Nibley City Council- 1/29/26

consistent with with the current plan but along along the alignments that are shown on on the right. Does that make sense? >> No, what I'm getting at is the resolution refers to I want to see that. >> Oh, >> I think that's the match from the active transportation map, right? Oh, >> it's just referring to pad one. >> Oh, okay. Yeah, let me go back to the resolution. Modified alignments to map 4-1. So yeah, this is this is 4-1 and that's the modified alignment there including and limited to the proposal is to change the map in the actual transportation plan specifically figure 4.1 map 4.1 including and limited to what's on the map. she had kn >> um I'll just add my opinion about it. I went out and drove around the area the other day and um I like the map on the right for a couple reasons. I don't I mean after talking with Levi a little bit more um and relaying some information, I don't know that we'll easily get a railroad crossing um because it'll seem pretty tricky to obtain. So, of course, we wouldn't like we wouldn't be encouraging people to cross a railroad at that point without a legal railroad crossing, but um with a lot of open space to the south of Scott Farms as well as the open space to the east, which could become neighborhoods someday. Um I think there's a lot of people that could use this trail and um we won't be having the trail put in in their current backyards. hard to be there or put in time on. So I like this map for those reasons. >> I mean L city has a program. >> Yeah. >> Roads every day, >> right? So we would be encouraging to do that by putting an infrastructure to encourage it. But I I do think that a trail further south is going to serve a lot of ne neighbors who are going to be moving in in the future when those if those pieces become become neighborhoods. So >> yeah, I I I mean I talked about this last time. I won't go into detail. that the number one thing that people in an area accept or do or don't accept a trail is all about timing. And so to me without us solving uh what to do in established neighborhoods it means the new nibly will be connected well connected by a trail system and the old nibly won't that's

make motion, but I'm going to encourage. All right, I'm going to steer you. I believe you can do whatever you want but I believe the appropriate motion at this point because of the enormity of this thing. The appropriate motion would be to adopt as presented and then in the discussion we'll talk about amendments as we go along because otherwise we could have a list of amendments this long in one motion for so if it's okay with you I'll encourage you to consider whether you'd like to make a motion. You'll be welcome to do any motion you want. I would like to make a motion uh to adopt resolution 264 as presented. >> I didn't say anything. >> Yeah, wrong number. >> 26 2601 >> 2601 item number >> we're not a general plan. >> Okay. Yes. So then so I have a motion stated a second. Do I have a second?

Second from the motion is to adopt 2601 which will be uh the general plan and turn it to the council for discussion. >> Can I just clarify one thing? I did I did put a new um version of of the document in um in teams that has some comments, some corrections. Uh some of them some of them uh Aaron sent me, but there were a few there were a few others. Most of them were grammatical or just uh just a different way to phrase things, but I just want to clarify that that's in there. It's a PDF document, but there there's some edits incorporated in there as well. So, >> um >> wanted wanted to point that out that that that was put in there two days ago. So, >> if if someone I mean I don't doubt that it's as you say. >> Yeah, >> we could make a motion if someone has reviewed those and they say that's just proof reading restatement of what maybe a more clear statement of what was already there. those that if if someone's >> I mean some of them aren't they're some of them are a little bit beyond grammar. I'll say that it's it's a different way to to phrase things but say it's not not necessarily changing any of the policies or or the conclusions but just just rephrasing some things. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Right then that was in teams for this meeting. >> Yeah. Tuesday >> as presented that as rep as presented. Um I'm going to ask Senate to incorporate those changes in the current document. Are there objections? Okay. So next >> um do we want to discuss questions about >> uh pull up a question real quick? I don't um I have a few questions that I came up with in reading it. Um, one of the first questions just like right at the beginning of the document, we talk about how our town prioritizes this small town feel and um, we kicked around the idea a lot of are we rural, are we suburban, are we small town, are we growing town. So maybe just like a question and I don't know this is something we can write in our document maybe just a discussion point forward but how do we quantify small field is that uh like tradition open space sense of safety what kind of things small field >> I think that's a very subjective question or could probably

a very subjective response to that Yeah. And this is not ordinance. So we we can be subjected to it better or worse >> as long as we're not so subjected that someone uses it against.

a council making decisions, right? Because we're supposed to make decisions based off this or at least informed by this document. And so, if defining something gives us more information, I think we we try to tackle them. I don't think we got to that point as much as I wish. steering committee, but I don't think that was our job. I think our job was to bring you something. Yes, I think uh thank you Nick and I agree. Um, one thing I'm curious about, Levi, in your experience as you're getting applications and we're discussing um, proposals from developers, right? They come give me like the ratio of whatever out of 10 or whatever makes sense to your brain. Are they saying, "Hey, I'm doing this. This supports I mean the general time is a question on our vacation, right?" And so I think it's difficult to me when I read some of these descriptions and we've talked about this here about you know if we adopt this as a written um we're really going to have to take a good look at our code and say okay we have words called DTAP you know DTAP residential that's pretty straightforward mixed residential that could be that could include all right and and I would just be curious to see or or get others thoughts, you know, in some of these ambiguous zones. Um, what are we I mean, we're not beholding to anything. It's not a legislative. We're not, you know, this is not a binding document whatsoever, but it obviously like Nathan said, it's consideration, right? And we to the extent that we have it on our application for subdivision, right? And so I would hope that if we move forward with it as we're um not to

move all the way to the end in our workshop, but I think that's going to be something that we need to do is say we need to clarify a lot of our code to say if this is our guiding

if this is the guiding star in the sky, we have the code to to back it up essentially because I don't think we adopt it as we do personally. So I I guess I would just say in my mind it's an improvement from what we currently have. We do use phrases like low, medium, high density which are also subjective. And at least we know what detached is. We know what attached is. We can we can define that. and um and and even mixed. We've we've defined it in the plan. It's a broad range within that category. So, if we want to narrow that down by code or or even within this plan, we can do that. Um but to me, this plan is a lot more clear, at least what we mean by the the terminology we use on our future land use map. It's just it's just there's a broad range within that. So I think and I think the idea there is there's a when we're planning out you know the next 20 25 years there's a lot of unknowns in the market of what's going to work in a specific location and at a at a at a specific time. And so the general plan does give us some guidance but it's it does it it can't foresee everything. And so it that's what I would kind of say about that. It's not a zoning document. >> I may follow up. Sorry. I think it's important for us just if we move forward to something in our general plan that says the words mix residential. We're not holding suit that could be that could apply to either end. So um I think it's important just to remember that mix if we if we say things like mixed residential that just covers it could be a mixture of detached residential lot sizes it could be whatever we think is best right it doesn't necessarily mean I think it would be describing a singular vision of how we proceeded to develop >> Yeah. Um, so Erin's going to start the discussions on your first question. Uh, the one specific about small town feel if I remember right. It's on page 10 about top priorities. Is that what we're referring to? >> Yeah. So, um, so maybe help. This was the consultant and the committee's approval I guess of the summary of qualitative analysis from the surveys. And so uh I think if if there's concern about the small town feel that may be kind of a direct quote we saw often throughout the surveys. Um I can't actually remember I didn't look at surveys again sorry. And so I would encourage us to read and see if you're comfortable with that phrase. If it sums up the survey analysis, then I I would be happy to leave it. But if it feels like it's not reflecting what the citizens said or what our actual top priorities are, but this part they're they're specifically saying this is what the residents said or their top. So, if there's concern there, my suggestion would be for council members to read the response, see if they agree with that statement. >> Um, Nick, let me ask you this. I mean, we do have words that without going into the detail of of zoning code, describe what mixed residential means. Right. So, let me ask if >> I mean, is that is that Oh, you have it up there. Yeah, that was just >> this designation accommodates a blend of detached and attached housing types within the same neighborhood. So, if I read that, I'm saying that's going to allow multifamily attached housing, right? Makes residential areas are intended to provide greater housing variety. Dot dot dot. Typical housing types may include single family homes on lot sizes >> halfacre >> halfacre or small duplexes town homes and low to medium density multiband. So it may it I think it's specified it

maybe we should specify it further. I think that's a good definition of mixed residential. I don't think it for example keeps it open to all single family dash houses multi family and single family in a variety of houses belong to and maybe

I'm not reading it the same way I think one of the one of the best things about this plan compared to our last plan and the future land use news map that we're currently using just had latent and I don't I don't understand labels. So it takes a paragraph like this to define the label and so I appreciate the work that went into that. It doesn't mean that it's a label that anyone else agrees with. We can change it but it needs to have it needs to fall short of zoning code but it needs to give us direction. whatsoever, mate. Um, I have I have similar feelings. Small town. I have similar feelings about another phrase, another use of words in our uh in our mission state in harmony with natural environment, something with natural environment. I got hit over the head with that in a three-hour meeting one week ago because in harmony with the national environment we we're not going to turn farmland into houses. We're not going to turn uh wild land I say wild land. I I we're not going to turn stuff that hasn't even been turned into farmland into farmland, right? The natural environment says don't touch it. So maybe the do the specific words I zoomed away from it to mix presidential but with mission statement >> think it's toward the beginning right >> uh it's on page six I think >> in in blue maybe one more one more >> how is that working for okay so I mean I don't

think we need to I guess we do we need to always play defense on this right and that's it's not a pleasant place to be but I mean people will ask us they will say how can you build houses that's not in harmony I personally believe that you can do things that are in harmony even if there's some But but it's it's hard to I I mean I don't know what to say when people say that means you can't you can't grow and I have I have a I hope you have well you have a wish statement right about and I have once with have the wrestle over it might have wrestle over I think we should spend time on so what's your what's your suggested commission statement then >> um we will efficiently this is it I'm trying to cut down on words and I don't so I'm just going to we will efficiently provide services to our citizens that they cannot easily provide for themselves we will use local land use control to equitably find the line between individual property rights and interests of the community and we will make people proud to live in heavenly

>> that is already adopted. Uh there is another part of the document that contemplates uh or recommends looking at an expansion of the annexation area up to like 2200 South >> but but the current it wasn't within the scope of this of this project to update the annexation plan but there is there is kind of a recommendation hey you should look at this. So I yeah I do think that that's that's just reflective of what's already in in the annexation plan as far as the area is concerned. But it but it's the land uses are definitely quite different than what's in the current plan. >> The suggested proposal to annex up to 2200 South um is that some is that piece of land then in Logan's future annexation? >> Yes. Yeah. So, so do we wait for developers to come to us like

>> boy do I have a great question you

>> So in the last meeting the logistics and stuff on how this works and like how you said we need to own this plan. We want to make sure we we find it. So when we have a motion to approve obviously we're already talking about some modifications, amendments, changes. How does that work in the approval process? Can you clarify that for me because >> Yeah, it's it's just like any other document that comes before the council for approval. You can adopt it, you can turn it down, or you can amend it and then adopt. So in order to change we make we've

we've adopted the changes that that I'm going to call clical even more than that clerical changes that you've seen that's the draft we're discussing that's the draft in front of the council and now any any change to the words the figures the anything on that draft that we see now would be do would be done through the amendment process because we have a motion to adopt Yeah, I was consequ Yeah, I find this I I just I'm trying to get clarification for me because Yeah. Um, I know that I'm responsible for process and I feel responsible for us to

someday adopt this plan, but not before like not before not before you feel like it's the right plan. And so, um,

you know, we we could focus in on one section at a time, one meeting at a time if you want. Don't don't argue with me yet. I mean, put yman's effort into this. >> No argument, >> but I know you can agree or disagree. Levi wants Nib City through your representation to explain and uh we can take we can take as long as the council wants to take. I'm going to urge us to to show progress, but uh I'm not finding progress. I mean, I was on the steering committee with Nathan, so I've seen a lot of this and I thought the consultant did a great job. I thought they were great to work with. I mean, we definitely listened. I mean, they had a couple other changes on the map that I had done, but obviously we didn't incorporate those because I might have been the only one and >> I think some of your changes got incorporated through that process. Yeah. >> And this would be a great opportunity for you to propose what you didn't get instead. The only thing that I proposed that I didn't see was actually reducing some of the mixed residential areas and changing into detached cuz I felt like it could accomplish the density that we wanted with detached just as well as we could with mixed use. And that was why I was like, you know, I think a lot of us feel like, you know, I don't want this to become a townhouse community. You know, that's my law I used to use, you know, and after we to the Neielson one, you know, I would much rather see single family homes on smaller lots, you know, in some variety than just townhouse, townhouse, townhouse, townhouse. And I just feel like I worry the mixtures so much of that until we define the zoning in each of these different things. And so that's the only change that I would probably suggest is there's just a couple other areas uh on the map that I am more detached the change and some of them are not all of them in space. What's the average density in Bridge Line Park? So, >> so there's 460 units over 95 acres if you include the park. Without the park, it was 75. So, >> that's I mean, really gross. That's only five units. >> If you But if you take all the open space in in the Netville PO acreage, I think it was close to eight. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So eight with mixed use >> 10 >> 10 with mixed use. Okay. So gross that's 4,000 square watts. That's the math to do it on D test single family and probably when you do a regular subdivision

you're going to lose 80% you're going to lose 20% of that to rows and so forth. So really take a a 4,200 square foot lot and reduce that by% for a equivalent density to mixed use RM zone RM residential mix that's what it stands for. Um, we saw a lot of push back to a 5,000 foot lots. I mean, willing to go smaller than 5,000 after that context and variety because the one with that fish back all the same and like the Nilson one, it was incorporated with some of the bigger ones. I mean, I just really saw that. I just thought, "Wow, that's, you know, you're incorporating some of the smaller homes with the regular bigger homes." So, it wasn't just, you know, well, in kind of a meeting that we went to today, you know, big homes here, little homes here, children over here or over here, you know, not segregating everything, but kind of intermixing it all for diversity and quality of life for everyone. And uh so in that context, yes, but I don't want to see all that either. So >> and and except for RM, our zoning code tends to be like a rainbow, right? You get >> one lot on two acres or you get one lot on one acre or you get Right. So I I'm with you. I just I think we need to describe a variety of house with a variety of lot sizes, right? You then define variety because maybe not in maybe not in the plan but at least in the code. What is variety, right? Because a developer is going to apply for the zoning that we're talking about and then they become entitled to it if they get it. the third point. And that's why I feel like we need to re kind of redo the Zoey based on, you know, because we

So that is why change those two which came too.

there. >> Uh yes, you mentioned that these other ones they kind of commercial area. Two areas that you just pointed out here in the south. The one touches commercial and the other one also touches commercial. Um, and I think sometimes we've done that as maybe like saying, well, we'll have it slightly higher density next commercial sort of as a buffer so you don't have single family detach homes right next to commercial. You like the idea of having a buffer of of slightly higher density next commercial or do you think just you prefer to see detach home solid, you know, with variety if we can do it the right way. I'm not sure how to do it the right way yet. The closest thing I've seen that I like was nails. I really liked how they did that and they mix some they did with the regular homes that

sort of I guess you call them. Everyone be okay with that adjacent to some commercial I guess depending on the non-industrial. I know there's some industrial stuff with school.

Yeah. >> Yeah. I'll just point out one of my favorite definitions and additions in going through this and that is the employment zone. Um I think that it's one that we have not had before. Um, but it's one that I think could be very powerful and help me be like, hey, so what

basically saying is these these uses are are mostly commercial uses that uh support people working there, right? Um, professional offices, corporate campuses, and you'll notice is on that, right? It's a great example. I love the idea, but you'll notice we have how great it would be to walk to work every day, right? And and we keep throwing it around commercial people to use commercial spaces, but I think it's another zone to consider putting next to or buffering with these these other type of zones that are residential and or commercial or mixed uses. Just thought, but I love that one. I just want to point it out. Just >> if I may, sir. >> Please, >> you might have to bring up today's meeting in this discussion. I don't know. I don't know how to >> Here's how I'll do it. >> Okay. I think I know. >> As long as you're on. >> Tell me if this is the right question to not bring up today's meeting. Just appropriately bring up today's meeting. And I might be I might be reading your mind wrong. Why do we have so much industrial on the south end of that question? You're making that in a roundabout way. >> In a roundabout way. >> So I asked why why is that the end of our annexation boundary? Now I'm going to couple that question with why is there an industrial zone down there? Is that really what we want there? How did that get there? Nathan, it I believe personally it was the idea that we could convince Utah to move a highway to that road. I think that we've always assumed that that would be a major road. There was actually movement to try to get them to do that and I think we based on that without having that action ever happen. >> Okay, >> that's just thought. >> Yeah, we try to rely on what's in the public. We propose transfer of development rights including on the east side by 165 where the red is right. I think that's I think yeah they as a receding zone for transfer bill stood up and opposed that whole ordinance because that wasn't industrial. We weren't anticipating that everything north south would be industrial. So from that statement I'm I'm going to say that huge chunk of industrial is also part of the assumption that we had a agreement that was never adopted about where the line ends and what type of uses sorry where the line is and what type of uses would be north and south of that Sad. >> Okay. You asked the question. There's a very very very real threat. The hiring city can annex all of this. >> Yeah. >> All right. Clear. >> Everything you just >> Let's show you the line they showed us. Well, specifically the portion that you circled and said you wanted to change is a very very real threat that they >> they could annex all the way to >> because it's in their >> it's been in there since 200 >> because it's inexation plan and because it's majority of that is one property owner. Well, there's two ways to go about this. There's you can agree on let's not overlap annexation plans, which is I think how we were approaching it. I was outsp and that is you have a boundary war, a border war with your neighbor city. >> Yeah. and you go contest each other's annexations and the the boundary commission decides or right next to the council they council you that is not fun the reason I reason I thought we had so much down there now is just didn't I think I thought it was the expansion like Millers JVS Sharp are all kind of right along that All of that industrial as I understand >> and the road was a >> course predicated by that would be the boundary between Nibi and high and because they want 4400 South to be an industrial corridor uh because right now they're east west I think it's main street or center streets main streets uh they've got big trucks that go from Kilor mine out to 8991 and they want to move that out of their center of town and they're fine with moving it to 4,400 South, but they don't think 4,400 South is where the boundary should be. They think they think it should be substantially. And and so I guess the point I'm trying to make is as you think about a developer coming in to shop us back and forth and pit us against each other, where do you want to be? Right. >> Do you want to get out on proposal or or do you want to have it worked out? This is where our boundary is. And I mean, I'm in favor of paid load. I don't I don't want to be making these decisions at the uh petition for annexation stage. It's better when you plan your town to step back and say this is how far we think it's reasonable to grow and how far we think it's reasonable for the other to grow and work that out uh in advance. I think I got to that point today, but it took a long time. They say, "Well, we'll just fight it out. we we'll kind of have an idea about we'll just take it proposal by proposal and I brought up the term city shop and said what's that said well it's what happened at Strata and the question was strata is in Italy what are you talking about Now, not everyone in the room had that question or person. And so they they I mean we we I believe like we got to the point that we said look we should decide this ahead of time ahead of proposals with lots of things to think about service everything in the mission statement. I just know right who can provide services most easily can uh who can find the proper boundary line but not boundary but line between public and community right

and those and those things but um it took some doing to and talking about city shopping and we are being city shop Yeah. All right. So, based on this information then would not be wise for us to continue this until we can have some sort of resolution. So, Glenn Yeah. Oh, I I have no and you guys can pass it right now if you want to, but I have no expectation of that. I haven't got to my list of questions yet.

you only substitute that same put. >> Yeah. So you've got I believe we have an amendment to the map on red. >> Correct. >> That is what we're considering. I reckon we finish that conversation and then move to a new motion which may be to continue. I mean, you can we can pick it up here starting with the motion to amend, but it's messy to remember where we are and motion to amend. Okay. Are the rest of you ready to vote on motion to see heads? Okay. Help me get it right. Um >> serious >> motion to amend is to change the orange which is mixed >> residential to yellow two pillars of color >> detached residential >> to detach residential and move your mouse around. I would say it is everything that's mixed residential that is east of 1500 west and south of 3800 south. >> Okay, that's the motion to amend. You told me you're ready to vote. Are you still ready to vote? If those in favor of the motion to amend, please say I. >> I. One, two. There. You did not say now those mostly say most commandments and we can come back to fine and and I think when we come back to it I think when we come back to it for me and I won't be voting but I think it makes sense to be specific about how low will you go

My first response to will we grow is when are we going to stop having kids? >> We can grow without we can have kids and still grow. They just can't live in nibbly.

So it's tricky and I I don't have all the answers. I just know that the citizens would be very disappointed if we continued to include at least in the town center not including by 3200 South area. Now get clear down to 44. I don't think it's on their agenda nor they cared yet. If we continue to put town homes and condos in that vicinity, I think there'll be some push back and they'd be frustrated. That's just an opinion based upon what I'm hearing and what I'm reading. So I I applied all the effort. I just wonder if we've gone too far in the mix. Gone too far saying, "Well, we recognize they might be seeing this, but hey, we need to take some vegetables too at the mill. We we have to grow. We have we have to be responsible and things." So I think it's a question where we go. >> And I mean I'll give people a chance to answer. they can give you an answer on what I thought my job was as a voting member of council. I have I have two two points to make. One is one is about the again the question of affordable houses.

Um there's two no growth schools of thoughts. One's no growth period, right? And the other one is only grow the way we have grown. Right? So I won't take away I won't say that I moved here nobody else can move here but I will but I might say as a resident uh the the entitlement that allowed me to move here can be extended but it can't be uh intensified by higher joint like multif right and I get that it also doesn't solve the affordability because 90% of us can't afford the house that we live in if we had to buy it again. That's a Utah think it's the cash house. That says we will continue having uh nonaffordable housing. I'm not saying that's the wrong approach. It just means we're not going to solve the affordable housing problem if we say we're going to keep doing what we're doing. We will grow, but we're only going to grow the way we have grown. That won't put a dent in affordable house because we can't afford our houses, let alone new people afford our houses, right? And I don't want you to be defensive on this. I've had I've had I've had a lot of discussions with people about multifamily attacks. And by the way, you all approved multif family the tax when I was only the only one. I'm not saying it's bad or different, but I've had a lot I have a number of people that live in multifamily attached housing that are becoming what I believe passionate uh uh committed, want to know about recreation, want to know about what we do in our parks, have all the same interests that that we have in single family housing. And I've had other conversations with people and you saw me with two of them at the open house and they said you cannot allow multif family housing because the kind of people that live there and I said and I asked what kind of people live there and I got an answer that they're not part of the community. They're affir multif family housing. Yeah, I know one family. Are they like that? No. But everyone else is. And so again, man, don't be defensive. I'm just encouraging what what is wrong if it's more affordable, etc., etc. There might be some advantages. Um, what is what what do people tell you they hate about attached multifamily housing? >> It's a great question. Didn't get a lot of answers on that. I asked a few, you know, so where where's that where do you say and and the overwhelming if there was an answer it was this that if the individuals who are going to live there are going to be there for a shorter amount of time it's not going to build community it's going to eventually turn into a rental property because the affordability to sell it's not going to be there so what is the average stay in a town home condo and I don't know the studies I think I everyone said it was like two and a half years. >> Yeah.

>> And and so it's just going to be a turnover home. It's going to be a tombstone. It's a rental investment property. And so I heard that several times and I don't really know if that's accurate, but that's the perception to the fact that they're not going to spend. It's going to get run down. It's just going to be a rent. So that's >> fair enough. So I want to make sure we're talking about two different things. One case we're talking about rental versus owner. I have kids that have rented since they moved out of Cash Valley and they're in a they're in a state independently, not together, where they would love to be buying a house and I would love for them to be buying a house because I know what that means to me and I know what that would mean to them. It's all the things you talk about with with a sense of permanence, a sense of investment, a sense of ownership of your property means a sense of investment in the community, right?

It's just sometimes it comes with like a tremendous amount of thought, too. It's just an opinion and I get that, but this is going to make a great school for me to analyze all of this stuff. And it is I think about it. I may not want a sleepover, but I think about it a lot because I I think it matters what we do and I think it matters what our town looks like. And I have said before in the campaign, I do think we have an identity crisis. I do think we don't really know what we want to do when it comes to development. We got 20% of our town is is either town homes or condos. Josh, is that pretty accurate or 20%? >> I need I really want to check on that. >> Look, >> I'm not sure. Sorry. that >> but it's it's getting it's it's increasing >> more than we had 5 years ago. >> Yeah, absolutely. So, I do think it's a great question to where are we going? what is the future look like and what's the best what's the best you know solution these problems if we ask appreciate the conversation and the the one thing I add because I forgot to say is we don't represent a district none of us represent a district we represent what we think is the best of all and I wish even at the federal level where they do represent a state or district that they would think about what's best for the US instead of what's best for their district. We need global people to solve our problems. I don't mean you know what I mean not global global but broadly you know okay thank you Randy I agree with everything good council and a great example is what happened to that's the role citizens play if they have the time to do the homework and get invested and make decisions and come to us with suggestions Right? If they trust us to do it, then they need to trust us to do it. And it's our I think the other role was well said by mayor is we help them understand why they make those decisions. >> Yeah. similar to Randy. I mean, when I was out talking to people during the election cycle, um, a lot of people were also talking about how much they would appreciate some sense of right and and I

think much like what we've been saying is okay, in order to support that, it's our job to do the research and understand and educate, right? That's a lot of what we do is understand helping the citizens educate or educating them on why why we do things what we do how we proceed to achieve a vision right and and so as we talk about well you know if we're going to ask for commercial and a lot of people uh that I spoke with um thought that would be a great option for nibbly to increase you know our economic viability within within

the valley um and that just like we talked about that because um basically in order for that to be successful then we have to find a balance effectively for our city to grow right um and I think to me as we talk about the nature of what this general plan represents it's simply you know we as a body are elected to represent our citizens and work with them to describe what the vision is for them to me even though it may be hard um regardless of what around us want to do. We should stick to that vision. Um and and sometimes that means maybe we may lose a battle and that's okay as long as I I think we're elected to once again obviously make decisions on behalf of the city um to benefit the city as a whole. And I think this

is exactly what we should be doing is debating, creating a vision, sticking to it. It's okay if we lose some winner. >> So, I have a I'm sure we're not I'm pretty sure we're not going to pass this tonight, but maybe you could help me understand the process that that will make progress. I offer a number of ways. We could say, "Okay, next time, you know, we're going to set a goal that we think, you know, we we should be done with this in one month or two months or something something and we can talk about a work plan to get you to that and that doesn't mean that if we set a goal, but that's hard and fast. But if you want to help me with a work plan, I would be

I would appreciate it. >> I Oh, sorry. I think for me um finding a balance of understanding the highest likelihood of what persisting forward with respect to what we're changing is it words are we words are a little easier to change than colors on a map I'm guessing unless >> I mean we can I mean the execution of such colors right like is would it be better if we have like we want to deliberate on our own or whatever or like if we want to propose bath changes Um, do we want

just do it all at once in a proposal? Are we going to go parcel by parcel? That could take a long time. Obviously, >> but I think I will say this about the either this I mean you're free to make an amendment in whatever form. I encourage that. We spend more time understanding specifically what the amendment is if it's written down. Uh it's a great example of well I make an amendment Levi you can put my words up right then we can look at what he's saying and we could even do that on a map right take a Sharpie and crosshatch say all the cross-hatch area I I move to a band go from this color and and again I never want to discourage any member of council from offering an amendment in any form that he want but sometimes the process of writing the words or marking the path help not only not only helps the rest of us understand what what the desired outcome is for that for that council members but it helps council member understand I would suggest we're working with them okay for us some of the things that we discussed before our next meeting each council member mark the map and modify the definitions as we've talked about. Uh, and I would suggest maybe we do that after a one-on-one or two-on-one with you. >> Well, cuz that may change how I do things. Yes. >> I think the cat's out of the bag. I think I said enough for you to know where >> public and I think we have we have three approaches at this point. Number one is well, we think that's a fair line and we're going to leave it there. We're going to stick with that zoning or change the the we're going to stick with that future zoning. We're going to change maybe we'll change the front. I think it's too much industrial, right? So, so that's one option and I could think of others. The other is that I I think staff definitely needs to have a discussion about the line we saw today that will make hyro that hyos because there are engineering issues to think about right

and we can uh we can decide where we think the line is based on who can provide services the most the easiest. Right? So, so some of that has to happen. Um, that's still one option. Option number two is to move the line to where I wants it. Again, I'm on the I'm on the I'm on that's on the Okay, look, let's not fight about when the proposal. Let's move the line to where I want it. That's option two. You ready for option three? Oh, yeah. Watch this. You want to find about that? Let's fight about it. >> Ask a favor. Can Can we on the pointer? Did you draw the line where they wanted to be? >> No, I don't need >> I think I I don't want to show it to you. >> I'm not ready to put that in the public until engineering and so I don't get a chance to come. So, I'm sorry. Are you okay if I say no? Just being clear, you didn't speak to a council in a meeting like this. It was >> representatives, but not all of them. >> There were no council members. >> Correct. >> Yeah. >> There was a non- voting unit. >> Yeah. >> Um I like Garrett's suggestions for moving forward as a work plan. One I might also suggest is I think that they the plan is broken down pretty well into >> Yeah. Yeah, >> 10 sections. >> Yeah, >> some sections would probably take us 26 seconds to get through and others will probably take four to five meetings if we wanted to. Um, so maybe uh going section by section uh or dividing it up and those groups kind of work as small committees and propose things and handle it that way. I think if you looked at it, there's probably some that we could like the introduction public engagement that we could kind of okay definition and work through those pretty quick and then tackle the harder ones in meetings. >> I do like the idea of small buds. >> So, how about if I make a guess about how much working section would be? they'll go to I think you all want to spend on that doesn't mean I'm right or wrong spend as little or as long as you want section but I'll I'll kind of if it's okay with you all build sort of an expectations type of sections I I love your suggestion I don't think we should limit it to the patent if there's anything in that plan >> oh go yeah I'm just talking not the first small bite. Okay, that's the first small >> first we take before the next meeting. >> Yeah, maybe section one. >> Well, and so the map doesn't take it uh in order, but that's fine. That's okay, too. I mean, that's an issue brought up. We ought to wrestle with it. But I will maybe well just I'll reach out maybe to get some advice on how many sections you think we should set a goal for getting done and then I'll actually I'll send you an email that says here's here's what we're hoping to do just so you can focus on those sections. It's a lot of small. All right. With that, I'll take a motion to do something. >> Motion has to >> Yeah. >> So, you might want a motion to continue. >> Yeah, I want to make a motion. Does it need any steps to or just a motion? >> No, we're back. >> Okay. If you want to make a motion to continue 26 over. >> Thank you, Mayor. Motion from Mayor. Mayor, don't we need a substitute because we already >> that hasn't been voted. >> We we >> Well, okay, that's fine. >> We voted on the amendment, but >> I know, but we can we can continue any motion off the table and pick it up where we left. That's what continued means, right? We make it a substitute. Substitute means you throw that one away and put this one in place. We're we're actually continuing with it with plan as presented. >> We've done this before. We're going to look at the next two items. >> Uh we move to continue, which means we pick it up where we last talked about it, which was we didn't talk about it.

>> He said he said buckle up. >> Buckle up. >> No, I'm just kidding. I I am going to a point in time count where Fair River Association. It's an important thing.

can't drive as fast as they want. >> Yeah. Okay, that's all I have. What do you want to do? I'd like to make

a motion. Well, I probably need you to pull up my version. What's in the box? Levi prois on this. So, we can legislate. That's what we do.

too many studied because I do agree doing like see what I mean to do instead of um

moving forward enhance as the last one enhanced visibility at intersections by removing barriers and installing high high curve island and pylon delineators as presented by staff and installable strips throughout. on transverse rumble strips in the northway south of 32 round. Um I'm not I'm not going to look for a second until I understand what is number four enhance. Is this in the box? Can I look at it on my screen? Yeah, it is n number 9.9. >> Um, this was number four was >> was discussed last time. >> Okay. >> And described. Yeah. I'll second. Then I have a second. The motion is what's on what's on the screen in the in the in the uh themes and what's in here somewhere. Thank you, Carol. So, let's And so that that's the motion before you. Nathan. All right, I'll try to take these one at a time. Um, so the proposal to remove rather than alter um the cost came from the estimate that was given to us in last meeting. Is that where the 10,000 came from? >> Interesting. you mentioned with staff and so on. Yeah. Yes. Okay. Um number two, obviously they were getting rid of the visibility of the curve but adding the B. So I'll I'll just say that was part of an original proposal I wrote. Um I didn't ask for cost. Um, the reason I took it out when we proposed this one was my understanding was those were already kind of happening from staff. So just in clarification there would be good. Um, yeah. >> Clarification on three. Oh, sorry. Oh, and I'm sorry you grabbed the mic when I raised. Are you clarifying some? >> Yeah, I just want to address question if that's okay. I mean, we kind of got so wrapped up in all these stuff that we've got paused all previous direction. >> Justin, can you corroborate I guess in the dollar amounts that are proposed? Um, is it going to cost around that amount to bring people home? >> No, I think it be way less than 10,000. Okay. >> I think both of the 10,000 pretty >> and assigned to be like what kind of a mountain we needed to prescribe in detail. >> Yeah. We'll figure out the best way to put them something caring. >> Yeah. And and with the signage um what kind of uh code or traffic um laws we have to follow that what constitutes a sign? Do we ever follow any sort of standard when we do this kind of stuff? >> Yeah. I mean we definitely do I guess just >> I just don't know what that is. >> Yeah. Yeah. Assuming though that yeah we'll follow status for sure. Yeah. Number four is removing barriers. That That's removing the bike weight. >> Is that correct? >> Yeah. The

20 ft of it, I believe, is what? >> Okay. But we're talking there are barriers and barriers. You might call the curbs a barrier. Maybe those are gone. Maybe they're not. But you mean removing the bike lane barrier. >> Yeah. The the New Jersey barriers. Quick clarification those costs cash out of pocket for sure. staff time I I mean I'm not counting that in right you don't know how much like hourly wage stuff like that cash out of the budget for sure will be less for this but there will be substantial effort time put in by staff which could potentially reach close to that >> check that 10,000 5,000 >> does that make sense >> yeah we're budget

40 I mean my hot because I'm hoping you're can do most of this for when we have budget minus the traffic. I'm pretty sure that will be reopened outside of that.

to amend number two to read. And I just put She says, "Install signage annual devices to restrict and deter vehicle traffic entering protected bike lane specifically at the Jersey barrier openings near intersection and crosswalks samples include all planters that still allow for removal of mans vehicles. >> I'll second because I think he's got a few questions. Motion to amend from Nathan, second from Nick. Question be um Ballards I don't have an issue with. I think it achieved the same result. Do we worry about something at scale to to the point of like I guess in your in your proposal, how much are you thinking about the natural flow of traffic or are you actually encouraging side trips to slow down if there's a planter that takes up 40% of the square footage of that bike lane? Right. I guess I I'm just questioning is this a behavioral deterrent or an aesthetic thing or just want to know your thoughts. Uh I proposed this language because it's what I originally had. Okay. >> And I think it's trying to give the same thing that uh the language Karen suggested is and the choice of what goes in there I will leave to staff and their knowledge of what needs to get in there for maintenance and emergency vehicles and the works. So I just give them as examples. I don't think that's telling them what they should do. So is this a the motion to amend it's a wholesale replacement number two they want to take. >> So let's take out the red but if I may um dollar amount is the original said not to exceed 5,000. So if we wholesale replace I guess I'd like to kind of know maybe this is outside of the scope of this proposal at hand is um I would like to know what the upper limit is overall that we're talking about the whole thing uh for that item specifically I think similar to what we've had discussion with Garrett's proposal is um staff at the time which is why we although there being very cost that it may have already been some of them are in our possession. So I'm happy to throw it down right and if if you're trying to stay in 48 I talked to Justin and Kevin intersections and those signs he was saying the sign be around 115 right? Yeah, that's a full-blown street sign. If we use like a duplicator, be succ

I don't sorry I don't have to choose per se of what type of deterrent that the mission here I could speak to that would be the proposal is to just help our drivers to recognize that that is not a travel. So I'm not opposed to any mechanism >> okay for the council to tell staff to go make patients to make sure people to be car drivers and all that's not we can do

it's pretty wide range and I can see where there is some confusion that that's one of the reasons the signage um cuz there are some signs in the there's a couple signs in a couple

intersections but they're actually not in the bike lane or off to the side in the B strip and I just feel like we need a barrier there because even with the islands that we've had people and so I'll speak to this in that fact that so in the last one when we were talking about this Mary told me to hold it. I took that

to heart. I've spent quite a bit of time. I've sat in freezing cold where I couldn't put my face in the hands as I've watched cars. I've tried to look at behaviors. I've watched their heads where they're looking, trying to see what they're looking at when they're turning. And it was interesting. I I learned some things. I don't know if we'll ever get to what I would call a win. I always try to get to that because I feel like once we see all the sides, there's got to be a way to turn together, collaborate for a win-win. I felt like this is probably the best version of that win. Like I said, it's certainly not a win, but it's I looked at every possible scenario. I drew every possible scenario conference to a car in each of those intersections as they currently are. Jersey barriers kind of as you talked about leading to the right hook and so the Jersey barriers kind of prevent >> so we need to stay on the substitute portion to so I don't want to deter you from that I was just explaining why I made these changes I'm talk we need to talk about just alternative number two first then we get to the summary Just to be clear. Yes. Because you're >> Are we Are we clear on the alternative motion? That would be replace number two. >> Is it Is it under two? Not Not in >> number two. >> Right. It's included as number two or >> Oh. So, replace this with this. Okay. Well, I won't take it out yet because >> Okay. Is there to voting on the substitute to clear? Okay. Those in favor of the substitute motion to amend, please say I. All right. Put your name. Okay. So, now it's the purple number and get picked up where you left off trying to anyway. So, I'm talking and looking at this life. What do you say to her? And uh so as I did this thing, I mean the functionality for me because I know what the purpose of the males are driving low islands barrier kind of creates that deflects that right hook ability because you better clear the barrier. So, when I look

on the southeast corner of the intersection, is I' I've looked at like, do we just remove the islands on the east side of all of these and put the signs up and leave them on the west? visibility except for by Nibi Avenue because of trees uh coming going from the north to the south other than Ni Avenue it's wide open and so visibility to be able to see somebody that might be wanting to cross is easy there's no obstructions except in avenue because of the trees so the only real problem is

the south uh southwest corner and moving and I thought, well, really, why make another modification? I looked at moving the crosswalk back and what if we moved it back five feet because that creates problem on the east side of the jersey. Like I said, I I lost sleep over this and I'm exhausted,

be honest. uh and trying to find uh what everything works. Cuz in my observations, people are so worried about hitting that obstacle, they're not even looking where they're supposed to be looking. They're not even watching the crosswalk. And so I mean, the only concern, the major concern I have with that was southwest corner. That still gave an opportunity for possible right hook. But I guess in the end it doesn't make it any different than any other street in the city.

And that's why I asked Tom about signage on stop signs. Can we do something about under the stop sign? And the guy he needed to ask was out of town this week cuz there I asked him about that. >> What stop sign? >> The stop sign. So at each intersection, the stop sign coming from west to east. the stop sign like on all the stop signs you see four-way, three-way or different things. I asked Tom, can we put a sign under there? >> I know. It reminds people watch for pedestrians. Tom, I asked Tom three times on that. Why can't we tell people stop at the stop sign, right? Or or stop here on stop sign. The only stuff according to MC >> stop traffic doesn't stop whatever whatever cannot tell cars to stop at stop. Now there may be another sign like prior to the stop sign but we can't stop here. And I said, "But I've seen those." And I said, "I have." And he's right. What I've seen is on red stop here. That's not on stop sign. Stop here. So I haven't answered that question for if you trust he had asked about that because I asked him about that was in relation to Thomas what's what's theirs academy I also asked him on in trying to recognize that we might need a study there and we need to do something I asked him And like when you drive on these other areas, were there any there's a crosswalk, you push the button sign flashes, they know there's somebody here. I asked him, can we do something like that? I don't that would be your

cross, but I wanted to get some ideas, but again, he wasn't able to give me any of the information it would be. So I go over that might be a good alternative to add in signage at that intersection just to make people aware that you know we all drive responsibly and trying to keep people as safe as possible. And I feel like with this resolution the reason I came to this conclusion is people aren't looking where they're supposed to be looking. They're so worried about that obstacle. And like Aaron said in the last meeting when you can drive over and that's true. I just don't know if we can ever change the mindset of every single person that this obstacle could be driven over because obstacle I think human nature has avoided the obstacle and I think because of that I I think functionality and stuff will improve by just rem okay why is why is there not a right hook problem for traffic going north that are turning right and it's that's to me that's the biggest strike of problem you're saying it's only west well you have a stop sign and stuff you have the jersey barrier I guess they see that as a >> No so there's a to be clear there's a vehicle traveling north on 1200 west I'm on a plane the car passes me we're approaching the stone bridge cross The car that just passed me wants to turn right directly in front of me. That's the in this case the southeast or you said southwest is the only problem but that's I mean that's why I get right hooked all the time. >> Well, so the Jersey barrier doesn't with that. >> I'm not talking about the Jersey barrier. We're talking about the mount curves and why the mount curves there to eliminate it right were you eliminating jersey barriers on or were we just talking about elimination of mountain curves >> that's what I'm talking >> I think the I think the right hook means the driver is making the right turn in front of or into >> yeah I guess so anywhere there's an opportunity for a drivers to turn right into a cyclist. That's the right side

trying to pay attention and we're looking at a crosswalk because they're so worried about the obstacle. Were there pedestrian? How how what percent of the time were there pedestrians and cyclists in the intersection while you were observing? >> I never saw a single bicyclist when there was about a dozen bars. >> Okay. So I'm not sure that you test at the intersection which cycles. It is but I mean you also have to provide functionality and that's like I said that's why this has been hard because you have the functionality of it and you have purpose of it trying to come the mind to >> by eliminating the curves >> to yeah >> to expose the psychist to that convention of dar >> no when you're standing there that curb especially on the east side is not protected But it's clear in front it's clear west of the bike lane. How's that protecting the bike? >> Because they're riding in front. I tell you because the cars instead of sliding through the turn and right hooking the cyclist that's right there on the side of the bar and they were out of traffic a second ago because they were behind the jersey barrier. And now once they're in traffic and right at the right hand side of the car, the car has to slow down and complete the sharper radius turn so that now there's the cyclist in their field of view instead of somewhere back here. >> That's how it's supposed to work. See, >> it's a bike there. >> So, I'll say this and then I'll be quiet. When we talk about traffic safety, there's a lot of different users of traffic safety. One of them are the lighter crowd on a bike. Some of them are runners, pedestrians. Some of them are commuters uh on a bike. Some of them are the 10 to 14 year olds. And I think the group that needs the most protection is not the most protection is the 10 is the 8 to 14 year olds. Unless we just want to lock down our 8 to 14 year olds. I've lived in that situation. I raised kids in that situation on the east side of 165. 165 is a freeway. There's no way I could send my kids to business school on their own on their bikes. I before before they got older, I wouldn't even cross that road. I know what it's like to cut off part of our city from the rest of our city with active transportation. And if if we believe in active transportation, we believe in kids, you know, being able to ride to school to get to school at times when there's not a crossing guard there. That's the kind of protection we need. And this is my last thought. I'll be fine. It's a matter of percentage. It's a matter of risk. It's a matter of how much risk are we willing to accept or I'm going to talk about this age. The 8 to 14 year olds that don't have a license, don't know the rules of the road, and I think they need extra protection. How much risk are we going to subject them? And if we make the kind of modifications that you're suggesting, council can do it. Remember the state because we have exposed that demographic to greater risk. Remember to stay >> Can I say something, mayor? >> Yeah, >> just real quick. Um, >> just to add to add to the discussion, in addition to the the Mountible Islands turning traffic, they slow traffic. And I I've I've um I don't want to make this too personal, but two years ago I was hit by a car in an intersection. Like every other intersection, speed limit was 30 m hour on the road I was on, 25 on the cross street. The car that hit me was probably going 20 miles an hour turning left onto the intersection. If that car was going 5 miles an hour, he probably wouldn't have hit me. Or if he did, probably wouldn't have broken my leg and mangled me as much as he did. So the speed matters. And and traffic calming is to lower to calm speeds in strategic locations like an intersection. So I just wanted to bring that up that >> more than visibility it's also >> it's more it's more than visibility it's also the speed at which the the vehicle is going when it comes into conflict with with a vulnerable road user >> yeah I'd like to present another substitute motion

>> Levi you could go into the teams open up the document I just created that is called substitute motion Nathan. Uh does it have a number or >> this motion essentially takes out any considerations of the islands currently adds the installation of signage licenses the engineering study and that allows for installation of rumble strips and promotes any changes that could be made in the Jersey barrier for transparent opaque asks that it be done in the 2026 fiscal year and limits all totals to no more than $40,000 without adoption of another resolution or budget in the city council. Essentially, what I'm proposing is everything I think we all agree on to get done by 2026. That's my proposal and we can talk about other things as as we want. But um these are the the changes that I think we're all okay with and I want to empower staff to make them. You have a motion. I'll let you read it. You have there's a motion and a second. Uh you're this motion would not do anything to the mouth. Correct. Oh, can I may I ask a question? Justin

just said he thought that um installing and taking off those first piece of the jersey barrier and replacing it and curving could itself cost more than he thought. So what's the is the priority in the in the list that you've done here? First priority is one then two then three then four because it seems like if we're going to cut one off which one are they going to cut off? Um, I think I wrote from the bench and I know to answer your question, I think we all agree that we want the study done. I would like that study done. This is the stop the engineering. Uh, that's already taking a cut of the propos essentially if the number three and four. I know I'm forcing a cut. If number three takes the rest of that money, that's all they can do. Until they come to us again and say we want to do this and we vote to do so. And so I'm you could take them off, I guess. Uh the the Jersey barrier ones. Uh but I that's the VA is I think the budget and the cost will determine what the priority said >> starting. >> Sure. >> I I would say thank you. >> Okay. I mean you said a total budget of 40,000 right.

>> It's telling what to do with budget we >> Yeah. And then with with the budget we have in the current budget the amount of money we have in the current budget. And so the instruction to staff is you can go do all four of those in 40,000 and go do it. If you can't come back to the council and say, "Well, we got this one done. Uh, this one didn't cost very much, so we went ahead and did that one. This one we couldn't do because we ran out of money. So, we got two out of four. Do you want us to do the other two? If so, give us more money. or you want to just forget about the other two. Are you with me, Justin? >> Yes, sir.

>> Is that ahead? Where is it? the um request from the fire department if we don't um are they just going to us and say I'm >> I considered it when I wrote it and took it out >> and I think that Again, the pressure comes, we have to make a resolution and tackle it then. But I feel like this council is not wholeheartedly okay with what was proposed before and $5,000 and some people ask for more data and more time. If the fire department determines that timeline, go get it. >> And the wording in a fire department is very important.

The fire department supports the changing of the first generation barriers to second generation barriers. Doesn't say you must do this. It doesn't say you don't have to do it. It doesn't say that. It says the fire department supports the share first. And that's that's stronger words than their first version of the language which was they don't doesn't matter because it's not the letter they sent us. But the first version said we recommend so I don't know if that's not very tell us what you tell us what you support. This is what we So, I'm I mean I'm I mean I'm just head over heels with joy that we might actually make. I the only the only issue with this I I am worried about Nick is I'm just hesitant to find ourselves back into this situation of I mean if we if we make just if we make a motion to approve this I don't want to find ourselves >> there is a motion >> yeah excuse me if we if we decide to approve this I should say excuse me um I just don't want to find ourselves back in that competition by army again think okay well now we have to allocate more when we could have just done it now. >> Okay. >> You know what I mean,

Nathan? >> Yeah. Um I would support 100% if you wanted to that original number one magazine or if you prefer proposal movie. >> I'm I'm confident most of these things would be okay. It's the ones that you're expressing that holding up the signal So if I might so n what what does this proposal do for the island it makes us figure it out later you're still okay so I'm just want to make sure I'm clear exactly you're just saying but okay let's just not do let's not deal it now let's look at these four I don't want to misrepresent Randy, how many how many houses bridge? >> 69 one or two. >> How many ins and outs do you have on that? >> Well, eventually we'll have them. You see how that's a problem? >> Oh, it is a problem. >> However, for fire code. Oh, I've already heard that. >> Okay.

I don't know. We have kicked this down the road already so far and the residents that have constantly called us complained and then we've

tried everything and the functionality of the islands in my opinion doesn't work and we want to just keep this. And the problem with making them all smaller is you go and explain to the nibbling residents. explain why we're going to spend another $135,000 to give them more what they one don't want and two don't think functions. So it's just frustrating and it's time you just do it and just done you know Nathan. So why not make the motion to add that impact with what I have? Why not make a motion to add the remove it and have a vote on it? So, you want me to amend yours? Yeah, that's that's the idea. It's easier for me and it's easier for everyone. It's easier for us to make decisions to to make those motions when we're we're in the discussion phase rather than to say, "Well, let's try again later." You're all empowered and encouraged to make amendments to proposals. I was just trying to write it in a way, right? I decided to take anything on the plan. But those of you that all just voted against were more than welcome to make those amendments of what you prefer, whether it's removing or altering you. I don't really speak about any more on line. Um, yeah. >> I mean, this is the problem we get into as we substitute back and forth back. But I can tell you right

now that Nathan substitute motion failed. >> So, where does Garrett's motion stand? >> It was replaced by a substitute motion. An appropriate thing to do. We can do this because it's still in the same would be a motion to reconsider. Right now, we shouldn't even be having these discussion as we decided. However, a motion to reconsider would bring it back and then additional amendments could be offered. I mean, the whole reason that that piping shouldn't be for that he made a substitute motion. We try to get out of this amend amend amend amend amend and then we have to go vote on an amendment vote on the next amendment vote on and so once we get one amendment which the main motion was made with an amendment it's entirely appropriate to say here's a substitute motion because we get one amendment instead of going to another amendment on the amendment and have to do all the return from subverties we just make a substitute motion so that we can take care of But if you want to talk about a support you want to vote on, make a motion to reconsider. Nathan. >> Yeah. I I disagree. Mayor, I don't want to reconsider. I I'm not Can we >> Yeah. No. No. I'm saying this would be the process. Like you said, the process technically shouldn't we have this discussion? So, I could really revol the agenda. First one. Thank you proposal. Anyone like to make a motion to reconsider? Uh we have a motion. Second and a second to reconsider. Uh the motion to reconsider I don't think is debatable. You have to get it back from the table before it's debatable. Those in favor of reconsideration please say I. >> Three. Those opposed to reconsider please say I. I n. Okay, it's back on the table. This is where we're starting. >> May I ask you a procedural question? Does it emotion to reconsider has have to be brought by the >> No, it has to be the motion to reconsider has to be made by the prevailing uh side. >> So this was the prevailing side. Mhm. >> Even though it was a a fail, >> that's what's kind of the the prevailing the the prevailing side killed the motion. So that means the prevailing side can make the motion reconsider. >> In other words, if you can't be, you don't get to reconsider. So

even if you don't want to reconsider, you can be up. Okay. So, there it is. That's where we're starting. Could you bring it here? >> But we're starting >> starting from here. >> This was the >> So, we're starting with substitute. We're starting with what's on screen. I mean, let me help you. If you want to get rid of the curves, add something in front of this that says we will remove the mountain curves and then we'll vote on >>

>> Why is this traffic study on these? >> It doesn't matter. >> What is like a C prompt C program? Make it five. Make it whatever >> make motion to add to this amendable. I think we're calling them mountables. >> Mountable islands islands curves between 3200

and 2200. I have a motion second and a second from Randy that the it's a motion to amend to what you see on the screen that would say uh remove the magical curves northwest between 3200 South and that's that's the thing we get to talk about now this is thank you so much because we don't have to talk about a whole list of stuff we can talk about this one page Um, so Gary, just to clarify, so adding this in, um, this would also be included in that $40,000 cap, correct? The cost of removing them, >> the way it reads is yes. >> Okay. And if the staff can't get all these five things done now, they have to come back for more money or say uh what do you want to not do? >> Right. Right. >> You clear on that? >> Yes sir. >> Okay. I mean somewhere when we got to uh talking about cost and stuff we started doing engineering don't that's bad tell staff what you want to do give them a budget then come back and say we couldn't get it done or we're done um um I think it's just to add the reason I voted um the reason I would not vote for about the amendment is because I think the main issue is the speed. Gary and I talked in the phone you gave your same defense that you just gave a moment ago about why the changes to be made.

Um I think they are inconvenient but they're inconvenient for a reason because they slow and I think I think about the kids who have been hit on bikes in our city. There's a kid I bless that with broke his leg I believe and another girl she ran into the side of the car right uh just a few months ago here over on 640 and um as he was turning the corner um and I think he was turning quite slowly she ran into his car so but speed is always an issue and and

back the driver was not going 20 miles an hour it wasn't a speed zone if that fluid We're going faster than we should have been, you know. Um, but I think the speed is a huge issue and that's what we're trying to control for here is the speed of biker car interactions. Um, I think there's just a lot of studies that show that the slower the speed drastically increases the chance of of lower injury for the biker pen. So that's what >> cyclist on 3200 and 640 was in the crosswalk on her bike. >> Yeah. >> She got hit by a car. >> Yeah. >> There was a collision between >> Yes. I'm not sure who the >> inter Yeah. Can I get understanding specifically from those that voted um to uh reconsider um the the justification of spending money to remove rather than spending money to alter. You know, I'll speak to that. And

when we did the budget, we knew we were going to have to make changes. We knew it didn't work the way it was. And that's why Nor and I budgeted or asked to budget that additional money more changes to this knowing we would have to make changes. And so that's been budgeted and that's why I'm okay with that. I mean, I don't know how to explain to, you know, a neighborly resident that we all represent. We're going to spend 940 is to continue to make an island that has been an issue from the beginning. We promised him a year with the resolution. We did that and we keep kicking it down the road. So the mayor told me to own it. We got serious and spend some serious time with that. I don't believe it would endanger the kids. If I actually believed that that will endanger the children more, I wouldn't do it. And I don't think that the speed, you know, you have the stop sign, they still everyone still stop at the stop sign before and then they still have to go, they have to inch out before they can still go around Jersey barrier. So, so do you represent the people that filled this room on 8 West and 10th West? Thank you. Right. So you're you're acting like you only represent people on 12 west. >> So you represented to people on Were you on the council when we had a meeting and this room was filled with people asking for traffic bombing and bull bouts and everything else? Were you at a Saturday morning meeting where a guy on 2600 South said, "What are you going to do to slow down traffic and make it safe for cyclist for 30 years and the tin sign and traffic and and sheriffs don't solve the problem? What are you going to do to slow down traffic and make it safe for people making tourists? That's an easy answer. I think you said you represent all the citizens of Bits in the last two years that was here. I mean, that's where he's been told a few times, but this was a special after the kid at the West. >> He lost two years. Okay. We had the meeting to the minutes. >> Nathan. >> Yeah. I'd just like to give the opportunity to the others to respond. >> Yeah. Um, so your question was um in relation to the language that says you you had add language on modifications versus just wholesale. Why the difference essentially as far as the budget is concerned? Okay. >> I guess I'm asking this question to make sure that you're comfortable making a decision if it's based only on finances. If you're if you're choosing to to remove because it costs less uh I think it's irresponsible and uh have great concern for that. So I just want to make sure it's not something >> I mean I think it if we're it's a it's always a contributo reason. Sure. was at the soul raising bell and I and Jarrett and I were out there together. Um we had a meeting with citizens and we were out there looking considering much of the same thing that he described. Um and when when I I since since this has became an agenda item like we've talked many times right I go drive everyone as much as possible right in my experience has been the the barrier and the curvature um to me is the over overarching reason why the traffic is speeding at what they are right and so I think um for me to kind of parallel what Garrett said I think It's a a happy

medium. If you can achieve that, right, with what we're trying to achieve, which is provide a space for cyclists and pedestrians to walk and run. I mean, I run on that road all the time, right? Um, but I think as well, I think it trying to just achieve that sweet spot. Maybe that's a poor choice of words, right? But I guess I don't know any other way to say it. um to find a a conclusion to this whole and that's kind but sure I mean does the budget play a part how could it not right does it play all of the part after >> I think ironic when I've been ministic with you've heard me for so long and we've dealt with so many of these issues I also think it's I'm not sure it's a great idea for any teenage cyclist to be on 12th. Anyway, it's such a busy street. I think there's other streets if you can be on. I mean, I know things happen, but I also think there's a bigger picture of track itself. The curve, the bowouts, or call them the islands made it really difficult, almost impossible um to make a right-hand turn and stay within your turn. I mean, it's also a traffic issue and it has been. So, I mean, I've given all the arguments on that before and I also think it's not a bad idea on the westand side of of the of 12 West. I wouldn't be against moving moving the road out a little bit closer or maybe the curve out a little closer so that the car does start a little bit more on the side a little bit more further distance from the same way it has up on the on the east side of the intersection. I would be opposed to if we extended that a little bit so that we do have the car the car the uh vehicle start stop a little bit further away from the intersection. I mean there could be some things done in the future but I think the first step would be to let's remove the guidelines and let's see what we do. Maybe we can make more modifications in the future. I'm telling you it if you go back and read the comments that people have made over the last year and go back and read what the city plan they're asking us to get them out. They really are. They're asking for a change. This is a win. I believe it is. I think it's a start. And and so I no one wants to see kids hurt. But I think we got to talk about not just that, but about the traffic situation and and it's it's not just about one demographic and that the road is not just designed for one demographic. We're talking about such a small amount of people that are using that for that purpose. So I think it's a bigger picture. I said try last year and have and I do appreciate the idea being protect disputing that. I think it's a hazard every time you get on a bike and mayor. You understand that as well as anybody anyway. It's >> sure it's a hazard every time I get on a car too. Absolutely. Let's it is okay. Um, and and I apologize if I made an emotional plea, but if a kid gets hit in an intersection, it's going to be emotional. And if it's your kid or your neighbor's kid, it's going to be very So maybe I shouldn't make a motion to please to counsel. That's when it's going to be. And if

if you if you say it's your decision, if you say it's not safer, then voted. Uh in in the observations of everyone um you see that active transportation not cars has increased, decreased or remained the same on 1200 West since these things have been installed. Right? That's the first question you ask. These are hypothetical to answer when I'm done. Um, I've witnessed a heavy increase in active transportation in that corridor. And so it's hard for me to not feel like because of the feedback and the interactions you're having, it's an emotional response. Um there's a video I have that I've done that as I was driving south a biker teenage biker uh was headed west at that intersection um where Stonebridge is was entering Stonebridge didn't stop at stop sign wasn't in the bike lane but was coming from the other road and uh would have been it uh had someone been turning right undoubtedly would have been. And so, uh, my concern and the reason why I I still want to alter road is, uh, whether they're on a scooter, uh, whether on a bike, on an ebike, they're walking, there is a difficulty in keeping the bike lane to then remove the other devices that support that traffic. So that when I want you to cross, I'm also protected to make that crossing as an individual using those modes of transportation. I I agree it's it's probably not heavy enough right now. It's also just been winter and a nice winter. Um but there's a reason people don't actively transportate and it's in our active transportation plan. It's in the survey. It's because they don't feel safe. I remember having conversations uh specifically with people who drive their kids to Heritage Elementary and they live a block away because they don't feel like their kids are safe walking. And so that's why I struggle with removing them. I think that the alteration handles a lot of things that that he's brought up. you can go over those things, you know, big question, but it forces you to slow down similar what what Aaron is saying and uh you know, I I I I hope that it's not just an emotional decision because citizens have asked for it. They've asked for a lot of things. Why not doing all those? Um, and

not that much, right? It's a lot tax, right? But whether it's 40,000 or 100,000, we still won't say yes, bro. And uh I I'm just Yeah. I don't want to say decision. And you know, when you say teenagers shouldn't be biking down, 1200 West, what about 3200 or 26, right? >> Where are they supposed to go? >> Where where should they be? And it's not on it's not on plan especially with the kind of devices and active transportation that is coming. This is a forward thinking road. It's doing the job we want with cars and now we're just having a conversation about the other type of track there. So I haven't show you a video of the kid but I I think that just there's

>> Yeah. He Yeah, >> I started. >> Yeah. So he's the one that did has done most of research on this. He has a PhD but his entire study was tracked upon and if I may ask a question important to narrow in the number of the costs that we're talking about the $130,000 was for all of $100,000 for the curb. So, can someone help me cuz I don't have detail like what is the actual amount of money for the islands to be redone? I feel like it was $10,000. I would be interested about 10 if this if uh we're on an amendment on reconsideration,

but we had an amendment. So, but the limit >> it should be. >> Sorry. >> Was it basically this? So, it falls into the same category of $40,000. My advice to staff because the big issue the elephant in the room here is curves. We're talking about how much talking you guys with us? Okay. Um my advice to staff would be the first dollar would be go if this amendment passes Yeah. So, >> sorry. Is this right? Remove the >> Yeah. >> Is that right? >> Remove the mouth of the island at all intersections on 12 West. >> Yeah. Right. Right. >> Those I mean, we're all tired of talking about curves. So my my suggestion to staff, spend the first chunk of money if this amendment passes, get rid of the curves if you can do it on 40,000. I mean that directs the problem. And if you want to prioritize it, prioritize it. But uh I I don't feel like I don't feel like we're making progress. The issue is the mountable hurts, the rest of this stuff. I mean, I I I think that this is the ultimate room and it's like, let's deal. And I think from what Tom's estimate was, I think he can pull those out for less than 40,000. Probably keep some of this up. >> Yeah, for sure. I was telling you to put them back. We keep everything on this $100,000 number. >> Put the curbs back. It's not that number. >> The 130,000 was to take the gen one mountable islands and replace them with Gen 2 mountable islands. all this other stuff. >> Yeah. So, that's what I was saying. The plus plus I mean, if we're talking specifically about the mountable islands, could we be specific about that cost to to alter? >> We're not talking about the amendment isn't to alter them. The amendment is to pull them out. >> I understand that. But the question you asked was financial discussion about why to alter versus remove. And I just want to make sure and maybe I'll shut up. >> If I can speak for Nathan, I think his point was if this is a cost-driven thing about altering or removing, it shouldn't be. It should be uh if you don't like it, take them out. If you if you want them altered, let's talk about that. But it it's it shouldn't be a financial decision to alter them or take them out if what you really want is to take them out. >> Yeah. One one crash is going to dwarf that cost. One one crash on the road will dwarf the cost, >> correct? That >> not not fatality, but one crash. But I expectation to alter to be a decision, right? If you're worried about altering, if you want to alter or consider it or to consider trying that out, don't remove that because it cost an extra $60,000 because the ramification of it being the wrong decision $60,000 that that to vote on the amendment? Any objection? Voting on the amendment. Okay. So, the amendment is the blue line. You're moved first. >> What? I'm tired of that. Too many words, too many syllables. I had

it at the beginning and I lost. Those in favor of the amendment, please say I. I >> those opposed. >> Are you in favor? Uh, okay. That's the new motion. Ready to vote. Is there an objection to voting? Okay. Is it okay? Got it. Go ahead. >> Cheros. Council member Menzel >> in favor. >> In favor >> in favor. >> Okay. Uh the amended motion passes. Staff, you have uh your marching orders. If uh get done as much as you can. Again, I recommend starting with at the top of the list on this one because I've had enough. We will live and die with that decision. Okay. Forward. Uh, next on our agenda is fence regulations. We're actually only on first reading for this, so maybe we can save the heavy lifting for next time, but I'm hoping we get to our first reading. Levi. >> Yeah. So, get the microphone. So, this is this is an ordinance that uh was recommended by planning commission. There was there was uh some discussion and was brought up just based upon some issues that the staff has seen and in regulating fences both reviewing you know fence uh permit applications as well as code enforcement issues with fences and

I'm just going to I'm I'm first going to explain kind of sum just summarize what is being proposed and then I've got a few images to to demonstrate um some some of the reasons why. So, currently there's an ordinance uh that along public trails uh the opaque portion of of a fence is limited to 4 feet, the the solid portion, and then you can you can build up six feet, but it needs to be 75% transparent. Um the what's being proposed is that is to raise it to five feet the the opaque portion. So you can you can have a 5-ft opaque fence a a res 5 foot fence and then 1 ft above. So, just a modification there, but also to extend these requirements not just along public uh trails, but along public streets to to enhance visibility of sidewalks adjacent to fences. Um, and then the next one and and ju and just to be clear, and I wasn't here when this was originally adopted, this this provision of the code, the the 4ft limit, but what I've been told and and what I gleaned from that, and it makes sense that this this is the reason is to increase the visibility along trails so you don't have this this alleyway corridor where you you can't see what's going on um along trails. And it it's really an effort to improve safety, improve visibility, more eyes on the on the in these areas. uh and in general and I'll I'll show on some some other uh images here. We've seen different applications uh go actually be installed and different different heights and it it it was kind of a a back and forth with this. This was kind of a the five feet. I feel like it's a little bit of a compromise where in general you can still see in there five or you can people that are five, you know, 5t tall, 5 and 1/2 ft tall or higher or taller can. But um so that that was kind of a compromise there with with trying to retain some privacy but also have the uh the permeability. Uh there's also in here a provision that they need to adhere to astral standards for intersection visibility. So within within the ordinance uh it references a 40ft clear view triangle to try on along um corners that if you're within that 4ft clear view triangle, you can't have a fence above 4T. Well, we've seen that sometimes there's still some issues with with inter with visibility at intersections. And I'll I'll show you on some pages. So, uh, this originally came from Tom from Merced Engineer that there are some standards on on intersection visibility. And if we do get a fence permit application that's on that that's in an intersection, I would I I review those um as a city planner, but I would probably uh shoot shoot it over to Tom and he would check to make sure it meets those other standards. So, we have our kind of minimum standard of that 44 40ft triangle, but depending on curvature and and how the intersections configured, there may still be uh sight distance issues that that the ASHTO standards would help. Um because there's other variables in play in play there. Uh, this next one, it would be an allowance for 5-ft tall agricultural fences in front yard areas in lots that permit large animals. So, half half an acre. So, and and there's a description there. In general, these do need to be they they can't be opaque, but uh you see it's pretty common. You see like uh agricultural fences typically are taller than 4T. They're typically about 5 ft. And our by our current code, they're not allowed in the front yard area. And in these, you know, more rural kind of agricultural parts of the city on on these larger lots, it seemed appropriate to allow them in those in those context. Um, and because we have we have a threshold for large animals uh within our animal land use code, it made sense to tie it to that. Um, also there's this allowance for temporary fencing for construction sites and special events. Uh we did borrow some language from some other cities on this one, but the the issue here is we just say at all times you have to adhere to these fencing standards when in reality if it's a construction site, it may be that they should have they should have a 6ft fence around it in the front yard area to keep people out. I mean that we just had a construction site over here at Godfrey Orthodontics where they're building they had that technically that there's not really a provision in our code that allows that. So temporary fencing um and then this one. So added fence inspection to ensure compliance of fence standards uh with the fence permit. We we currently require fence permits and but we don't we don't require an inspection. So they they they'll they'll tell us what they're going to build. We'll check to make sure it meets code and then they'll build it. Oftent times it's not quite representative of what they said in their application. And so the only our only recourse is through code enforcement. So we we know it's going to take more staff resources this one to go out and do an inspection rather than just administratively look at it and make sure it meets the code and approve it. Uh but we feel it'll it'll avoid later on having to through code enforcement deal with that. So, um, and then currently there's no there's no fee for, uh, fence fence permit application. There is there is a cost to these. It does take staff time. We're not necessarily suggesting a specific fee at this time. I mean, you you just adopted the consolidated fee schedule. there wasn't a fee in there, but this just opens up the opportunity to charge a fee if we if we want to review that. And the I think the reason there isn't a fee is so that it's not a deterrent to getting a a permit, but uh that that might be something to reconsider. and and at least you could you could consider that the time that you uh adopt a fee schedule rather than having to adopt the ordinance. So that's that's a summary of those. Now I just wanted to explain some of the uh some of the things we're seeing out there. So the the fences you see here, this is a Nibbly Farms. In general, I'll say pretty much every neighbor made some attempt to adhere to our ordinance. Uh but a lot of them didn't. And uh so the the one on the if if you look at the image on the right, the the one with the black slats there, that's about 5t tall opaque. The one on the right, that's about 4 feet tall opaque. So you can kind of see the difference there. And we see a big patchwork throughout the subdivision. I think some people would copy whatever their neighbor did or hey the city the city makes you do something different here. So >> most of them did. >> Well, >> well actually no, I won't say most of them, but half of them did. About half of them did. A lot of them, a lot of them, I think, had a conversation with their neighbor and they copied whatever their neighbor did. But some of them got a fence permit and they installed a fence that wasn't quite representative of what they were approved for. And so that's what the the um inspection would would help with is, hey, finish your fence. We'll come out. will measure it. And so, uh, this this one is really speaking to two provisions of the ordinance. Like I just pointed out, this fence is compliant with our our code. It is outside the 40ft clear view triangle primarily because the park strip is so wide there and the clear view triangle isn't measured from the property line. It's measured from the roadway. So if you uh so yeah but but the issue with that is when you stop at that stop sign you see a fence. So you got to creep forward to >> Yeah. >> to be able to to be able to see around it. And so we >> Right. Right. And so Tom Tom suggested Right. So Tom suggest the Ashtto standards would help with that. We'll we'll see, you know, I think we'll try it and see what comes out of it. Um, we could we could get more specific. We could start measuring from the property line and say, "Okay, it can't be within a certain distance of the property line." But I I saw this one. I had to approve this one recently. I didn't I I saw it as a problem, but it adhered to our standards, so it was approved. This is just a There's There's plenty of these around town. This is a agricultural fence in a front yard area sort of but kind of yeah I mean something that looks kind of like that. It could be a three rail fence. It could be uh it could be some something else, but but uh we've definitely had some people come in that want to put something like this in their front yard area and we said no 4 feet at least for the first 30 ft of your property. You're limited to that and this would open it up for for them a little bit. So that's it. Uh, planning commission and staff both recommend approval of this ordinance. >> Okay. Questions for anything? >> Yeah. Uh, we Yeah, that's it could be discussion. Um, I notic it didn't specifically mention who does the inspecting. It's by the city staff, but is was there a conversation about who staff wants to do it or should be or just leave it open? >> I I would probably say leave it open. It could I mean I think we I think we get that that would just be assigned. Could be a building inspector. It could be it could be myself. It could be our code enforcement officer. I I don't know. it it's really looking at the plan, making a few measurements, just making sure that it it adheres. I don't think you need a certain certification to do that or anything. >> You need to know the code. >> You need to know the code and you need to know what you're looking at. I think I I could think of probably four individuals on staff that would probably be fit to do that. Four or five individuals. Uh and to clarify current ordinance has planning commission excuse me

serving as any kind of appeals that people have now or >> oh yeah that's that is a little odd that came up in our training. So there's one the one thing that I could find in code that the planning commission is the appeal authority meaning they act in a quasi judicial manner is for fence permits >> so if they don't like we haven't had one since I've been here but if they don't like that I the decision that I made on a fence it goes to planning commission You said it's the only place the state code says they can be. >> No, it's the only place in our code that designates them as the appeal authority. They can be probably for other things maybe, but but they're not. Yeah. So when a person comes in to get a permit defense is part of that requirement that that they understand the code. I mean that some does somebody review that with them so they know when they walk out okay this is this is what it is. So I mean is it is it survey they know or do we teach them or have time to speak? >> They don't have to do that. We do have within the permit application some specific standards written there, but really at the end of the day, if they meet the code, they could build the fence. So, they propose all kinds of different treatments and then before it's approved, I'll give them comments and say, "Well, it it's too tall in this location or you need to move it from this lo location." And then they need to propose something that does meet the code. If they come forward, oftent times they probably have never read the code. they're building a fence that they just want to build. And if it meets the code, I'm not sure if they need to be familiar with with all the other provisions. I mean, maybe it's an opportunity to educate them, but uh they they just need to meet the code to get the permit. Um, I'll jump in. I I I really appreciate the elevation change, ground level elevation change getting dealt with because people landscape up to the fence and then it drops down just beyond the fence and then that essentially gives them a way to violate the fence height or the whole p height as they're measuring ground level up. Now we're using that average by >> Yeah. >> on each side. >> And that's currently in the code. Yeah. I I will say it wasn't effectively being applied in some locations because all we did we put a statement in there that referenced it um in the permit application, but now we've added something that asks if there's a difference in elevation 10 ft. So, so they have to think about it a little more and more deliberately answer the question and and if we're inspecting it, we'll see it when we're out there. >> Yeah. Yeah. This is this just take this takes an average, but farms farms. Walking along, I'm seeing all these goofy fences like you feel. I need to quit. I need to give up on perfection cuz I'm walking along and it's like there's the perfect fence. It's a uh it's a tall enough fence to keep the dog in, but it's it's a transparent. It's not chain link. It was rod iron. >> Rod iron. Yeah, I saw that one. that I wish there was someone in the backyard that I could wait. It's that kind of fence that uh let's see Hila Packer and the Oh, that was this morning's me. I described this during the storm about how light industrial candy makes it, right? But it was like that that's what builds our community. I believe trails have the potential to be the replacement for what front porches used to be where people used to sit on the front porch and wave and chat say hi to these people as they walk by. And again, in my puny mind, I dream of trails being the modern-day version of where people are in their backyard with your kids and dogs doing whatever. Somebody walks by, you don't have to stop and chat, you're out for a walk. At least you acknowledge one another and and you realize you're part of the same community. And it's that kind of fence that that uh transparent run fence that that made me feel that way. I know our code isn't going that far, but that's that's utopia for me. Yeah, I think I think that's great. I think we also hear from a lot of people that I wish I could just completely fence it in because I just want privacy and that's >>

3,000 to 4500 400 to 6,000 and so forth. No more no more than 40% of the lots could fall within that range. So the intent there is that you don't have uh the vast majority within a a certain range. So it would provide for more variety and in lot

sizes than currently. Uh however also with this in order to allow the math to work basically would be to remove the minimum lot size and frontage requirements and and so this would this was necessary to allow flexibility in design to facilitate the variation in the lot sizes. Not to say that we there couldn't be something crafted that also includes some consideration for minimum lot size, but the just in summarize some of the feelings that coming from the planning commission, the uh in general the the cap on the number of lots, the density remains the same. And so kind of the the way the discussion went with the planning commission was well the impact you know to traffic and infrastructure and all those things doesn't necessarily change all that much depending on the lot size. It's really the number of lots. So that that's really the factor is is just the number of lots. There's there there's more but there's more flexibility with the lot sizes. Although they do need variation. So they can't just put all in one corner, you know, one lot size. They they would have to have that variation. And then also there would the uh and I I feel like this is this is also important with by lifting the minimum lot size is to adopt a minimum buildable area standard of 1500 square ft for all lots. And this is just to ensure lots are buildable considering setback requirements. Uh we've we've seen some issues even with the current code. If there's oddly shaped lots or they're on they're on an arterial road for example and so we've got a 35 ft minimum setback that that buildable area is is pretty small and and difficult um to build on. And so that that that's in these as well. I don't think I'm not going to go over these slides. We did other than just to say we did get a lot of u good comments from a couple of designers um and developers that I think I think were thoughtful and and they're in the packet and you could you could consider those. Um,

the planning commission and staff's recommendation is is approval of of this ordinance. Uh, I will say something else and and I don't know, Nick, you might want to get into this. Something else that was considered at length with the planning commission is whether or not the open space subdivision should continue to be an administrative decision or if it should be a legislative decision. So should it be like an overlay for example? And in general the planning commission, you know, they went back and forth on this, but but in general they they concluded that they we want more we want to encourage open space subdivisions. We want to encourage preservation of open space. And if we if we make it a legislative decision, that'll be a deterrent for subividers to to pursue this this avenue. And so anyway, that that isn't included in the current draft. And I think I think I I would say that's kind of the primary reason is just to to streamline it. uh not not make it a barrier so that it isn't enticing um alternative to to just a standard subdivision. >> Thanks. >> Yep. >> Questions before we debate. Uh I'll thanks for talking about the last thing I think I've talked in here about it. Um I think we've done some good work on open space subdivisions. Um, I think I think the list of things that you only have to do three of to be called an open space subdivision um, frankly no longer justifies the density bonus. It's too easy >> and and so I'm not sure if Well, my first preference, and you've already addressed it, thank you, is this would become a legislative decision. And the reason I think it should be a legislative decision is because uh the number one thing in a what do we call open space subdivision? >> Mhm. >> Is to decide what's important to the community. Right? So, we have individual property rights and we have the rights of the community. So the number one thing and it should be from start to end is what's important to the in to the community to preserve it. It might be a stand of cotton trees, cottonwood trees, might be moving houses back off of a road. It might be mitigating uh houses from existing subdivisions. It might be it might buffering. It might be, it might be, it might be. But all too often developers don't want to approach the open space subdivision with that as priority. They want to approach it with I want to get a 40% density bonus or whatever whatever. And so what three things off the list can I do to earn the 40% uh the 40% bonus, right? So we've we've what's important to the community depends on who you ask. And so somebody I wish I think should be empowered to negotiate on behalf of the people that will be impacted by this or perceived impact. That's fine. Um, and so I mean I get it that um, it is an impediment. It's another hoop to jump through. In fact, it's the worst kind of hoop to jump through because it's an unknown hoop. We can do a lot of work on this. I mean, we could do concept plans and mitigate the risk to a developer and so on and so forth, but um they don't know how long or even if the legislative body is going to say, "Yeah, we'll do that." And so it's a it's a serious impediment. Um I'm not sure if the remedy is to come up with a better list or make him do more. I I don't know. I've I've watched this I've watched this uh or this type of ordinance evolve for 15 years and I think we started in a great place and slowly and no fault of yours and no fault of anybody I think we have evolved to a point that the community has lost the ability to negotiate

what should be preserved. Um last general plan we seriously contemplated not allowing any development in unless it was a conservation subdivision. No whether that's legal so on and so forth. We said hey we like this approach so well that maybe that's the only way to develop that was before multif family and there's open space in multifamily and RM and that kind of stuff too. So, some of those concepts are certainly included. Um, but maybe it's run its course. Maybe it did what it was supposed to. And I mean, Fields was was an indication. Let them have R2A and be done with it. Everyone else live almost everyone else around there lives in R2A. Just give them R2A and be done with it. quit screwing around trying to trying to mitigate the impact because well we heard from people no way that they would accept the 5,000 square foot lot no way and it was also other things about variation everything but I've seen this over and over and over uh Cottonwoods was a great example people look at an open space subdivision plot and the only thing they see is the size of the lot the minimum size of the lot even with variation even with whatever or whatever the minimum size lot, you're going to devalue my property. They don't see any open space. They don't see the value of the open space. The Cottonwoods developer actually built a little panorama. Go make little horses out in pasture. I said, "Look, this is what it's going to look like. Try to envision this, right?" I'm not sure. We approved it. We approved it as a legislative action group and I don't know. I don't know what to do, but I think we have lost the ability to negotiate uh mitigations to the surrounding neighbors. So, it might work out in the place where nobody's ever built anything and there are no neighbors to mit to to impact. I don't know what to do. You got any ideas, Levi?

mayor um no two open space proposals are the same and no two ideas of what good open space is the same we're not actually proposing anything yet motion you make a

motion to continue resolution would you be willing to ask for first reading. >> Oh, I aside agenda. >> Yeah, that's right. >> Let me motion to pass the first reading and a second. Uh so Scott about that motion. >> Yeah, I I'll start. Um all the things that have been said, but what we have in front of us is still better than our current. So I don't want it to but I think it's it behooves us to this is kind of matched with our general plan. I think that unfortunately with this code it's very connected to our identity as was talked about over here >> and it's become that way. Yeah. >> And uh I tend to lean towards what Nick just said that I think it's time to write some tourism and and there's no reason for some we know what we want some circumstances and we know what needs to be legislated in others. And I think it's important to remember that like developers aren't all the same, right? Some come in and they just sell lots. Some come in and they build the entire thing. Uh some are small, some are big. Uh and I've learned that there's a lot of development agreements now cuz like the whole state that's just how we decide what goes where now. So it's we're legislating all the time. Um, but in recent conversations, development agreements go both ways. Uh, in that someone who wants to do something outside of our code will come in and say, "Hey, let us do this. It's not what you want. It's not what you ask for. We're not following your code. Give us give us some some leeway here or we're going to shop to the next."

as the chair. Any objection? Any discussion? Thank Thank you, gentlemen. Appreciate that.

It's important. It's important. Any objection to voting? >> Yeah. First reading, second reading. Uh I'm going to ask S to uh amend the motion to second. Is there objection? Okay. So, this is Wait a second now on top of the other thing. Okay, let's vote. Sarah, will you call roll, please? >> In favor. >> In favor. >> Thank you. >> Uh motion passes five to zero. Thank you. >> What do you guys want to do with item 13? >> Yeah, I mean I'm happy to say it's awesome. Claire, are you giving up a ghost? >> Yeah.

should take a bigger role there, etc., etc. But just letting you know if you have any inputs on a bunch of any of those things that uh we need to be coordinating with our neighboring cities on I'm probably the guy with Justin talking to them and happy to have you give us advice for that. Um Justin, I'm gonna I I threw out something about maybe we need to have meet uh you know some offline meetings two at a time 2 to one about the big meeting today.