonder if I want because I thought we could just read it.

Yeah. That's that's You gotta be independent.

Yes. So Yeah.

You know, we we first, do we call it?

Yeah. Since the 600 is just too light, it there's too much comfort in speed. It's just too easy. You just don't realize your speed, and you're not looking at the side. You have a steering wheelometer, so you naturally drive how how fast you feel coming. Twenty twenty It's probably 35 feet of asphalt.

Yeah.

It's too flat. Hey. We these are great comments to maybe put in this transportation as planned public input. Yep. Please give me a moment. Alan.

I'm actually Hey. Thanks, everybody. With that, we will call this meeting adjourned. Get churned.

Oh, the camera stopped working.

Or wait. Video was off.

Yeah. What