Nibley City Planning Commission

Yeah. October 23

meeting of the Nibley City Planning Commission here at Nibley City Hall. Go ahead and meet your meeting with with Volcom.

Brad.

Nick Keska. Leave it Robert City planner?

Sure. Thank you,

everybody.

We'll go ahead and move forward to item number two on the agenda, which is the approval of the August 28 and September 18 meeting minutes and the current agenda that you have for us.

I'll make a motion to approve both agenda or both minutes from the twenty eighth and also September 18, Also, the agenda of current agenda.

K. Motion to approve of approval. Second. Second by Troy. K. We have a motion for approval for tonight's agenda, including the pri previous two meeting minutes. Just go go to vote all in favor. Aye. Aye. None opposed. Okay then. So we'll go to item number three on the agenda, which is a training for the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act.

Lead us into to portray your continue. This this counts now.

We've watched it three times. Yeah. So enjoy your popcorn while you're watching. I

pushed the wrong button. Oh. This one? It's the eight minute one. Right there? Is it wait a second. There it goes. Can I Just let's make this bigger?

No. It's Brandon.

Oh,

why did the sound go away when I did that? Wait. Let's see here.

Sorry.

I

mean weird. I mean, I guess I can just go back. No. Sound. Every machine says the sound is on. Gonna leave it there.

Do you have any questions? You can always tell what's new in that training based on the sound quality going a little wacky. So the new new provision is kind of, like, going a little bit back in time, step back in time. They require that the meeting schedule be posted at the physical location on the public meeting website and on the public notice website and on the city's website. So I was just commenting to our staff today that we are running out of bulletin board space because there are so many posters that are fired in. They're just kind of I don't know that I've seen in person actually stop without bulletin board before, but we post it as required by law. Also, since we have two potential council members sitting here, closed meetings must be labeled as closed meetings. They can't be called executive sessions. They can't be called closed sessions. It is a closed meeting, and it can only be closed for those five purposes that are outlined. Nibley City makes it a point to always put those on the agenda and the exact reason the meet meeting's being closed. There are some entities that kind of put a blanket statement on their agendas that they may close this meeting. That is really not appropriate to take place and it is not considered open in public. So, I also wanted to note that the planning commission is the most transparent of both public entities. Well, there's three with the parks and rec advisory committee because you guys post your agendas on Friday before your meetings. And so you're meeting the council by about four days. But that's part of your procedures. The county just has a little bit different procedures. So if you don't have any questions for me, I have questions for you. The mayor insisted upon a test. So okay. I

have a question. What are the questions?

I guess that can't be posted within three days, but after approval, they're not being approved until the next Meeting. Next meeting. So we're posting early. Is that still okay? Yes. That's fine.

Yeah. Pending Pending minutes. Minutes, you have thirty days to post those. We're way above that. It's typically a week or so. Once they're approved, you have three days. And this already

Mhmm.

Yep. Does this count number any This counts as your training. We are going to we've just gone through our city audit, and the auditors ensure that our public bodies have been trained in the open and public meetings act. And we're just kind of ahead of the game. So next year, when we go to do our audit, we will say you've been trained, and then we have your training for the next year. So it just kinda goes that way. I've done training with myself, but if you want to view the eight minute video, you get popcorn. So you guys can get direction on how how you prefer to be trained. We could also give you training on grandma. We could probably get you to that full hour breadth pretty easily, especially if we increase the. But this is the only training that's required by law.

K. K. Who who is the audit of the ACT that all gets serviced? We audit ourselves? We audit ourselves. Yeah. We hire an auditor to call, basically. No.

Yeah. But they're not looking at our whole work for each other. We're just Yeah. Yeah. Can we can we do one ourselves?

I just just one minor correction. It's it's the only one required by law in general for the public bodies, but the planning commission has four hours of extra training. So that's what

Brett was alluding to. Yeah. Yeah. So Sorry. I didn't speak there.

Yeah. Four hours plus because you have this plus the the the four hours really are other topics.

And and then do you mean the city council values the planning commission so much? You've you've been given a handful, especially with new state requirements. You've said you received most of our public hearings and, Nibley City goes above and beyond in transparency by several times having a second public hearing when you guys have had to hear the public and it's contentious. We want the public to understand that, yes, we're here to listen to you. So we decide to hold that second public hearing, but we do appreciate that you're taking that on. And and what's how to say is frustrating in the memo record is that you guys didn't run for an election for this. You were appointed. And when you run for run to be elected, you're kinda signing up for that. Yeah. And this is just get kind of been placed on your shoulders. So I I appreciate that. I know our council appreciates that. So with that, I don't have chocolate because behind you is chocolate. A question correctly, feel free to grab chocolate. Not sure. Okay. Which of the following is not a justification for closing meeting to discuss the character, competence, or health of an individual to hold investigative proceedings regarding allegations of criminal misconduct, to interview a person applying to fill an elected position, or to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation? And just raise your hand. Troy. C. Yes. The answer is C. Grab yourself a candy bar. Regular open and public meetings require twenty four hours notice. The public notice includes the meeting agenda, date, time, and place. Notices posted at the Utah Public Notice website, the public body's website, and in a public location, such as the location where the meeting will be held. True or false? Troyer is his hand. He gets the candy bar. When a public body or forum, also known as a simple majority, meets to discuss or act upon government business, it is considered a public meeting to revolt.

Yes. True. Yeah. True. The answer is true. Thank you.

This one is my favorite. A majority of the governing board governing board members attend the same church and may be in the same room at the same time. What should they do? A, have some governing body members fight a different church. B, make sure enough governing body members will not attend the same week. C, provide notice of a public meeting, or B, nothing of this falls within a chance or social meeting exception. D. Thank you. Nick gets the candy bar. It is D. Oh, skipped.

Hey.

The recording must be complete and unedited record of all all proportions of the meeting from beginning to end and be labeled with the meeting date, time, and place. The public meeting public notice website accepts files up to 200 megabytes. You you do not typically have this problem, but other public bodies' meetings go very, very long, and I have to break those recordings up in order to house them on the public notice website. If they are too big, we have to pay for that storage and provide the link. So I try to ensure that we can keep them small enough, though we don't have to pay for that extra storage. But I always make sure the recordings are stopped in a in a in a place where it is very obvious that there was nothing missed Yeah. In between the recordings. Sometimes it's in the middle of a sentence, or sometimes it's compose recording? Can I what? Zip them? So they're smaller. They're very large. And and I'm not sure you can zip them because you do have to place the link on the website. And

is a zip considered a link? It links to front link. Front link. Front link. Front link. I'll

have to try that on some of these recordings that are just barely over that 200 because that would be so nice. We we put them in a Dropbox and place the Dropbox link on the public website.

Appreciate detail there. 10:00. Yeah. This much. Good. If you didn't

if he wasn't strategic about it.

Seriously, just have a little clock. Like, that that cost is $6.

After meeting the candidate this evening, I did suggest to the mayor that we have a block count done for the council members. He said no. Governing body may not take any vote during any closed meeting unless it's a vote to end the closed portion of the meeting and return to an open meeting. Answer is true. If a new topic not on the agenda is raised by the public body during an open meeting, the governing body may discuss the topic. However, final action may not be taken on a new topic during that meeting.

True. True. Also true. It's true. So it's in what agenda?

You can talk about it. They can talk about it. Yeah. Yep. Within three business days after approving written minutes of an open meeting, make approved minutes in any public material available at the Utah Public Notice website, the entity's primary office, and the entity's website. True or false? True. They've all been true. That's the end of your test. You guys passed. You have to get 80% or above and according to my calculation, Joel did that. If you would like a certificate or need to provide it to any other public entities, I can get that certificate for you. Otherwise, I just create a certificate and put it in a file that I can provide to the auditor's office.

K? Thank you. Congratulations.

Thank you, Cheryl.

Sure. You have to not lose you choose to be in this meeting. This when when our meeting's over, sometimes we stick around business. We stick around, and we still have passion. Mhmm. Yeah. Which is okay if there's two of you. Passion.

Really. Right? Yeah. There's there's if there's Breaking up. You'll you'll you'll notice that I kinda start sidling over, and I'm not noticing and yeah.

Another question I have is, you know, I see these things, though. I'm not seeing the gals and crazy that's going on. They always got not always the especially the bigger city to have attorneys in the meeting. Yeah. When you say the attorneys, do we do that at all? Is our city attorney ever

regularly attend? Only when it's needed for a certain agenda item. Not regularly.

Did you see that? Probably get there at some point. Okay.

Yeah. I'm being belligerent. Probably, when they kicked him out, then his beer came up and started being I guess, because they they were using curse words, and some law says that curse words don't technically count as, like, uncouth behavior Mhmm. In public meeting or something. And this guy was a civil attorney, and they kicked him out. And then he basically filed a lawsuit to the council. That's crazy. Yeah. So, yeah, I think it's interesting. So

Yeah.

I would have to

No. It's it's coming out soon. Yeah. I do know under our open

public comment period, there are stipulations that you can't be negligent or be be grading or anything to the members of the public body, but I don't know how legally standing that is.

But if you're if you're broadcasting like we do Mhmm. That's a that's a violation of the FCC Yeah. Languages.

Or pictures. Because you can be buying.

A good point. I think you you remember that one. Yeah.

Yeah. We had language and pictures. Oh,

really? We

don't do the public anymore. That's why That's why we're on YouTube. Right?

Weren't those kids, like, in the East Coast too or something like that?

Yeah. We don't know where they're first. But yeah. Grandma will, like,

The the note that Brett brought up also applies to email as well. So you should not be emailing Bree. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. We can, you know, we can get information out to you. Like, hey. There's this thing's coming up or, you know, something like that, but nothing that should be discussed in a public meeting. Yeah. Open debate shouldn't happen by email. Right. Right. It shouldn't be like a conversation going on.

K. Anything else for sharing?

Thank you. Welcome. Appreciate it. Mhmm. K. We'll move on to the next item on the agenda, which is item number four, which is a workshop or open space subdivision code back to our good friend. Yeah.

I just wanted to report on what I've done so far on this that and and just bounce off kind of one draft. I I think there were different ideas expressed, and and so if this doesn't hit the mark, you know, this is, like, as rough of a draft as you can get and just based on some of that discussion and and some of the comments that were made. So I think this first one, though, I feel like is pretty straightforward. And, I mean, we can we can tweak it if you think it doesn't quite hit the mark or the intent, but the rest of it probably needs a little bit more critique. Increased so increased setbacks for side and rear yards above property with greater setback requirements. So side yards have increased to 10 feet and rear yard yards have increased to 25 feet, which is really what it typically is in the underlying zone. So I can pull up the the code the specific code language. This next one would require variation in lot sizes for all subdivisions with 40 or greater lots. So and and this came from a suggestion from Troy, but but there was a lot of discussion just in general amongst the group of having more variation in lot sizes. So no more than 40% of lots could fall within a range of 1,500 square feet. So that would require at least, you know, three different lot sizes, more or less, within that 1,500 range. So it it would kinda force some some variation. But on the flip side, what it does do, it what what is in this current draft is that we would remove the minimum lot size and frontage requirements. So we could and and just to may we could dabble in this if we want to, if we think, oh, that's just too small or, you know, we don't want we don't want want lots that small. But in general, you know, this was necessary just to allow the flexibility. When if you're going to if we're going to require this variation, we can't really put them into a corner on on the specific size of of lot they need to have. Like I said, we can we can have some parameters if you wanna go there, but just looking at the in the ordinance, at the end of the day, the same number of lots would be allowed. It's just there there'd be variation in how big they are. So you could you could, even in, you know, in our one zone, for example, have a very small lot under under the way the or the draft ordinance is written. But there probably wouldn't be much of an incentive to do that because you're already capped on the number of lots. So but it just allows for that flexibility. Technically, we already have this flexibility baked into the cluster subdivision code, which hasn't been used hardly at all, at least not recently. Stonebridge is the last one. But, anyway, so that's that's in the current draft. And then, this this next one just suggested by staff when with this flexibility in the in the lot size just to adopt a minimum buildable area of at least 1,500 square feet. And this is just so that lots are buildable considering setback requirements. So in some cases, there's additional setbacks, like if it's on an arterial road or if it's adjacent to a certain zone, where it really shrinks the the building footprint, and that becomes difficult to build on. So if a subdivider comes in, we just don't want them to be in a position where it's not feasible to build. I mean, 1,500 is small, but it's not I I think it's a reasonable size that you can at least build something on there, you know, a house on there. That's just that would just be the bare minimum. So that that's what staff has put in there so far. I know we discussed in the last meeting maybe working with the developer, someone to sketch something up. Haven't done that yet. We we could go there if you think we're kind of hitting the mark here, but just wanted to kinda bounce this off the planning commission first to see if we think this is along the lines of of where we're headed or or if we wanna go in a different direction.

Great. Thank you.

Oh, and I'll just pull up the the code. I mean, there's kind of the sum the summary is pretty pretty brief, but the Then We can nit we can nitpick the code. I mean, you don't have to wordsmith every little thing, but but just if there's something you wanna change or do differently or just have any feedback,

We can talk about that. The 10 p 25 p is based off of an existing subdivision?

Yeah. So that's the standard setback requirements for r two a, r two

If it's next subdivision. If it's next to a existing

Yeah. So the way it I was trying to craft the language so that it

Because of its 10 feet. You capture that intent. On the side yard, you got 10 feet on your property and eight feet of that. Mhmm. 80 feet of nowhere where we should work.

Yeah. But this I mean, this is this is just what was discussed as

a because it I mean, I agree.

Yeah.

Yeah. I mean, that's this time.

Yeah. But if it's even this meeting, if it's their if it's their if their side yarder doesn't really matter if it's backyard, it might be an issue. Does that make sense?

Yeah. So the way the way it's written, it says greater distance required. This this is for the 10 feet. For any side yard which abuts existing property with residential zoning that requires a minimum setback of 10 feet or greater for side yard interior. So so just if if the if the adjacent property has that setback, then you think you gotta match it.

Three fifty.

And it just it it sets it at ten and twenty five. We could go we could say it just needs to match it, But in general, I think ten and twenty five is adequate. This is against existing. Yeah. There's gonna be there's some zoning where we have a 30 foot rear yard or a and a 15 foot side yard, but there's there's few of those. And I feel like in those cases, 10 and 25 is gonna be Oh, 10 enough anyway. The 25 is standard. Yeah.

Perfect.

Yeah. So it just it's just baked into there on the setbacks where it there are lower setbacks. It just increases it. And that's just to address those those comments that were made of you know, in in that when that subdivision if the field subdivision came through that, oh, well, they're gonna have a five five foot setback. It's gonna be right there, and, you know, that's it it would increase that to to 10 on the side yard and then and then increase it from 15 to 25 on the rear yard. They'd have to design around that. You know, maybe maybe those lots would be the ones that'd be a little bigger.

But they could they could put cement on the I can't think. Or Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. We're we don't stop anyone from putting It's just a building like that or something.

Well, it's it's actually the the a shed has looser setbacks, but it's the it's the home. It's really the primary dwelling

that these setbacks apply to. Shads, can you can you go five? Because it is lowest 500 sheds.

They're one foot on the rear, three foot on the side, but it depend I mean, there's a lot of depends on the height of the shed, then it goes to 10 if it's over 15 feet high. A lot of people have public utility easements on their property, so that becomes more restrictive and there's anyway

That's that's has not presumed on. It's a back end.

Yeah. Yeah. The the corner lots are tricky because you can't be on either you can't you can't be near either street because you can't be in the front yard or the front yard or the side yard street if you're a shed. But, anyway so that's that's what's in there.

That's my only question. I would I'm okay with setting.

What about do we wanna I mean, in some ways, given what we saw originally, this almost kind of is like a its own zone. You know? Do Do we wanna entertain the idea of making this, like, remember our RMs to be a mat and all wheel? Do we wanna keep you I guess my question is, should this be a legislative thing? Because is should it be legislative in the context of there's the community around a area that stands to be built? Do we want that to happen? But I feel like this is valuable open space. Would we want more legislative body to treat this as such as those, like, a unique organs on in and of itself given density perceived density impact to a preexisting neighborhood? Because, frankly, if we wanna do that, then I'd say match the setbacks and everything else is fine.

We can state should the public have

an opinion?

What the tools it is? It it kind of. Like, should we make this a legislative thing process so that we can allow like, let's say, this is going into the pre near our preexisting meeting directly adjacent.

Should the public be able to provide input

where they feel like this would be valuable open space to preserve? I think that mean? One field.

I'm a few boarding editor. That's what the public hearing is.

Right? They can Well, so the public hearing is, hey. We're gonna zone this to R 2 A, and and then after that, it's

basically administrative. I mean, they wanna do this. Right? Right. So so the way it's set up now, it's it's a little it may be a little bit different process than, for example, Brett, you had to go through with your subdivision because city council doesn't get involved, and there's not a whole lot of negotiation. And part of that happened because of the state changing their rules on subdivisions. And we and the open space subdivision, the conservation subdivision, it was never an overlay. It was never a zone. So it wasn't it was never really a legislative decision. It was a bit of a negotiation, and and there was more I feel like there was more in the past public opportunities for the public to voice their opinions about it, then maybe it is now because it's an administrative approval. So, really, as long as they have the underlying zoning that's set up, it comes to planning commission. Planning commission approves it. It never goes to city council. And then once planning commission approves the preliminary plot, it's staff approval, that final plot. So it the only time it goes to council or to sit to city council I guess yours would have anyway because you dedicated open space to the city so that, I guess, that the public might have a chance to there. But, I think what maybe what, what Nick's suggesting as an option is either it become a a zone in of itself or or an overlay. I think I think the way it's set up, it probably makes more sense if you're gonna go that route that it'd be an overlay. I think the only thing I would caution on that is if this is something we really wanna push and we wanna encourage developers to do, if we add that extra layer of kinda subjectiveness in in the approval, yeah, you might get approval. You might not.

There might not be as many of them that wanna do it. Yeah. I guess I asked a question. It is such a stark it could be such a stark contrast in a transitioning development from an r two even to something like this. It's just I don't know if it makes sense that this would be more of a legislative body decision of, like, yeah. We look at the plan and collect it and let you know what I mean? Versus, like, once they get r two a, it's just it's that's underlying zoning set. The legislative body by yes saying yes to an r two a change in zone. We don't know if we're getting R two a as we think it is or R two a under this. It's you know what I mean? That's why I I guess I asked a question like that just to Levi, can you speak to

the difference between what this currently is versus an overlay, like, how those two differ? Really, the only difference would be the it would add an extra step in the process of legislative. And, I mean, unless we go unless we and let, zone that out front and proactively decide this is where things are gonna go. This is where we wanna open space out. I guess the city could do that. But if we're just gonna have it as a potential tool, the applicant has to come in. It would be similar to the RPD process where they come in with an application. They gotta convince you and the council that they've got a good plan or or that it's a good place for this. And then and and then that's a discretionary decision. Yes or no. And then and then they go through the subdivision process. So it adds an extra layer of of process, and it and that layer of process, I feel like some developers, property owners would shy away from it because they there's some risk there whether it's going to get proved. Now I guess if if maybe there's not maybe they don't have to bring a whole design. Maybe they just ask, hey. I wanna do an open space subdivision. It could be relatively quick process. But I think I think people are kinda wanna know what it looks like.

Kinda. I mean, I it's kind of assuming. Right? Like, hey. If you wanna do an open space neighborhood, that means this is gonna need quite a bit of time to get to the belt. Yeah. I think I just think because it's such potentially a stark dramatic contrast in density, you know, as as they're kinda butt up against the neighborhood that's quarter third half maker, just allowing the legislative body to do one extra step.

Right? Yeah. That's an option.

But just because then it's not because then it's coming to this commission.

Yeah. I mean, just a little bit of history. I mean, that several of these have been approved without that. And I I know they haven't in the r two a zone, but there's there hasn't been any more density added to these to the neighborhoods of all these other ones that have come in compared to the underline you know, the surrounding neighborhoods underlying zoning than what's already in here. There's a little more flexibility, but the you're capped at 40% at at most additional lots than what you would at the underlying zone. So

But we know I don't it's a perception thing. It is. It is. Yeah. But That's really what we're getting down to is Right. I I guess I'm I guess I'm what I'm saying is

is there is what we've done really broken in that respect of allowing it as administrator? I mean, I mean, I know we had that one example where maybe that that would've made sense to have I mean, it was already a legislative decision anyway because they had to rezone it to r two a, and then they denied it. So

Is a concept plat required at a zone re zoning change replacement?

No. It's not required. To be honest, when when this applicant came in, I suggested that he go through that process in tandem because he was already told twice or he's already told no twice, and they didn't know what they were really gonna get. And I said, well, show them what they're gonna get. And Yeah. That I don't know if that told those.

It's got something.

So I don't know.

It's a it's a double edged sword, but they don't they don't have to. You're right. Yeah. They don't have to. He could've came with no concept plan. They got it resolved to r two a, and then we would have been done. Yep. Yeah. I just I just wonder It would have gone because the neighborhoods around it were are pretty much our too many. Mhmm.

I just I I I think you have to be careful about the framework of our ordinance, though, because if you're forcing them to go through this legislative process when before it was it was more they had more surety. They kinda knew what they could get out of it. At that point, you're pretty much the same as an RPUD process, which is a little it's a little bit more I mean, you're you're going to get more with an RPUD, generally more density and more, benefit out of that. So I wonder if we would inadvertently push people into those kind of developments rather than an open space subdivision if we add that extra layer. So I was trying to

was it? Yeah. It's been for the middle of the just 30. What's there for the city? What's best thing for the city? I kinda like having the ability to say to someone that says, hey. I wanna I wanna change the zoning to to a well, okay. What's in it for us? If you're not in the middle of the space that envisioned in You know? No. In my end. So, you know, just having more houses isn't in the best interest in the city in my opinion. And so I like having that that sort of okay. It's condition just this zone chain, we condition on if you use open space to set a vision. I want that,

in my opinion. Which version? Well, Matt and that's what was recommended with that last one. Yeah. But I wonder if that's a little different than what Nick is talking about, though, because that you're you're saying that they would have to do an open space. They they'd be forced to do an open space subdivision, not that they would have it's almost the flip side. You in in your case, they have to go through this extra process, but but what you're talking about, Brett, is we want to encourage that. We wanna encourage the open space subdivision.

So if they're gonna do From which base is on R 2?

Yeah. Yeah. Or you have to figure it out.

But I think it's a win win doing that because if we get the, you know, just the more housing for the for what happening people. Right? And we get the open space. That's it. Yeah.

Tom Tom, I'll be thinking about open space. You go through neighbors and saw everybody's boats and trailers with backyard stuff. So this is what a larger lot here for open space. Yeah. It got me thinking about I don't think that's what we mean by open space, this lot side. I think we may, like, park or build or agriculture

or something. And that's the other issue, you know, what qualifies someone's face. Yeah. Yeah. And that's gotta be considered by who's who's who's gonna confirm that.

So you still under two. That's why I still think because of this r two a, then maybe density is not the right word. Maybe it's just not a lot. You know? Mhmm. And then is this open space to be really feeling that it's bad? Sitting or such as whatever. You know what I mean? That's why I kinda wanna see explore the idea. Could this just be an extra step, and then I'll just leave this process. I don't know. But if the city's given a property,

then who No. Not that either. That's maintenance and care and

Well and that has to go to city council. If if if they're saying, hey. You wanna give us to the city? Like, we we're not just gonna you guys you guys can accept that gift. The the city council has to because it comes with all the maintenance and And it should. Yeah. Yeah. So you now you what you could do is you could recommend that like, let's say they come in and they they don't wanna give the open space to the city, and and you see that it would be a benefit, you could recommend that they're required to give it to the city Yeah. And then it would be subject to city council reviewing that.

Could they be a conservation lot?

Yeah. Well yeah. But you guys could approve that. Planning commission could approve that.

The way it's currently have the option. How was the directions?

Mhmm. And that's and it's currently written that way. Yeah. Sure. But yeah. But, really, if they check the boxes, then planning commission should approve it. Yeah. Yeah.

I wonder, do you feel do you feel like if if we add this additional piece of code where the setbacks have to match, is that gonna essentially deter the potential of having these next to a preexisting? Just because the numbers won't penciled,

what do you think? But No. I don't think so.

It it the gift out here. Yep. They're, like, three lots for four plants. Because they could have put their bigger lots around the existing neighborhood, and they're smaller lots. Yeah. Yeah. It would've it would've affected a,

actually, quite a few of the lots the way this is currently written. It would've given them those rear yard setbacks would've been increased by 10 feet under the way this is currently written. So they would have had to either shrink the footprint of the home or

or increase the lot size. What if the well or If if they're abutting

fish, right, is that

they weren't necessarily biting the fish. They were gonna be a budding tree. Yeah. That was the next question. So the tree Those ones you're right. You're right. So, really, it's just the ones by that cul de sac that would have Yeah. One one to the east. Mhmm. Yeah. Yes. Yep. No. That's a good point. So

How wide is that was that about

10 feet or something? Yeah. Like, fifteen, twenty feet. Doing anything.

Yeah. So

Yeah. Because it's broken down. Yeah.

The And the triplets can't be, isn't it? Is it a max I went to a triplets can't be? Are they wider than that?

That was 20 feet because there was also a I mean, that particular design typically typically, it's, like, 15 feet is what we require, but I think this one was 20 feet because they had a canal, and the e the canal easement required 20 feet. So it was a 20 foot Was that

quarter. Emphasized at any point in the meetings when they The trail? The trail. About, like there is a trail between your back fence and this proposed new subdivision.

I don't I don't know.

I

think so. I don't know if it was in that case. Did we talk about it? I don't think it was a

this is their little trail frame.

I don't know if it would be like I don't know if that was communicated to the public that turned off. Yes. Yeah. No. A good point.

Something else that you could consider that's not in this current draft, if the I mean, we have we have the additional setbacks put in here, and I think, naturally, that will require or they'll they'd probably design larger lots where they have larger setbacks. If there is a concern that about about, smaller lots closer to larger lots, we could say that, okay. If it's close to this lot, it's gotta be within a range of that amount. I mean, that I think there's other ways to try to mitigate things than to send it through the legislative process. And, I mean, I I think at the end of the day, like, to to Brett's point, it's like, what is the city trying to do here? Are we trying to incentivize this to happen more often or or less often? Do we want this to be kind of the default or something that's gonna be difficult in this arduous process that people are gonna have to go through? And I feel like the way it is right now, it's almost it's relatively easy, and the and the there's enough benefit there that it's almost been the default. Like, there's been more of these subdivisions since, like, 2016 than standard subdivisions.

Open space? Yeah.

I think that was kind of one of the goals we have when we look when we're when we've rebooked that, it was, like, how do we set this up to where it's because

it's the default. Or it would it makes

it would be a terrible idea not to do that.

Unless she wanted a subdivision to make axis, which is fine. Oh, yeah. Yeah. And we get those too. We get some they're usually smaller. Usually, the larger scale ones, they they do they either do PUD or open space subdivision because there might not be a market for that many half acre lots.

Yeah. Not not anymore. Not sure in Wales, though. There. Or or Midland. Well, that's changing real quick. What we're seeing. Here's the other one. So

Anyway but what do you guys think about this idea? The it's it's very prescriptive now, the lot sizes and the minimum minimum and average lot sizes and frontages. What do you think about the idea of just scrapping that and allowing for

This is how many you get flexibility. Yeah. Here's your size. Here's how many houses you get.

Yeah. But but requiring the variation. So more focused on variation than really, it's more focused on uniformity now. Because, I mean, that's at least in lot sizes, that's primarily what we're we've seen with the ones that have been developed. The lot site there is some variation there, but but they're pretty uniform. Right? So it's it really it's a different focus if that's if that's what we wanna go for.

Quantity.

Space.

Yeah. And that and that's that's the same in this one. You know, it might be one of those things that kinda I I mean, we we can send this off to to get some feedback on it, but I just and and that would probably be good to do. I think regardless, it's gonna take a we're gonna have to see, like, in the real world how it works.

Yeah. I mean, look. Like, is it if this is the planning commission speaking, our job here is fairly straightforward. Mhmm. Again, it just goes back to what is it I guess it'll just be what is the council what how they wanna administer this, and it's their choice. Mhmm. Our job here is pretty straightforward. It's recommending this, and then we just gotta make sure to convey to the council that and they'll understand this, obviously. Well, and Once they get to RTA, this is gonna this is an option, and we should not stand in the way of

And the the middle of the size of the footprint. And so which means they know the size

the lot size they have to have. So Yeah. I mean, it's math. Right? I mean, we divide it up. And Yeah. So okay. So you're saying did I miss the part where you're saying given the loss size of this is just the number of units? Where are we saying that? No. Chain. None of that's same. So so it So give me a 10 acre net. How many units are there? So

10 acres on for an r two a? After you take out open space, like, give me 10 what's the So net your net acreage is 10 acres, and you're preserving so you've got about three lots per acre. So that gives you 30 as the base. Add 40% to that. That's your that's the maximum you're gonna see. So what is that? 43 lots or something like that? I mean, that's On how many buildable acres? On 10 on 10 So you're taking out Not gross. Net on net. Four for the unit space.

So that's fixed.

Oh, right. Right. Yeah. Fixed acres. Six well, you wouldn't mind it. That that's taking out the roads because you're already at net. So that's six acres of net acreage. You would yeah. You get forty forty three. 40 units? 43 to 45 units? Yeah. So the density I mean, the density doesn't change with this formula. It's just it it just requires more variation, and you might get smaller lots. You might get 3,000 square foot lots and 9,000 square foot lots instead of a bunch of 5,000. Yeah. If it's r two a. Yeah. But that goes across all the other ones as well. So if you if you're gonna go in this direction, which I I mean, I think is a good thing. I I see some of these subdivisions and wouldn't be wouldn't have been a bad thing if if they would have had some more variation rather than just

Yeah. All the same. Yeah.

I mean, I have to I know the math probably wouldn't under the fields where we just saw there. I just like, the outer band, they just would have matched a little rounded. And I think in inside of that development, it went nuts. Mhmm. I even talking to the the that after he said yeah. So

People really care about what's in their backyard. They do?

Yeah.

To me? Or behind their backyard, I should say. Yeah.

So what do they need? Control or hide.

It's the control of the review of their window. Yeah. I mean Yeah.

You keep going What about I mean, I might have cut cut you off. Sorry, Nick. When you you'd you'd about the legislative question. Like, what what do you guys think about that? Should we keep the process the same? Should we make it an overlay? Or

Make an overlay is the way to go.

My favorite, just keeping it at this, like, less red tape. Like, we it if we're requiring red tape, to me, that just says our ordinance is incorrect.

Like, if you have confidence in your ordinance, then you shouldn't be worried, and you should just have the admission.

Especially if if doing that, it takes our top three goals, which is open space and variation of lot sizes and getting our getting our set back where we want them. Yeah. As long as those big three the big three are taken care of, I wanna make it harder for everybody. Yeah. In my opinion. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. Again,

at this level, fine. As long as I guess

yeah. Yeah.

I think we can bring it up regardless of what's recommended regardless of what's recommended. I think when we present that to council, we'll at least say, hey. That's something that was discussed, that was considered, and they can deliberate on as well if they'd like to. But but we can I just think that's just gonna

at that level of it, legislative level, that's just gonna be baked into that decision going to r two then? It just has to be Yep.

Yeah. I mean, if you go to R 2 before before all of this was changed, you go to R 2. It's like you knew it wasn't necessarily going to be half acre lots. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. You know?

Yeah.

So, Anthony, question, for me, firstly, I think the first one, I think, should be included definitely. We're, yeah, encouraged to be added.

The second one? The sorry. What was the first one? Can you go back? That's

the Okay. Yeah. Yeah. And what was the app? Mhmm. I think that's good.

The second one. On the variation plot sizes,

for me personally, I hear nor there.

If we wanna see a variation plot size, great.

We we don't care

that either. And the third one, I think personally, administrative. Or to keep it concentrated in the or to keep it in the

Overline administrative decision.

No. It's it's it's legislative. Block.

Yeah. It's Basically,

basically, kind of say this is a special zone. And It's very it'd be very similar to our PUD process.

Or, like, That's that's Yeah. Yeah. I know. Okay. So I thought over

Yeah. No. It's it's a zone I mean, an overlay it's an overlay zone. So it's it's a zoning designation on top of whatever the underlying zone is. Yeah. Okay. Any other feedback on this? I think any tweaks or anything you think should be Do we changed?

How do you think council wanna see this? Will they want us to be a real world class or something like this before they make a decision? Like, send this out, draw I don't know.

I don't know. I I don't know if we have budget for that. That's the thing is if we're gonna do that, we'd have to get a designer on board to draw something up, hypothetical. Unless you get AI unless you get AI to do it. I think you can try.

And you're just looking at a single plot. Right? Yeah.

Every part is gonna be totally different. Yeah. Yeah.

That that that's the hard part about doing that is then they glam it's it then you tend to glam on to what you'd like and what you don't like about that specific plan. No. And the next one's gonna be different. Right? Yeah. So I think it's just that idea. May maybe we can find a few examples of neighborhoods or development that have a very variation of lot sizes and and show those compared to those that don't because that might even that might be a little bit more meaningful than a plat. I feel like even the fields development, we saw, you you know, two dimensional lines on a paper. We didn't no one really knows what that would have looked like That's true. Because it was never built. And so but what maybe what I could do is do a little bit of research and look at I'll probably start with some you know, just looking at line subdivisions that have been developed, see if I can find some that show some variation in lot sizes and compare that, get some pictures of it, compare that to, you know, just these ones that that don't.

I think that I think the council's gonna walk with the variation to say I mean, if you pay attention to what they said

during those meetings, at least Nathan for sure was variation variation, I think, for

if if Garrett

I know. Garrett is more concerned about it all. Yeah. He was. Yeah. And Yeah. We'll

see. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. We're just we're just recommending. Yeah. K. Alright.

You good there? We're good. Yeah. I'll do I'll do a little more research so that you can visualize this, in some way and maybe send it out for feedback as well to some developers, some really, it's I would say it's the designers more than the developers that are gonna

Somebody said in that meeting, they've seen someone similar to it somewhere, but I can't remember who's that's at.

On our center? Yeah. Yeah. I'd like to have an example. Steve, we used to be able to send out an email to, like, every planner in the state through this listserv, and APA got rid of it. And I it's now you put it up on a blog and, like, nobody sees it. So it's just who's gonna read that blog? Like, three people might read it, but I wish I could still do that because I I'd like to send something out. I could at least to the planners I know in the valley and and some others to see if they have something baked in their ordinance on lot variation and what they've seen from it. Because I'm not I don't I can't think of a specific example. It'd be nice to have a few

I mean, either with Garrett or something.

Yeah.

We're gonna talk about

we can we're not how are we going with the with this item? We can. Well, I was wondering if you wanna talk about what OpenSpace is,

how it qualifies. You know, we talk about, you know, talks about how we get the three estimate three requirements to be open.

I think that's that's definitely on the table. That's not something that has been discussed so far, so it's not what's within this draft, but if you wanna talk about that.

Alright. Okay.

Yep.

We don't require it to be fenced, but we are particular about what kind of fence they put in if if it is fenced.

I'm not saying it should. I guess my biggest regret in my the subdivision I did

is that fence. It is putting it in? Well,

because

it has to be maintained. Yeah.

And to get all those different orders,

but there's a little section of that fence. Yeah. Some some stay keep staying and looks nice, some don't. So if I were to change anything, I would have either not done a thing. Like, anything looks so good. It's done. Still, it's good, but it's not like it was when I put it in. It's been a lot of money. But yeah. And, like, you know, I know what's good. It's gotta be

Yeah. And that's subjective. I don't really like that. But if you wanna if you wanna come up with more objective standards for that, have at it. I

Perfect. Maybe it's still for J and B. Yeah. Specifically, because you can't use J and B. But maybe there's something else that was that would look good for thirty or fifty years.

Mhmm.

So I was wondering if that requirement

Well, yeah. We're best department of.

I agree. But and I don't it's not hard to possibly do it. There's no way there's no way there's no way no HOA there. Cottonwoods, it's different. They have HOA. Mhmm. So they have funds to any direct fence. As they've see fit in

it? They're former?

Cottonwood. Cottonwood. Cottonwood.

Which one are you talking about that doesn't? Meadow Creek.

Creek. North Of Cottonwoods off 3850. There. 3850 South, east side of the highway.

It's got a safe fence. So it's all over.

So you're talking about a fence along 3850 or or where? Oh, you fenced it all all over. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. It's amazing. Does the city require that, or did you just do it? You just did. Okay.

But still might be different because it's hard to make day. So you're you're a what? Yeah. And I'm on the, you know, I have some So it looks I'm on the. I wanna I wanna be a a blue ribbon flagship. So I went to great expense and effort to make it look what, you know, what it was. Yeah. And because Jim Johnson did the same thing over. He was a client commission too, and he did his. So I wanted to be nice, but it's not my biggest regret instead of that fence. Maybe with a different fence. But Just cedar fence? I don't know. We we're required to do a fence. It's gotta be

Rural. At least around the open if if you're if you're fencing in the open space areas, and and I've talked to the attorney about that. The way it's currently written yeah. If you're fencing it in, it has to be of rural nature. Now that doesn't apply to a property adjacent to the open space. And I think there was a little bit of ambiguity there because I know Yeah. Like my house. I know there were some complaining in your neighborhood that those fences, oh, they should be this rural, and I and that was actually the one I talked to the attorney about. And it's like, no. That's their fence, their property. If if you're fencing in the open space, like, let's say you put a fence out front along the street that wasn't Yeah. Then then that would have to be real. And and it really you know, it typically isn't gonna apply much to parks, more private open space that I think that provision applies to if they've got a pasture or something. But

Well, barbed wire is where all is gonna be getting. Right. You do you do barbed wire.

You totally do barbed wire. I would say yes to the The Buchanan's little thing right here. Right? Yeah. They've got a little tin what what I've what are they? Tin rope thing?

You know, that's Electric charge. Because it would look nice for a moment. But that part probably doesn't we don't even you can't. Let's just click that button.

You can if you want to.

But I just wanna open space being my. Doesn't know if that makes physical sense. But By by far. Yeah. I mean, we're talking about open spaces and make them look nice. Like, who would it be just to have them just a tree stand? Yeah. I wish we could do that.

Well, I mean, we could we could say that if you would like us to We could. We could. Because how how the city you know, by and by by ordinance, at least when it was when that subdivision was done, you had to keep your fence up by ordinance. You had to keep it Mhmm. But the city didn't go down and and and and place that? No. No. No. I mean, back down. But but they they could have one agency, the HOA that they extend that to that to maintain events Yes. Versus, you know, 30 people. But Yeah. If you elect to do a wood fence Right. It's gonna degrade.

I guess I guess maybe a counterargument to that is if we're are we only gonna do that here and nowhere else in the city? Right? Anywhere else, they can put whatever fence they want. But in in these specific subdivisions, we're gonna allow that or we're gonna require that. I would say at minimum, we need to do that in, like, a PUD as well, which those all have HOAs anyway. But, I guess, that that would be my only kinda counterargument is, are you singling out these? Or how are they different than the standard? Yeah. It's a big question because We can. We can. If we got yeah. But I just think it makes sense to have a good reason. And I just see a lot of bad fences all over town. Yours will probably look nicer than I

I So Okay.

But may maybe to your other question, Brett, on the OpenSpace standards, I don't know how how much we need to dive into it tonight. But

So you have to meet three Yeah. Criteria. Yeah. And did this last what were the three

So so it was contiguous land. K. It was agricultural land.

It was

pedestrian access because they had the trail. And then I don't I know we counted one more. I can't remember if we counted significant areas and natural landscape or recreation space. Recreation space is it was a little goofy on that one because, yes, it would go to the city and be used, but not not the way it's currently defined here. So, I mean, they met at least three. I think the fourth was maybe a bit of a stretch.

And then

does the city once the city if the city if the city opts in to take ownership of any open space, do they have the power to sell that?

The city? Yeah.

Yeah. Because I I think it's good that they could. Mhmm.

Yeah. I don't there's nothing in in here that says they couldn't.

So it could sell off to the

Right. And and another use on their.

I think that's we should do that. But but but but we holders should. No. No. I don't think I think I think what the there's a need as open space, whatever should be that. Right. Yeah. It's it's it's designated that on the plat. Maybe not like a. Mhmm. Yeah. Well, I I'm I'm just may maybe there's a piece of open space that Sydney wants to they're like, you know what? We're tired of being famous. Let's sell it or give it to you and just the neighbors to some

they they own it. They still haven't applied by the Oh, the best moments. Yes. I haven't cared of them. So it's what's the I have agreed to. I have. I think it'll be a lot of Yep. Because I hate to see because they're just too. Yeah. They're coming to it better than that. Should we be selling them? If they sell them, they need to that was somebody's gonna build houses. Right. That kind of defeats the purpose of the development of the property. The reason they gave it an open space is because that was one of the agreement. Well, you're talking about how to get the banks. Pocket Park isn't open space. It is over on 8. Go ahead. Just part of So we did that. The city did that. Right? We sold we sold some property for two lots on 800 West. That wasn't wasn't it?

It wasn't recorded that way. Just the city owned them. The city owned it. I don't I don't know I don't know all the details. We we went through with the attorney, and there was no There's a small loan there. It's not small

with the, and that little park there when that open. And it's just a little park. It's not No.

No. But it's definitely.

Or development. They can they can sell them. You

you can't. You know? Yeah.

How much how much ten, fifteen years down the road where you're gonna find those agreements? They're recorded. Yeah. Yeah. They're recorded. That is very helpful. It's recorded, but planners change. Mhmm. If you record it, it can't even. I

mean, at the end of the day, the council probably could approve approve whatever. It's not. They they could they could remove the conservation easement unless it's

If it's not designated as conservation, it's

just the whole It's open space. So they they could they could take an action to remove it if they wanted to. It take additional vetting, but you couldn't just sell it. Like, you'd have to change something to which yeah. I don't know I don't know if that's good practice. Although, forever is a long time.

Oh, yeah. You know? It's a little tricky too because then, like, if if the city sells it to a private you don't get a ring bell?

It would have to be a concert it would have to be recorded to the conservation for property taxes. You know? And that piece over there is maybe two acres Yeah. With that. So if some private person says, don't buy that.

It's not needed or recognizes a conservation in your area. Right? You're just getting full you don't get any exemptions on that. It's just been in here.

So you're defeating the purpose of the original approval in that neighborhood? Yeah. Yeah. Which means that the city just entered your real estate. To sell it. So, like, I hear it. Talking about that. I'm talking about

if city has a responsibility for for some home space that they have manages, I can see where they might say, look. We we don't manage this anymore. It's not you know? But we wanna wanna

Keep it as as it is.

What we wanna maintain is home space, but we wanna let give or sell to the adjacent property, meaning to increase their loss of these.

Got it. Because it's a benefit to the maybe owner fight Yeah. For the value of the property. There's a there's a piece of property right now that we've talked about that that's in a subdivision. One it was one of the first conservation subdivisions approved out here on near, like, 10th West. It was one of the neighborhood nonprofit ones, and there there's an open space there that the city is kinda like, what do we do with this? There's a trail along it, but there's there's an adjacent open space that's just it's just kinda natural space, but not a whole lot of use there. And we thought, like Yeah. Yeah. Maybe someone maybe maybe someone should just you know, we should just graze animals animals graze back there or something. And Is that And at that point, maybe it should just be private. Yeah. Right. So would it would it be settled?

Would it be Mhmm. So what if they buy it and then they put the views? That's what they it would it would still restrict it'd be still restrict restricted as open as and protected Yeah. As open space, so they just have it here. Yeah. Mhmm. But somebody maintains it. Yeah. It's kinda like

there's a house right here that's kinda like that where yeah. I'm in a lot. That's the

the adjacent lot, but they they can't

Oh, the one to the what was that?

Yeah. So, anyway

Well, the one on. Back to the It's like a it's supposed to be a water retainment something. Or

Water retention. Yeah. Water retention. Yeah. So it's not that. It's north of north of there. There's an open field next to the trail continues to the north and goes up by there's a there's a church there.

And Behind the Nibley Gardens Church. Yeah. Nibley Gardens. And,

anyway, we've we've struggled with what to do with that space. And even Nibley Farms, we're kinda looking at, and, what's what's the city actually gonna do with this space even though that one's a lot more recent. But, may maybe back to Brett's question. Do you think these six parameters make sense? Since since there is a natural landscape, contiguous land, agricultural land, buffering, pedestrian access, recreation space. We took out there there used to be seven. We took out stormwater

Yeah. Yeah. That's a good hook in. Which

my interpretation of that was that we can still count stormwater basins, but you don't get credit by virtue of it being a stormwater basin, if that makes sense. If if there if it's something else on top of a stormwater basin, fine. But you don't just get credit for that.

So It's horrible order to kind of maintain.

Yeah. But which I think that was a good move to take that out. That that was an amendment a little while back. I don't know if I have any specific

The staff, make that general Yeah. Offline.

Yeah. And then and then make the recommendation to the planning commission. And it you could disagree. You'd be like, man, I don't think this is I don't think those areas are significant enough. I mean, there's some say subjectivity for sure, but I I feel like it's written pretty good. You know, we could be we could be more yeah. So you could have. You could have even with that fields when you could have said Yeah. No. Yeah. We don't we don't yeah. We don't think that it meets the standard for whatever reason. But just like anything else, it's just that this is a little bit a little bit more subjective than Yeah. Numbers, lot sizes, and I think they're pretty good. Oh, there's a there's a typo. Gonna change that right now. Still says rural conservation subdivision.

Yes. Yes. Some of them are going through. Do do we have complex

Is how

soon? Yeah. We do. Yeah. I don't know if we are love our standards, but, like, sometimes I think it it might not hurt it might not be a bad thing to have a natural surface trail. I know you have you have one and it That's what you're Yeah. In my opinion

so I say to use concrete for almost one, but Mhmm. In that back the back, 100 feet or whatever that is, 200 feet is Yeah. And every time I'm looking, I'm just. Right.

No. That city is Yeah. For maintenance.

For maintenance. Yeah. Yeah. So we do require that now. And that's a good point because we have one we have one on the edge of town on the West Side, 1600 West. And, yeah, that's that's kinda been a nightmare to maintain as well.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It's

I can make my

Yeah. I mean, that's that's the standard. And it's I think 10 the way it's written currently, in our active transportation plan is 10 feet is the default. You can go down to eight feet or up to 12 feet depending on what you think the usage is gonna be. So a lot of them have been eight feet, but there's some 10 foot wide.

The red or black?

It could be either.

We don't No. We don't.

Not not on not if we require it as part I mean, you could do a natural trail, I guess, in a in a subdivision, but not if it's required by by the city for if, you know, it's in our master plan. If it's in our master plan we don't have any natural surface trails in our master plan. So good.

Well, we can Yeah. Thanks.

I I guess they could they could do it as part of the design, and it it would be subject to review. They they could, but it wouldn't be one of the master plan trails. And then the city if they were giving it to the city, we'd have to agree to take it on. But if let's say if it was an HOA maintaining it, I suppose that they could.

That's what I do. Yeah. Yeah. So I could we could dig up our asphalt trail in the neighborhood and say it's all natural. You're only which gets into my property. I don't think you could because

it's a it's a The city has a easement on it? Yeah. That's it. And that's how it was approved in the subdivision. So Got it. Yeah. Just chip it. Are you doing the best? I think we'd bug you about it if you didn't, for sure.

Yeah. How do we so do we wanna move forward just allowing Levi to flesh out the details and then, I guess, getting it ready to predict. Do we need a final

recommendation at some point, probably? Yeah. So this is still just a workshop. So this needs yeah. So this needs to come back to public hearing. So that would likely be ready by the next meeting, which is November 13.

K.

I don't see any reason why not.

Yeah.

K. And that is just

It's really just what we're talking about. Would just be saying we're

gonna discuss as a commission to recommend just with whether so our recommendation as as written would be that this would just be an administrative

process. Correct? Yeah. But you can I guess you still have another chance if you wanna mull it over because this isn't going with city council yet? Right. If you wanted the next meeting, say, no. I think we should amend this and do this. You can still do that before it goes to city council.

You're talking open

a public hearing? Mhmm. Yeah. So you have the public hearing, but then you have a discussion and consideration of of the item. And then if you want to continue it, if you want to, say, make amendments to it, you could still do that. We don't all have to agree either. Yeah. Yeah.

Let's move forward. Majority of them. We're working on a little bit.

K. Then we'll move on to the next step. Are we we done discussing? K. Move on to item number five automatic agenda, which is, workshop for transferring divisions. Levi? Alright.

So some issues have come up with with fences. We've kind of identified these partly through enforcement and partly through just reviewing fences. We see a lot of fences, right, and and just seeing some shortcomings of the ordinance. So just wanted to discuss some of these with planning commission and get your opinion on them again before we don't have a draft ready, but just to see if just to get your direction on these. So the things I wanted to discuss is height and treatment offenses along trails. So within our ordinance and and, really, this is the issue that kinda spurred the whole, this this coming up. So along public trails, we don't allow fence opaque, solid fences greater than four feet. If once you get above four feet, it has to be 75% transparent, and you go up to six feet. I'll show you some examples on the next page, and we can talk a little bit about, you know, how how we wanna go if we wanna make any changes to that. We've noticed that I think the intent along trails of, you know, improving visibility and and just I think the idea of of that provision was to create so you don't have kind of this back alley type environment where, you know, you you don't have as many eyes on on the on the trail. I I feel like it and Tom Tom agreed with this as well and talking with him that along our streets, when you have these, you know, long particularly when they're long stretches of six feet, sometimes seven feet fences, solid fences, it just kinda creates this this tunnel environment that you know, really, this was originally meant to be for as a kind of a crime crime prevention issue where you've got a lot of areas without eyes on the on the street. So maybe we consider similar provisions along not just along trails, but along streets. You know, the the streets all our streets have sidewalks. So that's something to consider. And it's particularly in the backyards because we don't have six foot fences in front yards anyways. But when you go along 1200 West, a lot of I mean, 3200 South in some stretches there, you've got a lot of backyards facing the the street and and these tall fences. Anyways, so that's something to consider. Wanted to review a little bit. We have a provision to try to preserve some visibility on the corners, But I'll show you at least one example where I feel like the the ordinance has some shortcomings there. Agricultural fences. So we've gotten some requests from people that have large, you know, large lots. Really, they they're they're using their front yard as a pasture, and we don't allow four foot fences in the front yard area, at least up to the setback line. But a lot of agricultural fence is a little taller than four feet. They're not solid fences. A lot of times, they're three rail fences or maybe they're maybe they're feet. Or or maybe they're a barbed wire fence or something like that, but they're a little taller. Yeah. They're five feet. A lot of so should we consider those? It almost seems a little silly in some of these locations to tell them they they can only put a four foot fence when they're putting those three rail fences up. And, oh, now I can't I can't leave my I I can't keep my horse in, so I gotta set it back for 30 feet. And then this next one, this relates a little bit to the issues we've run into with enforcement. It is very it's not fun to tell people they've gotta rip their fences out. I've done it. Our code enforcement person has done it, and we're running into this issue where not only are people building fences, you know, they don't have a permit, and then we tell them, oh, you you gotta have permit. And by the way, you did it wrong, so you gotta tear this fence out and redo it. But in some cases, people get a permit that we don't have an inspection like you do for a building permit. We just we just approve it. And if there's not if there's an issue later, it becomes a code enforcement issue. So what we're suggesting and it is more time, but that they would have to once the fence is complete, someone come out and actually, measure the fence. Okay. It's the right height. It's what you said you're gonna do. K. Check off. So so that's that's something we feel maybe should be considered. And then first. Yeah. We've talked about it. Yeah. We think so. It might actually be the code enforcement officer that does it, and they're doing it at that time instead of by surprise months later. And so, yeah, we we should be better. Yeah. Yeah. That's just a scheduled thing. About just make them and get it from into the required site plan. We do require that. Okay. But sometimes they don't build what they say they're gonna build. But then that's where you

so I think this is what you told us you were gonna put. And we can do that. We can do that. So now this is why you're failing this thing. Yeah. And and that's what we that's what we currently do. Yeah. As long as communicating that to them. But I think it's helpful if

a lot of people have contractors build their fences, and I think it's I think it's helpful if their contractor says, oh, I'm gonna build the fence, and this is what it's gonna look like. And maybe the homeowner isn't paying a whole lot of attention. They build something a little bit different. The city identifies that. By the time they do, that contractor's long gone. So now the home now now the expense on the homeowner. Yeah. And so Absolutely. I think it's it's just a way for it to get caught earlier if it's a problem. It's an actual inspection. And and, honestly, the inspection would be quick. It'd be really quick. And we we just we get a fair number of these, but it's not like we're we're not inundated. You know? It's not like it would. So What point would you do the inspection? Once they're done with the fence, I think. At that point.

Mhmm.

Yeah. I don't know I don't know what

Did you do it after the polls were in bed? Or or

Maybe. But I think I see on some some next slides here that it's not just the polls. It's the it's the treatment of the fence and it's opacity, and and that's just something to consider. So I'm I'm just gonna show some images just to so I can display what I'm talking about. So this is one issue we've run into. Oh oh, and you know what? Did I not put it on here? The other thing I wanted to add, I thought I thought it was on here. What if I mean, Brett, you said you put in a fence. What if at least along trails, we require the developer to put the fence in? And then we can inspect the whole thing at one time. That's another option. I think the only issue with that is some people don't want a fence. And Yeah. So If you want

Right. Unmonitored

Right. Right. So do we require it? Do we require a gate? Yeah. So that that's something else to consider is if if this is just too much of a headache, I know some cities have have done that. And we actually do require a fence along trails that are at the end of cul de sacs, but only there. We don't on any other trails. So we require the developer to put a fence in in conjunction with that trail that complies with our ordinance. And most of them have been putting in four foot fences because they're less expensive than a six foot, I guess. But that's the only place that's the only time that we require offense. For whatever reason, that's just how it evolved. That it's what at the end of those cul de sacs, we have those little trails. So just to show you demonstrate some of these issues. So this fence on the right is about four feet tall, two feet above. This fence on the left is close to five feet. Non compliant. And these ones are all over the subdivisions because what we saw happen is I don't know if it's the same contractor put them in or they saw their neighbors and, hey. I won't mind to look like theirs and theirs is fine. It's a patchwork of I mean, you kinda see as you look down the line in on this part of the subdivision that you it goes up and down. But there's another part that's a longer stretch that's the same thing. It's like this. I'm gonna ask who's so whose point of view

are we assuming actually cares about this? Is it the person walking on the trail? Or

I guess, why do we care is my question. It it's back to that that point I made. It was it was originally, I feel like, intended as a kind of a crime prevention thing because if you if you have a solid wall where you can't see over it, so people can't people can't see into the trail, then maybe maybe there's things happening back there that Nefarious. They should yeah. They shouldn't happen. So Yeah. I I mean That's part of the idea. My assumption is people that have to think the opposite. They're like, I just want privacy.

I don't want Most property be able to see into my backyard. Most property owners want privacy.

Yeah. We we tell them to do this. They don't wanna do it. Yeah. But I think I think we it's a balance. Right? Figure out what the city what what this what the city wants it for the public space as well.

I I I think Just think the existence of the trail is pretty awesome. Why do you care if there's a six foot fence that's not seasonable on the top of the crime?

I mean, it it does like, I've gone along some of these trails, and I think on top of just the crime prevention, I I think it when it just doesn't look nice. I mean, it's kind of there's less variety. Vertical. Yeah. It looks like an alley instead of an it's less open. Right? We call

Five feet.

So we could move we could change it to five feet.

Yeah. I'm guessing both sides.

I so so I I walked along this and just personally, like, you know, I walked this back and forth. I don't see a huge issue with this five foot fence. I the other thing I kinda wanted to do if we wanted to really dig into it, I feel like it's less standard to have the four foot with the two foot above for some reason than to have the one foot as far as what they what they carry. I think that's part of the reason we're seeing that treatment pop up. But

or, like, in the. Definitely from the.

Yeah. In in this in this case, yeah. That one is different. But we could just to to Nick's point, just scrap it and say, yeah. Just check it. I think it's fine. Like So

with the gonna see your coverage and maybe go a little more as for the if you're walking down that trail, you know, I I know my wife likes to walk trails and Yeah. And she's a little nervous at night. She also she always walk with the friend. Would that make someone if if it's you feel like you're it's got six feet in both sides of you in a 10 foot

Mhmm. Span Yeah. So width. Mhmm. That's

you know, we're stuck in the thing. I don't Yeah. I don't know. I don't know what my answer is, but I I like it.

So what we'd say if I

If you guys are good with that, we can we can roll with that. Or maximum. Yeah. Five foot five foot maximum for All your pay. For an opaque fence.

Well, it was required.

So it's gonna be on it. It's just that they could leave a hole. No. No. If they put one in on a trail

Then it has to be five feet? Yeah.

Is that and I guess the question is, is that an uncommon like, can yeah, can I go to Erud fans today?

I don't I don't know if we wanna say this is what it would have happened. Just complaining about this variation,

or we're we're considering it anyways. Yeah. I don't Do we want uniformity, or do we want chaos?

I don't know. Yeah. I think it I think it's fine.

Yeah. Yeah. But

It's a good point. I mean, we're not we're not we're not regulating the architecture of the home.

We're we're gonna be getting the trim. So then how do I actually do that? We have we have a max we have maximum heights at home. Isn't it?

Yeah. Right. That could be in

the mind. Yeah. It could. Yep. I'm just saying I could

Okay. I'm here. Yep.

Yeah. And there there's a few there's one. I don't have it here, but there's one that's just rail. There's a there's a rail fence on another stretch of this, and it looks nice. It's completely it's almost completely transparent. Right?

Like, we have some in mind. You bet. Yeah. We're okay with that. Yeah.

Yeah. I mean, really, we're okay with we really only care about the opacity. We don't care about the treatment, the the way it's currently written. We don't care if it's chain link. We don't So now is in the open space elevation. Foot rule

based on proximity of the trail.

I think there's a That's probably something we could With my clarify six feet, and I'm right next to a trail, but I'm, like, 50 feet from the So that so that's probably something we could clarify. That was that was kind of a case study again, Mount Vista. The the way the ordinance is currently written is if it's adjacent to a park area, then it it doesn't have that restriction. So that trail, it's not just a trail. It's it's an open Right. It's a private park. Right? The one by your house. Yeah. So that doesn't count. But there's part public. Well, it's not just public. It's not just it it could be private. It's whether it's a trail corridor versus

a park.

Open park. And then there's a little there's a little bit of we could probably clarify that. Maybe we say if it's 40 feet or narrower or something like that. I could see you, like, where this is what is this? Five feet or something from the edge of the trail. Yeah. So pass anything, but 20 feet, didn't care. If it's a six foot fence, if the there's a 20 foot grass distance between the edge of the trail and the you know what I mean? That makes sense.

So you're saying how far the trail is from the fence rather than rather than the width of the corridor

itself? I think that's Yeah. The answer is yes to both of those. Isn't that a two foot? Upper between The way it's currently written, it it Well, if that's a six foot tall fence, just lay it over, that's probably four or five feet. Right? Yeah. From the edge of the trail itself.

Oh. Mhmm.

Yeah. So

A big cleaning dock without a beard knob from somebody else? So so I okay, man. Is that a city? Is that a current city

trail? Mhmm. Why why would we why would we put that asshole when you're pissed at this? Why wouldn't we? Why wouldn't we? Just to so you have to maintain that. Yeah.

Well, it looks good. Yeah. And that's a feel weird if you did that? Would that feel weird? I'd rather have to A little less elbow room. But

Yeah. It's a pain to maintain. It is. We're talking We're talking about feelings.

But that's some that's some of the

You need at least probably a foot buffer just for maintenance anyway. Like, we require that with with sidewalks and

Just three.

I I I would say you at least need a foot. And at that point, I don't know if a foot or four feet is much different to maintain. But

Yeah. You're still you're still mullet. Yeah. And they're that's gonna be mostly weed.

How much more is it just to put in forever?

We use Yeah.

And Why why don't okay. I'm.

Isn't that didn't that just feel weird to, like, walk? I mean, you just you're literally, like, rubbing shoulders on somebody's fence as you're walking along the trail. That deal weird. If it was wider, how how wide is that?

To eight feet. So what?

I'm just that's I I hate

that. I hear you. I think you're saying from this just, yeah, maintaining it. I think it's

I think that's something that that we need to figure out for trails is the landscaping and what do we what do we expect along these trails because but I don't know if that's I don't know if that's what's on the agenda tonight. I think that's a little bit broader than Yeah. Fences. But But I think that's a good point. I I think what we what we require with for trails and these corridors, they do, like, they become maintenance nightmares.

And But if you did store, it was a little blurry to push this down.

We do. We do? We do? Yeah. Yeah. Should we be doing that? When we can No. Vista? We don't. I think so. We think so what? I think you should be doing it. Will we get in trouble? We don't.

No. Yeah. We just don't have to be.

Not clear. I'm not sure.

No. We maintain it. I see. We don't have snow in nature. That's what I'm saying. You're you're But it's on prem. So we call it century.

Yeah. Country. So

okay. Just

show more pictures. They did get a pretty uniform here, but just okay. I think maybe we'll come back with the five foot as a compromise on the on the on that last point. K. So this one, this on a corner, it's a new fence that went in. We have a 40 foot Clearview Triangle requirement. You can't build above four feet in the four foot Clearview Triangle. This fence is just outside of that because

this The buffer between the sidewalk Right.

But this pole here, this is stop sign. So you stop here. Then you can roll. You gotta roll up pat you know, you can't really see around here if there's, like, kids coming down the sidewalk. And then and then you gotta you gotta roll up to see traffic coming. I I think that's an issue.

The tree, Tim? That's the is that Tree's a good yeah. On this one. No. But The one with my grid line This this the rest of this straight on. It's not ready to back you up and you gotta roll almost out. Let's see what's Right.

So but with so what what I I talked to Tom about this issue, and what he suggested and, again, this is one additional layer of review. But, yes, we have this Clearview triangle as a minimum. But on top of that, it needs to meet, like, there there's standards within AASHTO, the Association of State Highway Transportation officials on on visibility. And depending on the curvature of the roadway, you know, you gotta see a certain distance down the road. And so what he suggest what he suggested is, I said, well, I I mean, I review these. I'd have to get educated on that, or I'd have to send them to you. And he's like, oh, you you can just send them to me. So it'd require the engineer, if it's on a corner, to review a fence permit to say, oh, yeah. You're you meet visibility sent. Because there's a lot of factors here that come into play, and it's hard to write it in an ordinance. There's already a standard written to refer to. So we might suggest adding that if I don't know. That's

because I don't I don't like this. But Yeah. Especially if the stop sign's right there. Yeah. I mean, how many times are you driving around the city and there's a big tree? There's one that I exit my neighborhood every day. I'm like, these are pretty common. I can't even see. I'm scared to death. I'm gonna have a kid every day. Yeah. And I think our

we do have in our landscaping center, the tree does have to be a certain distance from the corner, but people build them, but yeah. Or plan them.

Even in building a branch by branch this time, where his house would be existing and then Richland build around him He has a retaining wall that's and and you can't there's stop sign behind the retaining wall. Yeah. Yeah. So So Anyway that's a Yeah. Prevents prevents brochure.

It's on a corner. And then here's So if it doesn't if they if they can't get a certain site distance, we would say, okay. By a cert you gotta I I mean, to meet to meet that, you would you would have to set that back and, you know, drop it down to four feet or whatever for Okay. Three and a half feet. It might be three feet because the actual standard is actually four and a half, three and a half feet for visibility, not four. This might be a little bit more restrictive, but or they would have to fence it separate. Like, they could they could fence it six feet, but they'd have this other area that might be fenced with a I mean, if they had a dog pen or something in there, but I don't know.

Like, right across the street. Right. Yeah.

When we we used we we didn't used to allow six foot fences along the street, like side yard fences. Like this one? We loosened that up, I think, back in 2018. You might have been here, Brett. So there there have been more new fences with that six foot treatment. And then this is one of those agricultural fences. There's a lot of them. These are about five feet tall, three rail. Like, does does anyone see this as a problem along You could like it. Yeah. The the top fence the the no tall fence was for visibility. Right? So Yeah. In the front mirror, we could, you know,

Like, this kinda that's a non issue. Right? Yeah. This is how tall is that? It's about five feet. And is that

I think so. Yeah. But, technically, if he came in today with a fence permit application, I would say, you gotta drop that down to four feet.

Really? Mhmm.

Unless we change it. Unless it unless it was his side yard. But if it's his front yard, then you'd have to drop it. If it's a side yard or rear yard, you could do it. Oh, that's.

Yeah. It's

something it's like maybe, okay. You could find me in here. Do 33 or 4 2 or 3 before Yeah. Maybe yeah. We just have to articulate how that or if it's if it's a certain opacity. But how many I don't know if this is 80% or 90%.

You. Yep. Yeah.

Yeah. Right. But they I think the point of it is visibility that you're when you're pulling out on, you know, the driveway or something, you can see.

So You oh, I don't see an issue with visibility.

I don't Yeah. So we need to craft it some way that and I don't I don't know. I like I like the three rail fences. I don't know if I like a six foot chain link fence out in the front yard. So you gotta think of kinda worst case scenario too. Right? Because if we just if we just say, oh, it needs to be transparent. Okay. Yeah. There's my six foot.

It's breaking wire. Yes.

So maybe we say if you go to five feet if you go above four feet, if you go to five feet, you gotta be something coach. Something a little bit maybe a three rail fence or a I don't know. Three rail fences are allowed or Cool. Maybe there's some other treatments that would be

Yeah.

What's the

the little sidewalk? Do you know where Nick DeSilva lives? Mhmm. There how long is that little sidewalk? And so those people have to put in a four foot fence right there even though it's The developer. This is this is the whole trail at the end of the cul de sac thing. Mhmm. That thing's what is that even? Is that even a 100 feet? Is it a 100 feet or so? Maybe. We may put in a four foot fence for that. The developer was required to. Yes. Four foot fence? It could be it could be four feet

in the front yard. If they chose to, they could have done four feet with two feet transparent once it got to the the front plane of the house to the very back. They could have done that, and and the property owner can do that if they want to. But That's just the end. They just have to put something in that meets our requirement.

On this dialogue here? Well, I guess it's a time first. Right? The developer had to. Mhmm. You will work with with the with visibility. With the visibility. You could do that. Yeah. For our Ryan put down maybe. Is that Well something here? The the requirement is just put in a fence. It's not what kind of type of fence. Just put in a It needs to it needs to be a fence that meets our standard.

And four foot met our standard, that's what they put in.

But that's my my question is because it's along a trail, does it have to be it can on the max can be four plus the visibility?

Mhmm.

Yeah. I know the trail is, like, a 100 feet long. Mhmm. K.

Yeah. Which is just a link to their lotus. Yeah.

Yep. And that trail's managed while there's people at the end of a call. Yep.

Hope that makes sense to me. But

I don't know. It's hard to have a code that makes every little difference. Yeah. Okay. I mean, I I It is, but I don't know. These are just some issues that we've run into. So a lot.

Yeah.

Does the what?

Any other any other comments? We can I have another question? Just the it's permitted.

Two years.

Is that new? No. Yeah. There's no expiration. So that's.

I don't think that's new. Let me pull up the code.

You know

what? Yeah. As long as I've been here, I think it's been in there. I don't think we've changed that. Yeah. So you might need to submit a new one. It's free. Right.

Yeah.

Oh, I guess the one other thing, just the fee, it it is baked into the ordinance that it's it's no fee for a fence permit. I think that's by design because you don't you want people to actually get them. You don't wanna be a candidate. But You know? But what we're suggesting is to allow city council to impose a fee if they so choose. I I don't know if the $30 fee is gonna deter anyone from getting a permit.

Well, I'll be

Yeah. Right. It's weird that it's the only thing that we say by statute. It's free. Like

Yeah. Yeah. I have to do the paperwork. They get put all the stuff.

Yeah. Like It it takes it, yeah, it costs money to review.

To review.

So what we suggested is just to say that it's based on the fee schedule and and then city council can decide if they wanna charge a fee or not.

I mean, you're roughly in.

Well, it's $30 and even $50. I don't know.

I have booked t shirt. It's a forty's on Thursday.

Sorry. We have the 40. 3. Don't worry. That's on Thursday? Mhmm.

Alright. Should not have told me that. Any other comments on fences before we come back with these are just some of the issues we wanna bring up. I like the five feet. Yeah. That's a good compliment.

Because it it didn't look bad, but they use a that black on white, which is makes it more transparent versus the one on one.

I I do think just just for your own sake, your staff because, you know, at some point, get tough to dig it guys again. We have. Just for your own sake, maybe okay, here's the rules for your fence, but we're the day you start or you you know, like, when you your foundation when you build a house, you gotta have an inspection the hoodies. Before you put those hoodies in, you're gonna have inspection. So you'll book your house on the lawn's spot. Yeah. Maybe before you start digging holes Yeah. We got we're coming we got it in time so we can review everything with you, confirm all the issues

just for your own sake. Yeah. Yeah. I guess it it gives you an opportunity to talk it through even though you can't see everything. Yeah. That sounds good.

That's just my

My issue is is my neighbor next week Yeah. The landscaping, the survey marker, and pounded away into the ground. So I don't know where the front yard is. The property line is. I know approximately, but I don't know really what it is. So somebody's putting a fence on the side yard. Do they really know where the property line is? We don't.

That's that's that's the hard part about that is we're not surveyors. Right? So We don't It's up it's up to it's up to the to inspect the fence. Yeah. The height of the fence. If you tell me it's on your property line, I'm taking your word for it. I mean, you can't get in this

legal. You put You can throw So the location

I mean, there could be a red flag where like, for example, if it if it's a front yard and and, like, you know, you you can you can tell based on where the sidewalk is, where the front yard begins and ends because you can measure that, generally. But but, yeah, the is this on your property line or someone else's property line? We we don't wanna get involved with that.

You you do that

on this one. Just fine. Mhmm. Yeah. But even when they work curves

Yeah. It's course.

It's a curve.

It's It'll generally follow follow that. But, anyway okay. Well, we'll come back with some some stuff to consider unless there's anything else with fences you want us to change, things you don't like, things you like.

Does that have to be a fixed plant?

Property?

Temporary. You're talking temporary fences. I think we might I think that's something we should clarify, temporary fences. That's a good point. Okay. The way it's written now, any fence technically requires but now is that really enforced? Because think of a construction site that has I mean, right next door to us, we've got a fence going around. Like, we probably should treat temporary fences differently. And what, yeah, what what's the length of time? What we need to define what that is. Don't just say, oh, yeah. Temporary fences are fine because that temporary fence could be there for twenty years. Yeah. Yeah.

K. Anything else, Vincent? We're good? K. You good, Mhmm. K. Move on to the last item on the agenda, which is step one action.

Yeah. So the next meeting is November 13. We're we're also planning to do a general plan open house before the meeting, probably an hour, hour and a half before they they

was a, like, a public hearing kind of a thing? Yeah. Yeah. It's gonna be it's gonna be just

a just an open house. So we'll have poster boards, and people can come in and talk to us. And then after that, we'll likely hopefully, we we're ready at this point. I need to check with the consultant. We're ready to present the plan and have a public hearing. I don't want necessarily the that to be the only time that the planning like, the planning commission shouldn't make a decision that night, but just hear it, consider it, talk about it, hear the public, and then it would come back the next meeting. And maybe maybe at that meeting, you'd be ready. Maybe you'd need another meeting as well. But I don't I want, like especially where we're having the public come and give comments. We wanna have some time to incorporate anything we've heard before it gets pushed to city council. So, anyway, just a heads up. If you if you can if you want to come a little early and engage with anyone in the public that that's gonna be here on that.

You're 39.

Probably five. Yeah. Probably give about an hour and a half before the meeting. Maybe again? Thirteenth. November 13. If you're able to be here, that would be great. Next week is cash summit. If any of you are able or willing or would like to go to any of it, let me know. It's on Monday and Tuesday. No. But there is an evening session on Monday, if that's helpful. Yeah. So there's a tour throughout the day, and then there's kind of a dinner, and then there's an evening session. And I know Will Summercorn's coming for that one. He'll have Yeah. I did, but I can I can sign you up? Hey. That's that's me. Yeah. If you'd I I can I can if you want, I could sign you up just for that portion and then and then send you a reminder? Monday, '20 what is that? Twenty seventh? Yeah. It's coming up really soon. So, Brett, Monday. Anyone else want to attend the cash summit? Let me know.

I'd like to. I can't. Okay.

Alright. Brett and I just attended the, Utah Land Use Institute conference that I think we're both online for that one. That was interesting a lot on housing policy. A lot of people are saying. Yeah. Yeah. Different case studies and

Is this their How the the zoning that they're city. Yeah. Yeah.

I think Hubert, if I recall, they're talking a lot about annexation. Yeah. There was a lot about annexations too. Yeah. And the the state there I think there's a push to revamp annexations. I don't feel like we have the issue in Nibley, but a lot of cities say no to An annex annexations. And Just because of the They don't want for stroke. They just don't want yeah. They just for whatever reason, they don't they don't want growth. And Yeah. There's that too. Yeah. Yep. Yeah. And in some cases in some cases, what happens is they they won't annex that property. Well, what do they do? They start forming their own city. Right? Let's let's start they actually have these things called preliminary cities now that really the and now this just recent legislation, the developer, I think you need, like, three property owners or something to start the process of becoming a city. Nobody's there yet. Property owners. Because the city is not playing nice. Yeah. So it gives them an option. Anyway so we it was an interesting training. Troy was able you went to the APA Utah conference couple weeks ago. So,

yeah, cool. Anyway yeah. That's all I got. Sure. Do you have anything, Boris? What do you think about lenses?

I have a fence, and I really Yeah. I mean, Come to the trunk or treat, October 30 from four to six. Lots of candy and bring your kids and grandkids. Yep. Mhmm. Yep. That'll be Very good. Because it's gotten bigger. They'll be the. Come to our third annual soup off. Nibley City staff does that. It's like a big potluck, but it's really good food. I've talked to Levi in the brain borscht the last two years. November 6 at noon. So just pop on over for lunch. We'll be looking for a turkey. If you'd like a Thanksgiving turkey or trying to finagle ham in there instead of Turkey. And then put on your calendars. The Christmas party will be December 8. It's a Monday out at the Desert Lily facility in Smithfield. That's all I have. Oh, and the city has been recognizing breast cancer awareness month. We all wear our pink on Thursdays. There's a Facebook post I put out a few hours ago, and we've gotten lots of thumbs ups and things like that. And I think we're enjoying that, leaving, and I get really confused about one. We again look like a a baby with the shower today. But it's been great. Kind of a community building and staff building. It's just a top or pink. It was canceled. Yeah. And we had pink on during the day and then opted to change and Yeah. Yeah. Boys just don't talk about coordinating outfits. That's all I have for that.

Speaking to you.