Nibley City Planning Commission/City Council- 9/18/25
2026-04-10
we can find value in this map even though you know some of this may be built out because it is a future land use map and land stone and so regardless irregardless of whatever it is now this is kind of the idea potential idea moving forward >> yeah and and maybe I can talk a little bit about the categories as well and how they've changed on on what's what's in front of you on the draft. So attached really talks about anything that is, you know, from town home, apartment, anything that that isn't attached, not not a single family home. And you don't see a lot of it on the map. There's a lot of mixed um residential, which you know, there may be some attached, some detached, and and then the yellow is exclusively detached. Um there was a version of it that only had detached, attached, and mixed. And I suggested to add this, you know, large lot uh categories. I felt like, you know, the areas there's there's some areas and I I think there's some uh there's definitely a lot of uh members in the community that would like to retain kind of the rural um areas and and we talked about whether we should even use the word rural but of of Nibi that are you know these larger lots 3/4 of an acre larger was kind of where we came to um you know where you're having larger areas of kind of people have horse pastures and sheep or you know whatever else. So there is it doesn't focus so much on density although the large lot and then and then detach is kind of more broad and then mixed residential really is the mix of of two. So, you know, Ridgeline Park, that that's obviously kind of a mixed residential development. All of the RPDs that have come in are mixed residential. Um, and then this commercial and employment, that's that's just a focus. They're they're both we really don't have a zone that deciphers between that, but it's it's just that the focus of that is is more kind of a retail focused area versus a employment focused area. There's more of an opportunity for for retail uses in in the red areas. Um maybe then in those those purple areas that are more focused on employment and obviously industrial that that's kind of the same. Any other comments on this area? Things that you would >> Yeah, I I think the book makes these maps make sense is to go green with all those colors, right? definition. >> Yeah.
we can find value in this map even though you know some of this may be built out because it is a future land use map and land stone and so regardless irregardless of whatever it is now this is kind of the idea potential idea moving forward >> yeah and and maybe I can talk a little bit about the categories as well and how they've changed on on what's what's in front of you on the draft. So attached really talks about anything that is, you know, from town home, apartment, anything that that isn't attached, not not a single family home. And you don't see a lot of it on the map. There's a lot of mixed um residential, which you know, there may be some attached, some detached, and and then the yellow is exclusively detached. Um there was a version of it that only had detached, attached, and mixed. And I suggested to add this, you know, large lot uh categories. I felt like, you know, the areas there's there's some areas and I I think there's some uh there's definitely a lot of uh members in the community that would like to retain kind of the rural um areas and and we talked about whether we should even use the word rural but of of Nibi that are you know these larger lots 3/4 of an acre larger was kind of where we came to um you know where you're having larger areas of kind of people have horse pastures and sheep or you know whatever else. So there is it doesn't focus so much on density although the large lot and then and then detach is kind of more broad and then mixed residential really is the mix of of two. So, you know, Ridgeline Park, that that's obviously kind of a mixed residential development. All of the RPDs that have come in are mixed residential. Um, and then this commercial and employment, that's that's just a focus. They're they're both we really don't have a zone that deciphers between that, but it's it's just that the focus of that is is more kind of a retail focused area versus a employment focused area. There's more of an opportunity for for retail uses in in the red areas. Um maybe then in those those purple areas that are more focused on employment and obviously industrial that that's kind of the same. Any other comments on this area? Things that you would >> Yeah, I I think the book makes these maps make sense is to go green with all those colors, right? definition. >> Yeah.
>> Now, just pay attention to the, you know, when we look at these maps and really get into them. Look at the categories and definitions. Uh I'm looking at the parks and open space and this pretty much lines up with what we already have. Uh with the exception in the far norththeast and I think that's conserved space that belongs does all of that belong to Joe Burman that we're talking about as open space there that he >> almost almost but not quite. So, we might want to talk about, if it makes sense, the the the the northernmost section that's against the railroad tracks, that's not Joe Ferman's. Um, and then and then Stokes as well, which that makes sense, but >> that's a good I think there might be a bit of Mau on there. Yeah. But that it's pretty close to what we have on our current map. >> Yeah. >> With the exception of that little square up by the railroad tracks um on the northernmost by Clear Creek. I might ask them kind of what the logic was for that one. >> Is that area to the northeast already some sort of conservation? Yeah, a lot of it is >> or it's being pursued. >> That's like over 100 acres of open space without principal is a cool idea. I just don't administratively as a city we can pull it off without giving development rights away to somebody or buying. >> Well, that's yeah, I mean that that's what one property owner has done. Joe Ferman. Mo most of that is is owned by one property owner and he's worked on getting you know conservation through through the open space bond. He I think he was the first >> one >> the one that was passed and he already had he already had some of it preserved but that was to preserve a lot more of it. >> So like you know that's pretty impressive. There's a lot of green and now when you have to pay the bill, how do you actually achieve that as a city go out and buy a whole bunch of property? Can we afford to do that? Uh but it pretty much is the reality those that future is pretty much the reality of present day. And then notably the upper right hand that is stuff that's in conservation ements through the Lray Mallister from way back when. Also the latest Cash County land owner bond for open space. >> Yeah, that's cool. So that's how this happens. >> I just think like coming from the north, what an interesting visual of like welcome to Nidley, right? that we could pull that off in our future annexation plan and incorporate that. >> Yeah. And I think for conserv should be in the future. There's other areas this will come up to. It should be in the future land use plan, but I doubt whatever. >> It's conserved land, right? And there's there's I'm not sure there's any point and the conservation supposed to outlet him, but we'll see. >> Yeah. >> But I'm not I'm not sure he would ever want to There's no advantage to him to annex accidentally. >> Yeah. To us really, would there be? >> No. >> His own water system and everything. >> Yeah, he's got his own water. It's it's uh green is it low tax green belt. Thank you. Thank you. Green space green belt. So you there's no tax advantage to >> Yeah. And maybe maybe I'll speak a little bit. >> Yeah, maybe I'll speak a little bit on on the topic of annexation. it wasn't within the scope for the consultant to update the annexation plan, but I think through this process, we're finding that yeah, there's some areas we might want to add and there's some areas we maybe we just leave off. This was one this is one of them where I'd agree. May maybe we don't even need to need it on our annexation plan. But I'm going to go to the next one just for for sake of time if unless anyone has any other comments on this. So this is kind of the north west quadrant there. A lot going on here. There's a lot of opportunities in this area. Um just for orientation. This is 8991. This is 2600 South. is 3,200 south and I should use your pointer. Yeah, >> look at that. >> 2600. So, >> so this area here, the purple or green, I guess, cuz I've lit it all up in green. Um, that that area is shown as employment. And really that's reflective of really what's there now. I mean there's a little bit of retail but it's kind of an employment focused commercial area. Uh uh and right that's how that's kind of developed. But as you go to the south and you get closer to 2600 um intersection the idea is to focus more commercial retail and m you know it's it's mixed. So, it doesn't necessarily mean it's all going to be commercial, but but uh a mix of commercial, residential uses in and that area. Um, and then as you go to the south here, this is that 3200 south uh node that that we're talking about that the city could support and focus on um more residential or more commercial development in this area and supporting it really with with some higher density residential uses. So, there's more rooftops to support that. Uh I didn't get into it too much on this one, but the there's a transportation component of this as well where where the consultant is is recommending to um develop a street network where they're where it's better connected into into the community south of 3200 South. So we may be having an additional access on 8991. Uh this is a little different than the corridor plan agreement that we've that we've u been involved in. They but but the focus here is what do we need to do to make this a successful commercial area and and that's what what's being you know recommended at this time. So this is all I mean to your to your qu your question um Nick this is primarily undeveloped right now and and it's kind of just presents an opportunity for the future of something really different than what's there now. So getting into the south area, I would say this is the area over the long long term that we're going to see probably the most uh opportunity for growth in nibbly. It doesn't necessarily need to be the the place that that we absorb most of our growth, but obvious it's it's the you know south fields and and that's where we're seeing a lot of growth pressures right now. So, um, just for orientation, this is 3200 South, kind of on the north end. This is, uh, 12 West right here. So this area, mixed residential, um that's primarily what we have as kind of the RPU eligible area now where um Nibble Meadows is a little bit to the south and then getting in some additional you know detached residential but then more more uh mixed residential. our current plan. So this this is shown as industrial in this plan. Uh the consultant is recommending a little bit of a re I guess receding that industrial area by about a block on each side. Uh they part of the consultant team is uh um Lewis Roberts Young and they they have quite a bit of expertise on kind of economic analysis and just from their their analysis they they they felt like this was the way it is now is really quite large and it would be difficult to absorb that much industrial and so they're just recommending to focus it a little bit more. um in this area that's a little closer to 8991. It uses that plan 4,400 South corridor, but just focuses it in a little more and offers some more opportunity for other um land uses around it. And then, you know, Hollow Road and this whole area, not a whole lot change there. You know, detach residential large lot. This is really an area where um because of the topography and because of the kind of uh there it's there there aren't a lot of areas in Nibbi where natural hazards are are a big risk, but the hollow is one area where it is. You know, flood flooding, fire, all of those things through our natural hazard mitigation plan. We've seen that's kind of where it pops up a lot of those things. So it may and and where where the topography makes it difficult to serve with transportation doesn't make a whole lot of sense to pack a lot of people a lot of bodies in this area and that's just kind of the character of how it's developed and so that kind of stays the same. Uh but one thing that has changed a little bit is as you go up um along 165, I guess this this would support maybe a little bit more density along along 165 than what our current plan shows. Not necessarily low density here, just we show that detached. So really the same category is the other area. and then mixed residential as you get close to this 3200 South node to try to support that residential or that planned commercial area as you get, you know, along 165 there. So, those are kind of some highlights. Oh, and then the also showing some neighborhood commercial in these areas that are pretty isolated, you know, as we once we develop this far south toward Hyum. Um these areas are pretty isolated from 89 91 and and um Main Street and and just with the how we're how we're planning the development here, there may be opportunities for some neighborhood commercial near, you know, 4,000 South and particularly at at the intersections of 4,000 and 1,200 and and 1500. question. >> Yeah. Um I know in the workshop there's some discussion about um like with to trans development rights like that really say poses this whole thing but like that really changes what this whole plan would look like. Um and I know in the workshop there was some discussion on um that kind of preservation if that were to happen happening in this kind of south western area on preserving that farmland and maybe encouraging like small local farmers and that kind of thing. Was that ever brought up in discussion when looking at the future line use map of potential to or >> PDR like Yeah. Yeah. >> Um not a lot. That's a good point. I think it's something to consider. Any I mean anyone have any other >> I think it would basically be us or all of us as a city deciding like do we want to recognize areas we want even want to conserve and then work with farmers and land owners to entertain that idea. I don't have to require us to like explicitly identify those on something like this or >> Yeah, I think um so our current TDR uh sending area really is around here primarily. There are some other areas um but this is kind of the focus. Uh there was a discussion when we went through the TDR um project and we looked at this this whole area of adding it as a sending zone to try to preserve some of that farmland. And at the time the recommendation was uh let's let's just focus more on the sensitive lands and and and those areas than on the farmlands. That's kind of where the discussion went. Um I I was excited about some of the things on the student project. You know, the first presenter and trying to identify some of the areas that have value. Um we don't necessarily as our city staff doesn't necessarily have that expertise of ecologically what is valuable. So maybe maybe that's something that could feed into those those discussions. But if we but also agriculturally like what what makes sense to preserve um or is it like a huge swath of area? Is it pockets of you know 10 or 20 acres of of farmland where people are actually growing producing you know fruits and vegetables or or what what is it? I and I I wouldn't say that we've gotten into this that too much with the general plan. >> I've got a question for the council. um as the ultimate decision makers administratively honestly or legislatively, excuse me, for zoning changes, things like that. My thought process in this and really my question to you is like how to what level of detail do you feel like we need to go through this process to identify explicitly where we want specific things? Is this a guiding process to you or or do we need to refine this to the level of detail where we're effectively communicating to our citizens that this is what we plan for within reason of course you know what I mean like like Garrett and I were texting was it two weekends ago we were kind of getting into the weeds and I don't know if that was the intent of this or if this is more just like generally this is what it's going to be or are we going to refer to something like this I mean I know we talked a lot there's plenty commission referencing all the plans and saying, you know, we make our recommendations. We we do talk about that all the time. We'll assess this and this plan. I don't know if you guys have your specific perspective more or less on, you know, refining this to the level of detail where basically we are kind of planning out everything into what level scale. Yes. What do you guys have any thoughts in general? I think a lot of it stuck until it starts to be sold and developed and who's going to come in. But I think it's a strong guideline. People know like this is industrial and and something else in that area. But if I think the advantage in doing this and it gives you it's easier to develop bigger areas than just small ones. I guess I asked the question like, you know, somebody comes to us and says, I want to zone something within the detached area, you know, RM, are we going to deny them based on the work we put in as a city in this plan? If if we are, then I guess I question what are we doing in the plan? You know what I mean? I know it's I know it's all specific. I get that. It's probably a little question, but um just wanted to get your perspective in general. So that's a great question. I I think the hierarchy is ordinance trumps anything else but ordinance should follow from the general plan. >> And so the plan is a plan. It doesn't mean that it's cast in stone and that we can or should follow it line for line. Um, and then I'll admit that future land use map is even more of a projection. >> Yeah. More abstract into a crystal ball. >> I think what this really does though is it it does give us a guide to what we anticipate we think nibbly should look like and it also gives people that might want to do a project whether it's residential or commercial or anything else. Uh it gives people that might want to a third party that wants to do a project in nibbling. It gives them an expectation of where the conversation starts. >> Yeah. >> And that's you know I think that we'll see how well we can clean up the definitions. Levi mentioned detach detach for example on residential. was what's the difference between um orange and yellow and and you know our our current teacher land use map in a lot of this area right here says medium to high density residential but >> what is that >> we don't define it >> that's a different number in nibly than it is in Logan than it is in salt lake >> and so I think the best we can do is build it build the expectation but also build a specific expectation and stick with it as as best we can. I and part of my question does spawn from some of our discussion about like well I mean I had some thoughts about how I would want to change things personally where it's like okay anything where we have mixed residential I' want to see that sort of parallel more of our heavier traffic streets and things like that and then obviously you know 300 500 3 to 500 ft off of that then that then we want I would personally want to see more of that detached just have that natural you know progression of housing and um correlate more of our streets and capacity and things like that. And I I didn't know if this was intended to go to that kind of level of planning or if it's just like generally this and we'll we'll deal with it when it comes. I don't know. So I I mean it's up to us to decide I guess right. So, so this is the plan that drives all the other plans including transportation plan. Like we just said, right? This should inform the transportation plan. The land use decides what sort of transportation you need. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I mean >> like when we were talking we were like you know talking about we do this there's an awful lot of here >> small town these areas you know the attached residential versus the detached And we're the citizens and we're kind of always been considered a different community to see a variety of lot of home sizes, you know, detached the attached. And so that's one of the things we talked about as we like to see a lot more yellow less orange. focus the orange and major corridor pushing something made more sense but to focus on the detached and then detach to have some variety I think we're going to end up creating a couple we end up creating at least one two for
>> Now, just pay attention to the, you know, when we look at these maps and really get into them. Look at the categories and definitions. Uh I'm looking at the parks and open space and this pretty much lines up with what we already have. Uh with the exception in the far norththeast and I think that's conserved space that belongs does all of that belong to Joe Burman that we're talking about as open space there that he >> almost almost but not quite. So, we might want to talk about, if it makes sense, the the the the northernmost section that's against the railroad tracks, that's not Joe Ferman's. Um, and then and then Stokes as well, which that makes sense, but >> that's a good I think there might be a bit of Mau on there. Yeah. But that it's pretty close to what we have on our current map. >> Yeah. >> With the exception of that little square up by the railroad tracks um on the northernmost by Clear Creek. I might ask them kind of what the logic was for that one. >> Is that area to the northeast already some sort of conservation? Yeah, a lot of it is >> or it's being pursued. >> That's like over 100 acres of open space without principal is a cool idea. I just don't administratively as a city we can pull it off without giving development rights away to somebody or buying. >> Well, that's yeah, I mean that that's what one property owner has done. Joe Ferman. Mo most of that is is owned by one property owner and he's worked on getting you know conservation through through the open space bond. He I think he was the first >> one >> the one that was passed and he already had he already had some of it preserved but that was to preserve a lot more of it. >> So like you know that's pretty impressive. There's a lot of green and now when you have to pay the bill, how do you actually achieve that as a city go out and buy a whole bunch of property? Can we afford to do that? Uh but it pretty much is the reality those that future is pretty much the reality of present day. And then notably the upper right hand that is stuff that's in conservation ements through the Lray Mallister from way back when. Also the latest Cash County land owner bond for open space. >> Yeah, that's cool. So that's how this happens. >> I just think like coming from the north, what an interesting visual of like welcome to Nidley, right? that we could pull that off in our future annexation plan and incorporate that. >> Yeah. And I think for conserv should be in the future. There's other areas this will come up to. It should be in the future land use plan, but I doubt whatever. >> It's conserved land, right? And there's there's I'm not sure there's any point and the conservation supposed to outlet him, but we'll see. >> Yeah. >> But I'm not I'm not sure he would ever want to There's no advantage to him to annex accidentally. >> Yeah. To us really, would there be? >> No. >> His own water system and everything. >> Yeah, he's got his own water. It's it's uh green is it low tax green belt. Thank you. Thank you. Green space green belt. So you there's no tax advantage to >> Yeah. And maybe maybe I'll speak a little bit. >> Yeah, maybe I'll speak a little bit on on the topic of annexation. it wasn't within the scope for the consultant to update the annexation plan, but I think through this process, we're finding that yeah, there's some areas we might want to add and there's some areas we maybe we just leave off. This was one this is one of them where I'd agree. May maybe we don't even need to need it on our annexation plan. But I'm going to go to the next one just for for sake of time if unless anyone has any other comments on this. So this is kind of the north west quadrant there. A lot going on here. There's a lot of opportunities in this area. Um just for orientation. This is 8991. This is 2600 South. is 3,200 south and I should use your pointer. Yeah, >> look at that. >> 2600. So, >> so this area here, the purple or green, I guess, cuz I've lit it all up in green. Um, that that area is shown as employment. And really that's reflective of really what's there now. I mean there's a little bit of retail but it's kind of an employment focused commercial area. Uh uh and right that's how that's kind of developed. But as you go to the south and you get closer to 2600 um intersection the idea is to focus more commercial retail and m you know it's it's mixed. So, it doesn't necessarily mean it's all going to be commercial, but but uh a mix of commercial, residential uses in and that area. Um, and then as you go to the south here, this is that 3200 south uh node that that we're talking about that the city could support and focus on um more residential or more commercial development in this area and supporting it really with with some higher density residential uses. So, there's more rooftops to support that. Uh I didn't get into it too much on this one, but the there's a transportation component of this as well where where the consultant is is recommending to um develop a street network where they're where it's better connected into into the community south of 3200 South. So we may be having an additional access on 8991. Uh this is a little different than the corridor plan agreement that we've that we've u been involved in. They but but the focus here is what do we need to do to make this a successful commercial area and and that's what what's being you know recommended at this time. So this is all I mean to your to your qu your question um Nick this is primarily undeveloped right now and and it's kind of just presents an opportunity for the future of something really different than what's there now. So getting into the south area, I would say this is the area over the long long term that we're going to see probably the most uh opportunity for growth in nibbly. It doesn't necessarily need to be the the place that that we absorb most of our growth, but obvious it's it's the you know south fields and and that's where we're seeing a lot of growth pressures right now. So, um, just for orientation, this is 3200 South, kind of on the north end. This is, uh, 12 West right here. So this area, mixed residential, um that's primarily what we have as kind of the RPU eligible area now where um Nibble Meadows is a little bit to the south and then getting in some additional you know detached residential but then more more uh mixed residential. our current plan. So this this is shown as industrial in this plan. Uh the consultant is recommending a little bit of a re I guess receding that industrial area by about a block on each side. Uh they part of the consultant team is uh um Lewis Roberts Young and they they have quite a bit of expertise on kind of economic analysis and just from their their analysis they they they felt like this was the way it is now is really quite large and it would be difficult to absorb that much industrial and so they're just recommending to focus it a little bit more. um in this area that's a little closer to 8991. It uses that plan 4,400 South corridor, but just focuses it in a little more and offers some more opportunity for other um land uses around it. And then, you know, Hollow Road and this whole area, not a whole lot change there. You know, detach residential large lot. This is really an area where um because of the topography and because of the kind of uh there it's there there aren't a lot of areas in Nibbi where natural hazards are are a big risk, but the hollow is one area where it is. You know, flood flooding, fire, all of those things through our natural hazard mitigation plan. We've seen that's kind of where it pops up a lot of those things. So it may and and where where the topography makes it difficult to serve with transportation doesn't make a whole lot of sense to pack a lot of people a lot of bodies in this area and that's just kind of the character of how it's developed and so that kind of stays the same. Uh but one thing that has changed a little bit is as you go up um along 165, I guess this this would support maybe a little bit more density along along 165 than what our current plan shows. Not necessarily low density here, just we show that detached. So really the same category is the other area. and then mixed residential as you get close to this 3200 South node to try to support that residential or that planned commercial area as you get, you know, along 165 there. So, those are kind of some highlights. Oh, and then the also showing some neighborhood commercial in these areas that are pretty isolated, you know, as we once we develop this far south toward Hyum. Um these areas are pretty isolated from 89 91 and and um Main Street and and just with the how we're how we're planning the development here, there may be opportunities for some neighborhood commercial near, you know, 4,000 South and particularly at at the intersections of 4,000 and 1,200 and and 1500. question. >> Yeah. Um I know in the workshop there's some discussion about um like with to trans development rights like that really say poses this whole thing but like that really changes what this whole plan would look like. Um and I know in the workshop there was some discussion on um that kind of preservation if that were to happen happening in this kind of south western area on preserving that farmland and maybe encouraging like small local farmers and that kind of thing. Was that ever brought up in discussion when looking at the future line use map of potential to or >> PDR like Yeah. Yeah. >> Um not a lot. That's a good point. I think it's something to consider. Any I mean anyone have any other >> I think it would basically be us or all of us as a city deciding like do we want to recognize areas we want even want to conserve and then work with farmers and land owners to entertain that idea. I don't have to require us to like explicitly identify those on something like this or >> Yeah, I think um so our current TDR uh sending area really is around here primarily. There are some other areas um but this is kind of the focus. Uh there was a discussion when we went through the TDR um project and we looked at this this whole area of adding it as a sending zone to try to preserve some of that farmland. And at the time the recommendation was uh let's let's just focus more on the sensitive lands and and and those areas than on the farmlands. That's kind of where the discussion went. Um I I was excited about some of the things on the student project. You know, the first presenter and trying to identify some of the areas that have value. Um we don't necessarily as our city staff doesn't necessarily have that expertise of ecologically what is valuable. So maybe maybe that's something that could feed into those those discussions. But if we but also agriculturally like what what makes sense to preserve um or is it like a huge swath of area? Is it pockets of you know 10 or 20 acres of of farmland where people are actually growing producing you know fruits and vegetables or or what what is it? I and I I wouldn't say that we've gotten into this that too much with the general plan. >> I've got a question for the council. um as the ultimate decision makers administratively honestly or legislatively, excuse me, for zoning changes, things like that. My thought process in this and really my question to you is like how to what level of detail do you feel like we need to go through this process to identify explicitly where we want specific things? Is this a guiding process to you or or do we need to refine this to the level of detail where we're effectively communicating to our citizens that this is what we plan for within reason of course you know what I mean like like Garrett and I were texting was it two weekends ago we were kind of getting into the weeds and I don't know if that was the intent of this or if this is more just like generally this is what it's going to be or are we going to refer to something like this I mean I know we talked a lot there's plenty commission referencing all the plans and saying, you know, we make our recommendations. We we do talk about that all the time. We'll assess this and this plan. I don't know if you guys have your specific perspective more or less on, you know, refining this to the level of detail where basically we are kind of planning out everything into what level scale. Yes. What do you guys have any thoughts in general? I think a lot of it stuck until it starts to be sold and developed and who's going to come in. But I think it's a strong guideline. People know like this is industrial and and something else in that area. But if I think the advantage in doing this and it gives you it's easier to develop bigger areas than just small ones. I guess I asked the question like, you know, somebody comes to us and says, I want to zone something within the detached area, you know, RM, are we going to deny them based on the work we put in as a city in this plan? If if we are, then I guess I question what are we doing in the plan? You know what I mean? I know it's I know it's all specific. I get that. It's probably a little question, but um just wanted to get your perspective in general. So that's a great question. I I think the hierarchy is ordinance trumps anything else but ordinance should follow from the general plan. >> And so the plan is a plan. It doesn't mean that it's cast in stone and that we can or should follow it line for line. Um, and then I'll admit that future land use map is even more of a projection. >> Yeah. More abstract into a crystal ball. >> I think what this really does though is it it does give us a guide to what we anticipate we think nibbly should look like and it also gives people that might want to do a project whether it's residential or commercial or anything else. Uh it gives people that might want to a third party that wants to do a project in nibbling. It gives them an expectation of where the conversation starts. >> Yeah. >> And that's you know I think that we'll see how well we can clean up the definitions. Levi mentioned detach detach for example on residential. was what's the difference between um orange and yellow and and you know our our current teacher land use map in a lot of this area right here says medium to high density residential but >> what is that >> we don't define it >> that's a different number in nibly than it is in Logan than it is in salt lake >> and so I think the best we can do is build it build the expectation but also build a specific expectation and stick with it as as best we can. I and part of my question does spawn from some of our discussion about like well I mean I had some thoughts about how I would want to change things personally where it's like okay anything where we have mixed residential I' want to see that sort of parallel more of our heavier traffic streets and things like that and then obviously you know 300 500 3 to 500 ft off of that then that then we want I would personally want to see more of that detached just have that natural you know progression of housing and um correlate more of our streets and capacity and things like that. And I I didn't know if this was intended to go to that kind of level of planning or if it's just like generally this and we'll we'll deal with it when it comes. I don't know. So I I mean it's up to us to decide I guess right. So, so this is the plan that drives all the other plans including transportation plan. Like we just said, right? This should inform the transportation plan. The land use decides what sort of transportation you need. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I mean >> like when we were talking we were like you know talking about we do this there's an awful lot of here >> small town these areas you know the attached residential versus the detached And we're the citizens and we're kind of always been considered a different community to see a variety of lot of home sizes, you know, detached the attached. And so that's one of the things we talked about as we like to see a lot more yellow less orange. focus the orange and major corridor pushing something made more sense but to focus on the detached and then detach to have some variety I think we're going to end up creating a couple we end up creating at least one two for
>> yeah because what you see here was is not the same thing that we saw two two or three weeks ago. like everything south of 3200 I'm looking at the map >> it's basically all orange and I was like that's just like come on we got to be a little bit more detailed than that right and so that's why that fostered some of that discussion was like what's the intent of this >> you're saying this draft is different from that >> yeah this is the updated thing based off feedback >> yeah this one >> yes Yeah. Yeah. So, this I guess this isn't the first draft. There was there was another draft that the steering committee provided some comments on and there were some additional inputs. Um, for example, the first draft actually showed that industrial area on the southwest corner even smaller and and there was a discussion with the economic development director for Bragg, um, Sean Mill, and he suggested that, well, some of those industries need extra space to grow, um, more than just a couple of blocks. And so they they they relooked at it and they they added, you know, some some additional space for that industrial area. So this isn't I I guess what's in front of you is not set in stone in any way. If if you have any feedback about specific areas and things that should be considered, please shoot them over. Um, I think at the end of the day, we just we just want it to best reflect um both what the citizens um have expressed through through our public engagement process as as well as, you know, what are our strategic goals for the city? How are we going to get there um through through our, you know, land use planning? And it's it's a balance, right? I mean, not everyone's going to get everything that they want. Um, there's probably I'm sure there'll be continue to be development that's going to be controversial that people will say, "Why are you guys doing this?" But I think if we can be strategic about it and pointed and yeah, we're trying to get this commercial area. We're trying to um provide a variety of housing for our, you know, growing population. I think that's the that's the the goal here. It's multiaceted. >> Well, at one point survey 17% we're concerned about building mortality, but 74% were concerned about the small town field and managing growth. >> Right. That's that's the tough balance there is I think we we need there there's a space to be responsive to that that sentiment and there's a space to also be responsive to to um plan the future growth of our of our city. I mean, a lot of people don't want the city to grow or or they or they don't want it to change much from what it is now. Um, but we have to look at the reality of of, you know, how we're projected to grow and accommodate for that in some way. And so, it's it's a balance. Um, it's a tough balance, but >> yeah, >> that's what we volunteered for. >> Yeah. >> I'm personally excited. I mean, with all the commercial 89 to see if that what the reality is with that. I mean, now that I mean, we're we're recognizing that that's what we want. At least that's what's proposed here. Um, subscription. Yeah. All right. So, if any of you I mean we're low on time. We're past what we put on the schedule. Uh if any of you want to provide comments, u we're we're getting to the stage where we're wrapping this up and we are working through the steering committee process. But, you know, please if any of you have any comments of, hey, did you consider this, send them send them over and we can discuss them with steering committee and and adjust this as we go along. >> Great. Anything else on just one thing, Nathan? I'm with you. approach line 8991. The thing that the thing that's so hard about this whole process, it doesn't mean it lets us off the hook. But we're not only planning a city, we're also subject to market pressures. And you know, we we could we could turn all of our 8991 into MEL, but I I'm I'm sure at 5 to1 the people that approached the city staff in that area aren't approaching about building anything commercial, certainly not retail. They're they're saying we got to build rooftops. I'm I'm a residential developer. I want to build I want to build rooftops and and if you let us do enough of that eventually it'll get the commercial right but if we do too much of that >> it'll go somewhere else be used up in residential so >> that's the hard part is planning city you know this isn't um the government has limits on its its powers how to take away people's property rights there are limits on that certainly um how to respond to market pressures because we're not funding this. The citizens of New England aren't paying taxes to go buy land to fund this. This is this is the free market in action and and that we're trying to shade it. >> Yeah. >> Mayor, do we have any access to that that bond money for open space in the valley? No, that is allocated by the Cash County Council. Kina Ron. >> Well, but property owners can apply for it. >> Property owners can >> but they don't come to get money. open space recommending body that is a county in the county jurisdiction and the county council makes the decision about buying those those contributors Um specifically uh areas south that we're looking at for residential development. There's a landowner in the 3800 4,000 south uh active participant in our discussions. I appreciate that. He has attempted to get a conservation space for his property and others around him and he he said they pull it out. >> Might have been helpful if we said we wanted his open space. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Anything else from the planning commission at least? No. >> Larry, thanks you guys. Thanks for letting us back on. >> Okay. Thank you. With that, if there's no objection city council meeting, >> we're just Yeah, I know. It's It doesn't look too bad.
>> yeah because what you see here was is not the same thing that we saw two two or three weeks ago. like everything south of 3200 I'm looking at the map >> it's basically all orange and I was like that's just like come on we got to be a little bit more detailed than that right and so that's why that fostered some of that discussion was like what's the intent of this >> you're saying this draft is different from that >> yeah this is the updated thing based off feedback >> yeah this one >> yes Yeah. Yeah. So, this I guess this isn't the first draft. There was there was another draft that the steering committee provided some comments on and there were some additional inputs. Um, for example, the first draft actually showed that industrial area on the southwest corner even smaller and and there was a discussion with the economic development director for Bragg, um, Sean Mill, and he suggested that, well, some of those industries need extra space to grow, um, more than just a couple of blocks. And so they they they relooked at it and they they added, you know, some some additional space for that industrial area. So this isn't I I guess what's in front of you is not set in stone in any way. If if you have any feedback about specific areas and things that should be considered, please shoot them over. Um, I think at the end of the day, we just we just want it to best reflect um both what the citizens um have expressed through through our public engagement process as as well as, you know, what are our strategic goals for the city? How are we going to get there um through through our, you know, land use planning? And it's it's a balance, right? I mean, not everyone's going to get everything that they want. Um, there's probably I'm sure there'll be continue to be development that's going to be controversial that people will say, "Why are you guys doing this?" But I think if we can be strategic about it and pointed and yeah, we're trying to get this commercial area. We're trying to um provide a variety of housing for our, you know, growing population. I think that's the that's the the goal here. It's multiaceted. >> Well, at one point survey 17% we're concerned about building mortality, but 74% were concerned about the small town field and managing growth. >> Right. That's that's the tough balance there is I think we we need there there's a space to be responsive to that that sentiment and there's a space to also be responsive to to um plan the future growth of our of our city. I mean, a lot of people don't want the city to grow or or they or they don't want it to change much from what it is now. Um, but we have to look at the reality of of, you know, how we're projected to grow and accommodate for that in some way. And so, it's it's a balance. Um, it's a tough balance, but >> yeah, >> that's what we volunteered for. >> Yeah. >> I'm personally excited. I mean, with all the commercial 89 to see if that what the reality is with that. I mean, now that I mean, we're we're recognizing that that's what we want. At least that's what's proposed here. Um, subscription. Yeah. All right. So, if any of you I mean we're low on time. We're past what we put on the schedule. Uh if any of you want to provide comments, u we're we're getting to the stage where we're wrapping this up and we are working through the steering committee process. But, you know, please if any of you have any comments of, hey, did you consider this, send them send them over and we can discuss them with steering committee and and adjust this as we go along. >> Great. Anything else on just one thing, Nathan? I'm with you. approach line 8991. The thing that the thing that's so hard about this whole process, it doesn't mean it lets us off the hook. But we're not only planning a city, we're also subject to market pressures. And you know, we we could we could turn all of our 8991 into MEL, but I I'm I'm sure at 5 to1 the people that approached the city staff in that area aren't approaching about building anything commercial, certainly not retail. They're they're saying we got to build rooftops. I'm I'm a residential developer. I want to build I want to build rooftops and and if you let us do enough of that eventually it'll get the commercial right but if we do too much of that >> it'll go somewhere else be used up in residential so >> that's the hard part is planning city you know this isn't um the government has limits on its its powers how to take away people's property rights there are limits on that certainly um how to respond to market pressures because we're not funding this. The citizens of New England aren't paying taxes to go buy land to fund this. This is this is the free market in action and and that we're trying to shade it. >> Yeah. >> Mayor, do we have any access to that that bond money for open space in the valley? No, that is allocated by the Cash County Council. Kina Ron. >> Well, but property owners can apply for it. >> Property owners can >> but they don't come to get money. open space recommending body that is a county in the county jurisdiction and the county council makes the decision about buying those those contributors Um specifically uh areas south that we're looking at for residential development. There's a landowner in the 3800 4,000 south uh active participant in our discussions. I appreciate that. He has attempted to get a conservation space for his property and others around him and he he said they pull it out. >> Might have been helpful if we said we wanted his open space. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Anything else from the planning commission at least? No. >> Larry, thanks you guys. Thanks for letting us back on. >> Okay. Thank you. With that, if there's no objection city council meeting, >> we're just Yeah, I know. It's It doesn't look too bad.
Hey, we're good. Okay, with that, we'll move on to item number seven back on the main planning commission agenda, which is discussion and consideration for the recommendation of approval for the site plan of a religious meeting house for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints located at 3420 South, 1200 West. Red is driving me nuts. I don't know if it's driving anyone else nuts, but I'm terrible at that because I never use it. Yeah. So, uh, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. And uh by the way, they they do have a representative online, Leif Harris, from the that's um from the architectural firm that represents um the church that has been that that we've been working with. They submitted a site plan review application for a 20,000 square foot meeting house at 30 about 3420 South 1200 West there adjacent to Nibbly Meadows. And um you've you've seen the concept plan. It was it was approved previously. And as far as what process is needed for them to uh move forward with a building permit, uh site plan approval and the NibLy City Code requires that any building over 10,000 square feet be considered by city council. And so the this first item, the site plan is uh you'll be recommending the um the action here and then we'll get into the conditional use permit next item there. I'll get into the some of the details of site plan. So you see it here. This should look familiar uh very familiar to the concept plan that you saw um for the uh for the the church here. and the but at the site plan level we get a lot more detail. Um we get we get all the construction drawings civil the um architectural renderings for the building and all of that's reviewed. Um but the layout hasn't changed. It's the same as what's on the concept plan. Uh just just to show you this is the landscaping plan. Um you see the variety of different you know trees and shrubs. Um not a lot of turf which our our code does um require less of except in um active recreation areas which you can kind of see on the southwest corner. They do have some turf there, but a lot of it is um these other materials for ground cover. This is an architectural rendering of the proposed building of pretty much completely of a brick veneer. You can see there. So just going through some different facets of what needs to be considered with the site plan. So looking at the architectural design that the brick veneer facade meets standards for materials, textures, and colors. Um this is really looking at Nibbli's design standards for commercial and institutional uses. Uh this next one should look familiar cuz this is this is also something that was considered with the building uh just just half block away from us here with the um orthodontist. It does not meet the 60% venistration for glass windows and doors at ground level. Um the applicant is requesting exception to this requirement and they've they provided the following justification. Uh church meeting house would have difficulty operating of classrooms, offices or meeting rooms had a large amount of clear window area fronting a street. Religious meetings require some isolation from their surroundings for congregants to commute and worship. Classrooms require some isolation order provide a product productive learning environment. private offices require some isolation or provide a place where people can share their deepest feelings with leaders. So they are requesting um an exception to the code which it it does allow for in this case it's it's a little different or not the code it's it's the design standard the these architectural design standards do allow for that that variation and just based on the justification staff would be supportive of of that um exception but that's ultimately up to the well it will be up to the city council but for your consideration tonight the planning commission if if you think you know that that needs to be um enforced differently. Uh so for landscaping the proposed landscaping does meet uh landscaping requirements including for trees and water wise landscaping. looking at parking. Um, this is our first test on our new parking our updated parking code. >> You like first tests? >> Yes. Yeah. So, it does exceed the minimum parking requirements. So, vehicles and and it the the parking requirements for church for churches and meeting houses is is probably one of the more complicated ones to figure out because you you have to get the length of the the benches on the for thick seating and then also the square footage where there's movable seats. So staff looked at all those square footages. They the applicant provided the figures for all of that. Um there and what would be required taking all that into account is 245 stalls. They provided 319 for bicycle parking. What would be required is six stalls and they provided space for eight. So they do they do have eight racks, but those could fit two bikes. So first time we've ever required bike parking and it's provided. So there you go. >> Awesome. >> A little bit more. Um two vehicular access points from 1200 West as was um presented at the concept plan. For signage, the proposed identification signage does not exceed the maximum dimension requirements. Um, looking at utilities, the Tom, our city engineer, has um, that's not that's not true. That's not true. I'm sorry about that first comment. I I think that I might have copied that from something else. I'm sorry. I I meant to say that they've been reviewed, not approved. Um have been reviewed by City Engineer Public Works. Um and then um the the streetscape of the parcel is going to be improved, the curb cutter and sidewalk. And there are some comments that remain from from the city engineer on on the um civil drawings that we're we're suggesting can be re resolved as as a condition of approval. So they have not been approved but uh we're we're ready to bring them forward and Tom if you want to get into what you know any any of the specifics on that Tom can Tom can get into that on the discussion. Uh canals They are proposing some canal modifications that still need to be approved by the Nibbly Blacksmith for irrigation company. It's also one of the recommended conditions of approval. So, uh staff's recommendation is to recommend approval for the site plan of this application with the findings and conditions as follows. The application is sufficiently compliant with NibLy City Design Centers for commercial institutional uses with an appropriate justification modify requirements for minimum fistration on the primary building facade. Um the application is compliant with minimum parking standards. Uh the proposed signage complies with Nibi city code. The proposed utility plan um complies with Nibi City Engineering Design Center specification with the exception of minor comments that may be verified by the city engineer prior to construction in the proposed use as conditional use in the R2 zone. The recommended conditions little typo there, but um any future additions or development of the site beyond the proposed meeting house supported parking landscaping subject further site plan review. So, they're not developing the whole parcel. Um, and this is just to be clear that any future development would have to come back in. The applicant must obtain approval from Nibbly Blacksmith Work Irrigation Company for modification to canals on the property prior to construction. Water shares of rights must be provided to the city in in accordance with NLY city code. Public utilities must be recorded along the frontage of 1200 West. Um provided for the uh the utilities that are planned there. A conditional use permit for the proposed use must be approved prior to construction and the applicant must receive final approval from the city engineer for the construction drawings. That that's it on that item. Okay. Thank you. We'll open up for discussion. Any questions? This is the one, remind me where the sidewalk access got a little Was there some questions about like a gate or something like that? The details and what was the resolution did we determine? >> Yeah. Uh, and Leif, if you could speak to this, but my understanding is there's there's no plan for a a gate, a fence or a gate on the back of the property, and they are showing a um a connection sidewalk connection into the 1100 West Trail that's going to go in with Nibbly Meadows into the property. So that that would meet that standard. But Leif, if if I by um if there were if there was a change there, you can you can speak. But that's that's what I had heard. >> My are can you hear me? >> Yeah. >> Okay, good. My my rec I I'm sorry I don't have the plans right in front of me big enough for me to see. I have to get on my phone tonight. And but my recollection is that we did have a fence along the back, but there was a gap there for the sidewalk. >> Typ typically the church pre uh prefers to have a fence around the property and so we that's that's what we would prefer to do if the city is going to allow it. But we do have a gap there where that sidewalk goes back to the back trail. Yeah, I guess that's a little bit different than what we heard last time, but if there is a gap, I mean, that's that's that would be allowed. Um, >> and we we would definitely be open to modifying that if the city prefers that there's no fence back there. It's just the way that they typically prefer it. So, >> yeah, I think our standards allow for it. It's it's just that I what what we say is that you can even have a gate, but the gate has to be open anytime the parking's open. And so if you don't have a gate on the parking lot, you really shouldn't have a gate on the on the, you know, sidewalk, >> right? >> I guess the idea there is if you are trying, you know, for security at certain hours to lock the place down, we we see that. But but I think in this case, if it's just open, it would meet the city's standard. Um >> Okay. >> Yeah, sounds good. That's that's the way we would do it with no gate. It'd just be open, >> right? Brian, remind me, did you did you have a question on this one last time about Southern Access? I forget. Or was that a different project? It's been a minute, but I do think it needs to be open >> to the south for a projected develop to the south. >> I can't remember. We talked about that, didn't we? Couldn't remember what was termin. >> So, we worked with the designer in master planning accesses to this property. What we didn't want was two or four or six accesses and we ended up compromising with three. So, two are servicing this north site right now. And then the third one, you can see it down on the very south end. The if I had that pointer >> right here, >> right point. Yeah. >> Oh, right there. >> There you go. Use it. >> That pointer right there. That's the third access. So, and and uh they also agreed to install the utilities or the sidewalk curbing gutter and everything through the whole frontage just as as our code requires. So the trails on the the upper >> So the trail is on the east boundary here and connects down to phase it's phase nine of Nibbly Meadows. >> It's flipped then. >> That's the east side. That's the east. >> That is the east side. Yeah. >> That's 1200 west. This is the trail corridor on 1100 west. So you can see it a little better in this rendition. Right. There's actually the trail corridor and there's that access onto that trail corridor right about there. >> 1100 west of the trail all by strictly running. >> Correct. There's a small section up on the serves as a drive access for this one property there. And there's also going to be a small gap in the sidewalk that runs east and west from Hawk Hollow to Nibbly Meadows. So to be clear, there's going to be access from the back of the parking lot to the trail. >> There's going to be a trail access from the parking lot to the trail with an open gate or an opening. >> Yeah. I mean, I think that's imperative given all the dense more dense development going around on the base and you're just going to have more and more families and kids walking to church. So having that open I think it's great. Yeah. >> And it's it's I'm assuming a chain link vent. >> Le can you uh respond? >> We would typically install a chain link fence with privacy slats on a project like this unless the city has other requirements. >> So I believe and Levi will have to correct me. Wherever we put a fence along a trail corridor, it would be limited to 4ft height, >> right? Or it could be six foot high with 50% of the tub above 4 feet would be transparent. >> Yeah. >> What I would suggest is that there be a condition that I don't have this on there. Um maybe an added condition that all fencing would need to get a fence permit because we could make sure that they they meet those standards with the fence permit >> and comply with nibbly standards. >> Yeah. comply with nibly standards that way. I >> mean would if they have to comply either way will we >> well I think it would be good to clarify that so that something that said in in this meeting or I guess the city council's meeting isn't construed to say that oh well we talked about a fence you guys nodded your heads you know I I think I think it's good I think it's good it's good to have documentation of that. So that that's expected when we um we we have short memories uh how these things come through. So >> my there was a fence and I I recall the designer saying there wasn't going to be a fence and tonight it sounds like there is going back. >> So it might be good to just monumentalize it somewhere. >> Yeah. So they that would be an option. Just put 4 foot high privacy slats along the trail and have a six foot ch. >> That would that would be an option. Yes. >> Right. Yeah. Either way, your recommendation is that >> they need to get a fence. >> We we recognize that they need to put in a fence that to adhere to today's city standard, >> right? Any any fencing they just need to get a fence permit for because yeah, there's nuances where it's along the trail and we need to keep it open for the the pedestrian access that could be monitored through the fence permit application process. Gotcha. Okay. Any discussion? Motion. I'll make motion. Okay. Uh, I'll make a motion to approve recommendation the approval of the site plan of a religious meeting house for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints located at 3420 South 1200 West with the conditions recommended by staff in addition to uh obtaining a permit motion. by Troy. Recommendation of approval, second by Claire. Any other discussion? Okay, I'll just go ahead and restate the motion for clarity. So, we have a motion to recommend approval for the site plan of a religious meeting house for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints located at 3 uh 420 South 1200 West to include all recommendations by staff and also including the um that they obtain a fence permit for the project. >> Those conditions, no recommendations. The conditions we >> Oh, yes. The conditions by not the recommend. Thank you for Okay. Um, any other discussion? Okay, we'll go to a vote. All in favor? Any opposed? It's five in favor. Thank you. Okay, we'll go to item number eight on the agenda, which is the discussion and consideration for approval of a conditional use permit for a church place of worship for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints located at 3420 South, 1200 West. Levi, I don't think we necessarily need an introduction. >> No, not a not a lot here. Um just just to say that this isn't conditional use in this zone. So conditional use permit is required and a lot of you know a lot of the the site um details that that we've normally discussed with the conditional use permit have already been covered through the site plan process. Uh but looking at a conditional use permit u just just pointing back to really the basis for issuance of a conditional use permit that they they should be approved if if uh reasonable conditions are imposed to mitigate the reasonably anticipated detrimental effects of the proposed use. So when you think of, you know, potentially detrimental effects, things like parking, um really the applicant has demonstrated adherence to parking standards. So there's no mitigation necessary for with regards to parking um beyond what's already in the site plan. Uh lighting, uh all exterior lighting need to be will be required to adhere to Midley City outdoor lighting standards. And then there within the conditional use uh standard, there's also this um additional additional standard for outdoor lighting that the the planning commission can require to limit light associated with conditional use that emanates beyond their property boundaries to less than 101 foot candles. Um so that is recommended a recommended condition just to you know really focus on down lighting so it doesn't impact those neighboring properties. Um and then you know we don't want anyone to lose any sleep over living next to the church I guess is the idea there with light shining in the window. um traffic and connectivity. The applicants demonstrate adherence to pedestrian connectivity standards and then the proposed use is not anticipated to grade the level of service the adjacent roadways below a level of service C which is really what the standard is in our conditional use um or our conditional use chapter. So not necessarily any um mitigation necessary there. So the recommendation is to approve this conditional use permit. Uh the final the proposed use is compatible with the site context. The applicant has indicated adher adherence to nibly city standards including parking and lighting standards and conditions. The site plan for the building must receive final approval from city council. Now all outdoor lighting must adhere to nibly city outdoor lighting standards of of those codes. So >> okay thank you discussion. I've got, if I may, I've got a question just about logical flow of how these things work. Like, let's take this as I'm just curious in general, like so we have an applicant who's gone through and spent this could be anybody by my question, right? Has spent all this money to develop these plans, has spent this time to work with us. Why are why are we not talking about the conditional use first and then letting everything come from that? What if we deny it? you know, help me understand why we do these things in the order that we do. >> Yeah. So, our code says that we the the conditional use permit and the site plan can be considered in conjunction with one another. As far as whether this one's first or the other one on the agenda, uh to be honest, it was it was mainly just to provide the context for the the planning commission. At the end of the day, I don't know if it really matters which one comes first. They are dependent upon one another. >> Yeah. Um >> but but that was that was kind of the reason it was placed on the agenda that way was just the site plan provided more context on the site. All of that was covered and then and then just some additional detail for >> maybe same question a different way. So when we get an application like this I mean certainly the LDS church came to us and said we want to do this here or it could be any kind of development right? Mhm. >> Why was this conditional use permit not discussed and presented to us way back then? And to me, I guess that's just where like maybe every certainly the other commissioners can disagree, but I'm like, shouldn't we talk about that the very first thing and then let everything else happen the way it should? >> We could. We could. The way our code's currently written is it's in conjunction with the site plan application. Okay. or so typically we consider a conditional use. It's triggered by one of two things. One is um a business license application because you know it's already existing building um or one is a um site plan application. In this case it was a site plan. Okay. But we could at concept plan consider the conditional use I suppose and that would and and that could you could get that answer sooner. >> Yeah. >> Um to to your point I don't I don't think it's as far as that being a logical process. I don't I don't I think that could work. But that's I think that's wise just because that's the framework that the code says when we do that. >> Yeah. And I don't need to like hammer and get too deep in the weeds, but I just feel like, you know, to have an applicant go through the process and spend the money to design all these things and then the last thing is actually to approve the conditional use when to me anyways it seems like that should be the very first thing we discuss and because what if we say no and they've spent all this money to you know what I mean? I don't know. I mean and and in this case it >> say no to the conditional use >> a conditional use is they are approved uses like you can't tell them no they are you can only give recommendations on or you can only what am I trying to say >> so they're specific to the use >> conditional things that need to be done to mitigate their impact on surrounding areas >> not eliminate them just mitigate them but you can't held in zone and so >> it's very difficult to >> if you can't >> I got >> so you could set conditions to mitigate anything so let's say >> so all these conditions >> supplement the design >> yeah so let's say there's traffic impacts and it brought level service below the city you could set a condition they had to do mitigation measures at certain intersections in order to have that >> that makes sense Yeah, >> I think I think the difficult thing though is a lot of times um with the commercial development, you know, we don't see a lot of nibbly, but we don't necessarily know what businesses the specific businesses that are going to go in there and they change and we we typically, you know, we're we're considering a conditional use after the building's already in there, but once a the use is established, which is when the business operates there, Um >> that that's a really good point. If you get a really ma a larger master plan commercial site, you'll have an anchor store typically and then a bunch of shell buildings or they call it a vanilla shell, manila shell, whatever. And and these shell buildings don't have any tenants at that point. They build them and then the tenant would come in and build to suit what they need. They might take one space or two spaces. They might take an entire building. And with that, they they come in for a building permit, but they they want to have a change of or a conditional use permit before they get that building permit just so they know what sort of mitigation, right? But that building's there already. So, it it could go either way. >> I guess, you know, now that I'm thinking about it, maybe I'm inflating like a barrier versus just forget all the last 10 minutes. You're good. Sorry, we're just Yeah. >> No, it's approval. It's approval. >> That's why these are two separate items, by the way. But yeah. That's why one's recommendation, one's approval. >> With the conditions recommended by Okay, there. Okay. We have a motion before us for approval of the conditional use permit for a church place of worship for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints located at 3420 South Hill West including the conditions identified via staff. Second by Claire. Any other discussion? Okay, we'll go to a vote. All in favor? Any opposed? Five. Thank you. Okay, we'll go to item number nine on the agenda, which is a workshop for the open space subdivision code. All right. So, um, Nick and Troy sent some potential changes to the ordinance. And what I thought is, I mean, I don't know if I need to summarize these or if I just hand it off to you for you guys to sum summarize, but kind of what I heard just to package that up is a couple of things that that we could look at here. And I'm hoping to get some guidance tonight if if we if we can get to that level of detail. Um, but really I think the topics came down to setbacks and how we're going to set setbacks, particularly in relation to um a new open space subdivision when the setbacks are different from what is on an adjacent property or what's in the underlying zone and treating that differently. So I think the setback issue um I feel pretty comfortable with of coming up with with something if we can get some agreement here. Uh the lot sizes I think gets a a lot more nuance. Um and then um Troy also suggested rather than lot sizes potentially focusing on lot widths and getting a variation in lot widths. um you know in the in that fields proposal that we saw pretty much all the lot widths were uniform about 50 ft wide. So if we're trying to get variation maybe there's some variation in the width of the lots. Um and then also uh Nick expressed that maybe we have um maybe 40% is a little high of open space dedication and the incentive you know once you get to that high level you need to get kind of a even higher density for it to be um worthwhile I guess to the to the developer. order for that incentive. So may maybe we peel that back and remove the incentive for 40% and cut it off. I mean, right now it's at 35. So that's that's an option. So I don't know. Maybe I I I was thinking I would just turn over to you two to kind of explain what you um came up with, the ideas you came up with, and then uh if there's others that want to react to that or express any other um opinions and then see if we can get to, you know, some specific direction so that staff can um start drafting something for the commission to react to. >> I think some of it is just hearing what we heard from comments on the last uh planning commission meeting with Manel. um what was was it just hair and and he expressed some of his thoughts about um the the project that spurred this whole discussion and whether we need to match setbacks to pre-existing development and things like that. And then as I so I called Levi earlier about another thing and we started to talk about this concept and I started thinking about um just this idea of maybe this is too conceptual but it's like do we even need to separate the open space neighborhood between R2? Why don't just have it's just have the open space so neighborhood and it shouldn't be applied to anywhere. So, so do we even need to think about changing some of the code to blend the two together to find a happy median? And and again like so my context in all this is my living just I've been trying to think about my neighborhood the benefits of it where I feel like some things um where we could sacrifice a little bit of open space to to maybe blend together the idea of um the the size of lots in my neighborhood right and also including some of these smaller lots as a percentage and trying to figure out how all this fits together. So what I was thinking about earlier was why are we trying to force two different the open space neighborhood differently just a uniform code A and B if I were to take my neighborhood for example and say okay everything's the same terms of density and all the numbers um but what if we just took essentially like one acre of developable area which would be you know four four lots or quarter acre lots and just said quarter acres those are now are there the smaller lot sizes. You go four to 10 or whatever that is, right? And just trying to figure out how the math I know the math is the hardest part when we're talking about in code designing these variable lot sizes and how do you make the math work? I get that. That's that's probably going to be the hardest part about the concept that I'm trying to explain. Um, but I guess that's the question I have is does it make sense for us to try and for ordinance this and differently depending on the zone and should it just be one option and it should just be the option for the open space. Are we over complicating this? >> I don't know. So to clar, let me restate what you're trying to say or what I'm what I'm hearing is remove it as an overlay and it becomes its own zone as an option. Yeah. And then we just decide what the numbers are and it either works for the side or it doesn't. I I guess the qu because remember we we originally were like well how do we get open space in R2A, right? Like that's how we got here. Um, and maybe the solution is is should should it just be the open space neighborhood regardless of it's it starts in R2 or R2A just why can't it just be the open space option? Why does it be two different things? So, I don't know. >> So, what would be the downside to eliminating R2A >> open space? >> No, R2A. eliminate way >> so that um so that the open space subdivision ordinance is attractive to an R2. >> Yeah. I think I think what um Nick's talking about though is just having like the way the open space subdivision is set up now is it all relates to the underlying zone and it's um it's not really an overlay. It's it's a density bonus option really is kind of what um because it does not require it does not require any legislative action. I guess that's the difference here. If it was adopted as a separate zone, um you would need to come in and it would be it would be legislative for the you know the city council would have to reszone the property to open space and whether it was the way it is now or or like you say make it kind of uniform across the board >> if R2 or R24 RTA doesn't matter >> right. I think maybe the downside of doing that is where what we have now is there may or may not be an incentive to develop it depending on what the underlying zoning already is. >> Right? That's the question >> because if you've got R2A or you've got R2 and there and there's less of an incentive. So there there'd be more of an incentive for someone in an R1 zone, for example, or even RE zone or an Azone to get that zoning than than a piece of property that's R2 or R2A because if if it's all uniform, I think the way it's set up now is it's an option, right? you either develop a standard subdivision or you develop an open space >> and you get more >> and you get more density than the base zoning, >> right? >> So, I guess it turns a blind eye to it and it might it might incentivize more in those lower density areas and less in the in the higher density zone areas. How many acres do you do you think R2A how many acres we have in R2A city versus >> vacant >> a vacant land? Not not much of vacant. Um I mean you got Stonebridge, but that's kind of already called for and >> Aalo. And that's all that's not really vacant anymore. I mean, you see the dirt moving there. Um, there's little there's there's not much >> is that what's the subdivision? >> There might be one other >> What's the subdivision west of? >> Oh. Oh, and and Heritage Cross Heritage Parkway is R2A and that's also starting to develop as a standard subdivision. I guess what I'm asking. So the all future subdivisions are either R2 or they're open space subdivision. Oh, that's lower the risk of it. What happened a couple weeks ago again where we where someone moved to an R2A. They they they reszoned from R2 to R2A. Correct. >> No, it was >> Well, that was the intent. Yeah, they were they were trying to they they they proposed so they originally went from agg and they proposed R2A city count the planning commissions recommended R2 and that's what the city council approved >> and the justification at the time was there's no incentive for you to open space subdivision right then we went through the process of updating the open space subdivision to make it to create an incentive within been an R2A, but then that was denied. Well, this the code was changed, but the the reason the R2A when they reapplied with with their preliminary plot was denied. So, um yeah, I mean the neighbors didn't like what they saw. >> I think what that would do is essentially they every neighborhood is an open space neighborhood. It's not economically viable really anymore to just develop a standard R2. It's there's going to be no clientele. >> To me, that's a dream, right? You're saying that's effectively what that would do, right? >> Yeah. But it was denied. It was denied because they didn't it was the surrounding neighborhood. the surrounding neighbors too close to the property that were existing though. >> Yeah, I don't I don't know if I could speak to >> Yeah, I that would be >> all the reasons it was denied. Um, >> I think I think it was denied for a number of different reasons, but um, you know, Garrett expressed he he didn't he didn't like the he didn't feel like the city had a good plan for the open space quite yet. So, he didn't like taking on the open space. I know mayor mentioned that he felt like the neighbors didn't want open space, didn't want the tradeoff of the open space, so he listened to that. And so anyway, there there was a variety of different reasons that maybe that the city council did. can't really speak to. >> Yeah, >> I don't think it was one >> too many 58 square foot lots. >> But yeah. >> Yeah. But um >> I mean I mean we have so many options pursued in this and one of them simplest one is we just get rid of R2A open space. >> Yeah would be the easiest. I'm not I'm not saying I'm proposing that but I mean that is an option. >> Yeah. I mean, I think the I think the >> probably the biggest drawback of that one and and maybe there's a way to correct for it other in other places in our code is uh just moderate income housing, you and and whether it's an R2 or an open space subdivision in an R2 zone, you're not going to get anything approaching moderate income or even median income. come housing um in those neighborhoods. I mean, you're just you're just not going to get that, at least not in today's market. >> R2A. >> So, >> where if if it's an R2A, you know, like what was proposed where you have those smaller lot sizes. I mean, I know and you'd mentioned that maybe that that's not the focus of the open space subdivision, but it is a I think it's an opportunity of providing some more affordable options. >> Should that then mean though that um we would just see a greater interest in RPV? >> Yeah. I mean, >> if the developers feel like and they're >> they're only going to build things that they're going to sell, right? because that's how they that's their entrepreneurial incentive. Would that then just mean you're just increasing the likelihood that we get applications for RPD? >> You could uh but we've we currently limit RPUDs to few specific areas >> and Yeah. >> Yeah. >> One risk with RPD, it usually brings in the need for an HOA. someone has to maintain this open space or or the amenities that we're looking for. And I'm hearing around the valley right now that HOA fees are about 200 bucks a month. So in rough numbers, that would be the equivalent of having to finance. It's about $11 per thousand. >> Yeah. >> Dollars on your loan, right? So what would that be? My math, it's too late to math, but let's just say it's going to be for round numbers. It's like adding $20,000 to your mortgage. >> Yeah, >> but it's quarter% lower now. >> No, it might be $10 for a thousand, but point being that these open spaces come at a cost to someone. >> Yeah. >> So, RPD and the open spaces. >> They do. >> Yes. >> Yeah. I mean, I I think it it'll be important to look at. I mean, that that that's definitely something to consider, but I think if we're going to do that, we have to look at the whole code and see if the framework of our code fits. I mean, we just talked about our future land use map. Like, is there a place to support what's in there in our code? And maybe maybe there is. Maybe it's RPD, maybe it's RM, but I feel like there's somewhere in between that our code doesn't quite provide for. Can I just make a point? Sometimes I forget that open space isn't necessarily just an open field that the city's going to manage or the HOA is going to manage like a field. Open space can be there's a lot of definition what open space is including private privately held >> open space like like in metal creek most of that open space is privately held it's protected >> like it's open it's so it's not just dense you know house after house it's open open space it's protected so when you drive down that road it feels open right that's what it's so I think you need to remember It's not always a field or a park that the city's got to manage or the ancient ways got to get lawn mower out and you know it could be just open space a field where somebody puts animals in or whatever. You know what I mean? >> But it's managed and and taken care of by the home owner that >> as long as they meet at least within their design three of our standards. And I think Meadow Creek I I wasn't here when that was approved, but when I look at it, the open space does a variety of different open spaces do different things. You've got pedestrian path, you've got a burm, you've got some that's more kind of maybe a little bit of a space on on one corner. So, um I think the variety is kind of at least what our code currently calls for. I mean, that could be something that changes, but I kind of like that that component of it that that it does different things. It has different utility to it. >> That we just that we just looked at, right? That five acres could be privately held by somebody who lives in that seven or somebody who doesn't live in that. They can own that and put the horses on it and it's It's over with. It's qualifies, right? >> It would because they check enough box because they also have a trail. >> They also um I think there was something about preserving um historical. So like they preserve the buildings. They they checked enough of those other boxes. If all it was was a field with horses, probably not. You'd probably have to have >> maybe >> we could >> open space. It's just something that nothing's built. >> Could be a marsh, could be wetlands, could be a field, right? >> And and the way it's currently written, if the city wants to take it, we can we can just say, "No, give it to us." During the approval process, >> the city could have denied it and required finding. >> Oh, yeah. I mean, or the city could have taken it and sold it. I mean, to be honest, there was nothing in there that said that it had to be the cities. It's dedicated to the city, but >> but it's it's conservation space. The main thing is it has that conservation easement. Isn't that defeating the open space development agreement >> between the developer? >> Not if it's not >> if you sell it. >> You still have the same restrictions. You still have the same restrictions on there. >> Okay. >> But so the the land use doesn't change. the development of it doesn't necessarily change, but the ownership could to to Brett's point. >> We we are trading open space for density. >> Mhm. >> And that's why I love that word is because I'm okay with this higher density to preserve that openness that everybody in that survey, most people recognize that's what they want. that I know you don't the word world but that feel of openness and not you know >> but the pro I think the ultimate problems right is like when you talk like in that survey it's like a two it's a contradicting thing in this context right where people want this but they also don't want what comes with it and I think that's why we're having this discussion is >> they don't want the tradeoff necessarily they want The biggest issue I saw at the build is the open space was in everybody's backyard. Not not along a road or neighborhood or something like that. one little road going back in at a barn and then empty. >> So I so I guess to kind of steer this thing back to probably what you need from us, Levi, is what from the planning commission perspective, what are the what are the guiding things that we need to give Levi to make to help him steer what we want him to do with this ordinance and code? Like Brett, you you mentioned during the last meeting, you know, you looked at the plan and it just felt like too many houses. And to an extent, I do agree with you. Um, and to me what that means is how do we do the math or we can math it to where we get what how do we achieve that concept of going from 70 to 60 or whatever the number is, right? But and while also still trying to preserve the idea of how do we get the variability that the council asked us to to get in this ordinance as well, right? So that's not solely given away the concept of these smaller lots. I think it's this needs to be a complimentary ordinance where it's encouraging all these things. But I don't know if that's is that possible, Levi. Does the math math out to where now it's still an incentive for a developer to do this? That's I think that's the question we have. Is that not even reasonable? all the schools just in general is looking at the menu of options. Is it appealing to them to want to build a because they feel like they have more options >> outside of >> no in like >> oh like there's a lot of options like we build this in development or this or this or this. Do we want that? Do we want developers to feel like that? >> Good question. I don't know. What do you guys think? >> I mean, I think options are good. >> Good options that complement our city. >> I feel like sometimes we only give them one option and it's not a great option. >> The standard subdivision. Is that what you >> Yeah. I mean, okay. How many times in your experience has someone come to us and said, "I want to build an open space subdivision in Nidley." >> Well, well, like >> we have versus us kind of suggesting, hey, this is an option by the way >> like the students in the town center group, you know, there's all these different housing and grandities and students. >> Is that possible? I mean, I think I think it's it's possible. I don't know if we require it. Um, if you had either a spattering of different zones or through like the RPD process, I think that is possible through either either avenue. >> I'm just thinking about a friend whose 90 by 94 year old grandma lives in Sandy in a fourbedroom house. And forgive me if I think I've said it before, but I just think about her. Her family could be living there, but she doesn't want to move cuz all her friends and everything is there. If they would have planned decades earlier for people that are aging, >> right, >> aging population in their neighborhoods, then >> then she could move out, move to a condo or whatever, >> smaller places taken care of, and then a family can move into her. >> Yeah. Could our control over an RPV enforce what she's saying? Force the issue, enforce the town. >> I think the RPD can >> Yeah. >> I don't know if in if that's going to be the majority of new neighborhoods or not. You know, if that's what we want like the prevalent development to be in Nibi or >> maybe Yeah, I think I think we're kind of heading in that direction, but I don't know. I don't know if uh and maybe I interjected too quickly to Brett, back to Brett's question of R2A. I mean, other other than Brett, what what do the rest think about just eliminating R2A? And there's not that much lat. >> No. So So really what we're talking about is >> future >> areas. Yeah. I I understand the idea, but I don't like the idea because like it was said, it's it's either going to force open space subdivisions, which in theory is good, but the cost of the open space gets put on somebody and as a city, do we want to take that on or are we going to force residents to have to take care of that? I know there's private people, but Chances are it's probably going to be one of the two, right? It's or um or it's stage part two and ni just becomes an immortal to anybody going forward. >> I I I don't like I do like old space idea but Would we lose that middle ground that we have a gap in between R2 and >> Yeah, I mean that I think so. I I I think there's I feel like there's a space in the city for more to to allow for smaller lots, a little higher density than what we currently allow. I mean, it's in an R2A subdivision, it's about 2 and 1/2 units to the gross acre. in an R2A in a in a in an R2 subdivision, it's about one and two/3s per per gross acre, which I mean that that is difficult to pencil for anything close to something that's going to be affordable. And so that's that's the hard part. It's just in today's market. It I mean I'm sure it's different than it was in ' 80s and 90s when we developed these halfacre lots. Um we might pay time maintaining that. >> Right. >> That is actually true. >> Okay. I'm going to try our best to steer us back to the topic at hand. I mean this is a what what do we have any guidance for Levi in this? We'll just ask it plainly other than I mean Troy you didn't get to elaborate much >> there's Troy's >> examples of this if you want to talk about I'd be more than happy to individually um I I I personally my thought um I don't feel there really needs to be any change um as as a commission we approved it as a as a city council they approved it. Um so it was something that everybody agreed on but just because the first development that came along there was other reasons city council denied it. We're wanting to go back to the drawing board. don't and I don't think we need to especially as we said right we don't know what was it sitting on one other reason and so I don't feel there's a need to immediately throw this back into the drinking water when both groups thought it was good >> after like a year of going spending time on it going to be >> yeah I mean my initial So I I won't so I'll just be completely honest with you. I mean when I saw on paper the results of our ordinance and it was like here's the same lot size 70 stamped on a thing. I kind of was like whoa like that doesn't to me like I just didn't really like the result of something like that you know and and that I don't know I don't know if I over assume like >> maybe that should develop or not. >> Yeah. again I don't know you know I just don't know but but what what we were shown was this is possible right and so when I saw that I mean I I called you right remember I was like I just don't know if this is was the spirit of you know like sometimes it's hard to go through the scenarios on paper the math and numbers until we see actually what didn't happen and I saw that right away I was like I'm not you know >> I agree with Troy I don't want to redraw go back I don't but I do in my opinion feel like the we and this is when you do code when you do a code sometimes you don't know what the effects of that code is until somebody does something with it right and I feel like we changed it maybe just a little bit too far all I'm suggesting in my opinion just me is somehow try to pull that back just a little bit and take the sting out of that that neighborhood would have been affected by that and that's all I'm saying what can we do to maybe pull that back just a little bit so it's not 78 78. >> So >> that's all I'm saying. >> Can I just offer like a a concept real quick? The the the message I heard from the community was they didn't like their backyards fronting up against so many homes so densely packed. So the buffering I think you mentioned having a buffer. So let's say hypothetically we just say in in R2A your frontages that are buffer or that are adjacent to an established neighborhood will match those along that boundary in J and then to the variance of or variation of lot sizes. Say say the minimum size is 5500 and then you have to increase a minimum of a,000. Let's say you have you can have 5500 square foot lots, 6,500t lots and 8,000 foot lots. So you can only have three of one size lot in any in any consecutive order. and you're and let's just say you limit that to the number of smallest lots to say and I did some math real quick that that can't exceed 45% of the overall development. So you can only have those smaller lots for 45% of those lots. And then let's go to that next step, the 65 square foot lots. You have you you can spread those throughout. Again, you can't exceed more than three, but let's say you can you limit those to two consecutive or four consecutive, whatever. And you limit those to 28%. They or minimum 28% of the lots. And then that leaves that larger lot. If you limit a minimum of 15% of those lots have to be the larger lot that that'd give you the variation. >> It would give that kind of sense of buffering to the adjacent neighborhoods. >> Would you like to explore something like that and see what the see how that pencils out with regard to let's just take the field subdivision and lay something out like that and see what it looks like. >> Right. My whole thing is I'm that's exactly the what I've been trying maybe I just have done a poor job of explaining >> concept >> but but then it's like okay do we need to now require less open space to achieve the economic viability of a project because if we go through all these exercises and if it doesn't uh support the developers entreprene entrepreneurial incentive then they're never going to ask for right so so maybe to get there if we have to require where 10% less open space. Fine. You know, I'm fine with that. >> I guess the point is if if we lay out a couple of these different variations like that and then get eyes on it. And just to your point, maybe incentivize certain certain densities with a smaller open space requirement. >> Yeah. >> Maybe if we get eyes on it, it's it'll kind of just say, "Hey, that's the one we like." And I don't know if you can do that. I know several designers that I can get to help us. It be >> mine would be very it would be it would look like like my, you know, 10-year-old did it. It >> like Brad, you mentioned this a while ago >> with your permission. >> Yeah. No, I think it's like we got to we got to provide Levi and staff the framework to operate within. And personally, I'm 100% okay financing a small project for a draftsman to go say, "Give us the I mean, to use your words, give us the worst case scenario." So, just so we know, so are we okay if I if we start with the 5500 being the smallest lot and then have a,000 foot increment to 6,500 and then say at least >> Yeah. >> careful, too. I I don't want to see the next increment just be well okay we went from 5500 to whatever and then the next increment is simply just one more square foot than that like I you know I mean I think that defeats the purpose of what we're trying to get something like 5500 6500 and 8,000 get a >> barely larger lot open space you don't want to do 10% because that project would have been one acre >> I meant like to give away 10% of you know >> so we can look at different scenarios Maybe lay it out and see what's left over and maybe that's the proportionality that we see. >> Troy, you were trying it a bit to me. >> That's how I came up with all of this stuff. And so like what Tom said that was my second you can read my email. >> Um my second thought was the specific um look at option two. I ran these numbers like a whole bunch already. Um, if we are keeping the numbers that we have, it's impossibility. You cannot require larger lots with our current numbers. It is impossible to fit bonuses in the area. >> You'd have to lower you'd have to lower the bonus the density bonus. >> Yeah. But so if I um to require like a variation, you would have to remove the average and minimum lot size and just say you create your own minimum lot size. Like that's what option number two is saying is the developer says I'm going to create here's the smallest um the smallest lot in the subdivision. small lot size that is and then that becomes the minimum lot size and then it creates pools every 1500 square feet and then that determines the separation or variety of lot sizes. Um, but you but setting keeping our current numbers and randomly picking a larger lot size because we don't like the 5,000 and you just pick a bigger number, the whole subdivision is >> Yeah, we saw that with the RPUD. So, the original RPD code allowed 12 units to the acre, but I know the developers tried with Ridgeline Park and the others to get as high as they could get and they got to about seven or eight. So, I think I think it is good to have an ordinance that's actually feasible. So, I I like that um that you're you're looking at that. And >> so, what what do you mean? help me understand what you're saying. the concept that we just described is >> I think I think I I like that I like that Troy is looking at okay yeah we can come up with these numbers but it's not feasible to fit then we shouldn't we should we should change some of the other levers to in order in order to fit it other otherwise it like it doesn't make sense to adopt it to say oh yeah you can >> is it more is it just saying then here's your here's the um death we want and let him So do that and then whatever they >> right I mean that's already there right the density is already there so you could you you already say like like with the fields for example they could only get 4.4 units per net developable acre if we just said okay there's no minimum lot size uh and you have to have this variation we might we might see something different in there. So what did you calculate the smallest lap time possibility? So the the smallest and thousand to to the developer is what I proposed like you don't give them but when you give numbers you'll already set up 100 and you put them in a so like with the current numbers right the the average lot size even if you had no minimum lot size or anything the average lot size is 5900 square >> ft more. And so you you can't say, well, the the minimum is going to be 5,500 and then you got to have a whole bunch of 8,000 lots. You're not going to get an average of 5,900. >> Why do we care about the average land? >> Because when you have so much land, right? You you gave away 40% of your land, you gave away another chunk to the roads, you already have so much that set aside for the homes. And then you said, "Okay, now in that land, I have to get this many in there." >> The pay >> if each one was exactly the same, they're 5,900 ft. So as soon as you say I need a 8,000 square foot, that square foot has to come down from another. >> Yeah. Or we just or we're so minimum is 5500. When you start increasing that minimum, it becomes infeasible. But we just require open space. >> No, >> that's the only way it's going to work. Then >> I think I think there is a if we're going with single family, there is a there is kind of a bottom point though that the market's going to support. And I don't know what that is. is I don't know if it's 3,000 4,000 foot lot, but you're not I mean you're not going to get a 1,000 foot lot and with setbacks and build a >> 500 square foot house on it, right? So >> the question is >> still the same number of homes. It's just >> so so you maybe I'm forgive me if I'm overimplifying. Is it simply saying for 15 net developers we want 60? Figure it out. >> That's the easiest thing. >> I was going to ask something similar if I was going to go and >> I mean that's what you're asking for, aren't you? Well, >> if we were going to work with a developer to give us some, you know, some options or some scenarios here and use that variation lot size, what what would be the target density? You mentioned there's too many homes. What What is that density that would be not too many homes >> would be just the right amount in that? So, so in my mind, you know, we're in my mind the target of a developer to make it profitable is going to be upwards of four units per acre. >> Yeah. But if if we're close to that, if if if it's okay if we go >> it's the development we just saw minus 10. >> Are we done? I think I think it's also important to consider low density development is expensive not not just for the developer but for the city >> to maintain long term. So >> yeah but that that's a that's a great >> right >> that comment goes beyond >> I I know I'm I'm just saying like if we're going to if we're going to lower the density Yeah. We're talking about we're talking a lot about the feasibility of a penciling for a developer. There's also the viability of the city maintaining that long-term um with you know the tax base that we get from the from the homes that are there. So I think that's that's something to consider along with the viability of >> I mean can we do something as simple as just banging in the R2 space? We know, we know given you said like we're already working with the base zoning. We have to assume it's going to be smaller lots if that's kind of the the genesis of how this all started, right? Like the base zoning dictates something, right? And so if they can already get so many homes with R2A and we want to encourage this open space, we're going to have to give something up. We know that just how much. So, is it as simple as just saying figuring out a ratio of net developed acres to number of homes and saying figure it out? Can it can it be that simple? >> Well, that's essentially what we do with our cluster subdivision ordinance. there's no there's no additional density incentive, but with our cluster subdivision, which we only have one um and I don't know, I think it was adopted at a time that maybe there was more discretion on how it was laid out and everything, but when I read our cluster subdivision, they ordinance, they they can only develop the same number of lots as they would as as the underlying zone. So there's no density bonus, but there's they could they have as much variation as they want in lot sizes, lot frontages, those things. Cuz at least when I the the way I read the ordinance, we haven't worked with it cuz there's only been one that's come through 20 years ago. But um at least that I'm aware of. And that that's essentially what what we do with that ordinance. we allow that variation. >> Mhm. >> And we could do the same thing um with open space subdivision. I think we just need to be if we want if we want something out of it though, I think we need a point to it in the ordinance. If we want variation, let's ask for variation, right? If we want whatever it is, >> let's require it. >> Yeah. that the qu I think maybe correct me if I'm wrong but what you're saying is how do we figure out the math that says okay this is what they would have made somehow economically under R2A how do we design the R2A open space where they make a dollar more there's your incentive >> that's impossible >> I know >> that's but that's kind of what we're talking about is like how do you just incentivize it enough to where that is the option makes sense >> maybe maybe scare to say this agree with Troy.
Hey, we're good. Okay, with that, we'll move on to item number seven back on the main planning commission agenda, which is discussion and consideration for the recommendation of approval for the site plan of a religious meeting house for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints located at 3420 South, 1200 West. Red is driving me nuts. I don't know if it's driving anyone else nuts, but I'm terrible at that because I never use it. Yeah. So, uh, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. And uh by the way, they they do have a representative online, Leif Harris, from the that's um from the architectural firm that represents um the church that has been that that we've been working with. They submitted a site plan review application for a 20,000 square foot meeting house at 30 about 3420 South 1200 West there adjacent to Nibbly Meadows. And um you've you've seen the concept plan. It was it was approved previously. And as far as what process is needed for them to uh move forward with a building permit, uh site plan approval and the NibLy City Code requires that any building over 10,000 square feet be considered by city council. And so the this first item, the site plan is uh you'll be recommending the um the action here and then we'll get into the conditional use permit next item there. I'll get into the some of the details of site plan. So you see it here. This should look familiar uh very familiar to the concept plan that you saw um for the uh for the the church here. and the but at the site plan level we get a lot more detail. Um we get we get all the construction drawings civil the um architectural renderings for the building and all of that's reviewed. Um but the layout hasn't changed. It's the same as what's on the concept plan. Uh just just to show you this is the landscaping plan. Um you see the variety of different you know trees and shrubs. Um not a lot of turf which our our code does um require less of except in um active recreation areas which you can kind of see on the southwest corner. They do have some turf there, but a lot of it is um these other materials for ground cover. This is an architectural rendering of the proposed building of pretty much completely of a brick veneer. You can see there. So just going through some different facets of what needs to be considered with the site plan. So looking at the architectural design that the brick veneer facade meets standards for materials, textures, and colors. Um this is really looking at Nibbli's design standards for commercial and institutional uses. Uh this next one should look familiar cuz this is this is also something that was considered with the building uh just just half block away from us here with the um orthodontist. It does not meet the 60% venistration for glass windows and doors at ground level. Um the applicant is requesting exception to this requirement and they've they provided the following justification. Uh church meeting house would have difficulty operating of classrooms, offices or meeting rooms had a large amount of clear window area fronting a street. Religious meetings require some isolation from their surroundings for congregants to commute and worship. Classrooms require some isolation order provide a product productive learning environment. private offices require some isolation or provide a place where people can share their deepest feelings with leaders. So they are requesting um an exception to the code which it it does allow for in this case it's it's a little different or not the code it's it's the design standard the these architectural design standards do allow for that that variation and just based on the justification staff would be supportive of of that um exception but that's ultimately up to the well it will be up to the city council but for your consideration tonight the planning commission if if you think you know that that needs to be um enforced differently. Uh so for landscaping the proposed landscaping does meet uh landscaping requirements including for trees and water wise landscaping. looking at parking. Um, this is our first test on our new parking our updated parking code. >> You like first tests? >> Yes. Yeah. So, it does exceed the minimum parking requirements. So, vehicles and and it the the parking requirements for church for churches and meeting houses is is probably one of the more complicated ones to figure out because you you have to get the length of the the benches on the for thick seating and then also the square footage where there's movable seats. So staff looked at all those square footages. They the applicant provided the figures for all of that. Um there and what would be required taking all that into account is 245 stalls. They provided 319 for bicycle parking. What would be required is six stalls and they provided space for eight. So they do they do have eight racks, but those could fit two bikes. So first time we've ever required bike parking and it's provided. So there you go. >> Awesome. >> A little bit more. Um two vehicular access points from 1200 West as was um presented at the concept plan. For signage, the proposed identification signage does not exceed the maximum dimension requirements. Um, looking at utilities, the Tom, our city engineer, has um, that's not that's not true. That's not true. I'm sorry about that first comment. I I think that I might have copied that from something else. I'm sorry. I I meant to say that they've been reviewed, not approved. Um have been reviewed by City Engineer Public Works. Um and then um the the streetscape of the parcel is going to be improved, the curb cutter and sidewalk. And there are some comments that remain from from the city engineer on on the um civil drawings that we're we're suggesting can be re resolved as as a condition of approval. So they have not been approved but uh we're we're ready to bring them forward and Tom if you want to get into what you know any any of the specifics on that Tom can Tom can get into that on the discussion. Uh canals They are proposing some canal modifications that still need to be approved by the Nibbly Blacksmith for irrigation company. It's also one of the recommended conditions of approval. So, uh staff's recommendation is to recommend approval for the site plan of this application with the findings and conditions as follows. The application is sufficiently compliant with NibLy City Design Centers for commercial institutional uses with an appropriate justification modify requirements for minimum fistration on the primary building facade. Um the application is compliant with minimum parking standards. Uh the proposed signage complies with Nibi city code. The proposed utility plan um complies with Nibi City Engineering Design Center specification with the exception of minor comments that may be verified by the city engineer prior to construction in the proposed use as conditional use in the R2 zone. The recommended conditions little typo there, but um any future additions or development of the site beyond the proposed meeting house supported parking landscaping subject further site plan review. So, they're not developing the whole parcel. Um, and this is just to be clear that any future development would have to come back in. The applicant must obtain approval from Nibbly Blacksmith Work Irrigation Company for modification to canals on the property prior to construction. Water shares of rights must be provided to the city in in accordance with NLY city code. Public utilities must be recorded along the frontage of 1200 West. Um provided for the uh the utilities that are planned there. A conditional use permit for the proposed use must be approved prior to construction and the applicant must receive final approval from the city engineer for the construction drawings. That that's it on that item. Okay. Thank you. We'll open up for discussion. Any questions? This is the one, remind me where the sidewalk access got a little Was there some questions about like a gate or something like that? The details and what was the resolution did we determine? >> Yeah. Uh, and Leif, if you could speak to this, but my understanding is there's there's no plan for a a gate, a fence or a gate on the back of the property, and they are showing a um a connection sidewalk connection into the 1100 West Trail that's going to go in with Nibbly Meadows into the property. So that that would meet that standard. But Leif, if if I by um if there were if there was a change there, you can you can speak. But that's that's what I had heard. >> My are can you hear me? >> Yeah. >> Okay, good. My my rec I I'm sorry I don't have the plans right in front of me big enough for me to see. I have to get on my phone tonight. And but my recollection is that we did have a fence along the back, but there was a gap there for the sidewalk. >> Typ typically the church pre uh prefers to have a fence around the property and so we that's that's what we would prefer to do if the city is going to allow it. But we do have a gap there where that sidewalk goes back to the back trail. Yeah, I guess that's a little bit different than what we heard last time, but if there is a gap, I mean, that's that's that would be allowed. Um, >> and we we would definitely be open to modifying that if the city prefers that there's no fence back there. It's just the way that they typically prefer it. So, >> yeah, I think our standards allow for it. It's it's just that I what what we say is that you can even have a gate, but the gate has to be open anytime the parking's open. And so if you don't have a gate on the parking lot, you really shouldn't have a gate on the on the, you know, sidewalk, >> right? >> I guess the idea there is if you are trying, you know, for security at certain hours to lock the place down, we we see that. But but I think in this case, if it's just open, it would meet the city's standard. Um >> Okay. >> Yeah, sounds good. That's that's the way we would do it with no gate. It'd just be open, >> right? Brian, remind me, did you did you have a question on this one last time about Southern Access? I forget. Or was that a different project? It's been a minute, but I do think it needs to be open >> to the south for a projected develop to the south. >> I can't remember. We talked about that, didn't we? Couldn't remember what was termin. >> So, we worked with the designer in master planning accesses to this property. What we didn't want was two or four or six accesses and we ended up compromising with three. So, two are servicing this north site right now. And then the third one, you can see it down on the very south end. The if I had that pointer >> right here, >> right point. Yeah. >> Oh, right there. >> There you go. Use it. >> That pointer right there. That's the third access. So, and and uh they also agreed to install the utilities or the sidewalk curbing gutter and everything through the whole frontage just as as our code requires. So the trails on the the upper >> So the trail is on the east boundary here and connects down to phase it's phase nine of Nibbly Meadows. >> It's flipped then. >> That's the east side. That's the east. >> That is the east side. Yeah. >> That's 1200 west. This is the trail corridor on 1100 west. So you can see it a little better in this rendition. Right. There's actually the trail corridor and there's that access onto that trail corridor right about there. >> 1100 west of the trail all by strictly running. >> Correct. There's a small section up on the serves as a drive access for this one property there. And there's also going to be a small gap in the sidewalk that runs east and west from Hawk Hollow to Nibbly Meadows. So to be clear, there's going to be access from the back of the parking lot to the trail. >> There's going to be a trail access from the parking lot to the trail with an open gate or an opening. >> Yeah. I mean, I think that's imperative given all the dense more dense development going around on the base and you're just going to have more and more families and kids walking to church. So having that open I think it's great. Yeah. >> And it's it's I'm assuming a chain link vent. >> Le can you uh respond? >> We would typically install a chain link fence with privacy slats on a project like this unless the city has other requirements. >> So I believe and Levi will have to correct me. Wherever we put a fence along a trail corridor, it would be limited to 4ft height, >> right? Or it could be six foot high with 50% of the tub above 4 feet would be transparent. >> Yeah. >> What I would suggest is that there be a condition that I don't have this on there. Um maybe an added condition that all fencing would need to get a fence permit because we could make sure that they they meet those standards with the fence permit >> and comply with nibbly standards. >> Yeah. comply with nibly standards that way. I >> mean would if they have to comply either way will we >> well I think it would be good to clarify that so that something that said in in this meeting or I guess the city council's meeting isn't construed to say that oh well we talked about a fence you guys nodded your heads you know I I think I think it's good I think it's good it's good to have documentation of that. So that that's expected when we um we we have short memories uh how these things come through. So >> my there was a fence and I I recall the designer saying there wasn't going to be a fence and tonight it sounds like there is going back. >> So it might be good to just monumentalize it somewhere. >> Yeah. So they that would be an option. Just put 4 foot high privacy slats along the trail and have a six foot ch. >> That would that would be an option. Yes. >> Right. Yeah. Either way, your recommendation is that >> they need to get a fence. >> We we recognize that they need to put in a fence that to adhere to today's city standard, >> right? Any any fencing they just need to get a fence permit for because yeah, there's nuances where it's along the trail and we need to keep it open for the the pedestrian access that could be monitored through the fence permit application process. Gotcha. Okay. Any discussion? Motion. I'll make motion. Okay. Uh, I'll make a motion to approve recommendation the approval of the site plan of a religious meeting house for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints located at 3420 South 1200 West with the conditions recommended by staff in addition to uh obtaining a permit motion. by Troy. Recommendation of approval, second by Claire. Any other discussion? Okay, I'll just go ahead and restate the motion for clarity. So, we have a motion to recommend approval for the site plan of a religious meeting house for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints located at 3 uh 420 South 1200 West to include all recommendations by staff and also including the um that they obtain a fence permit for the project. >> Those conditions, no recommendations. The conditions we >> Oh, yes. The conditions by not the recommend. Thank you for Okay. Um, any other discussion? Okay, we'll go to a vote. All in favor? Any opposed? It's five in favor. Thank you. Okay, we'll go to item number eight on the agenda, which is the discussion and consideration for approval of a conditional use permit for a church place of worship for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints located at 3420 South, 1200 West. Levi, I don't think we necessarily need an introduction. >> No, not a not a lot here. Um just just to say that this isn't conditional use in this zone. So conditional use permit is required and a lot of you know a lot of the the site um details that that we've normally discussed with the conditional use permit have already been covered through the site plan process. Uh but looking at a conditional use permit u just just pointing back to really the basis for issuance of a conditional use permit that they they should be approved if if uh reasonable conditions are imposed to mitigate the reasonably anticipated detrimental effects of the proposed use. So when you think of, you know, potentially detrimental effects, things like parking, um really the applicant has demonstrated adherence to parking standards. So there's no mitigation necessary for with regards to parking um beyond what's already in the site plan. Uh lighting, uh all exterior lighting need to be will be required to adhere to Midley City outdoor lighting standards. And then there within the conditional use uh standard, there's also this um additional additional standard for outdoor lighting that the the planning commission can require to limit light associated with conditional use that emanates beyond their property boundaries to less than 101 foot candles. Um so that is recommended a recommended condition just to you know really focus on down lighting so it doesn't impact those neighboring properties. Um and then you know we don't want anyone to lose any sleep over living next to the church I guess is the idea there with light shining in the window. um traffic and connectivity. The applicants demonstrate adherence to pedestrian connectivity standards and then the proposed use is not anticipated to grade the level of service the adjacent roadways below a level of service C which is really what the standard is in our conditional use um or our conditional use chapter. So not necessarily any um mitigation necessary there. So the recommendation is to approve this conditional use permit. Uh the final the proposed use is compatible with the site context. The applicant has indicated adher adherence to nibly city standards including parking and lighting standards and conditions. The site plan for the building must receive final approval from city council. Now all outdoor lighting must adhere to nibly city outdoor lighting standards of of those codes. So >> okay thank you discussion. I've got, if I may, I've got a question just about logical flow of how these things work. Like, let's take this as I'm just curious in general, like so we have an applicant who's gone through and spent this could be anybody by my question, right? Has spent all this money to develop these plans, has spent this time to work with us. Why are why are we not talking about the conditional use first and then letting everything come from that? What if we deny it? you know, help me understand why we do these things in the order that we do. >> Yeah. So, our code says that we the the conditional use permit and the site plan can be considered in conjunction with one another. As far as whether this one's first or the other one on the agenda, uh to be honest, it was it was mainly just to provide the context for the the planning commission. At the end of the day, I don't know if it really matters which one comes first. They are dependent upon one another. >> Yeah. Um >> but but that was that was kind of the reason it was placed on the agenda that way was just the site plan provided more context on the site. All of that was covered and then and then just some additional detail for >> maybe same question a different way. So when we get an application like this I mean certainly the LDS church came to us and said we want to do this here or it could be any kind of development right? Mhm. >> Why was this conditional use permit not discussed and presented to us way back then? And to me, I guess that's just where like maybe every certainly the other commissioners can disagree, but I'm like, shouldn't we talk about that the very first thing and then let everything else happen the way it should? >> We could. We could. The way our code's currently written is it's in conjunction with the site plan application. Okay. or so typically we consider a conditional use. It's triggered by one of two things. One is um a business license application because you know it's already existing building um or one is a um site plan application. In this case it was a site plan. Okay. But we could at concept plan consider the conditional use I suppose and that would and and that could you could get that answer sooner. >> Yeah. >> Um to to your point I don't I don't think it's as far as that being a logical process. I don't I don't I think that could work. But that's I think that's wise just because that's the framework that the code says when we do that. >> Yeah. And I don't need to like hammer and get too deep in the weeds, but I just feel like, you know, to have an applicant go through the process and spend the money to design all these things and then the last thing is actually to approve the conditional use when to me anyways it seems like that should be the very first thing we discuss and because what if we say no and they've spent all this money to you know what I mean? I don't know. I mean and and in this case it >> say no to the conditional use >> a conditional use is they are approved uses like you can't tell them no they are you can only give recommendations on or you can only what am I trying to say >> so they're specific to the use >> conditional things that need to be done to mitigate their impact on surrounding areas >> not eliminate them just mitigate them but you can't held in zone and so >> it's very difficult to >> if you can't >> I got >> so you could set conditions to mitigate anything so let's say >> so all these conditions >> supplement the design >> yeah so let's say there's traffic impacts and it brought level service below the city you could set a condition they had to do mitigation measures at certain intersections in order to have that >> that makes sense Yeah, >> I think I think the difficult thing though is a lot of times um with the commercial development, you know, we don't see a lot of nibbly, but we don't necessarily know what businesses the specific businesses that are going to go in there and they change and we we typically, you know, we're we're considering a conditional use after the building's already in there, but once a the use is established, which is when the business operates there, Um >> that that's a really good point. If you get a really ma a larger master plan commercial site, you'll have an anchor store typically and then a bunch of shell buildings or they call it a vanilla shell, manila shell, whatever. And and these shell buildings don't have any tenants at that point. They build them and then the tenant would come in and build to suit what they need. They might take one space or two spaces. They might take an entire building. And with that, they they come in for a building permit, but they they want to have a change of or a conditional use permit before they get that building permit just so they know what sort of mitigation, right? But that building's there already. So, it it could go either way. >> I guess, you know, now that I'm thinking about it, maybe I'm inflating like a barrier versus just forget all the last 10 minutes. You're good. Sorry, we're just Yeah. >> No, it's approval. It's approval. >> That's why these are two separate items, by the way. But yeah. That's why one's recommendation, one's approval. >> With the conditions recommended by Okay, there. Okay. We have a motion before us for approval of the conditional use permit for a church place of worship for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints located at 3420 South Hill West including the conditions identified via staff. Second by Claire. Any other discussion? Okay, we'll go to a vote. All in favor? Any opposed? Five. Thank you. Okay, we'll go to item number nine on the agenda, which is a workshop for the open space subdivision code. All right. So, um, Nick and Troy sent some potential changes to the ordinance. And what I thought is, I mean, I don't know if I need to summarize these or if I just hand it off to you for you guys to sum summarize, but kind of what I heard just to package that up is a couple of things that that we could look at here. And I'm hoping to get some guidance tonight if if we if we can get to that level of detail. Um, but really I think the topics came down to setbacks and how we're going to set setbacks, particularly in relation to um a new open space subdivision when the setbacks are different from what is on an adjacent property or what's in the underlying zone and treating that differently. So I think the setback issue um I feel pretty comfortable with of coming up with with something if we can get some agreement here. Uh the lot sizes I think gets a a lot more nuance. Um and then um Troy also suggested rather than lot sizes potentially focusing on lot widths and getting a variation in lot widths. um you know in the in that fields proposal that we saw pretty much all the lot widths were uniform about 50 ft wide. So if we're trying to get variation maybe there's some variation in the width of the lots. Um and then also uh Nick expressed that maybe we have um maybe 40% is a little high of open space dedication and the incentive you know once you get to that high level you need to get kind of a even higher density for it to be um worthwhile I guess to the to the developer. order for that incentive. So may maybe we peel that back and remove the incentive for 40% and cut it off. I mean, right now it's at 35. So that's that's an option. So I don't know. Maybe I I I was thinking I would just turn over to you two to kind of explain what you um came up with, the ideas you came up with, and then uh if there's others that want to react to that or express any other um opinions and then see if we can get to, you know, some specific direction so that staff can um start drafting something for the commission to react to. >> I think some of it is just hearing what we heard from comments on the last uh planning commission meeting with Manel. um what was was it just hair and and he expressed some of his thoughts about um the the project that spurred this whole discussion and whether we need to match setbacks to pre-existing development and things like that. And then as I so I called Levi earlier about another thing and we started to talk about this concept and I started thinking about um just this idea of maybe this is too conceptual but it's like do we even need to separate the open space neighborhood between R2? Why don't just have it's just have the open space so neighborhood and it shouldn't be applied to anywhere. So, so do we even need to think about changing some of the code to blend the two together to find a happy median? And and again like so my context in all this is my living just I've been trying to think about my neighborhood the benefits of it where I feel like some things um where we could sacrifice a little bit of open space to to maybe blend together the idea of um the the size of lots in my neighborhood right and also including some of these smaller lots as a percentage and trying to figure out how all this fits together. So what I was thinking about earlier was why are we trying to force two different the open space neighborhood differently just a uniform code A and B if I were to take my neighborhood for example and say okay everything's the same terms of density and all the numbers um but what if we just took essentially like one acre of developable area which would be you know four four lots or quarter acre lots and just said quarter acres those are now are there the smaller lot sizes. You go four to 10 or whatever that is, right? And just trying to figure out how the math I know the math is the hardest part when we're talking about in code designing these variable lot sizes and how do you make the math work? I get that. That's that's probably going to be the hardest part about the concept that I'm trying to explain. Um, but I guess that's the question I have is does it make sense for us to try and for ordinance this and differently depending on the zone and should it just be one option and it should just be the option for the open space. Are we over complicating this? >> I don't know. So to clar, let me restate what you're trying to say or what I'm what I'm hearing is remove it as an overlay and it becomes its own zone as an option. Yeah. And then we just decide what the numbers are and it either works for the side or it doesn't. I I guess the qu because remember we we originally were like well how do we get open space in R2A, right? Like that's how we got here. Um, and maybe the solution is is should should it just be the open space neighborhood regardless of it's it starts in R2 or R2A just why can't it just be the open space option? Why does it be two different things? So, I don't know. >> So, what would be the downside to eliminating R2A >> open space? >> No, R2A. eliminate way >> so that um so that the open space subdivision ordinance is attractive to an R2. >> Yeah. I think I think what um Nick's talking about though is just having like the way the open space subdivision is set up now is it all relates to the underlying zone and it's um it's not really an overlay. It's it's a density bonus option really is kind of what um because it does not require it does not require any legislative action. I guess that's the difference here. If it was adopted as a separate zone, um you would need to come in and it would be it would be legislative for the you know the city council would have to reszone the property to open space and whether it was the way it is now or or like you say make it kind of uniform across the board >> if R2 or R24 RTA doesn't matter >> right. I think maybe the downside of doing that is where what we have now is there may or may not be an incentive to develop it depending on what the underlying zoning already is. >> Right? That's the question >> because if you've got R2A or you've got R2 and there and there's less of an incentive. So there there'd be more of an incentive for someone in an R1 zone, for example, or even RE zone or an Azone to get that zoning than than a piece of property that's R2 or R2A because if if it's all uniform, I think the way it's set up now is it's an option, right? you either develop a standard subdivision or you develop an open space >> and you get more >> and you get more density than the base zoning, >> right? >> So, I guess it turns a blind eye to it and it might it might incentivize more in those lower density areas and less in the in the higher density zone areas. How many acres do you do you think R2A how many acres we have in R2A city versus >> vacant >> a vacant land? Not not much of vacant. Um I mean you got Stonebridge, but that's kind of already called for and >> Aalo. And that's all that's not really vacant anymore. I mean, you see the dirt moving there. Um, there's little there's there's not much >> is that what's the subdivision? >> There might be one other >> What's the subdivision west of? >> Oh. Oh, and and Heritage Cross Heritage Parkway is R2A and that's also starting to develop as a standard subdivision. I guess what I'm asking. So the all future subdivisions are either R2 or they're open space subdivision. Oh, that's lower the risk of it. What happened a couple weeks ago again where we where someone moved to an R2A. They they they reszoned from R2 to R2A. Correct. >> No, it was >> Well, that was the intent. Yeah, they were they were trying to they they they proposed so they originally went from agg and they proposed R2A city count the planning commissions recommended R2 and that's what the city council approved >> and the justification at the time was there's no incentive for you to open space subdivision right then we went through the process of updating the open space subdivision to make it to create an incentive within been an R2A, but then that was denied. Well, this the code was changed, but the the reason the R2A when they reapplied with with their preliminary plot was denied. So, um yeah, I mean the neighbors didn't like what they saw. >> I think what that would do is essentially they every neighborhood is an open space neighborhood. It's not economically viable really anymore to just develop a standard R2. It's there's going to be no clientele. >> To me, that's a dream, right? You're saying that's effectively what that would do, right? >> Yeah. But it was denied. It was denied because they didn't it was the surrounding neighborhood. the surrounding neighbors too close to the property that were existing though. >> Yeah, I don't I don't know if I could speak to >> Yeah, I that would be >> all the reasons it was denied. Um, >> I think I think it was denied for a number of different reasons, but um, you know, Garrett expressed he he didn't he didn't like the he didn't feel like the city had a good plan for the open space quite yet. So, he didn't like taking on the open space. I know mayor mentioned that he felt like the neighbors didn't want open space, didn't want the tradeoff of the open space, so he listened to that. And so anyway, there there was a variety of different reasons that maybe that the city council did. can't really speak to. >> Yeah, >> I don't think it was one >> too many 58 square foot lots. >> But yeah. >> Yeah. But um >> I mean I mean we have so many options pursued in this and one of them simplest one is we just get rid of R2A open space. >> Yeah would be the easiest. I'm not I'm not saying I'm proposing that but I mean that is an option. >> Yeah. I mean, I think the I think the >> probably the biggest drawback of that one and and maybe there's a way to correct for it other in other places in our code is uh just moderate income housing, you and and whether it's an R2 or an open space subdivision in an R2 zone, you're not going to get anything approaching moderate income or even median income. come housing um in those neighborhoods. I mean, you're just you're just not going to get that, at least not in today's market. >> R2A. >> So, >> where if if it's an R2A, you know, like what was proposed where you have those smaller lot sizes. I mean, I know and you'd mentioned that maybe that that's not the focus of the open space subdivision, but it is a I think it's an opportunity of providing some more affordable options. >> Should that then mean though that um we would just see a greater interest in RPV? >> Yeah. I mean, >> if the developers feel like and they're >> they're only going to build things that they're going to sell, right? because that's how they that's their entrepreneurial incentive. Would that then just mean you're just increasing the likelihood that we get applications for RPD? >> You could uh but we've we currently limit RPUDs to few specific areas >> and Yeah. >> Yeah. >> One risk with RPD, it usually brings in the need for an HOA. someone has to maintain this open space or or the amenities that we're looking for. And I'm hearing around the valley right now that HOA fees are about 200 bucks a month. So in rough numbers, that would be the equivalent of having to finance. It's about $11 per thousand. >> Yeah. >> Dollars on your loan, right? So what would that be? My math, it's too late to math, but let's just say it's going to be for round numbers. It's like adding $20,000 to your mortgage. >> Yeah, >> but it's quarter% lower now. >> No, it might be $10 for a thousand, but point being that these open spaces come at a cost to someone. >> Yeah. >> So, RPD and the open spaces. >> They do. >> Yes. >> Yeah. I mean, I I think it it'll be important to look at. I mean, that that that's definitely something to consider, but I think if we're going to do that, we have to look at the whole code and see if the framework of our code fits. I mean, we just talked about our future land use map. Like, is there a place to support what's in there in our code? And maybe maybe there is. Maybe it's RPD, maybe it's RM, but I feel like there's somewhere in between that our code doesn't quite provide for. Can I just make a point? Sometimes I forget that open space isn't necessarily just an open field that the city's going to manage or the HOA is going to manage like a field. Open space can be there's a lot of definition what open space is including private privately held >> open space like like in metal creek most of that open space is privately held it's protected >> like it's open it's so it's not just dense you know house after house it's open open space it's protected so when you drive down that road it feels open right that's what it's so I think you need to remember It's not always a field or a park that the city's got to manage or the ancient ways got to get lawn mower out and you know it could be just open space a field where somebody puts animals in or whatever. You know what I mean? >> But it's managed and and taken care of by the home owner that >> as long as they meet at least within their design three of our standards. And I think Meadow Creek I I wasn't here when that was approved, but when I look at it, the open space does a variety of different open spaces do different things. You've got pedestrian path, you've got a burm, you've got some that's more kind of maybe a little bit of a space on on one corner. So, um I think the variety is kind of at least what our code currently calls for. I mean, that could be something that changes, but I kind of like that that component of it that that it does different things. It has different utility to it. >> That we just that we just looked at, right? That five acres could be privately held by somebody who lives in that seven or somebody who doesn't live in that. They can own that and put the horses on it and it's It's over with. It's qualifies, right? >> It would because they check enough box because they also have a trail. >> They also um I think there was something about preserving um historical. So like they preserve the buildings. They they checked enough of those other boxes. If all it was was a field with horses, probably not. You'd probably have to have >> maybe >> we could >> open space. It's just something that nothing's built. >> Could be a marsh, could be wetlands, could be a field, right? >> And and the way it's currently written, if the city wants to take it, we can we can just say, "No, give it to us." During the approval process, >> the city could have denied it and required finding. >> Oh, yeah. I mean, or the city could have taken it and sold it. I mean, to be honest, there was nothing in there that said that it had to be the cities. It's dedicated to the city, but >> but it's it's conservation space. The main thing is it has that conservation easement. Isn't that defeating the open space development agreement >> between the developer? >> Not if it's not >> if you sell it. >> You still have the same restrictions. You still have the same restrictions on there. >> Okay. >> But so the the land use doesn't change. the development of it doesn't necessarily change, but the ownership could to to Brett's point. >> We we are trading open space for density. >> Mhm. >> And that's why I love that word is because I'm okay with this higher density to preserve that openness that everybody in that survey, most people recognize that's what they want. that I know you don't the word world but that feel of openness and not you know >> but the pro I think the ultimate problems right is like when you talk like in that survey it's like a two it's a contradicting thing in this context right where people want this but they also don't want what comes with it and I think that's why we're having this discussion is >> they don't want the tradeoff necessarily they want The biggest issue I saw at the build is the open space was in everybody's backyard. Not not along a road or neighborhood or something like that. one little road going back in at a barn and then empty. >> So I so I guess to kind of steer this thing back to probably what you need from us, Levi, is what from the planning commission perspective, what are the what are the guiding things that we need to give Levi to make to help him steer what we want him to do with this ordinance and code? Like Brett, you you mentioned during the last meeting, you know, you looked at the plan and it just felt like too many houses. And to an extent, I do agree with you. Um, and to me what that means is how do we do the math or we can math it to where we get what how do we achieve that concept of going from 70 to 60 or whatever the number is, right? But and while also still trying to preserve the idea of how do we get the variability that the council asked us to to get in this ordinance as well, right? So that's not solely given away the concept of these smaller lots. I think it's this needs to be a complimentary ordinance where it's encouraging all these things. But I don't know if that's is that possible, Levi. Does the math math out to where now it's still an incentive for a developer to do this? That's I think that's the question we have. Is that not even reasonable? all the schools just in general is looking at the menu of options. Is it appealing to them to want to build a because they feel like they have more options >> outside of >> no in like >> oh like there's a lot of options like we build this in development or this or this or this. Do we want that? Do we want developers to feel like that? >> Good question. I don't know. What do you guys think? >> I mean, I think options are good. >> Good options that complement our city. >> I feel like sometimes we only give them one option and it's not a great option. >> The standard subdivision. Is that what you >> Yeah. I mean, okay. How many times in your experience has someone come to us and said, "I want to build an open space subdivision in Nidley." >> Well, well, like >> we have versus us kind of suggesting, hey, this is an option by the way >> like the students in the town center group, you know, there's all these different housing and grandities and students. >> Is that possible? I mean, I think I think it's it's possible. I don't know if we require it. Um, if you had either a spattering of different zones or through like the RPD process, I think that is possible through either either avenue. >> I'm just thinking about a friend whose 90 by 94 year old grandma lives in Sandy in a fourbedroom house. And forgive me if I think I've said it before, but I just think about her. Her family could be living there, but she doesn't want to move cuz all her friends and everything is there. If they would have planned decades earlier for people that are aging, >> right, >> aging population in their neighborhoods, then >> then she could move out, move to a condo or whatever, >> smaller places taken care of, and then a family can move into her. >> Yeah. Could our control over an RPV enforce what she's saying? Force the issue, enforce the town. >> I think the RPD can >> Yeah. >> I don't know if in if that's going to be the majority of new neighborhoods or not. You know, if that's what we want like the prevalent development to be in Nibi or >> maybe Yeah, I think I think we're kind of heading in that direction, but I don't know. I don't know if uh and maybe I interjected too quickly to Brett, back to Brett's question of R2A. I mean, other other than Brett, what what do the rest think about just eliminating R2A? And there's not that much lat. >> No. So So really what we're talking about is >> future >> areas. Yeah. I I understand the idea, but I don't like the idea because like it was said, it's it's either going to force open space subdivisions, which in theory is good, but the cost of the open space gets put on somebody and as a city, do we want to take that on or are we going to force residents to have to take care of that? I know there's private people, but Chances are it's probably going to be one of the two, right? It's or um or it's stage part two and ni just becomes an immortal to anybody going forward. >> I I I don't like I do like old space idea but Would we lose that middle ground that we have a gap in between R2 and >> Yeah, I mean that I think so. I I I think there's I feel like there's a space in the city for more to to allow for smaller lots, a little higher density than what we currently allow. I mean, it's in an R2A subdivision, it's about 2 and 1/2 units to the gross acre. in an R2A in a in a in an R2 subdivision, it's about one and two/3s per per gross acre, which I mean that that is difficult to pencil for anything close to something that's going to be affordable. And so that's that's the hard part. It's just in today's market. It I mean I'm sure it's different than it was in ' 80s and 90s when we developed these halfacre lots. Um we might pay time maintaining that. >> Right. >> That is actually true. >> Okay. I'm going to try our best to steer us back to the topic at hand. I mean this is a what what do we have any guidance for Levi in this? We'll just ask it plainly other than I mean Troy you didn't get to elaborate much >> there's Troy's >> examples of this if you want to talk about I'd be more than happy to individually um I I I personally my thought um I don't feel there really needs to be any change um as as a commission we approved it as a as a city council they approved it. Um so it was something that everybody agreed on but just because the first development that came along there was other reasons city council denied it. We're wanting to go back to the drawing board. don't and I don't think we need to especially as we said right we don't know what was it sitting on one other reason and so I don't feel there's a need to immediately throw this back into the drinking water when both groups thought it was good >> after like a year of going spending time on it going to be >> yeah I mean my initial So I I won't so I'll just be completely honest with you. I mean when I saw on paper the results of our ordinance and it was like here's the same lot size 70 stamped on a thing. I kind of was like whoa like that doesn't to me like I just didn't really like the result of something like that you know and and that I don't know I don't know if I over assume like >> maybe that should develop or not. >> Yeah. again I don't know you know I just don't know but but what what we were shown was this is possible right and so when I saw that I mean I I called you right remember I was like I just don't know if this is was the spirit of you know like sometimes it's hard to go through the scenarios on paper the math and numbers until we see actually what didn't happen and I saw that right away I was like I'm not you know >> I agree with Troy I don't want to redraw go back I don't but I do in my opinion feel like the we and this is when you do code when you do a code sometimes you don't know what the effects of that code is until somebody does something with it right and I feel like we changed it maybe just a little bit too far all I'm suggesting in my opinion just me is somehow try to pull that back just a little bit and take the sting out of that that neighborhood would have been affected by that and that's all I'm saying what can we do to maybe pull that back just a little bit so it's not 78 78. >> So >> that's all I'm saying. >> Can I just offer like a a concept real quick? The the the message I heard from the community was they didn't like their backyards fronting up against so many homes so densely packed. So the buffering I think you mentioned having a buffer. So let's say hypothetically we just say in in R2A your frontages that are buffer or that are adjacent to an established neighborhood will match those along that boundary in J and then to the variance of or variation of lot sizes. Say say the minimum size is 5500 and then you have to increase a minimum of a,000. Let's say you have you can have 5500 square foot lots, 6,500t lots and 8,000 foot lots. So you can only have three of one size lot in any in any consecutive order. and you're and let's just say you limit that to the number of smallest lots to say and I did some math real quick that that can't exceed 45% of the overall development. So you can only have those smaller lots for 45% of those lots. And then let's go to that next step, the 65 square foot lots. You have you you can spread those throughout. Again, you can't exceed more than three, but let's say you can you limit those to two consecutive or four consecutive, whatever. And you limit those to 28%. They or minimum 28% of the lots. And then that leaves that larger lot. If you limit a minimum of 15% of those lots have to be the larger lot that that'd give you the variation. >> It would give that kind of sense of buffering to the adjacent neighborhoods. >> Would you like to explore something like that and see what the see how that pencils out with regard to let's just take the field subdivision and lay something out like that and see what it looks like. >> Right. My whole thing is I'm that's exactly the what I've been trying maybe I just have done a poor job of explaining >> concept >> but but then it's like okay do we need to now require less open space to achieve the economic viability of a project because if we go through all these exercises and if it doesn't uh support the developers entreprene entrepreneurial incentive then they're never going to ask for right so so maybe to get there if we have to require where 10% less open space. Fine. You know, I'm fine with that. >> I guess the point is if if we lay out a couple of these different variations like that and then get eyes on it. And just to your point, maybe incentivize certain certain densities with a smaller open space requirement. >> Yeah. >> Maybe if we get eyes on it, it's it'll kind of just say, "Hey, that's the one we like." And I don't know if you can do that. I know several designers that I can get to help us. It be >> mine would be very it would be it would look like like my, you know, 10-year-old did it. It >> like Brad, you mentioned this a while ago >> with your permission. >> Yeah. No, I think it's like we got to we got to provide Levi and staff the framework to operate within. And personally, I'm 100% okay financing a small project for a draftsman to go say, "Give us the I mean, to use your words, give us the worst case scenario." So, just so we know, so are we okay if I if we start with the 5500 being the smallest lot and then have a,000 foot increment to 6,500 and then say at least >> Yeah. >> careful, too. I I don't want to see the next increment just be well okay we went from 5500 to whatever and then the next increment is simply just one more square foot than that like I you know I mean I think that defeats the purpose of what we're trying to get something like 5500 6500 and 8,000 get a >> barely larger lot open space you don't want to do 10% because that project would have been one acre >> I meant like to give away 10% of you know >> so we can look at different scenarios Maybe lay it out and see what's left over and maybe that's the proportionality that we see. >> Troy, you were trying it a bit to me. >> That's how I came up with all of this stuff. And so like what Tom said that was my second you can read my email. >> Um my second thought was the specific um look at option two. I ran these numbers like a whole bunch already. Um, if we are keeping the numbers that we have, it's impossibility. You cannot require larger lots with our current numbers. It is impossible to fit bonuses in the area. >> You'd have to lower you'd have to lower the bonus the density bonus. >> Yeah. But so if I um to require like a variation, you would have to remove the average and minimum lot size and just say you create your own minimum lot size. Like that's what option number two is saying is the developer says I'm going to create here's the smallest um the smallest lot in the subdivision. small lot size that is and then that becomes the minimum lot size and then it creates pools every 1500 square feet and then that determines the separation or variety of lot sizes. Um, but you but setting keeping our current numbers and randomly picking a larger lot size because we don't like the 5,000 and you just pick a bigger number, the whole subdivision is >> Yeah, we saw that with the RPUD. So, the original RPD code allowed 12 units to the acre, but I know the developers tried with Ridgeline Park and the others to get as high as they could get and they got to about seven or eight. So, I think I think it is good to have an ordinance that's actually feasible. So, I I like that um that you're you're looking at that. And >> so, what what do you mean? help me understand what you're saying. the concept that we just described is >> I think I think I I like that I like that Troy is looking at okay yeah we can come up with these numbers but it's not feasible to fit then we shouldn't we should we should change some of the other levers to in order in order to fit it other otherwise it like it doesn't make sense to adopt it to say oh yeah you can >> is it more is it just saying then here's your here's the um death we want and let him So do that and then whatever they >> right I mean that's already there right the density is already there so you could you you already say like like with the fields for example they could only get 4.4 units per net developable acre if we just said okay there's no minimum lot size uh and you have to have this variation we might we might see something different in there. So what did you calculate the smallest lap time possibility? So the the smallest and thousand to to the developer is what I proposed like you don't give them but when you give numbers you'll already set up 100 and you put them in a so like with the current numbers right the the average lot size even if you had no minimum lot size or anything the average lot size is 5900 square >> ft more. And so you you can't say, well, the the minimum is going to be 5,500 and then you got to have a whole bunch of 8,000 lots. You're not going to get an average of 5,900. >> Why do we care about the average land? >> Because when you have so much land, right? You you gave away 40% of your land, you gave away another chunk to the roads, you already have so much that set aside for the homes. And then you said, "Okay, now in that land, I have to get this many in there." >> The pay >> if each one was exactly the same, they're 5,900 ft. So as soon as you say I need a 8,000 square foot, that square foot has to come down from another. >> Yeah. Or we just or we're so minimum is 5500. When you start increasing that minimum, it becomes infeasible. But we just require open space. >> No, >> that's the only way it's going to work. Then >> I think I think there is a if we're going with single family, there is a there is kind of a bottom point though that the market's going to support. And I don't know what that is. is I don't know if it's 3,000 4,000 foot lot, but you're not I mean you're not going to get a 1,000 foot lot and with setbacks and build a >> 500 square foot house on it, right? So >> the question is >> still the same number of homes. It's just >> so so you maybe I'm forgive me if I'm overimplifying. Is it simply saying for 15 net developers we want 60? Figure it out. >> That's the easiest thing. >> I was going to ask something similar if I was going to go and >> I mean that's what you're asking for, aren't you? Well, >> if we were going to work with a developer to give us some, you know, some options or some scenarios here and use that variation lot size, what what would be the target density? You mentioned there's too many homes. What What is that density that would be not too many homes >> would be just the right amount in that? So, so in my mind, you know, we're in my mind the target of a developer to make it profitable is going to be upwards of four units per acre. >> Yeah. But if if we're close to that, if if if it's okay if we go >> it's the development we just saw minus 10. >> Are we done? I think I think it's also important to consider low density development is expensive not not just for the developer but for the city >> to maintain long term. So >> yeah but that that's a that's a great >> right >> that comment goes beyond >> I I know I'm I'm just saying like if we're going to if we're going to lower the density Yeah. We're talking about we're talking a lot about the feasibility of a penciling for a developer. There's also the viability of the city maintaining that long-term um with you know the tax base that we get from the from the homes that are there. So I think that's that's something to consider along with the viability of >> I mean can we do something as simple as just banging in the R2 space? We know, we know given you said like we're already working with the base zoning. We have to assume it's going to be smaller lots if that's kind of the the genesis of how this all started, right? Like the base zoning dictates something, right? And so if they can already get so many homes with R2A and we want to encourage this open space, we're going to have to give something up. We know that just how much. So, is it as simple as just saying figuring out a ratio of net developed acres to number of homes and saying figure it out? Can it can it be that simple? >> Well, that's essentially what we do with our cluster subdivision ordinance. there's no there's no additional density incentive, but with our cluster subdivision, which we only have one um and I don't know, I think it was adopted at a time that maybe there was more discretion on how it was laid out and everything, but when I read our cluster subdivision, they ordinance, they they can only develop the same number of lots as they would as as the underlying zone. So there's no density bonus, but there's they could they have as much variation as they want in lot sizes, lot frontages, those things. Cuz at least when I the the way I read the ordinance, we haven't worked with it cuz there's only been one that's come through 20 years ago. But um at least that I'm aware of. And that that's essentially what what we do with that ordinance. we allow that variation. >> Mhm. >> And we could do the same thing um with open space subdivision. I think we just need to be if we want if we want something out of it though, I think we need a point to it in the ordinance. If we want variation, let's ask for variation, right? If we want whatever it is, >> let's require it. >> Yeah. that the qu I think maybe correct me if I'm wrong but what you're saying is how do we figure out the math that says okay this is what they would have made somehow economically under R2A how do we design the R2A open space where they make a dollar more there's your incentive >> that's impossible >> I know >> that's but that's kind of what we're talking about is like how do you just incentivize it enough to where that is the option makes sense >> maybe maybe scare to say this agree with Troy.
>> Is that cuz you got sat by the last two meetings? Maybe we don't do anything now. see what number two comes what number two brings and so and but but maybe I think we can incorporate um the uh >> matching the >> the no you know >> setbacks >> and the same how you say it so many loss similar loss in a row I don't know maybe >> yeah some variation and some maximum >> tweak that language we leave it alone for a minute see what happens next >> because it's going to be brought forward And we could say we don't need to modification. >> What if it's not if it's administrative? >> Yeah, that last one. >> But still, that's pretty tough to deny if >> Yeah. The only reason they could deny that is it was a resone. >> That'd be arbitrary. >> Now, that said, everything's going to be a reszone. It's just most rezones we don't get that much detail as we did on this one. >> Yeah, suggested >> maybe we do some minor tweaks >> the set the setbacks. Yeah, I think I think Troy I should have read it, but we can look at that. >> Okay. Well, it's it's 9:40, so I think I mean I don't know if any has any lightning. I think I agree with Troy. I'd like to see maybe that language added and then variation of lots and then we can wait see what comes with >> the the council though about matching >> everything has to be resolved. >> I think the setback the setback one's pretty easy. >> Okay. >> Yeah. the the lot size, the lot widths, the >> densities that gets that gets a little bit more. >> Maybe by maybe by just matching the pre-existing points >> anyways would potentially deter infill kind of like this and then the only new ones we get are just in an open area anyway. >> Everything has to be reszone. >> Yes, >> everything in there. Nothing zoned is our tour, right? I think that was strategic. >> But but as annexation or not maybe annexation but as land is brought in agriculture likely to come on all in as 2A. >> Yes. Yes. >> We're seeing a lot of requests for the RM when that's the most common request. >> That's what people want. Yeah. >> And they and they've often said it's not enough. That's what we keep hearing. Not enough RM. >> Yeah, the RM isn't isn't enough for what we would want to build here. >> It's about half, >> but that's I mean that's one. >> Yeah, but that's that's just what we're hearing. >> Okay. Anything else from the >> Okay, we'll take a stab at it. >> We'll go to staff staff reporting. >> Yeah. Uh so in addition to the student project that was on the agenda tonight, there's going to be another student project coming up um from the same program looking at uh the design of the park around Nibbly Meadows and and across the street all that open space area. So um if any of you want to have some involvement in that, if you have any desire to provide any guidance to the the students as they go through that, this is going to be an undergrad student class. This um that's going to be looking at this that the same class did something I don't know if any of you were familiar with they they did something um for Morgan Farm a couple years ago. And so they're they're going to be looking at that area and coming up with some ideas on design and that and that'll lead to um the actual design of of the park. I mean, I think the idea that that I had with it is it'll help kind of prime the pump, get give us some ideas as we get into that that design process. But um I don't think I have anything else to report. >> Okay. >> You you sent an email on >> cash. >> Oh, cash summit. Yeah. >> Cash. >> Yeah. I put it put it on your calendar. There's no I don't think you can register yet, but if if you I'll send out another thing when the registration is open, but just wanted to have it out there. So if you are interested, you can get it on your calendars on October the 25th, 26th or something like somewhere around there. >> I have a quick question on the 1200 South >> West the temporary bike. >> Yeah. Uh well, I know you guys talked about city council and that it was supposed to uh be getting pulled up. Last time I wrote by your signs are still there. Um what was the what was the outcome of their findings? Like how how wide were the paintings and could they meet what you were trying to find? >> It's kind of TBD, right? So we we we gathered some data during the you know while it was up. We didn't get a before, so we're going to get kind of an after after in a few weeks um to to compare, but I mean got some observations there. It I I think it's to be determined, I would say. Right. >> Yeah. 2600 South is pretty dark when you're walking it at night. >> Mhm. And that and I don't know that's because the street lights are so far apart. >> Yeah. >> What were you trying to determine? >> So, kind of how this came up is the county was looking they're they're doing the some striping and and some painting for the cash bike way and 2600 is along that route. and they they in their preliminary plans they show sherrows for 2600 and it just didn't seem like with the amount of traffic and the and the speeds that sherrows are going to be any help and and 2600 is pretty wide um for two lanes of traffic. So we just were trying to test if it makes sense to fit a bike lane in there. um might be able to give a little bit more room for the bike land than we had during the test. Uh but I know our public works is being careful to try to make it safe and everything. And um that's it's a tough it's a tough balance to try to figure out what the right right width of it is. U but yeah, I mean that's kind of how how it came about. the county. I think based on this the idea is we can let them know kind of give them direction one way or the other based on what we find from this >> for when they go out and do their striping. I kind of fell on it a different way that hey >> right >> it's my favorite >> yeah I did count quite a few walkers bikers scooters coming from ridge line so a lot of them using the sidewalk truck, you know, which there it would get crowded with pedestrians at times, but yeah. Anyway, >> I thought it the painted liner kind of sketchy. >> Yeah, >> we were using inverted tip spray cans. >> Oh, >> yeah. It was just they're chalk. We got it for from the health department for free. So >> yeah, I wasn't complaining. Just thought I was >> No, it good observation. But they were straight lines. >> Yeah, >> they were really straight lines. Public works did well. >> Watch them do 100 ft at a time on the stream. >> I really don't have anything to report unless you have any questions for me. I keep getting questions about when is 12 West's going to be open because it to up and I told them because it's probably utilities for the new subdivision going west in there or something around >> 1200 >> or is it 20 or 2600 or is it 1200 >> 26 okay that is some so we have couple projects we have heritage parkway which is on 2600 South. They had it shut down for a couple of weeks as they put in utilities. North of the roundabout on 2600 South is closed until they pave. And the pave date is sometime in October >> or the that connection, >> right? And so we're going to keep it closed until we get the barriers up and the paint. So it'll be mid to late October. >> I I think that told them it was utility purpose. >> It's the road construction project. The road's a utility. >> They bought it. >> Yeah, it's a lengthy closure for sure. >> Anything else to tell Andy? >> Yeah, I'll just kind of I'll add from there. Um, if you have questions about road closures, Tom is very good about providing information to um, front office staff and I I keep it updated as quickly as possible. You can go on our front page and under you'll see a orange road closure um, main photo and you click on it and it'll show all of our planned road closures coming up, maps and descriptions of what's kind of going on. If it's road construction, if it's installation of utilities, repairing of utilities, if we have a water main issue, then we try and update that as well. Um, and then fun fact, North Logan at their city council meeting yesterday had a a short discussion about um removing the name North Logan and and they're looking at a potential name, historic name of of Greenville. M >> um so uh I guess there's some issues with tax collection, proper tax collection and also focusing on their previous heritage of the original community being called Greenville. So just fun fact that North Logan may not be North Logan much longer, but listen to Mayor Peterson's uh council update issues. So, on that note, if you'd like to be included in my notifications, I send them out to a whole group of people, Talon being one of them. >> Send me an email with your emails. I don't have your emails, but if you send me an email, be glad to add you to that closure group. He'd be in the loop. >> Um, did you get that email from Justin about the tour that that we were I don't know how to mention that real quick. >> Yeah. Um, I just got it. I Yeah, and I think we could broadcast that to a broader group. The Justin was getting a tour um organized for uh Neielson Home Development down in in um Weaver County near Plain City. And part of it is showcasing kind of affordable home ownership opportunities. So yeah, I uh Garrett did get a tour of it and he was talking he was saying how great it was and so anyway I think it little field trip we were trying to put together >> I don't know if anyone want >> I think it's se yeah yeah September 26th so it's coming up right yeah >> next week >> if I find anything out I'll share it with everybody >> yeah more >> I'll probably interesting >> let me shoot that for I was talking I know He sent it to a few people, but I think he's he's out of town, so he probably didn't have all the emails and stuff, but I can see about sending that to the broader group. >> Okay. Anything else? Okay, we'll call this meeting a journ. Thank you.
>> Is that cuz you got sat by the last two meetings? Maybe we don't do anything now. see what number two comes what number two brings and so and but but maybe I think we can incorporate um the uh >> matching the >> the no you know >> setbacks >> and the same how you say it so many loss similar loss in a row I don't know maybe >> yeah some variation and some maximum >> tweak that language we leave it alone for a minute see what happens next >> because it's going to be brought forward And we could say we don't need to modification. >> What if it's not if it's administrative? >> Yeah, that last one. >> But still, that's pretty tough to deny if >> Yeah. The only reason they could deny that is it was a resone. >> That'd be arbitrary. >> Now, that said, everything's going to be a reszone. It's just most rezones we don't get that much detail as we did on this one. >> Yeah, suggested >> maybe we do some minor tweaks >> the set the setbacks. Yeah, I think I think Troy I should have read it, but we can look at that. >> Okay. Well, it's it's 9:40, so I think I mean I don't know if any has any lightning. I think I agree with Troy. I'd like to see maybe that language added and then variation of lots and then we can wait see what comes with >> the the council though about matching >> everything has to be resolved. >> I think the setback the setback one's pretty easy. >> Okay. >> Yeah. the the lot size, the lot widths, the >> densities that gets that gets a little bit more. >> Maybe by maybe by just matching the pre-existing points >> anyways would potentially deter infill kind of like this and then the only new ones we get are just in an open area anyway. >> Everything has to be reszone. >> Yes, >> everything in there. Nothing zoned is our tour, right? I think that was strategic. >> But but as annexation or not maybe annexation but as land is brought in agriculture likely to come on all in as 2A. >> Yes. Yes. >> We're seeing a lot of requests for the RM when that's the most common request. >> That's what people want. Yeah. >> And they and they've often said it's not enough. That's what we keep hearing. Not enough RM. >> Yeah, the RM isn't isn't enough for what we would want to build here. >> It's about half, >> but that's I mean that's one. >> Yeah, but that's that's just what we're hearing. >> Okay. Anything else from the >> Okay, we'll take a stab at it. >> We'll go to staff staff reporting. >> Yeah. Uh so in addition to the student project that was on the agenda tonight, there's going to be another student project coming up um from the same program looking at uh the design of the park around Nibbly Meadows and and across the street all that open space area. So um if any of you want to have some involvement in that, if you have any desire to provide any guidance to the the students as they go through that, this is going to be an undergrad student class. This um that's going to be looking at this that the same class did something I don't know if any of you were familiar with they they did something um for Morgan Farm a couple years ago. And so they're they're going to be looking at that area and coming up with some ideas on design and that and that'll lead to um the actual design of of the park. I mean, I think the idea that that I had with it is it'll help kind of prime the pump, get give us some ideas as we get into that that design process. But um I don't think I have anything else to report. >> Okay. >> You you sent an email on >> cash. >> Oh, cash summit. Yeah. >> Cash. >> Yeah. I put it put it on your calendar. There's no I don't think you can register yet, but if if you I'll send out another thing when the registration is open, but just wanted to have it out there. So if you are interested, you can get it on your calendars on October the 25th, 26th or something like somewhere around there. >> I have a quick question on the 1200 South >> West the temporary bike. >> Yeah. Uh well, I know you guys talked about city council and that it was supposed to uh be getting pulled up. Last time I wrote by your signs are still there. Um what was the what was the outcome of their findings? Like how how wide were the paintings and could they meet what you were trying to find? >> It's kind of TBD, right? So we we we gathered some data during the you know while it was up. We didn't get a before, so we're going to get kind of an after after in a few weeks um to to compare, but I mean got some observations there. It I I think it's to be determined, I would say. Right. >> Yeah. 2600 South is pretty dark when you're walking it at night. >> Mhm. And that and I don't know that's because the street lights are so far apart. >> Yeah. >> What were you trying to determine? >> So, kind of how this came up is the county was looking they're they're doing the some striping and and some painting for the cash bike way and 2600 is along that route. and they they in their preliminary plans they show sherrows for 2600 and it just didn't seem like with the amount of traffic and the and the speeds that sherrows are going to be any help and and 2600 is pretty wide um for two lanes of traffic. So we just were trying to test if it makes sense to fit a bike lane in there. um might be able to give a little bit more room for the bike land than we had during the test. Uh but I know our public works is being careful to try to make it safe and everything. And um that's it's a tough it's a tough balance to try to figure out what the right right width of it is. U but yeah, I mean that's kind of how how it came about. the county. I think based on this the idea is we can let them know kind of give them direction one way or the other based on what we find from this >> for when they go out and do their striping. I kind of fell on it a different way that hey >> right >> it's my favorite >> yeah I did count quite a few walkers bikers scooters coming from ridge line so a lot of them using the sidewalk truck, you know, which there it would get crowded with pedestrians at times, but yeah. Anyway, >> I thought it the painted liner kind of sketchy. >> Yeah, >> we were using inverted tip spray cans. >> Oh, >> yeah. It was just they're chalk. We got it for from the health department for free. So >> yeah, I wasn't complaining. Just thought I was >> No, it good observation. But they were straight lines. >> Yeah, >> they were really straight lines. Public works did well. >> Watch them do 100 ft at a time on the stream. >> I really don't have anything to report unless you have any questions for me. I keep getting questions about when is 12 West's going to be open because it to up and I told them because it's probably utilities for the new subdivision going west in there or something around >> 1200 >> or is it 20 or 2600 or is it 1200 >> 26 okay that is some so we have couple projects we have heritage parkway which is on 2600 South. They had it shut down for a couple of weeks as they put in utilities. North of the roundabout on 2600 South is closed until they pave. And the pave date is sometime in October >> or the that connection, >> right? And so we're going to keep it closed until we get the barriers up and the paint. So it'll be mid to late October. >> I I think that told them it was utility purpose. >> It's the road construction project. The road's a utility. >> They bought it. >> Yeah, it's a lengthy closure for sure. >> Anything else to tell Andy? >> Yeah, I'll just kind of I'll add from there. Um, if you have questions about road closures, Tom is very good about providing information to um, front office staff and I I keep it updated as quickly as possible. You can go on our front page and under you'll see a orange road closure um, main photo and you click on it and it'll show all of our planned road closures coming up, maps and descriptions of what's kind of going on. If it's road construction, if it's installation of utilities, repairing of utilities, if we have a water main issue, then we try and update that as well. Um, and then fun fact, North Logan at their city council meeting yesterday had a a short discussion about um removing the name North Logan and and they're looking at a potential name, historic name of of Greenville. M >> um so uh I guess there's some issues with tax collection, proper tax collection and also focusing on their previous heritage of the original community being called Greenville. So just fun fact that North Logan may not be North Logan much longer, but listen to Mayor Peterson's uh council update issues. So, on that note, if you'd like to be included in my notifications, I send them out to a whole group of people, Talon being one of them. >> Send me an email with your emails. I don't have your emails, but if you send me an email, be glad to add you to that closure group. He'd be in the loop. >> Um, did you get that email from Justin about the tour that that we were I don't know how to mention that real quick. >> Yeah. Um, I just got it. I Yeah, and I think we could broadcast that to a broader group. The Justin was getting a tour um organized for uh Neielson Home Development down in in um Weaver County near Plain City. And part of it is showcasing kind of affordable home ownership opportunities. So yeah, I uh Garrett did get a tour of it and he was talking he was saying how great it was and so anyway I think it little field trip we were trying to put together >> I don't know if anyone want >> I think it's se yeah yeah September 26th so it's coming up right yeah >> next week >> if I find anything out I'll share it with everybody >> yeah more >> I'll probably interesting >> let me shoot that for I was talking I know He sent it to a few people, but I think he's he's out of town, so he probably didn't have all the emails and stuff, but I can see about sending that to the broader group. >> Okay. Anything else? Okay, we'll call this meeting a journ. Thank you.