Nibley City Planning Commission

Meet us? Yep.

Everything's good for you. Alright. Welcome everybody to the August 28 meeting of the for the city here at City Hall. First item on the agenda is call for the.

Chris, what's the?

Nick Kinska.

Levi Robert, city planner.

Tom Dickinson, city engineer.

Tom, legal assistant, city reporter. Great. Thank you.

Moving forward to the second item on the agenda, which is approval of the 08/07/2025 meeting minutes and the approval for the current agenda.

Motion to approve.

I'll make a motion to approve. I made a motion to approve. Then attend the agenda. Thank you. Seconded by Troy. So we have a motion to approve and seconded by Troy for the previous meeting minutes and the current agenda

on the list. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed?

K. We'll move forward with item number three, which is the discussion and consideration for a development agreement for Heritage Parkway Subdivision, 40 lot standard subdivision located at approximately 2701 South, Oakland or West. Levi, you wanna introduce the topic for us? Yeah. So and I don't have a PowerPoint,

and I you get a little break from that from tonight because these are these are pretty straightforward items. So the this is this Heritage Parkway subdivision, it's already been it was the preliminary plot was approved previously by the planning commission. But at the time, the development agreement wasn't wasn't quite ready. But the planning commission is the approval authority for development agreements for standard subdivisions such as this one. Honestly, the only reason this requires a development agreement is because it has multiple phases within the development. There's nothing within this development agreement that isn't really just kinda boilerplate language straight out of the city code. With just one thing of note, we have a provision in here on street trees. There's there's an option on whether the developer would put in the street trees or pay the city a fee in lieu of the trees. We we have kind of a blank spot there that that we will fill in based upon bids that the that the developer provides on how much the trees cost. So they're not in in that that amount is not in there, but just know that they'll they'll be based on that. So yeah. I mean, if you have any questions on it, happy to happy to discuss. I'm happy to pull up the agreement, but there's really nothing in here that's any kind of an exception or any anything peculiar. Just just a requirement that that we that we have in our city code building through here.

Any discussion?

I mean, we already have it's been yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So there's been have been approved, and they and just so you know, I mean, they they are the the first phase of the subdivision's already under construction. As as you might be aware, developers do have the option if of starting a subdivision at risk as long as they have the the final plat and the construction drawings approved, and we have the plat in hand signed. So we've we've already started that process, but the it hasn't been recorded yet. So, technically, this document, we typically record with the final plat. So we can do that, you know, soon once once they once they're ready to record that final plat. Yeah.

Yeah. Just just a little bit more on that. We we do collect fees. We collect the water shares that are associated with that phase or that development. So it basically the only thing lacking in this in most cases aside from this development agreement for them to be recording the plat. So the construction drawings have been through the review. It's been through planning commission, and we work through the final plat issues through staff. And so, anyway, it's something that came about couple years ago at the statutory level, and then we also have that allowance in our in our ordinances. Yeah. So the state requires that. So then once they do get all the work done, they have a couple options. They can finish a portion of the work and decide, hey. I wanna record that. Then they would have to provide a bond for the remaining infrastructure improvements. And then on top of that, if they do complete everything and and we do get the final acceptance in there, they would have to post the 10% warranty bond that would be there for you.

Yep. Sorry. No. You're good. And with the I'm just curious within the code. I mean, is it a protection? What kind of protection on a citizen would be that we would need in place to require the DA DA for based sound visions? Is it just simply what I mean, what kind of protections are we Yeah.

To be honest, the we used to require development agreement with every single development in the city. Then the state came out and said, you can't require it with everything. And so we said, well, we require it with almost everything. And we basically we basically listed every possible way except, like, a single phase subdivision Yeah. Standard subdivision. So we it may be worth

reviewing that again I mean, I guess I'll ask the question. And and determining

I mean, I don't I I guess there could be a Tom, I think I think you had a point of why, in some cases, it might be necessary to have a development agreement with phase phasing. But

Is that is that mostly to behold the developer to the grand scheme design of, like, worst we just wanna make sure that after, you know, fit

phase two following phase one, the roads are still gonna line up, and the utilities still complement what happened prior to in the different fee. I mean, I could see something like that, I guess, but Yeah. And and it could tie into a neighboring development as well. Yeah. Instead of starting at opposite ends, perhaps the planning commissioner would say, hey. We recommend that you start and and joining ends or congruent ends and work away from each other. So that there'd be one instance where the the phased approach, then you might wanna put some conditions in there. Another one, it was it it there's proportional improvements, open space requirements where they have a park that they're supposed to develop with something. You could put some proportionality. At each phase, you need to do so much of this work for the park. And and I'll bring up one instance that really got burned in my previous employer. We had a subdivision that was on an existing industrial site, and they had an industrial use with the building and commercially licensed industrial license and everything. And when they recorded the plat, it actually recorded lots over this existing building. They never put any conditions on phasing. And so the last phase, they just although they recorded the plat, they were they were supposed to tear down this industrial use. To this day, twenty some years later, that commercial use is still there even if individual housing lots over the top of this building. So that might be another reason you'd want to put some facing language or some conditions just to prevent certain things like that. I get it. You know? I mean, Brett, maybe I do you have an issue with maybe Citi continuing something like from your experience as a developer, or do you see any issues with that in general?

Mostly just protections for specific things. Yeah. I mean, I think in some cases, like, like, some of those examples that Tom mentioned, there's reason to put that in there. To be honest, with this one that's on the agenda tonight, there's nothing there there's nothing in particular. It's all pretty much covered in the preliminary plat. But this agreement, it does have some provisions in there to you know, so that there's some understanding on the on the street trees and but everything else is pretty pretty much just boilerplate. Yeah. I'll just ask. Yes. It's a great question. I get it now. Yeah.

So

is it east of it? There's

Yeah. I'm There's nothing there currently. There's an east of it is a a parcel that's owned by the Catholic church. It's about a little less than five acres. I don't think they have any plans to build right now. But what we did, we did, work out the road alignment adjoining or connecting to 2600 South. That road will line up with any future development to the north. Okay.

And there and and there's also Right. Yeah. Yeah. So that so that if if and when trade develops, then then it then that that's another stub road, and then there's also road to the south when Stonebridge develops out. So there's, I guess, there's Perfidential. Really, like, four connection kinda four connections in and out of this because it there's also a tour 1,200.

Yeah.

But all of that, this whole layout was already reviewed with the with the preliminary plat and approved.

I think so. Just wondering.

As far as street street trees go, how does the city decide if if they're gonna put it in or not? Or or do they always accept?

We the way we have it in our code, it's an option if the developer the the the developer can decide how they'd like to do that. They can pay a fee that is that covers the cost, what it would be for the city to put it in, or they can put it in themselves.

The city? Yeah.

K. Wait. If the developer says they want the city to Then we can just Not not the way the code's currently written. We would have to change the code. The default is, like, if we don't have a provision, typically, what we've done, if we don't have a provision in the development agreement that allows the paying the the city the fee, the default is that the developer does it. I know we didn't we didn't include a provision, for example, on Nibley Meadows, and we just said, okay. Well, you you're required to put it in post, you know, including your bond and everything. Sorry.

We're just doing this mic change. Yeah. Yeah. And and this is a bigger discussion. The street trees always seem to be an issue in these subdivisions. It's not ideal for a developer to put them in if they're not building every single lot. They'll just sit there and die. Right? It and if they do pay the city the fee, now when the city come back and says, hey. We're putting in street trees, people just get all upset because they don't want them. You know, they don't want them in a certain location. So it's it's a lose lose. Yeah. Street trees, I I I see a lot of value in having street trees, but it is very sometimes contentious either way. So It's tricky.

And and b, I mean, is that or do we or do we just accept whatever the developer says that that they research and said this is what it's gonna cost us, or do we do our own independent research and just So in this case, like, I was talking about it cost the city five times more to do these things private developers. So I wanna make sure that those fees are represented. So then there's a cup there's there's another

development that's also seeking this. I've asked for three bits to provide and install those trees from a contractor. So a landscape contractor, you know, some of that sort. So in in this case

Tell me, Adeline. How much was it? Oh, by Just 55.

955 tree per tree.

Yeah. Trees are expensive.

And then two inch caliper. And that's irrigation as well. Oh. Yep.

That's not Do we would we street 50

arrogant with the spray or a breakfast zone?

I don't know that we have a code that requires it, but it does our code does require them to

maintain Maintain them once it's there. What if they don't forever?

We we have that then. I mean,

can't be sure.

What's that? I can't be sure.

No. Not the new one. No. The the property owner. The property The front and front. Yeah. Sorry about it.

Yeah. I'm saying my my name is five years old. No specific neighbors of mine. It's just that wording. We just hope these died. Hey.

Yeah. I'm gonna send their specific questions.

You don't sit back.

They just don't want to pay the greenway, Steve.

So let's say let's say a developer says, I'm gonna put them in in the last in the last days. What protections do we have that they will do that? Is that the the surety bond, the warning bond, the Yes. Cut that? Yes. Yep.

And, typically, when we put them in, we wait till the end of the phase, usually until the homes are occupied, right, to Yeah. So so,

yeah, big fats in there. Some shares heritage crops and I don't know. It was when that first started, that was it started just before it came on. In within the development agreement, it said that the developer would pay so much per tree, and they had a a dollar. And the developer had up to two years to install those trees or pay the city this fee in lieu. Now in talking with staff and my my full understanding was that the payment was already made and that the city was on the hook to put these trees in. So I released the bond after the one year warranty in January. And so I'm trying to get the developer to come back and do it, and I we have we have the development agreement still applies. It's just I made the mistake in releasing that that bond. I will do it

again. Yeah. Yeah.

Just because they're done with a certain point of the of the development is me.

Wanna trace into anything. Yeah. It's gotta be the right I mean, you're right. Yeah. K. Thank you. Yep. Yeah.

Anything else from anybody?

Approve the development agreement for their Harvest Subdivision. Okay. Approximately twenty seven zero one South and.

K. Motion by Troy to recommend approval. I

Thank you for clear. K. We have a

motion by Troy for the recommendation for the approval of the the the development Bridge, project subdivision, 40 Block Standard Subdivision located approximately 27 at 1 South, 1200 West, 2nd by Claire. Any other discussion, miss Shane?

Just to clarify, this is for the approval. Oh, it's approved. Not for the recommended. Yep.

Yep. Yep. Thank you. Any other discussion? Yeah. It it's been approved a couple of years ago, so we're reapproving

No. So the preliminary plat has been, but the development agreement has not. Oh, that's what Yeah. You're just you're approving that document, that contract between us and the developer.

Commission is approving the DAO, not the council.

So the planning the according to Nibley City code, the planning commission is the approval authority for certain subdivisions for for the development agreement. So and and a standard subdivision is one of those. As long as you're not dedicating

As long as the city is not incurring some extra thing, that'd be to go. Yeah. If if you if you're not dedicating

part open space or or if you're not accepting a like, we've had, you know, the last few that have come across here, an exception to the city code Yeah. Or or if it's an RPUD, it's a legislative approval, really, for the development agreement. Those things go to city council, but standard subdivision, certain open space subdivisions, even even the planning commission is the approval authority for if if you're not dedicating land to the city.

Now with that, I don't mean to overspeed Troy's recommendation, but do we want to also do we still need to rerecommend the the street tree situation, or is are we still good with everything included with how you guys are working that out within

the development? I mean, our our recommendation is just to approve the agreement.

I need that agreement to specify this. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Make sure what time with them in. Yeah. Got it. Yeah. K. Okay. Any other discussion?

K.

We'll just go to we'll go to a vote in favor.

Yeah. I'm gonna be opposed. Unposed. Thank you.

K. And we'll move to item number four on the agenda, which is a public hearing for ordinance twenty five thirty, pending Nibley City Code twenty one eight thirty, property pound property boundary of estimates, boundary establishments, and amendments to a subdivision. Please.

Yeah. So this was spurred by the state legislature. This past legislative session is a few other ordinances that have come in front of the planning commission lately. They've they've adjusted.

We actually

Yeah. We put no. We put you first because you sat through a lot of long meetings, Blaine. We'll let you go. Yeah. If you get that signed and and brought over to the city, we can we can we can get it finalized. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So the what's currently in Nibley City code is, it's parcel boundary adjustments and lot line adjustments. And the state legislature, the first thing they did, they've they've changed the terminology. So they're now called property boundary adjustments, and there's simple property boundary adjustments and what's sorry. What's the other one? Full It's a simple boundary line adjustment and a full And a full boundary line adjustment. So and then they've also they also have new language on boundary establishment, and and then the amendments to subdivision kinda relates to that. So I'll I'll explain kind of in a nutshell how this works. So a simple boundary adjustment is when you have two property owners, and they, they want to adjust the boundary between the two of them. And there aren't any public utility easements or other easements that are that are, involved in that adjustment. The the they're not proposing to move any any easements, and they're not and there's no other, like, public utilities, sue sewer provision, different different things of that nature that are involved. In that case, they don't need to do a plat amendment. They they can convey it with basically what is it called? It's basically like an exhibit.

Yeah. So you you bring up you bring forth to the land use authority conveyance documents. So those conveyance documents both And transfer that document. Property to one another, to and from one another. It also includes an exhibit that would show the previous boundary and the proposed boundary adjustment. And then also with that, after review and if the staff finds it acceptable, we have to sign a consent form that that's attached and recorded with all those other documents.

Yeah. So so that's a simple boundary adjustment. Currently and this this hasn't changed. It assigns the city planner or the city engineers the approval authority for that. We we do that currently with lot line adjustments, partial boundary adjustments. So that would that would stay the same. What would change is for a full boundary adjustment, if and that and that's if there are these impacts to public right of way, easements, these other things. You kinda see it up on the screen there. Then they have to do a plat amendment. And this provision was optional. And well and that's only if it's within a subdivision. The the reason we're recommending this is Tom Tom consultant with the, county recorder, and they they recommended that. They say it's it's a little cleaner and easier to find the documentation through a plat amendment, through the recording process than just through that conveyance document. So that's what they recommended. We're we're carrying forward that recommendation as well. They'd have to do that plat amendment with the full boundary adjustment if it's in a subdivision. And then other than that, there's really isn't a change to plat amendments. It just refers them to state code. And just in general, the language within the ordinance re refers them to this provision of state code. It just kinda deciphers between the the full and the simple boundary adjustment. So it's pretty much what it is in a nutshell. Unless, Tom, you have anything else to to add?

No. I I guess, the full battery adjustment, the the platinum member process would only apply if there's a recorded subdivision Right. On that. Mhmm.

Preexisting one. Yes. Yep. K. Before that, we'll go ahead and open it up for the actual public hearing on for item and report. Tell them gave me the list. No one had signed up and then to make any public comment on this particular item. Is there any line or email? Know. Then we will go ahead and move on to item number five, on to next agenda, which is the discussion and consideration for recommendation for ordinance twenty five thirty amending city code twenty one eight thirty, property boundary adjustments, boundary establishment, and amendments to a subdivision discussion box of the machine. It just, to me, seems like a bunch of administrative cleanup stuff for staff to oversimplify what we just what you just described. Is that fair to say? Yeah. I mean, it's

it's just it's just complying with state code. Yeah.

And Two the simple one is two property owners don't agree on.

Oh, you know what? I I I didn't I didn't explain something that there is the boundary establishment is another process, and we have a we we've included a provision there because that's that's more if if the boundary's ambiguous and you need to clarify that where where the line is. That's a boundary establishment process. The city actually doesn't get involved in that at all. So we but we do have a provision in state code just to refer that or in city code to refer them to state code in those instances. But but, no, a boundary is a boundary adjustment is when you're moving the boundary. It's not it's not that you're not sure where it is or you're disputing it. I mean, if you're disputing it, that's a whole other kind of process as well. I mean, that might be a civil dispute. But if but if let's say you wanna buy, you know, an acre from your neighbor that has two acres. You ship it. Yeah. You ship it. And, really, what what we the the primary thing we're looking for is does it does it create nonconformities land use nonconformities if if it with respect to zoning or lot frontages, you know, those types of things, do they have the proper documentation to carry it forward to record? You know, in some instances, Tom, in our in a recent one, found that there were so many inaccuracies with the with the surveying that that were identified in the, you know, when they submitted the documents. But, typically, it it's it's it's the primary thing that we're looking for is that they're not creating any any issues for zoning, and that really doesn't change with this process.

Do we generally think do you think of our zoning as though, like, zones are tied to parcel numbers? Like, we don't really necessarily allow let's say someone does propose a boundary line adjustment and suddenly the boundary now works to bisect the zone, and we don't know if 40% of that zone type do we do we not think of it that way? No. No. So it's it's it's independent

of the boundaries because they can move them wherever they want. So we govern that. We wouldn't wanna say let's say they need that.

30% of the parcels are too, and 70% is commercial. I don't think it works. It's it's it's messy. It's messy, but, really,

otherwise, that gives the property owner the authority, basically, to rezone their property. And they so they so we we would impose whatever zoning restriction. 230% of that, Marshall? Yeah.

So there is a city code that we can see. Is there? Yeah. There's a city code that governs a zone that doesn't fall on property, ma'am. And it tells you how to deal with those. It it tells the city how to deal with it. It tells the city what that property right what property rights are associated with that. State majority rules, or what is it? No. They they would build let's say, it's commercial on one side and RM on another. That sound familiar? That that commercial the the commercial zone would be estimated based on the shading, and that area would be developed as commercial in accordance with the zoning. And then the areas outside, you know, very near would be developed as the other zone. Is that what we want?

When they when they re Yeah. What do you mean? The the alternative

no. I mean, the the alternative is is there they're they have that authority for zoning, and and we don't we don't give that authority to individual property owners. That that rests with the city council. So

So city council, of course, pay the whole property. So

So a property owner that isn't satisfied with that where that shaded line falls can approach counsel and petition to rezone that. Yeah. Just just like anything else.

That just seems to me like that would could result in some chaotic

development. So It's tricky. It's tricky. But challenges, but I think they're good.

And in and in most cases, if it's if it's a larger area in particular, you sort it out through the subdivision process when they come in for development. They may subdivide it along that line. Or

To survey or survey two meeting the property. We have property. And to the south, we have surveyed the property lines here by the survey their surveyors had multiple property lines here. And the surveyor block lines as you guys figure it out. And then the two owners should kinda figure out who who put the property in here. Is that as simple?

That's a bound that would be a boundary establishment process. Assembly boundary establishment. And that and that the city doesn't get involved in that, but they would they would have to follow the state code and guidance on how to do that. Yeah. Yeah. But this could do is help with what's going on

all over the place with the establishment survey. Yeah. Many times, they're not following a section line or should be following a fence or a roadway or something like that. So this could be this could help clean some place.

Oh, somebody's off. Any other discussion? So is boundary line and lot line same thing?

They got rid of the term lot line adjustment and parcel boundary adjustment, and they replaced it with property boundary adjustment. It's They they're treating they're treating them the same whether you're in a subdivision or not. They're they're just not deciphering in state code. But what we are what we are saying is that if it's in a subdivision, we are treating it differently. If it's if it's a full boundary adjustment, we do require that more extensive process with the plat amendment.

That

is a good question because we did have that in our code, and it's not in this one. We probably ought to put that back in. So let let me pull up let me pull up the existing code. I'm glad you brought that up, Brett, because I because I think that I think it's a good provision to have. I think it's a sensible provision, I guess. And just to I don't think we have that in there. Let's see. It's in this section. Or maybe you know what? I'm just gonna bring up the

the code. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. I mean, can you write No. So I'll I'll I'll tell you what we have in there now.

Did I?

Yeah. So nonconforming lots, notwithstanding condition described above, a lot line slash parcel boundary adjustment for an existing nonconforming lot, which does not result in conformity with the land use ordinance may be approved if the adjustment does not result in a lower level of conformance for any established lot size, frontage, or other established tenants. For example, the half acre lot located within a zone, the mental and lot size of one acre applies lot line adjustment, which increases the size of the lot to three quarters acre. If you have a lot line adjustment, it may be approved. We probably ought to keep that in there.

Yeah. That really doesn't have to make my question. It doesn't? Okay. Because

if you have 200

lots, it's impossible to make one it may be impossible to make one.

Oh, right. Because yeah. So, yeah, it sounds like you would make you would you may be able to make one conforming,

but it would make the other one one more. Less less conforming. So it wouldn't be it wouldn't be allowed. Sure.

Yeah. Right?

Yeah. I mean, that's how I would interpret it. If now if you have one conforming, let's let's say you had let's say it's one acre zoning. Right? R one. And yet yet one lot that was half an acre and one and one that's two acres next to it. In that case, you could add to the half acre lot, take away from the two acres, and and make that work. If you had two half acre lots, in any case, you're gonna be making one less conforming.

So it wouldn't be a allowed? So it wouldn't be allowed.

That's the way, at least, we had we had currently written in the code. I in this in this, it's crossed out. I think with I would suggest maybe we put that back in there, keep it, because I think it clarifies that. And I think it makes sense that I mean, we have a lot of nonconforming lots in the city, and I don't I I I mean, I don't think there should be a loophole

to get around. Just thinking about that. To

city staff. Or good.

Yeah. I think the issue there is I mean, you're make you're making it less conforming

than it was before. You have to know. Okay.

Yep. What's happening?

Yeah. I don't I mean Is this a legit question?

But what you're saying is in that context, we already have to know when you just deny the boundary adjustment

and It gets that. You okay. Easy.

That. Yeah.

Oh.

See, but how how I I guess we'd have to have guidance on how to do that because Okay. And that makes Otherwise, it's just arbitrary. I mean, when when we say yes, when do we say no? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Why not? Arbitrarily.

Up to the point that something becomes Yeah.

A

question. I like the current provision. I I I like the current provision. It's not in our original recommendation, but I would recommend leaving that. We we instead of saying a lot line parcel bound boundary slash parcel boundaries, you say a a property boundary adjustment and just leave that provision in the code is what I would recommend. Change. Prop property boundary adjustment. Basically, replace lot lines slash parcel with property. But then at least it opens the door to that. Because if if we don't have that in there, we have to deny anything that doesn't become conforming.

Okay. Yeah.

But I don't know how to deal with that other your other question. I mean yeah. I see it's a legitimate question. I think there's sometimes that it doesn't do a whole lot of harm, but where do we draw the line? Okay. What was that? There's an appeal process, but the appeal authority is just gonna base it on the same standards that that the staff does. Yeah.

I'll make a k. I'll make a motion for

recommending approval of ordinance twenty five thirty with the change on item two and on striking item two I regarding nonconforming months. K.

We have a motion

by Troy for recommendation recommendation for approval for in '25 for 30 while also reincluding the wording on IP. Is that right?

Yeah. I mean tracking Yeah. Whatever. And and replace yeah. And replacing lot lines slash parcel with with property.

Oh, yes. Yeah. And picking up the language to conform to the state. So Yeah. If Yep. K. You have a second? Okay. So am I clear? Okay. Ready, Talon? Here we go. Do my best. We have a recommendation for you to move out to you for a recommendation for approval for ordinance twenty five thirty, and then the city code 21830, property and boundary adjustments, property establishment, and amendments to a subdivision while also including the, unprompting the, language within two I to include, that back into the code while also cleaning up the language from the, law line to boundary to conform to to the state statute. Seconded by Claire.

Any other discussion? Impressive. Wow. That was I appreciate that. That's really good.

It's really oh, is it technically not? Right. But but just based based on gotten the information.

Yeah. I mean, that that's different from the from the draft. So yeah. Yeah.

It's a menu to draft. Any other discussion? Only favor?

I'm in post. In post. Thank you.

K. We'll go to the next item on the agenda. I'm deciding to speak. Work dot for the Open Space Subdivision. I'm gonna be a little bit more specific too, which is the RQA Open Space. But this this may entail into all of

you where the discussion goes.

We also have councilman Manselli here with us tonight. Thank you for coming. I I asked councilman Man also was hoping to come. She had or she she just texted me about I asked a couple of. I asked Levi to put this on before the last council meeting. Brad, I had some discussions about the plat and kinda cost some of this discussion and I'm you can say consternation, but mostly discussion about the R 2 Way Open space and kinda looking at the obviously, you know, I was like, that's a commission that was a new code slash of management to a not really in addition to the R 3 Way subdivision. Entertain the idea of the open space subdivision for RPA. And then we probably got some feedback, I guess. Go ahead. Right. And I had a discussion here. We're looking at the the feedback meeting. The actual subject is flat based on our code. And then why I had some concern when I saw thinking, I don't wanna speak for, but I think based on what I saw personally, I guess my ideas in my mind that it makes me at least I entertain the idea of tweaking the code to hopefully, I think, for some more variability in the lot sizes, and we can get into some discussion as the commission. But, actually, before we do, I'd actually like to invite the the councilman, to maybe discuss what his thoughts were during the the council meeting. If he wants to, debrief us, the commission, on what his thoughts were during the meeting. I do have it. It's been quite a long text chain from councilman councilwoman Mann if we want to talk about some of those things. But, Garrett, this is just a workshop, so speak freely, please. Just your perspective on on how things went on Thursday. And if there's anything in particular you'd like to add in the discussion, it's already appreciated. It's made me depressed and Yeah.

I'm silent. Hopefully, it was around. It was a long meeting. I don't think at the end of anybody. So I know some of the major concerns we had had with some of the other council members was the signyard setback with the enjoying the existing homes was a major concern when it was to be canceled. It was applied for the setback from the existing hall, which we don't, like, really approached the existing homes to see maybe that changed. We asked for that. There's a lot further there. Do the same the suggestion we had on that. The other concern that we really have is space. So member discussions I'm having a big banner. It's just shaking us. We have a lot of fires and fires. We built and indoor rent. We pushed And it's okay. We get a project without there can be some very specific budgets and the likes in the case of Milsworth area. So I'm gonna turn with the main theme and the other couple of feelings that we share. That's rude and having them all be the same, asking for some variety. But, you know, the biggest issue is the setbacks to side yard setback out to your existing house. Yeah.

Maybe maybe just to clarify real quick on the side yard setback. We don't we don't have a requirement currently in the code or additional setback if if they you know, but, for example, another subdivision that doesn't have that setback. The developer did agree for the additionals some some additional setback, for example, from a five five foot to a 10 foot setback and from a 15 foot rear to a 20 foot rear for those that abutted these other homes. But I don't know if all in all cases, I don't know if everyone was satisfied, but that's what they that's what they offered. Actually, for

Most of the most of the residents who are concerned about the loss size, The 1,500 HPA in which we're being which is 40% of their development or something.

So I wonder if you could maybe recap what happened Thursday. I'm not aware what Sure. Yeah. So it was it was denied. The zone The rezone the rezone and the development

agreement was denied for for the subdivision.

There's 5,800 square feet, but then we coaches 5,000 square feet for those single valley. So Right. I don't I guess I don't get it. And with no with no With no with no With no. So when approved and once not approved.

And this so Nibbly Coach, it's on commercial. And at the time it was approved, there's really no lot minimum for for commercial. And the and single family was a conditional use, which was approved. So that's that's, I guess, different zoning, different different property. The yeah. I don't I mean, I don't know why. I I can't I can't speak for the council on on their decision. I you know, Garrett Garrett explained some of their concerns. But

I mean, there's too

many. The the problem with with saying that there is too many small lots is the whole point is small lots because it's an open space subdivision. They are giving up 40% of the land and saying build more houses. So you can't really have big lots when you're giving away your land. Yeah. The land has the map out. Yeah. It's simple. Yeah. And so you you have to be fine with that little threat. On the flip side, like, that was said lots of times by members of the community and it was repeated several times in the meeting that there was 75,000 square feet plus, which was entirely incorrect. Just about half was 5,000 square feet, and the other half was not. So there was a variety of lot sizes in the plan.

I think the the tricky part of in in using that word is it is truly subjective. What what Well, there And I'm not I'm just saying that that's the reality. Like, you're gonna argue there is variety, but somebody else may say, hey. Visually, I see this, and I don't see variety. And and I know you have the numbers. Right? Whereas, like Yeah. Actually, yes. There is variety. Variety is the context that you can

finagle those small numbers. Yes.

Yes. But this the small ops were not on the edge of it. Right. And

See, and that's where where I am is, like, if they would have just inversed it out, how the perception may have just wildly changed altogether.

You know? And and just like Nick, I talked to to several council members, and, like, the feedback with that that I received was that was, like, the only thing. We we have just it then just made some exceptions to Yeah. Buffering on on specifically on the East Side. Yeah.

This is this is where it's I think this is there's so many specific challenges about this particular neighborhood when in this context. We all we almost hit, like, a perfect scenario of, like, it's the first time somebody tried this with an with our new code. The open space is already predetermined. Right? Like, we I've talked about this individually with most of you here about, you know, the the realistically, the developer and designer was not allowed to freely incorporate this open space throughout this neighborhood. So we really didn't necessarily get to see a a designer with the freedom to then have this open space complement the entirety of the design, which is already predetermined to one side. Right. But that to me is extra tricky in terms of What what do you mean by that? Well, look, like, the they haven't put the open space, though, because we wanted this whole stuff. That's where the Right. Like, the designer wasn't allowed to design the open space throughout the neighborhood to maybe see what Marie Peiff is. You know? It's just like, it it was already pre determined. So boom. So that Not necessarily.

So this is several iterations, and I know Josh had worked with I know a lot with Nate on going through each iteration and just getting feedback. I'm like, well, this would be cool if we kept this stuff and we kept that stuff. Yeah. And then Josh kinda tried to work around that. Yeah.

And then Is this the same thing we saw in HitPilot?

Okay. Yeah. Yeah. And then

our code specifically calls out trying to

group Consolidate. Consolidate. Mhmm. That makes sense. Yeah. Yep. Yeah. Well, anyway It encourages consolidation more than spreading it out. I mean, yes, buffering is an option, but it's not a requirement necessarily. You get if if you have buffering, then it's extra I guess, it's extra points, but there's other options as well. That north

issue to subdivision

to the west of them. I would find agree that he was forced to do this in the sense that, yeah, we wanna have have it attached to that. But you can put three acres next to it and three acres somewhere else. You're you're right. And so I multiple open space subdivisions in the city have multiple open space areas Yeah. Then that subdivision. That's true. So he could have Right now. Yeah. Right. So with Metal Creek, I mean, there's He could've. Three or four. He could meddle with Mettle Creek. Be fine. So I'm just saying the fact that he he I get again, we're trying to encourage it all in one spot. Why? Why do you wanna do that? Maybe when there's six acres, I think that's a big That

goes to another thing. I have a feeling about is, like, for a 20 acre what is this? 19 in total, do we need almost seven acres? This is this is, like, six point more than six and a half, isn't it? Yeah.

I think in this particular case, though, to make the intended use viable, it was helpful to have six acres of open space because we wanted it as a pasture. I think

carve out this Morgan Farm scenario on the discussion we're having. Yeah. And I want to if if it's okay, I'd like to frame this more like, could this work anywhere? And and I'd like to just eradicate this more Morgan Farm thing and say, okay. Do we actually need over six and a half acres? I know, like, the the bigger the space, the better. Does that make sense? Put parts and space whatever. To make this work, do we really need that much space to to complement a neighborhood of the size? I just don't know. You know? Like, can we give away an acre and a half to allow them to spread out and and build some of these larger lots and still get the intended the spirit of what we're trying to achieve here? You know? Does the city does the city truly need an extra or and, frankly, I I'm widely opposed to the city taking on, just to Garrett's point, even five acres to to to to to continue to maintain. I still think this should just be a locally maintained thing like my neighborhood is. So and if that's if that is the the spirit of this, then five acres is plenty. I mean, we have seven in my neighborhood. We don't even have to deal with it all. And they they they could have done that. They could have done that, but the city

kinda threw conversations with Morgan Farm and this again, sorry. Talking about this one. The city has the discretion to say, we want that open space. Which this

in this context. Yes. But

Sublime to everywhere else in this So we don't have to take it on. Yeah. We don't have to. We don't have to take on one acre of open space with subdivision. We're not we're not obligated to as a city. It's it's a council decision, and we could be selective about that. Yeah.

So space then. Nothing happened in

Could've been private. They could've come in with private open space. Yeah.

Yeah. So you see that?

Yeah. We could.

So so for me, it's not it's not 5,000. But really, like, 5,000. To me, it just feels like there's too many courses on this twenty eight years. That's for me. I was like, so so what can we do if if I what I I was thinking, what can we do to force the developer or work with the design to what we want? So we change the math. We we change we we we came from what we had before this last iteration of this home space orders to what we have, and that's what we got. What can we do to force the how it looks? Like, require certain percentage of 10,000 square foot loss and 20,000 square foot loss at Baker. What can we do? So the so you have your variety Yeah. And then maybe tweak the language where you can't just put everything on one end and then have everything on you know, what can we do to Right. To tweak it not so much, to tweak it back? I feel like the pendulum is over here. It's one over here. We just what we got. Yeah. Just re center a little bit. So reinvent the wheel and bring it back just a little bit. And, you know, mess with the calculations on the den the density bonus so that so that we change we change the numbers so that that design changes. It's forced to change Yeah. To something else that we can set that'd be on there. So it says 70, maybe it's 50.

Well, what so how many lots were the in the original R 2 A? Was it 50?

Four. It's four? So they they could have theoretically and this is, you know, taking the right of ways that they've designed with the subdivision. They could have theoretically put 50. 50. And then they get a 40% bonus because they have at least 40% of open space. Yeah. So that With that on Now the math, we did adjust the the last time this went through. It used to be you get you give 40%, you get a 35% bonus, so a little bit lower. But that was that was recommended by planning commission when it came through. Let's let's just let's just align at forty forty, thirty five thirty five. So it it was a lit the math was a little bit different before. One thought I had is it's all based on averages. I know that some people had some issues with the amount of variety. They've seen too many 5,000 core score for lots. What if instead of an average, it's a median? Yeah. Because average is heavily influenced by the outliers. Right. I don't know. Yeah. But Yeah. So if if you want those numbers, the

the median So we require 5,800 as the average. With this specific subdivision, the average was $59.19 Mhmm. And the median was $50.37.

Which feels more like the median. You see it?

Yeah. Yeah. But you're 100. What do you have? It's.

No. You said $50.59

was the average. 50 The median Yeah. 5,000

square feet was the average. But the median was 57.

The median was five thousand thirty thirty. That's 900 square feet.

And then I guess another question sorry to open it up to the the broader kind of open space subdivision. But this isn't the first time we've gotten no space subdivision where all where you have this lack of, I guess, variety in lot sizes. There there's there's been other open space subdivisions. I mean, Nibley Meadows, I I think if you look at the design, they're primarily 8,000 square foot lots all the way throughout. Every single lot in there is almost 8,000 square feet. So I guess the question is, is it the variety, or is it the variety coupled with a small lot size that people are having problems with? I I don't I I'm wondering if it should if what you're talking about really applies to r two a or not. And and, I mean, this one, I think the difficulty here is it was never built. It hasn't you know, it was denied. So we we saw kinda two dimensionally how it looks. We never saw the built product, so it's a little bit hard to react to that way. But I do think we do have some examples in town, really, within our RPUD subdivisions of this. If you'd go to a corner of Ridgeline Park or or Nibbly Meadows where it's similar to this,

you can kind

of and the look and feel that you get and for if you go to Ridgeline Park Phase 12, and only look at the only look at the single family portion, maybe with a little open space next to it, I mean, that's that's really what you get from this code because because it's primarily 5,000 square foot lots that they built there. And so I I I think it's important to look at this is kind of a theoretical subdivision. Right? It never happened. And we there was there's a lot of reaction to it, a lot of, we'd like this or we'd like that, but but I it is a little different if you go through and look at some examples. I mean, Tom mentioned before the meeting, the neighborhood he went to with with these types of of lots. I think it might help the council to kinda look at some different examples. I've also I've also heard and, Tom, I don't know. Maybe you wanna speak to this from I know developers have difficulty designing the variety of lot sizes within within a particularly a smaller subdivision. Yeah. I get that.

What if we just say But the size that we're talking about here, what if we just say the inventory of those cannot exceed a certain percentage

and the rest? Good luck. I guess, it's not really good in the rest.

Yes. I could offer some experience here. Let's see. It's several years ago in my previous employer, they wanted to do away with these cookie cutter type of subdivisions, so they they created a a requirement for some variety in frontages. So you can you needed to have so many with, say, a 60 foot frontage. You had to have so much percentage as an 80 foot frontage and so much percentage as, say, a 100 foot frontage. That would actually help guide the minimum lot size and the median lot size doing something like that. For example, you could say, on on any given street, you would have 40% could have sixty sixty footer, and 20% could have or 30% could have 80 foot, and then 10% could have the 100 foot. That'll give you that variety without saying your minimum lot size has to be this.

Yeah. Well, you're never gonna make 80 pack. You have minimum lot size. Nobody's always gonna be upset. So did it work? When

No. The the community is just not ready for it. They they changed that. As soon as that planner left, they changed that code. To go back? To go back to now they get cookie cutter stuff. It's just difficult for a developer to make that pan out. It's hard to plan it. Any changes are affecting where you stub utilities in, you know, driveways. It's just really difficult. I've I've probably built, you know, thousands of homes and subdivisions like this in California and Nevada. It no one's died in these subdivisions. They're they're small. It's it's more affordable. It's it's less impactful to maintaining the utilities. For example, you have a whole bunch of frontage here that is underserved on one entire side of that road. All that asphalt is basically useless serving no purpose other than providing the open space. Now I would another thing that I might suggest is the the amount of open space. 40% of open space is huge. Yeah. I think you've alluded to that. Maybe have something and say up to a maximum, and this is what your maximum bonus density would be. But you said there's too many houses. And and I'm just being a devil's advocate. I I appreciate the opportunity to be able to engage here. What what does that mean? What does too many houses mean? That that they can't comprehend what that actually means. The road's wide enough to serve that. All the infrastructure, it it's there. It can handle that many homes. It's surrounded. It has two connections to arterial roads. They're way I mean, people say it's congested, but congestion to me is 1,400 cars per hour when we have 4,000 per day. So that I I just kinda wanna engage with those sorts of conversations. What what does that mean? How do you define that? Subjective?

Well, the big advantage with this proposal was the stormwater management and the groundwater management. And now that's lost. But the million dollar bar could have been torn down and we're gonna have an indoor arena for Morrison because then it largely work within the windows without.

I wanted to go back to Tom's comment about the frontages. Because looking at this, that does seem kind of like the limiting factor in your ability to be creative when you have a a minimum frontage of 50 feet. Like, if if we allowed flag lots, right, where your frontage is only the driveway now, now you have the option to go deep. Right? And having lots behind other lots and kinda opens up some variety in how you can kinda move things around. Is that a possibility, or is this it extreme against any kind of flagged lots?

I mean, I'm not I don't I don't know about others, but I don't think our code allows that right now. Yeah. Yeah.

I It's not on a tier or all. It's not

what's it really now? Our flag lots, it it's kinda I mean, it's all perspective. Right? So flag lots are we require a minimum of 30 feet. You have to have 30 feet for the access to the flag lot. I've seen several lots when I was living in Portland. I was going to grad school that are 20 to 30 feet wide. The lot is, and there's a skinny house on that lot. Mhmm. So, I mean, what you can fit in there, what what's acceptable, and and just in a single a normal single family neighborhood. So yeah. But but, yeah, I think I think you're right. We kinda push them in a corner when we have these these just I think the general comment I hear is we have these standards, these minimums, maximums, and you I mean, we basically push them. They they could have done to Brett's point, they could've they they could this could've been designed a little differently. But if they're trying to maximize and and give what is allowed, they're almost kinda pushed into a corner to to do something like this. And you see with other subdivisions as well, not just this one. There's a lot of them where it's like yeah. It to fit everything in, to fit whether it's 80 foot, 50 foot, whatever our frontage is, I I think it it kinda stifles that creativity to do something different.

But I have seen homes, like, where we have, I don't know, like, a shared flat box. We have a single driveway that splits into four flat box in the back of other homes in the flat.

Just different kind of things like that where

it really opens the design space. Now on the front edge that you have on the build, it can serve six homes where you would normally lease or change.

I mean It sounds like pulling both the setup.

Single angle.

I don't know. That's what's the developer guess.

Yeah. Can I ask you a question here? I mean, what was I don't I mean, obviously, you can't speak to for all the members of the council. But was there any for you personally, if you're willing to answer the question, like, you know, this just a simple start contrast of this type of a development as it abuts against the preexisting development. I know that's the most of the people who came to speak. I mean, that was the very common thread of, like, one my one lot. Now I'm gonna see four houses of this. And the entireties are like fence line. I mean, we we should address the elephant in a room, and that was one of the major threads of conversation from the public. Do we have a problem with that just in general?

We'll begin discussion again. We would we would do something that would fix that realm like you said if we do like what we do in the PD, firefly percent. You know, that density of where I'm a bit of existing. I think that percentage, I can't remember these 80%. And what the money was because they they have all those little all along the existing boundaries. And I'm happy because those that they were, like, three quarters of the size to kinda get that buffer. Yeah. And we were and that would be possible. We need to know. Yes. And that would be just impossible. I not able to see when those are gonna be an advantageous tool. Right.

Yeah. I think that's one thing. You know, we're kind of, like, just having this open ended conversation here, but I don't know if we really have any direction on where to take this. If any, frankly, it's like, well, we can discuss any and all pass potential and possibilities, but I don't know what the council do you even want us to entertain? And I just brought it up as far as, like, when like I said, Brett and I, I called him. Remember this discussion? My apologies. I was like, I say this, and I don't know. I just don't know. You know? Sort of our conversation fall into what I'm talking about now. And so I don't know if I was premature in that and then putting this item on the agenda, and it just so happened to be what we went through on Thursday, and it's just sort of steamrolling into this thing. Or I don't know, like, Garrett, if the council wants us to do this. Or Yeah. I think the council would like to see it. Yeah. That's my understanding as well. Split. I think that

and the mayor had to make the final decision.

But then it's also, like, if are we tweaking this? I mean, I'm sure we're tweaking this in the context of we wanna keep this idea of r two way open space. So then we don't wanna deincentivize the idea of r two space either as a possibility for a developer in the city. Right? I think that we can address the setbacks

and just creating some sort of work against existing neighborhoods, that would be sufficient. I don't know how you do that. I think the PUD, like, we said on Fireflies.

Yeah. And and, you know, maybe if we have to tweak this to add language like that, that doesn't necessarily mean this has to fit every vacant bot and they can track it manually and Nibley. Which which zone bridge

is it? Is

there a lot of The cluster it's a cluster subdivision. So they with a cluster, you don't get a bonus density. You still get the same number of lots. You can but you can there's flexibility in in the lot sizes and frontages. And in in some respects, there's more flexibility. Now I wasn't here when Stonebridge was approved and what all those stipulations the city put put in and and what process they went to. But just in general, they have smaller lot sizes than, you know, 12,000 square feet. They have, you know, nine, ten thousand square foot lots in there. But they they they within their subdivision, there was dedicated open space. Now that was in later phases that haven't been developed yet. It's good. Yeah.

We're we're we're

just There's a There's a there's a tiny bit of open there's a there's a tiny bit of open space that has been dedicated to the HOA most. But there's a little trail kinda connector thing that goes through, but that's it is a different code. And I don't actually, when it was originally approved, the open space subdivision that con which was previously the conservation subdivision wasn't an option. Mhmm. So it's the only clusters well, I shouldn't say it's the only cluster subdivision in the city. I think there might have been others that were approved that way. But what was that? The noncompartment is the best. That was a PUD.

A p Yeah.

Which was the old city's old PUD Yep. Code. Yeah. Back in 2000 city's had a PUD code since, like, the seventies because I I found it. It's not really new, but we've just changed it a lot and repealed it and brought it back. And So is is

that I'm just trying to get it. Yeah. The one on 8 West, that nonprofit on it. 2700 South And West. Is that do you need because they're smaller lots too. Oh, that was a conservation subdivision.

Yeah. So, like, Nibley Gardens? Okay. Yeah. It it was one that it it might have been the first one of the first conservation subdivisions the city approved back in, like, 2016.

Yeah. North of North Of Nipwika.

Yeah. That area I mean, at least where they have the open space adjacent to it and they have the smaller lots, that was that was a conservation subdivision. Yeah.

We got.

Yeah. So

So so setbacks. Credit information. Stepbacks.

No. No. They're different. That was one of the things that was changed. So here let me show you. And the idea there was just to make it more feasible for building on. You get kinda pushed into a corner if your setbacks are too restrictive. So as we talk about decreasing the lot size, you could keep the setbacks the same, but you're you're just pinching the amount of buildable area.

Can I ask I mean, just a theoretical question around that? If we're trying to if one of the things we're trying to encourage through these smaller lots is more affordable housing is in a smaller house more affordable.

Mhmm. Good point. You don't have to. I'm saying that that that was that was the intent with with changing this to we we have, for example, the city, few years back, granted a variance, and it was in a lot in the cottonwoods because and a variance on the setbacks because they couldn't actually feasibly build a house that met the CCNRs for the subdivision, which required I mean, I thought it was kind of unreasonable, the the square footage of of house that they required. So they were kinda pushed into this corner where to comply with the city's code, they had to they had to break the CCNRs and subdivision. And and so that variance is granted. But I guess my point there is, in this case, it was a quarter acre lot. It was a little skewed. You know, lots. If it's a square if it's a square rectangular lot, it makes it a little easier to build a house on than if it's these odd shapes that come out. And then once you increase the setbacks, well, then then let's say you got a little triangle wedge in the middle you gotta build your house on. Or the core Those that would be That and that could be a consideration somehow in the in the standards. Like, you can't create a a lot that has

maybe there's some way to craft that. Like, you can't You you have to have a thousand square feet that is because because really square or rectangle. Do you have any shade? You have these 5,500 square foot or whatever lost, like, even, like, over here. If we have five foot setbacks, we're just gonna go 2,800 square foot. And principal supply and demand, Supply is low. They're still gonna sell for $500,000. I think it's like, maybe we want to increase the setback, so we're actually making them build smaller homes so they're actually affordable. That's kinda what we're trying to do here. I'll throw this out. I'll throw this out there. Something that might be able to accomplish the buffering

and the setback thing that we're talking. You'll see these footnotes in this table even if you look at our two way. You look at side yard street. They have a 20 foot setback. If it's an arterial road, it's 35. Perhaps on rear yard yard and and side yard, we have another footnote that says 40 feet and then establish a 40 foot setback on a rear yard or 30, whatever that'd be, if it's next to an existing development residential development. I think they could do that. Accomplish both. But, Again, I don't know what the buffer means. So Is that does that mean 40 feet? Is that 50? Is that 100 feet? No. Not sure what that means. I think it it's a subjective term, but maybe that could be a way to help alleviate some of those concerns and provide the buffer and setback.

So, Levi, you said if we increase the setback, that pinches that pinches the developable area. Listen. Wait. Isn't that over? Would that be worse issue as far as it would protect the setbacks, but it would also force this development.

It it could do one or two force it. It it could do one or two things. It could force a smaller home or enforce larger logs. Yep.

Or or or or the developer. I I mean, I think in some cases, the the I guess the third scenario is is people a a builder, someone buys the lot, not really understanding the all the the constraints, and then and they're kinda pushed into this weird limbo of how am I gonna make a house work on this lot, except a tiny house. Like, he's saying build a tiny house. But What about just check? What about It Theoretically, it could. I've just I've just seen it in I've just seen it I've just seen it in practice where they'll still put the same lot size. It it just it comes it comes with the property owner later. The developer doesn't really care because they feel I mean No. Right. The builder, the the property owner, they get pinched later thinking, oh, yeah. I can build this house on it, and and they don't they don't understand that. So it it doesn't it doesn't necessarily get flushed out when the subdivision's designed. Okay. In all instances, at least that's what I've that's what I've observed when when people, you know, come in and they wanna build a house on the lot, and it's like, oh, wow. These are really restrictive. Maybe they didn't do their due diligence. They should have known that when they bought the lot. But

Where did you get narrow input?

Well, I mean, I guess I guess we have to put them We we still have connection.

Yeah.

Repeat.

What I'm what I'm trying to do is is if we increase our our own setbacks, that's gonna force the development in this mall as far as the number of buildable lots. Because, you know, Garrett, you mentioned maybe and maybe you just disagree, but you said, generally speaking, it was it was the setbacks that that was the issue. But I was in this meeting planning the zoning, and that wasn't the issue. It was how big that how many houses, how many lots of homes. It may have all may have evolved into a setback issue, but not that night. Maybe after I left, it was that dirty. But this the the the problem that I have with this development is the number of lots on this on this on this on this particular size. I have a problem with that, and it sounds like we're not we don't really agree on what the problem is. I I I think there's two problems here that we're looking at. One is

what did community members say I have a problem with, and then what did council problem with? And and there was lots of things on the community side, so I won't even talk to that side. On the the council side, from what I'm hearing was the main concern was the East side border. Can you put the touching on the other? Is that pretty accurate, Harry? Yeah. But the the biggest thing is the major concern. If

you make that large v shape. And you are smart with that. Do we have a laser point on the the Southeast?

We should. It's

the one that we install bridge.

Not too far. Sorry. I'm gonna

Great.

Yeah. Which he did he did agree to increase the setback on those lots. But Yeah. The 10 feet, which is the same as it would be in a standard subdivision, but for the side yard.

K. Not the actually, from Nathan. He wanted more variety of lot sizes rather than so many $5. So the only way you're getting that is kinda left loss. Correct.

Correct. Unless you're allowing even smaller loss.

But that's it. None.

That's the way it's written. Yeah. You

do it for me. Then you gotta make changes then you gotta limit maybe either your limit, how many how many percentage of 5,000 square foot lots can be in in in a particular scenario, or you have to force the others, the bigger ones, the undersized and bigger ones to get to get variety over you're gonna have to add new rolling people here every Sunday.

And, frankly, if the configuration of the subdivision is being written of the requirement, then maybe it doesn't make sense.

Like, Prashant, we have we wanna encourage developers to open, like, subdivisions. So where's that having sweet spot?

And and, you know, back to affordability, you're not getting a for even any real level of entry level housing with, you know, r two, r one, r one a open space subdivisions, you that just the lot sizes that I mean, just just the cost of land and and building and everything that goes into it, the additional cost of, you know, the infrastructure to support that is is higher compared to this. I mean, this this this gets it to a lower a lower price point, I guess. In my opinion,

purpose No. Necessary. Not not the other

subdivisions are bad. They aren't. They aren't. So I guess I guess this

space subdivision. And it's okay if not one not one a a a a developer company for a parcel and develops all not one five thousand square foot lot. Right? And he wants to build to have it be whatever it wants to be that pencils out, and they sell for more. I I think we're inflating. Sometimes

those two issues. Yeah. I get I guess the the I guess the reason for that is for that comment is there's very few options to develop any kind of affordable housing in the city. I mean, you've got the RPD, and that's a lengthy legislative process that's, you know, very limited on and so this is at least providing an option. We we could we could we could develop another overlay that's more focused on affordable housing to your point. But this was, when adopted, kind of a a missing piece in the ordinance that that allowed for for something a little different.

Yeah. I mean, this was an.

Well, he's trying. Three times, when you got the impression, every time you try to go for two way, is he's trying to make a a good proper shift in the lots on that property on my impression. I don't know.

Well, he he originally came to us for our 2AM. He said, let's try to do open space. We could've just said yes. This was two years ago. I was here. Yeah. Well, you've come before. Where were you? We could have said yes.

That was the second time. Yeah. Yeah.

I'm kinda just we're more in line, or to be honest with Brett, on this one to a to the degree of I agree with you as well where I think we can I would like to see us get creative to the extent of, like, I think some of these smaller lots can and and I hope will work in what we're trying to accomplish here? I just don't personally think one neighborhood has to facilitate the entire need of that type of a product in Medley. I think if we could be creative, more of our zones would be include maybe we even tweak the r two open space to say a certain percentage can be these smaller lots. But I just don't think it necessarily needs to be the entire subdivision. I don't know how we get there, but that that's kind of direction I'd like to go in is limited to a percentage. And then even whether it be through setbacks or just a percent overall. And then if the math doesn't work because the configuration of the the subdivision boundary, then it does more. That doesn't have this doesn't mean it has to be applied everywhere either. Sometimes the property just doesn't fit the the code. Right?

Well, it is an awkward property, what narrow entrance in and then build on the back.

Look. Look. This is build as as shown here. In the long run, it's gonna be I mean, Tom, you said no one's gonna die, but or or something like that. I It would be fine. I mean, it yeah. No. It's gonna be it's gonna be fine. But I think we have to be sensitive to the people that were in this room and and the city when we talk about how many how many is too many homes on the parcel. Well, there is a limit to that. We I think we have to be sensitive to that as leaders, especially staff and city council. You know, we're just here

Recommended section. And stuff.

So I think I think what we might have to do with what what we're what we're in with you on and and try to balance that with with word paneling. But this code is not an affordable paneling code.

Understood. But every but every every code we have has an impact on on portability.

Are you indicating risk of why now? Mhmm. Because they're smaller lots and off of each other? Or

That's a big impact on the 28 or Sure. Acre. To me, the impact is too high. The the adversity of loss is not

in my I agree.

I agree. I I also disagree, I think, maybe with Nick in that there's not too much old space ever. It might be. You know what we get? But Yeah. Five acres preserving five acres, that's a big spot. That's a big big place that we don't have to pay for. Yeah. And and

my only perspective on that, and to be honest with you, is my in my personal experience to that in my neighborhood as I manage I'm part of the group that manages that space. Like, we have seven acres of open space for 60 houses. It is a lot. And and I can be very specific. Like, we have a triangle space. You know what's what I'm talking about? Mhmm. Next to the subdivision that's coming. We don't do anything with that. We could we could have just developed that and had zero difference in experiencing. Now the internal core suite with the with the trail and everything, love it. And so I'm I can just tell you only from my personal experience that I feel like and maybe it's just too narrow minded because it's only the one I have, but I think we could've gotten away with a little bit. Get the same feel and result.

I mean, you just fence that rent. Dude, I would love to, like,

lease it to somebody to put horses on or something. But that's another discussion. Yeah. But, anyway, so so I don't know if we're going with this. And and, Garrett, I don't know if you have any more input with respect to where we should take this. But, Levi, what kind of do you have any, like, specific direction you want us to give you on how to approach this? Or do you have any, like, a gut instinct on what you heard from us on where you think we need to go with this to kinda blend the comments that you're hearing from us to kind of achieve? I don't even know if you know what we wanna achieve, frankly, at this point. I don't I don't you know, we Yeah. I'm not seeing a lot of consensus on a whole lot. I mean, I think I think the

the setback when when it's a budding neighborhoods, we can we can draft something, you know, like Tom said, of increasing that if if it if it direct if it directly abuts another established neighborhood Yeah. I guess if you if you wanna do that.

Let's see here. Did Tyler did Tyler send you anything? I talked to him on the phone about this. He's not gonna okay. I don't wanna speak for Tyler. I wish he was here. But when we spoke on the phone, he kind of was alluding to, like, tweaking the percentage of the specific inventory and just make he he always comes back to it. It's just a math problem. Wish he was here.

Yeah. I mean, I I guess what I would suggest is if any I mean, I could try to capture what what the feeling is here, but I it it seems like if any of you feel comfortable, even if it's not getting into the specific math, just listing out what what you propose that the ordinance gets changed to Okay. We could bring that back to the whole group and basically go through kinda line by line, should we do this? I think then we can go and you can go into a direction. I I don't know. From from what I'm hearing from the discussion, I'm not getting a lot of consensus on very many of these items. So if we can go through and if, you know, individual commissioners that feel inclined that, hey. We need to make some changes here, maybe maybe just get those on paper, and and we can I mean, did you This is similar to what we did when we changed the the uses the use categories? Everyone I mean, it's a little it's a little homework. Right? A little bit more of a homework assignment to go through. This is this is a problem I have with it. I think, you know, we should limit the number of lots that are under 6,000 square feet to no more than 50%. I don't know. Whatever that those ideas are, I think it would be helpful if we can get those to the group and allow allow the group to kinda digest them, come back, go through line by line. Do we wanna pursue this? Do we wanna pursue this? Get see if we can get some consensus on those items, and then and then staff could draft something. I know that's a little bit longer process, but Uh-huh. But I don't I don't have I don't have specific recommendations. I don't think there's necessarily a lot of problems as, you know, staff is concerned with this code. But but I know there's a lot of good ideas out there and things to consider, so maybe we just need to bring them,

you know, by the way. Council members. Are you have you got any

feedback from them on I mean, we discussed we we discussed some of it tonight, but, I mean, just as far as roles go, you know, the planning commission is the recommending body for the city council. So, I mean, the city council can direct us to consider some things, but, really, it is the role of of this body to And this is where I'm like develop developer. Right? Right.

We got to me, the feedback we got was the kind of Go to the thing. Sorry. And it so we got direction, but it's unclear

on what direction to go in. So that's why we're here. So so in this discussion, I've been kinda writing things down. It's setbacks and buffer. It seems like we're the big ones. The other thing that was talked about was variety, no cookie cutter subdivision. Right? Mhmm. So I think the suggestion of a per certain percentage of frontages, lot sizes that, you know, be thinking about that makes maybe make some suggestions there. The other thing is, like, what the other the other item was too many houses. What is a reasonable density that you're looking to say now? Now when I say what is that reasonable density, I would encourage you to look at the open spaces being preserved as well. If you do the math here, this this density is 3.5 units per acre. That's low density. Yeah. So to to say that's too many homes that you know, you'd be thinking about what that means and maybe try to do the math. And what is too many homes per acre? That's that's a density issue. It's simple math. Is it four units an acre? Is it three? Apparently, it's It's one more home. It's apparently 3.5. Yeah. Yeah. And and I'll be honest, that's gonna be about four units an acre.

What's that? Sorry. That's gonna be about four units an acre. I think it's true because this was this was frozen.

Three and a half at I think it was 4.3, actually. So the base was three and a half, and then with the bonus, they got to about 4.2, 4.3. I just did it based on 0, 70 Right. Per per per gross acres. Per gross acre. Okay. Gross. Yep. Per gross. Gross acre. And that's and that's how most developers look at it. Yeah. Gross. Yeah. Good point. Sorry to tell you. I don't mean to contradict you.

What was that?

Different amounts per square foot. Right? So, yeah, that whole whole subdivision was 5,000 square feet. I think I would work that kind of I kinda rationale. But when you throw a different you know, you're gonna get different values from size lots per square foot. It's not it's not based on the square foot.

What's net on this? Is it was it okay. The net was four. No. Net available.

Oh, I can't I'd have to check. 15 or something. Yeah. Yeah. Alright. It's on I think it's right on this first 15.92. It's almost 16.

But, yeah, 3.5. You're right. Most don't really They're gonna say around four units an acre. And this is net would be 4.4. Yeah. 4.4. Yeah.

So you're right. I didn't mean to contradict you there. Wow. That's true. It's a discussion.

K. You said that it seemed like a lot compared to 20 acres. Right. Okay. That's what's needed. Acre. When you drink it down, you do. Oh, that's not too bad. Yeah. And that's why I say, what's too many?

And our and and keep in mind, R 2 a is the highest base zone density the city has. So, like, this is until you get into our PUD or RM So

Over the general plan

update,

Are we to a point where they have talked about defining what those definitions are on what is low and weak and high?

Those are the people that are serving, Levi. So what we've

so what we have what what they're recommending right now, I don't know if it's helpful to that. It's it's not it's defining it differently. Rather than based on density, it's based on whether it's detached, attached, or mixed housing because density is it's it's difficult to define what's low, medium, high. We could if we wanna go down that road, we could we could get more specific. We wanna direct the consultant to go there. But what they're recommending, what they've done in other cities is with the exception of large lot, you know, think of kind of east the highway, Hollow Road area. The they have a different category for that where it's kind of in between ag and detached. They just have detached, attached, and mixed housing is what is what's in the current draft, And they'll define those, but the intent is that it's defined by the description. What do you mean define? Like, we know what detached is. Detached house. Right. Right. Exactly. So what does that mean?

How many of those per Detached.

There's major. Yeah. That would be great. Thanks for that.

That's that's the current draft. But we are so to that point I mean, this gets in a little bit into staff report, but I'll I'll mention it now. The next meeting, we're looking to likely have a a joint with with city council, a joint workshop on the general plan specific to the future land use map so we can get into that. And if we don't think that's appropriate, if we if we wanna hone in, define it further than that, we can. But that's just kind of a a teaser that's that's kind of the direction. I know that's one. I know.

Who's first the

consultant with the storm department community to help us define what

low density means to them, high density, medium density? It doesn't sound like I think they're just recommending that we go away from that term altogether and and define it differently. Description too. Yeah. Because we're also We'll get into that we'll get into that more in the next Yeah. Meeting, but that's that's what's in the the first draft.

I didn't mean to, like, totally figure out I mean, I think

I I haven't I haven't personally spoken to a single citizen, any niggly, that would say this is medium. They they see this, and they're like, that's high end and say, yeah. Know. That's spoken to a single person in the wild that sees that in Nibley, and they're they would be excited about that. They say that I've not talked to a single person. I'm gonna say that, you know, when you So confused.

Think average every city not the citizen with the estimate. Yeah.

The average person. Yeah. I think the average in that we would say, if there's more than two to the main deal, that's too many. Oh, that's the Right. Exactly. He's

right. It's tough it's tough because you're working I mean, housing market has changed since those people moved in Yeah. Twenty, thirty years ago. Right?

50. Right? Yeah. In my opinion, if 4,000 is not an issue, I know what it is. I would have on two ways to qualify for this orders.

So so you're saying 50 at this net?

Well, and that's and that's basically where we were before. We could do that. I mean, that's that's an option. Right. If Say that again. Sorry. That's where we were before. I mean, our Oh, just no There was no incentive to do an an open space subdivision if it's r two a. Yeah. I mean, that's

My issue. I think a lot of guarantee who maintains it and who does the main.

And even Josh was so Josh did tell us or somebody that they were planning on selling these small lots at over at a $100,000 a lot. Is that true? I've heard that people say that. So what's it Garrett, what's a what's that quarter acre going? Fifth 150 per quarter. So two small lots are at this comp comprising the same acreage as a quarter acre is worth more than one quarter acre. Right? So you can tell me that 50 lots in here is less valuable to a developer than 50 smaller lots is less valuable somehow than 50 lots that we would get under the normal two way. You see the math I'm trying to figure out here? Yeah. Is this the new two?

Well, they're getting

What's where you cost versus versus the core rate? They're getting five

I mean, in in in those numbers, they be they get 5,000,000 from

from 50 lots. Oh, okay. It it so but but but but you get you get eight

So instead of You get 8,000,000 with the larger bigger out is, and this would be That he could get 50 lots under normal r. Tubing. Mhmm. Right? So how many more lots would he need to either go even or plus one, like you said? And that's somehow the math we need to figure out to incentivize it.

Right? Is it is it the city's job to police how much a developer makes? No. The city's job is to get Yeah. Yeah. The neighborhood store. Yeah. It was a nice neighborhood. Yeah. And that's what we want. Right? It doesn't matter if they're if they're making Sure. Sure. But if we wanna incentivize open space, that's where that's we have to we

we if we want open space, we have to make an incentive. Yeah. We open space was a priority. So this way, then we will need this call. Yeah. So in a way, we do have to make sure that the developer's making money so that we incentivize this the the this kind of something. Open space.

My wife, Brad, I'm all for open space.

Yeah. That's I I I would Maybe I you're asking if you think like I would make you Yeah. I would It seems that the the

the the two want to do the open Sway. Correcting? Are you saying that as long as they get their six acres, you you would be in favor of the rest of the loss being 5,000 square foot loss. If you in theory, are you saying that?

I don't have a problem with any of that.

So that's so so, essentially, you're saying as long as as long as they provide 40% of the of the project to to home space, do what you want as many as small as small as we allow and do all that. You're saying that would be probably okay with that in theory? Yeah. Yeah. And I guess We're after the open space, so we get we're getting open spaces. And so I guess where I differ would be, I agree, but I want variety to keep, number one, the the impact of the community down plus

provide a visual variety of the of the of the community and the neighborhood. And that's where the average comes in. The average office that which Yeah. Which And you could and you and you could if you want variety and you're not so concerned about the the lot sizes and having some lot sizes that are too small or or too big, you could take that standard out of there and just say you need you need this variety. Right? Which standard? The average? The lot sizes. I mean long. The minimum lot sizes. Take out take out minimum lot sizes and say I mean, but but you you could say you could have no more I I'm just I'm just throwing it out there that you you don't have to base it on lot sizes. Yeah. I mean, you can you can just tap the number of homes Yeah. And and and give and and give leeway to how to design that. Or if you wanna get into how to design it, you wanna have variety, then you could somehow have a standard that says, well, you you need you can't have more than a certain percentage

that are within a certain range or you know? Well, you could yeah. It's good. Well, you could tell you you could say you can't have more than 50 units on 20 acres or something like that. Is that what you're saying

with the open space? Well, you can cap the number of units. I mean, we already do that. You you you don't you don't necessarily need to change that math. But in this case, we said you have to have 50 feet of frontage, and you and you have to have 5,000 square foot. They could they could even come up with smaller than this. Maybe we I mean, I don't know. Maybe we even have some attached units or I I don't

do find it. Yeah.

There could be there could be some more variety in the style. We we do kinda push them into a specific design here, and that's why you get the cookie cutter.

K. Mhmm.

It's really discreet. But then it would relieve the heartburn people like me and others have on how many cars are in that neighborhood. How many cars are in that subdivision now? You're coming onto the road because you're, you know, you're not 70, maybe you're 50, but you have complete discretion on how you do that. I

mean yeah. Because he could've done duplexes or even town phones.

So when we I was gonna bring this development up when Troy made a point, but we we did we didn't get to it on lot frontages. And this is a little different, but just the concept here, this is up in Providence. I think it's just south of where used to live. Garrett there. But in this development, I mean, you see these are kind of attached units, but you could almost picture these as attached or detached the way the lots are are laid out here where, you know, you have these shared driveways for four of the units going back. And I mean what point is it? Yeah. This is this is just it's in on Spring Creek Parkway there. Anyway, I I don't know the specifics on on how this was approved. But when I look at it, and I know I know they you know, it's along the creek here, so they they dedicated open space. From what I read on this development, I think they had some flexibility with how to fit those however many units they were allotted. You know, there's some cap on the density, and this is what they came up with. Not a very big I mean, it's not a huge development, but I I I like that it was something a little different. You know?

I think I mean I think it's an it's a really nice neighborhood. I mean, these aren't affordable. I'll just say that. You guys last whole entire you know, I hope they move out of the space. Levi. What was that? Would be big.

I think you could

No. Just the inside of all that. Oh, gee. Street. Oh, this. Okay. Just draw a poop for him.

I think these they call these cottage style? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. They're kinda cottage. I mean, it makes sense with the name of the street.

You can just move the map. Did that roll? You just hold it. Take it down a little bit. Oh.

The part that we did is. I heard they were they wanted to do the the same thing there, and it didn't pencil, or they're working with River Heights, and that was too hard. And anyway. Because they they wanted to just continue this to the north to your point. Is it? Is that a Sorry. Island. It's not an it it it's not an island, but it it's adjacent to River Heights. It's kinda north edge.

You put the sidewalk in inside the property.

Sorry. This is hard to do without a mouse. I'm like that.

Okay.

Anyway, I I guess the the point there is I think when you have flexibility, sometimes you you get variety in the design, but you also can get something you don't want. Yep. That's true.

2.17 acres.

Okay. You got it. Thanks. I was just doing I was racing. See, I have a mouse. Yeah. It's like It was.

It's pretty with 50 unit. 50 unit.

But they dedicated all this as open space as part of the subdivision. It doesn't feel dense. It doesn't feel dense at all when you go through there. Like, it does it just feels like a normal I mean, my kids go trick or treating down here every year.

It doesn't

feel oh my god. It doesn't feel dense. Yeah.

Well

Yeah.

Now if you were to build three of these

next to each other, it would probably be it'd be a totally diff like, three you know what I mean? Yeah. Scale. Maybe. It would.

Yeah. I mean If you just It's all perspective. I I have a hard time on the whole density thing because I'm yeah.

Okay. So let's see. How do we wrap this up?

So if you want if you want, we could go the approach that I said. Or if you want

to follow what what Tom said, I could take a crack at those things and I'm still thinking maybe start to For those who are fine, maybe let's get lead guys from data. If we have specific issues of a particular code or we're just referencing the plat that we saw that I I'm like this, that that. And let's get leave us some direction on the what we take issue with with respect to the feedback we got both from the design and maybe what happened Thursday. And then, hopefully, maybe you'll get enough

Yeah. I mean Yeah. So what what I what I would suggest you do I mean, we've got three weeks till the next meeting. If you can get something within the next two weeks, that way it can be put into the packet so that each commissioner can look at Yeah. And I'll just I'll just list it out just if if you wanna provide something within the next two weeks, so by Thursday, the eleventh, If you can send that to me, I'll just put a list out there so that each of the commissioners can take a look at it and consider it and then just come back to the meeting ready to either, you know, agree or disagree or or change what what's being proposed. And then, hopefully, based on that, we can draft something to to bring back Yeah. For discussion.

Does that does that sound okay? Yeah. And, honestly, we there could be a scenario where this is just an administrative thing, and we have to be prepared for that too. Right? Or he didn't have to ask I know that let's say this horse property didn't exist. He didn't Josh didn't need to necessarily have to dedicate him in that vicinity, and he could've just went through. It could've been an administrative process from a to z. Mhmm. He could've just gotten r two. No. He could've gotten in r two a open space without He kept getting denied. Yeah. He was r two. It was Zoning, Jake. The zoning was the legislature. Know that's true. That's it. If he was if he was state, he didn't come to the city with the contact plan. Yeah. And he just said, okay. I'm gonna go r two a. And then he came to us with a plan like this.

It would be pretty tough for us to deny that to follow our code.

Yeah. So another option I threw out there because I think some are struggling with the idea that it's administrative to approve these. Mhmm. In open I mean, like, I I'm I'm not necessarily advocating for this, but an open space subdivision could be an overlay, could be a legislative decision rather than administrative. And it could be base it's basically the same as an RPUD, but just on a maybe on a mini scale. And if they don't agree with it,

ultimately, if the council doesn't agree with the design, they could deny it. So would that would that require the city to then identify areas where we want said open space and then create an overlay?

Well, you don't have to identify those areas. It just it becomes discretionary Okay. At that point. Like, can you They they apply for an open space overlay. Okay. So it's, like, come It's like what? They come in with their plan. If if we think if we think that the if we think the problem isn't necessarily the standards but the process because in this particular case I mean, he spent probably a year designing that subdivision, only be told no because it was a discretionary decision. We could we could have gotten that out of the way sooner. Yeah. Let's say if he just came in with the concept plan

for an and and and that was presented for the overlay, let's say, and and it got a yes or no. Yeah. And that to me, that would more be, like, council based decision now. But does the council want this to be a negotiation?

Yes. That's just a it's a I'm I'm not advocating for it because I feel like if it's administrative, it makes it a lot more feasible Yeah. And palatable to actually do. Yeah. And I think we want it to be I think we want we don't want a huge barrier to entry. So that's

So, John, he could've came in. Got resolved without

Or just ask for the result with no field verified. I I'm I'm just we'd have to change the code to allow the overlay. Like, we don't we don't have an open space overlay. It's just allowed it everywhere. Have we ever had a scenario where a proponent

requested a rezone with zero preliminary plat? Mhmm. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So this could happen. Yeah. Absolutely.

No. The reason he came back with a specific proposal is because he wanted to he wanted transparency. He he he felt like maybe there's fear of the unknown. Yeah. Well, I'm gonna give you what Yeah. So you'll know what you're gonna get. And anyway. Yeah. He could've he could've kept getting got to the group. Yep. Well, he tried that, and he he got shot down. So this was his third try.

Okay. Well, I think we've got some good direction for Levi.

Yeah. If you could if you could do that so I it sounds like I don't necessarily have any homework. Not yet. But you have some, and then I might have homework after the next meeting. Okay.

Is there any not be anywhere in the sense that yeah. We were just workshop it. And, again, we we need to make progress on it, but this one, to me, is so important to get it right.

If you if you want more time, we can spend more time. Even if we just have

thirty minutes a day. That's fine. Or whatever. Yeah. And even if it takes two or three I'm okay with that. You're amazed. What's the downside to that?

Fine. We don't have anyone knocking on our door for it. I mean I'm pleased

that you generally, you know, to be, you know, recommended. Right? I agree. But if something on something like this, would you be opposed to having a joint

I mean, we're already having a joint discussion the next meeting. We could we could include this on that. So we we already have we have two we we have two meet we have two items on there. So so just so just so just so just know what

Yep.

Sorry. We have two items on the joint meeting already. We have the general plan and then the the we'll likely have the town center. We've got new was a Yeah. So if we want to spend a little more time on and wait or or we could have we could have it on the agenda and just revisit and enumerate those things and then

spend more time. I I I don't know. And let let me ask you this. I know you're saying we're not no one's bursting down the doors to ask for this, but Lee, from a legality point of view, is what if the planning commission is workshopping any code like this, do we have any any bind anything that we can stand upon that we can just wholesale deny someone that approaches your desk and says, I want this because we're actually we're a work in shopping, so we don't even wanna entertain it. Do you have any, like is there any precedent for the state to just say no and down it?

No. That's account. That's that's only if that's only if it's, yeah, a moratorium. What we can't what no. But what we could do, like, let's say a scenario, someone comes through with a proposal

And the only way to edit it other than anyone how many how many vacant then are do we first, we've had? So, yeah, we do.

Very, very few. Yeah.

So

Yeah. Although there's there's Let me just

can you maybe I just take a call.

Yeah. Yeah. So some so if let let's say someone comes in with a proposal and we started to workshop this, we can impose those restrictions once it gets approved because it's pending. Those are those are pending changes. That's the way that I understand state. I'm not an attorney, but that's the way I understand state law is you if you have a pending ordinance that you're working on, whether even if you just workshopped it, if one if you started to discuss it I mean, that's something we did with the trailer park. We're like, let's get it on the agenda. And, anyway,

that's that's the way If we can't get it, like, quick

a. Yeah. I mean, you can impose the regulations once they get adopted. So, like, let's say let let's we've started the review. And on the first review, we're gonna we say, okay. You're good with the current regulations, but know that that we're talking about changes here. Second review comes in. You adopted those changes. We could say, oh, you know what? We're we're going to impose those. So I think I think it's through that review process. That's that's the way I understand a lot. Yeah.

Yeah.

No. I mean, it it only it only impacts that specific development. I think you said. No. The code the code's kind of independent of the specific development, I would I would say. I mean, I don't know. I guess if there's legal action that says your code is unconstitutional or something, I I maybe there's a scenario. I I don't know about about that. But if it's particular to the development and the approval of the development, I I don't think that impacts the code. No. Okay. Alright. We good. That's

that's what that's what it's that,

Krishna. If I can pause

No. This is this is good. I think it's good. I just You're waiting. No.

Oh, I had to go ahead.

Alright.

Six and moving on to the step up work.

Yeah. I mean, I I think I already gave you primarily what I wanted to mention, which is the next meeting and those those joint discussions. We've made some progress on the general plan and looking to hear that forward and, you know, bring bring the broader commission and counsel into those discussions. So hope hopefully, we can get that with that next meeting. The and Talon's gonna follow-up, but but we wanted to remind you of of the training requirement for planning commission. We we had some staff change between Taylor and Talon in tracking these things. We might ask you again something that you already told us. Sorry if we if you have to tell us again on what training you off. Yeah. I mean, I could probably dig through emails and help. We can we can find there. But, anyway, Talon's Talon's working on tracking that, and I'm going to send there there's some opportune upcoming opportunities for training. We'll send those out if you haven't gotten your hours of theirs. So yeah. See, that's all I've got. What was that? It's four hours of training. Yeah. You're good. I think I think most did the commission has done that. I mean, attending attending a conference, you're you're there. Even a day Read about it. Yay. Yeah. There there's one that's kind of a required I guess, within the scope of of that topic, you need to have one of that. But but the rest is pretty elective. I mean, you just have to be within the those topics. So yeah. Anyway, I think that's all I got.

Do you want an update on projects?

Do you wanna get them? Oh, you bet. I actually got a couple questions for you.

How many roundabouts do you have?

But

But No. We do have

closures. Every everywhere you turn, you're gonna run into them and more to come. So 1200 West is gonna be close in David Park Avenue at 1200 West. The next two weeks, I'm trying to get 2600 South, the the West Lane Of 2600 South open. That's the Heritage Park where they haven't closed out in China, Chile. So expect that delay to come pretty soon. We have the well project that's that's down 600 feet on the test wells. So they've they're gonna start purging that the next week or two and then starting start to dig or drill the primary road. So the big old 24 inch hole with the casing, and then I I think it's 14 inch diameter well casing inside there. So that'll happen over the next five weeks. We have on Tuesday, we're gonna be laying out a new pedestrian crossing on 3200 South at 340 West. This will connect Ridgeline Park Oh, yeah. To Ander yeah. Ridgeline Park to Ander Park. This is gonna be an interesting one. It's gonna have a concrete island that splits the the turn lane coming westbound into Ridgeline Park. It's gonna have a center area of refuge. It's kind of a concrete area with a flashing beacon. And so it it's gonna be really progressive. It's gonna narrow the lanes down and kinda restrict that free and fast forward traffic. So and then I don't know if you noticed the the new reduced speed school zone that we changed over the last two weeks. Public Works is just awesome. I laid out a plan, and I had that done in days. It was just impressive. Yeah.

Well, I think it goes over a little bit. The same I think it's dry.

Yeah. No. It it's it's actually been really effective moving into where we did to 900 West. It's really slowing things down. It did The question

is the people live on the North Side Of 3200 South. How do they get across the East West? They're so profitable.

That's I was gonna ask you that. Because they because they painted we painted over the Yeah. So we're gonna put new lines in right there to

Yeah. So what we did was remove the school crosswalk. Yes. Now the two and I still have to do an analysis if there's 10 school children that it could qualify for a a school safe crossing, which would be the piano keys. I think it was a miscommunication with Steve and I. He was really ambitious, and everything was moving so fast. And I wasn't prepared to remove that part yet, but he was. Yeah. So so we had we'd be marked soon. Yep. Yeah. I've I've gotten a lot of questions, though. Yeah. I did. But with with just as of today, I only saw, like, five people on Krausson. So if there's not 10, it doesn't qualify for a single safe Krausson. So you just give the the twelve days of hours to observe the number. Mhmm. Is that gonna average over a certain number of days, or it's just And then we can do a a spot check. Yeah. Usually, I just do a random check midweek during and it's during the school build source. And they that's dictated through the manual preform traffic control. So any any specific questions other than the road closure?

Do you know actually, the whoever's building that, I don't know if it's an ADU or if that's even a flag or whatever on the South Side Of 302 Hundred. There's that gap in concrete right there on the sidewalk. I don't know if that's still there or not, where they have there's some cones in there, but they must have put in some, infrastructure to get water to to whatever house they're building. Do you know No. Do we do we make them fill that in within a certain reasonable amount of time? Because I just know, like, one day, there's gonna be a kid on their bike that's just gonna end up forward. They're not paying attention. So, typically, they'd get a ride with permit. I don't Maybe they didn't get one for that. It's right there where 800 West is just on the South side. There is an ADU. It's kinda right across the tracks from from Yeah. Public works. And and on the South side, we might wanna follow that. Literally, I see chunk of sidewalk.

Some poor kid is gonna hurt themselves eventually. Yeah. We need to follow-up on that. And, Austin make sure bring I mean, you you can check with Austin because he, you know, he obviously got a building permit and kinda see where he's at there.

Anything else? That's it. Thanks. Thanks, Tom. Couple couple things.

County executive, David, announced his retirement. And due to that being in the middle of the its term, state code dictates that a special election be held. That special election by the Patrick Potomkin party has been scheduled for September 11 at Ridgeline High School. Potentially, he's at 05:30. And the voting,

they say, starts at 06:30. By credentialing, we take a little longer than that.

That's also the same night that we had a scheduled, city council meeting. And so mayor Jacobson has proposed moving that just for any council members that might want to attend or let people know. And we're currently getting responses from city council members on if that were for their schedule. So the next meeting may not be on the event

after ten on the state.

And then the each of cities and towns has an annual conference coming up. I'll have to research it, but I think it's October 2 as the the planning commission day. So if you wouldn't mind, if you don't already have my contact information reaching out to me by September 11, I I would like an RSVP from you so we can get accommodations and and reservations.

Well, you can be sending us

a my yeah. Yeah. Yeah. If you if you could do that, tell me.

Two conferences anyway. Or is it So there's there's a

Yeah. Spring one. There is a spring and a fall. Yeah. There's there's spring and a fall, and I'm also I'm also gonna be sending one that's the following week for APA Utah, which is down in Salt Lake City also. Where is this one? In Salt Lake.

Yeah. The other one's still in Saint George. Yeah.

Yeah. We have all the rooms for the council members and some planning commissioners, but we'd like to make sure whoever left to go is.

Yeah. And I'll send I'll send out the one on APA Utah. I won't be able to make it this year, but there's someone else representing. Go for it. It's during fall break.

Got it? Alright. Thank you. Well, with that, we'll call