Nibley City Planning Commission

Table, you'll see another version of the Yeah. They'll we get they'll yeah. Two on the same subject. Especially if it passes in like you said, it passed in the lower Mercedes.

No. No. I didn't. No. But

it got some attention. I don't know. There's gonna be is they get a bill, and it it gets attention, and they kinda fish for

how people feel. So in the past, it was all k. We're just gonna mandate planning. Cities, you gotta plan for things. You gotta plan. And this legislature's starting to feel like, oh, that's not effective. We need to start getting into Yeah.

Yeah. Next thing you know, you're gonna say you can't require any larger than

9,000 foot blocks. 8,000 foot blocks. Mhmm. Yeah. I mean, that's this bill was those I mean

Yeah. It these home builders I saw it in in the building codes back fifteen, twenty years ago when they started bringing in all these strict code requirements for residential sprinklers. Yeah. And that's that just poked the bear.

Yeah. You got you got your shower? No. It's yeah. Early this morning at 7AM. Had to go to my break into my son's house to go to the bathroom. Oh, boy.

No. Got it back on, though. Right? Yeah. That's it.

Perfect. Got it.

Did you forget

It was so that was a big shutdown too. Yeah. So bad. They were they were only 20 feet off. That's pretty tough to dig through asphalt. 20 feet. 20 feet. Actually, that contractor did exactly the right thing. Feet. That that contractor did the exact right thing by chasing a Chasing a lateral percent going. Yep.

Yeah. We would have a. All the way there and snow line. In here. I'm in a pretty

good job. You know, talking to the neighbors, they all compliment this contractor for how Brady's been. Yeah. But throughout this whole thing, they all really appreciate it, man. I think Taylor's had a different impression. I think they were mixing some information, so they had so they were concerned and

Four foot depth remaining on the people's business. Plus, up about six feet where they have the slats in them. So so what can you change, like, with the privacy They can actually do six foot.

Right now. Sink holes in. Yeah. They can do a six foot privacy fence Yeah. Along their side until they reach a point of 30 feet back, and then they could go four foot down. And then along their back, there's a trail. Oh, yeah. If they get their fence in before the trail, they can have a six foot privacy fence. But if they come in after the trail goes in, they go in four foot. I

think they're thinking they're thinking they're thinking they're thinking they're thinking they're thinking they're thinking they're thinking they're thinking they're thinking they're thinking said. Okay.

Hey, Ryan. How are you doing? Good.

Here.

He's not He's missed us. Had to come visit. So Ryan used to be on our planning commission. It's Ryan Warner.

This one.

Yeah. And right? Yeah. Here.

Yeah. It should be able to get in there now. Don't just So it's a good Like that, I don't know if we need if if

we need

Yeah. Try again with thumbs.

No worries.

Yeah. So, yeah, we do. I think we are.

Yeah. We're grateful. One minute. Now. Sean?

Larry. Maybe that's Sean. What?

Sean Dustin?

What? Is that him?

He's a scout. He used to call him at Longboard.

City Hall.

He used to roll into City Hall and Longboard. Yeah. There it is. Okay. It is, Sean. Wonder if he's gonna have

Yeah. I was pretty

sure it's good. I mean, we can get the details if we want them now.

Yeah. That's good. That looks so bad. No. It's

I think I mean, for instance, by giving us a time ago and.

No. I was stuck at the fair. She's No. Oh. We were there last night.

Fair. Yeah. I I was across the street from the fair yesterday at the pool. No. The pool. Like, ghost hunting. It's great. My kids were having their birthday party. Like, we forgot about the fire.

And the rodeo.

Like, what else to race? Yeah. But this is from, like, five to seven. So it was before the rodeo start, but you could still hear the fair

and that. Like,

it was it was The pool was not near who's business. It usually is. Jesus.

It's been a rough day.

Really? Yes.

Whenever you're ready. And is it did have we reached the time? Almost. No. We got a we got a minute. We'll probably have an answer. We'll wait we'll wait a minute if you want. Let's see.

Yeah. Okay. We'll go ahead and get started. So welcome everybody to the, August 7, city planning commission meeting here at City Hall. With that, we'll go ahead and introduce the commission as well as staff. I'm Nick.

Tom Davidson, city engineer. Alan Begala, assistant, city recorder. Great. Thank you.

So our first action item, for tonight is to, approve the agenda before us as well as approve the meeting minutes for the prior planning commission meeting on July 15. Do we have a motion to approve? Okay. K. Motion to approve. Second by anybody? Second by Tyler. K. We have a motion to approve, seconded, to approve the agenda as well as minutes.

Any favors there? Alright. Any opposed? K.

That's five in favor. We can go ahead and get started with the first item, on tonight's agenda, which is a public hearing for ordinance twenty five twenty nine, which is a development agreement for the Apple Creek subdivision phase one, first amendment, amending Lot 35, creating an additional building lot and amending the conservation area, including modifications to, development and zoning standards. Does anyone and before, I guess, we we get started with inter introducing the, the the item, does anyone in the probably wanna sign up to speak or anything like that? Otherwise, I will have Levi kinda introduce the the item, and then if any

So go ahead, Levi.

Yeah. And just because the the first two items or, I guess, item four and five on the agenda, they relate to one another. The presentation I give is going give an overview of both the development agreement and the subdivision. Just just for context, I'm I'm just gonna give all the information upfront. I also mentioned that that the applicant is here. If you have any questions for him, when, you know, when whenever you'd like and do that, but I'll I'll just give an overview. So the the developer and property owner is proposing amendment to the Apple Creek Subdivision phase one. This affects, one lot, Lot 35 within within the subdivision. I'll go over more detail what is being proposed, and this amendment would constitute both a subdivision and an amendment to the the subdivision, the the Apple Creek Subdivision phase one. So if if this is approved, then the applicant would then go through both both this the final plat process and plat amendment probably in conjunction with one another. This this subdivision so with that, the subdivisions evaluated both as as an open space a new open space subdivision in the r two zone. That's that's kind of as a standalone subdivision. It's evaluated that way. And then also against the standards of the conservation subdivision at the time that that the original Apple Creek subdivision was approved. And though that information is is in the packet, you know, there's there's a lot of similarities to the original conservation subdivision. There's a few minor or there there's there are some differences in there. Nothing really notable with with regards to this one. So but but it's but it's important to know that that's really what what it's being evaluated on, just making sure to keep keep the current or consider the existing sub of it or the existing subdivision that's already there as well as creating a new subdivision as is there are additional lots being created here. The development agreement that is in front of you, it it will require city council approval because the developer is proposing deviations from the city code, and I'll go over what those ones are with with this approval. And so but but the subdivision, the preliminary plat is the the planning commission's jurisdiction. It's it you can you can approve or deny that. It's it's not a recommendation. So the original subdivision, it include a conservancy lot with 1.14 acres of conservation area on a 2.42 acre lot. So the way conservation easements are, sometimes they cover the whole lot. Sometimes they just cover a portion of the lot. In this case, in what's recorded on the lot now, there's a portion of the lot that is in a conservation area, and there's other areas within the lot that are buildable. So but it's one lot, so they can only build, you know, one one dwelling on it. Well, they could they could build an accessory dwelling unit, I guess, secondary dwelling, but but they they can only have one primary dwelling on the property. What they're proposing to do is to create two building lots and a conservation lot. So right now, there's one lot. It would be creating three, but really only adding one additional building lot, if that makes sense, because there's already a building lot there. It's just configuring it differently. They're proposing to shift the conservation area, and and I'll put that up on the screen on how. And then one of the building lots that's being proposed would be considered a flag lot. It doesn't meet the minimum frontage. And they are also proposing to increase the pedestrian easement that's on the south side of the property.

When the

original Apple Creek subdivision was approved, there was kind of a triangular shaped pedestrian easement. At at at the time, as I understand, the idea was that half of it would be dedicated with this development and the other half when the property to the south develops. They're they're proposing just they're proposing to add some additional areas. So conceivably, you could you could build the trail totally on that property at least along at least along this portion of the subdivision. So this is probably a little bit to read, but I I put it up on the screen just for context. It'll maybe make a little bit more sense when they come to the next when when I go to the next slide. But this is what's recorded currently on the plat for this area. There's a lot of different things going on here. Honestly, the first time I read this plat, it was a little bit difficult for me to to understand. Maybe maybe I'll use my cursor here just so you can tell. So the conservation area you know, there's a lot of different lines here, but the conservation area is is this area here. That's what was recorded with the original subdivision. You can see they they they show some other lines here for FEMA flood zone. That's actually been lifted since that time. Just a little more context there. There's there's no longer a, floodplain there. They they reevaluated that and and removed the floodplain all along this, you know, really, this canal. And then they also show a wetland area in there and and some other, you know, alignments of of the canals, ditches in the area. But this is all one lot. They did since this time, there has been a lot line adjustment, and you'll kinda see that on this next you wanna show you the I'll just go to it. So this this line kinda went straight across. They didn't they have you know, few years back, they did a a lot line adjustment. And so this property, it got combined with another proper adjacent property. But you can see what's being proposed here, two building lots, Lot 36 And 37, and then Lot 35 would be a conservation lot. So some of those the the previous conservation easement boundaries, you can tell these lots do in encroach on that, in a few areas, but it also adds additional conservation areas. So, overall, there there's additional conservation space. About, two thirds of an acre is added altogether because, you know, for example, this area, toward the back of the lot wasn't it is not currently in a conservation area, and it's being added. So that's that's the proposal. Yeah.

Oh, you meant

It is. Yeah. By about two thirds of an acre overall. The numbers get a little bit confusing because there's there's a lot line adjustment. And so some of the area, it's still reported as a conservation easement, but it's actually on a separate property now. It's on adjacent property because they did that lot line adjustment. But overall, they're adding about two thirds of an acre of conservation area. They're moved, but they're shifting it. They're move they're proposing to shift it, move it, you know, some of some of this would be taking taken out, or you can see my cursor be taken out of conservation easement and and put into just a building lot that isn't encumbered by the conservation easement. And there's some, I believe, up in this area as well. So does that make sense? Yeah. Any maybe I'll stop there if you have any questions. Go on to the next. So this this chart just is a summary evaluation looking at the the number of lots, the lot sizes, and evaluating it, as I mentioned, two different ways. One, looking at the overall Apple Creek subdivision and what would be approved under the old under the old conservation subdivision and what is being proposed. And so you can see here probably skip past the acreage, but there the the way the subdivision was approved was with 20% of net developable acreage as open space. So that would be 3.31 acres. They're at 3.84. So they're above that. And when you do the math on what how many lots would be allowed under the conservation subdivision code, it was adopted. It'd be 39, and they're at 36. So currently 35, but they're adding one, so 36. The average lot size, they're they're above that by quite a bit. As you can see, nineteen thousand seven fifty. The minimum lot size, they're above that. So that's one way that this is evaluated. The other way and by the way, this is probably for it's different. You know, usually, we don't have to do this with the subdivision, but we have to look at let's let's keep the existing Apple Creek Subdivision whole or at least evaluated under the standards that were at the time and then the new standards. So then when you look at this as just a a open space subdivision, which is on what on what's on the books right now, it's 2.19 acres, and they're proposing well, if for 40% acreage or for 40% is, I guess, the highest for open space, 40% in that develop acreage. That'd be point eight eight acres, and they're providing point one or 1.51. The number of lots, theoretically, could be allowed six here. They're proposing two, so they're below that. And then average lot size, they also are are below those thresholds there. So just showing that they do meet those standards. Now the standard that they don't meet and part of the reason there's the development to go to city council is on one of the lots, they don't meet the frontage. It's a flat lot. I'll go into that a little more. This is this was provided by the applicant. It's something that's required of the open space subdivision set sensitive areas designation plan. So you can see they show existing and proposed. One thing to note here is with this, there are a number of there there's a, you know, some canal ditches that run through the property, and they're proposing to reroute some of those ditches, and that's that's what those lines are there. But, you know, there's there's existing they show here existing tree stands. And what else I've known? The, you know, the stream perennial stream is what they they show on here that runs through the property. I'll go back to this view. Hey, Mike. Can you clarify what a tree stand is? That's where trees grow. I mean, like a grove of a small grove of trees almost. May I someone has a better definition than that. You can I'm not the expert on that necessarily, but, yeah, that's that's what I would call it. So looking at the open space, again, this is this is we're looking at a stand alone space subdivision. Also, for a private open space is to be maintained with garden perennial stream, wetland, and pond. And looking at the the design standards for open space, staff has determined that three of them have been met, which is what's required, significant areas and natural landscape. The applicant proposed to maintain the stream and the wetland area. And, by the way, the wetland area is also shown a little different on here. What's what's what's being shown on the new proposal is based on the national wetland inventory. So that's that's what's shown on on the map. The previous one, I'm not quite sure what the source of it was. Maybe maybe, applicant, if you wanna get into that if if the question comes up. Contiguous land. So post land is contiguous within the subdivision and to adjacent undeveloped property to the south. And then agricultural land, applicants indicate agricultural use on on the property. Utilities and canals, they do include on this preliminary plat connection to sewer water lines. So I've been reviewed. And by the way, this this proposal has been reviewed extensively. This is the fourth, iteration that we received. There's been a number of comments, you know, from from city staff that have been addressed, and, we can get into more detail on any of these items, but I'm just giving a general overview now. I mentioned the realignment of the canal. This will require, Nibley Blacksmith Fork irrigation approval. They they have acknowledged the design, but, one of the recommended conditions of approvals, and this is required by the city, is that the canal company needs to approve approve that design. So that, to our knowledge, hasn't happened. Right, Tom? Is that is that right? Yeah. So so that still needs to happen before final before the final plat approval.

I guess I should clarify. Yeah. They kinda gave a green light on a proposal, but I don't know that there's been an official approval on that. Can I Okay?

And then I mentioned the applicant proposes to increase the width of the trail. I've kind of already pointed that one out. So looking specifically at the development agreement, there's a number of terms in there, but I want I want to focus on a few of these that relate to, some exceptions to to our ordinance. One is this this agreement would allow the modification to Lot 35 Conservation Easement, adjusting the boundaries of the easement. It removes the easement from some section law while adding to others. Overall increase of about point six seven acre in conservation area. This, from staff's viewpoint, is in conflict with Nibley City code and the original conservation subdivision ordinance, which states the open space land may not be subject to subdivision. So this would be an exception to that because, you know, when you consult with the attorney and and the way that this you are effectively subdividing that that conservation you're mending and and subdividing that conservation space if this is approved. Also allows modification of requirements by creating flag lot for Lot 37. This is in conflict with a provision city code in in the open space subdivision ordinance, which requires all lots within the subdivision to meet minimum front frontage widths, and they they would meet with this with this lot. And then there's also a modification to requirements for the access drive. So for flag lots, what is required is a 20 feet of asphalt, and what they're proposing is 20 feet of pavement. And then the remaining 20 feet would just be of all weather service. So this would meet fire code. It has been reviewed by the fire marshal, but it wouldn't it wouldn't meet the flag lot ordinance, which requires that 20 feet of asphalt. Staff's recommendation go back. It's to recommend approval of both the development agreement and and the preliminary plat. The for the preliminary plat, some conditions that would apply are well, first, the findings that that it complies with minimum standards of open space subdivision with the exception of those standards and the development agreement that are pointed out, and then it complies with infrastructure standards, Nibley City code condition. The recommended conditions are a proposed development agreement, needs to be approved by city council, and then, indoor outdoor water use calculation certificate for equivalent shares, financial security, and payment of development fees are required at the time of final plat. And the canal design must be approved by Nibley Bloxman Fork Irrigation Company prior to final plat approval. Not sure if I went over this in detail, so maybe just one thing that well, never mind. I won't I won't go into that. That's that's it.

K. Okay. So just out of respect of the public hearing, does anyone in the audience have any comments or they'd like to approach the planning commission to speak to this item in particular? You know? We do oh oh, sorry. No. Talon, we did have an email. Is that right? The did they want this read on for a public record? Okay. Yeah. You can go ahead and read it if you'd like, Talon.

Do you wanna yeah. You you raise it. Then I can give my voice a little break.

Yes.

Like, I have to This was submitted by Brody and Paul Parker of 33320 South 490 West, and I did request her to have a tab written public record. Dear members of the Nibley Planning and Zone Commission, we are writing to formally post ordinance twenty five twenty nine, which proposes to amend the development agreement for Apple Creek Subdivision Phase 1 to allow the subdivision of Lot 35, the modification of designated conservation land and the alteration of zoning and development standards. As homeowners directly across the street from this lot, we have a strong invested interest in the integrity of our neighborhood and the city's planning principles. We respectfully urge the commission to reject this ordinance for the following reasons. One, original conservation design was purposeful and critical to the subdivision's approval. The area now proposed for the development under Oregon's twenty five twenty nine was originally designated as part of the required 2.22 acres of conservation land intended to protect the canal, wetland, and tree stands along its southern boundary of the subdivision. City staff and the planning commission specifically objected to the development in this area in 2019 due to environmental sensitivity and flood plain proximity. The original developer, Sean Justin, who also served as mayor at the time, responded by revising the flat and removing proposed building lots from the section, converting it into a remainder parcel in conservation area to now reverse course and allow development in the very area that was removed for environmental protection, undermines the integrity of the original approval process and exposes the city and neighboring properties to unnecessary

environmental risks.

Two, environmental and stormwater risks were explicitly addressed and shouldn't be ignored. City records show that the conservation land was not merely aesthetic. It was designed to serve as a natural buffer, preserve the canal and wetland corridor, and function as stormwater overflow to protect the subdivisions, infrastructure, and adjacent lots. Development of Lot 35 would encroach upon this functionality, sensitive zone a functional need, sensitive zone, disrupt drainage patterns, and risk of flooding in the area, particularly during high water events. Allowing a single property owner to compromise the stormwater planning and environmental protections built into the subdivisions design creates significant risk for neighboring homeowners and exposes the city to potential long term issues. Three, the developer established these restrictions now seeks to evade them. Mister Dustin, as both mayor and developer, was the architect of the subdivision and best of the subdivision's conservation framework. He set these restrictions, enforced them for all buyers and builders, and represented them as permanent and intentional features designed to preserve the global open space feel of the development. He and the city planner at the time required other residents, including ourselves, to build and landscape our homes in restricted adherence to these conservation guidelines. Mister Dustin now seeks to modify these very rules for his personal benefit. This is not just another example of him going back on his word. It represents a violation of community trust and a direct contradiction of the commitments he made to the city and to the residents who rely on his assurances when purchasing their homes for conservation land visibility and public benefit are being undermined. The planning commission previously expressed concern that portions of the conservation land, particularly around their remainder parcel, would not be visit would, quote, not be visible to the public or provide meaningful benefit, post quote. Thereby violating the spirit of Nibley code 10 dash 18 dash 14 d. These concerns were documented in the Nibley City Council meeting on 03/30/2017. Change in development to this lot would validate this concern. The commission also required a formal maintenance plan to ensure these spaces would be preserved and properly funded. Approving development now in disregard those prior commissions undermines the accountability and planning standards the city has historically upheld. Five, approval would set a risky and unequal precedent. If this ordinance is passed, it sets a concerning precedent and raises a critical question. If this property owner is allowed to reclaim or repurpose conservation designated move, then why shouldn't the other residents be allowed to do the same? We were required to comply with the conservation limitations in their own property limitations that mister Destin himself helped establish. If the city now chooses to lift or alter those restrictions or see the lot, it should be prepared to offer the same flexibility to all other property owners within the conservation designated land in the subdivision, allowing them the same freedom to use their property without those limitations. We urge the commission to uphold the original development agreement and deny ordinance 25 dash two nine, granting a one off exception for the former mayor and original developer who reminds the commitments made to this community and places the long term health of our neighborhood at risk. Thank you for your time and thoughtful consideration.

Thank you, Talon. K. With that, it doesn't seem like any no one signed up for to speak during the public comment period. Last chance as far as the public. K. We'll close the public comment period and move on to the next item on the agenda, which is which is the discussion and consideration, or the recommendation for ordinance twenty five twenty nine development agreement for the Apple Creek subdivision phase one first amendment amending Lot 35, creating an additional building lot, and amending the conservation area including modifications to development and zoning standards. We'll go ahead and open up for discussion amongst the machine in the start of that.

Can I just I I'm just gonna add something? This first this first item, I I wanna mention this is a legislative decision, so you do have discretion. So I you know, while the preliminary plat approval should be based wholly on the standards within the ordinance, the fact that there are these modifications to the ordinance, if you don't feel like these are justified for whatever reason, this this is this is a discretionary

decision. Yep. Yep. Just so we're yes. Obviously, this is just a recommendation recommendation

body that legislative well. So Right. And then and then I'll just mention again that, you know, the applicants here. So if you wanna give them Correct. Any any chance to provide any more information. K.

Joy, do you have anything for us?

Understand some of the

the right way there.

The

yeah. So, like, the the easements and, like, the path, Those are

public, or those are private? Or

So the the previous subdivision, it was recorded as a trail easement. I believe what is being proposed now and what the city's existing standard is or a pedestrian slash trail right of way. That's what's noted on there. So it's a little bit different the way it's recorded. So that it's my understanding. It'd actually be turned over to the city. Is that right? Or or would it

yeah. Yeah. Sorry. Yeah.

Yeah.

But if if the chair is okay with that yeah, please. I do

I'm not sure if I if I get a chance. There were some material representate misrepresentations in the letter that was just read. There's some stuff that was factually incorrect. And I if you're not aware of that, you should be aware of that. I'd be happy to address that. As far as the trail goes and as far as anything else goes, at the end of the day, when we developed this subdivision, it was the second conservation subdivision in the history of New York City. It's unfortunate to notice the mayor at the time. They really struggle with whether direction design or not before I did it. And after consulting with the city attorney and just doing everything we could, we just did what we did. But as the second conservation subdivision in the city and my first subdivision that I ever done, we just there were some things that that we did that were not in the best interest of the conservation space in my opinion. And so this is part of an attempt to group that and mix that based on the last, you know, stuff that the city's learned and I have learned over the last nine years since we initially did this. And, you know, we talk about that stuff too, but DNS can look at. But as far as the trail room, I think, yeah, when when this was originally done, what that subdivision required was nothing, really. And so the trail right away or the trail easement that was proposed was debated pretty extensively at the city council level. And the the upshot of it was was that the city didn't report her and wasn't excited about it, which is why I came in as an easement, not a because I can dedicate an easement. I believe strongly in public access. I believe strongly in transit. And I wanted to make sure that that was a possibility for this property. But, again, at the time, the city didn't. And so by dedicating it as an easement and I you know, as a as a landlord, I can dedicate whatever easement I want. I can't force the city to take it, but I can't so I can't dedicate the highway being. And and converting that to okay. Is the intent is that that's the city's to do what the city And with anything else that's in here, if there are any so there are any concerns, if you don't mind where some of the line At the end of the day, our goal here is as we've gotten to this property and we've gotten to understand this property and where the the conservation areas are really of concern. The whole reason we bought this thing in the first place, I think I didn't buy this corner from Lee and Kim that. So the Apple Creek subdivision exists because they only send me 20 acres that we would sell to. And the reason that this ended up as a remainder parcel was we always intended to build one. It's not a remainder parcel. I I think one of the misapprehensions is that this is a build this has always been a building, and the intent has always been to build a house. There were the resetting was shown. So we've just been trying to been trying to figure out how to redraw the lines and make it 90% and preserve the property and give the public the access that makes sense for that owner. And if there's anything, you know, if you can talk to the public access, the only reason that we retain that the way that we have is because my understanding, the city doesn't want. City doesn't wanna maintain. But I can tell you that his will he's gonna be in the will. And then you can decide if you wanna sell it to somebody or do something else with it. It's just an easy piece of property. It's an evil spot. It deserves to be preserved. And I'm sorry to people. It's not my intent to make people happier to to scare them. I do think I need to address this. If if that's okay. If one of those is a question that has to do with the canal, this is this this property doesn't function at all in the subdivisions on our system. It's the highest point in the subdivision. So it doesn't do anything to control or maintain stream and water. Where it does have stormwater function and and what and Amy referring to is that the city has a long standing agreement with the Nibley Blacksmith Fork irrigation company to put the stormwater into the Nibley Blacksmith Fork Canal. And this section of the canal has some excess capacity when we're not running water for irrigation. But one way or the other, that canal needs to be rerouted. If you were to go over there today and walk the bank, what you're gonna see on the downstream side is you're gonna see a bunch of gopher holes that irrigate the pond and feed the pond. There are places where that bank is at in right now. And so one way or the other, that can now pass. And it's just proposed as part of this project. It's got it's got a little back about 10 feet from where it is right now. So and that's just the safety thing, and that's so that it can continue to function. The alternative is they're eventually that bank is gonna wash out. And when it washes out, it'll be a account and needs responsibility, not mine, but it's on mine. It seemed to be the only one who cares about it. So so that's why it would be in the canal shoot.

Let me ask you a question about the canal, Sean. Yeah. Did did the cow have you heard from the canal company, and have they expressed any opinion on whether they wanna bury or or do anything in terms of as as as the the plan is to reconfigure this. Right? Are they going to basically, almost like a culvert in a way, bury the the canal and and allow that top portion to be filled in or anything like that? Or That's what I'm trying to get. That's one of the reasons why I'm trying to get it. Mhmm.

And and I know that this might sound polyamish. I can give you the whole story about how we ended up with this property, but the bottom of the shore of this, and I can't just play it there since. And, it's important to me that that kind of stays open. They're invited as much as they can. Yeah. I I I recognize. I need to to save water as we get to make sure, But I also recognize that I I think that keeping that thing isn't working for kids. And the canal company, one of the reasons that we have not got rules is we've been in one of the heads Yeah. I'm not whether I have to bury it or not if I move it. And it's one thing that that I would ask you guys to to consider because, you know, city code says that where the the recommendation from staff is that we get approval from the canal campaign. The state code doesn't require a group from the canal campaign. What state code requires is that a licensed professional engineer redesigning canal so that it carries the fluid that it's supposed to carry. And if which comes to shove, then I can rather fight and try to keep it open with that. But if they unless they've changed their opinion in the last few years, then they're gonna push back. Yeah. And if they do, they do. You know? They can fight right now. They can fight it tomorrow. They can go in from a brief contribution easement and put you here easement in the stair down, stair water except for the part ion, and they can they can put a pond around tomorrow. I think they're hoping that they won't have to because if this otherwise, then they have a little bit of leverage to may have. But that's sorry. That's a long answer to your question, but my preference is key because it's it's important why we want the contribution space. Yeah.

Which direction is the cow we should I mean, the ship to to unlock 37 or towards 35? I'm sorry. I missed the first Which direction you're moving shifting at 10 feet? Oh, it would shift towards the south. That's 37.

Yeah. Yeah. If I can walk you up to the screen, I can Sure. This area stays pretty much the same. It doesn't become drawn until you get into this area where the curve is. And so down here is where it would push up a little bit further. It's I wouldn't go up, you know, just it's kind of on on the top of the flat right there. So we would just move it further over as a flat. It's it's gone from it's probably 15 feet wide at some points, and it just erodes where it's going around. We're gonna walk back out, and then now several to keep their kid.

And with the shuttle

Cleaning it out? Yeah.

Yeah. You

that was my dream job. It's a fun job, but I I don't mind being responsible for it.

Maybe I'll just comment a little bit but if you want to on that here. So just follow-up on Sean.

He he, he's definitely right that the there's an agreement with the city and Nibley Blacksmith Fork Irrigation to dump stormwater to the big gap. Part of that agreement mandates that the c the city does some policing and gets an approval letter for them for any modifications to their canal. So although state state code only requires an engineer's design and and and they they get a chance to to review it and make comments just to ensure that there's no deficiencies that are being forth with the design. But the agreement between the city and Blacksmith Ford mandates that we give this letter

of approval from the From the mechanic.

Something to happen. Agreement. Exactly.

Excuse

me. That's safe.

Yeah. The yeah. The canal maintains ownership of their canal.

They can pipe it. Do you see that?

Restore water. Correct.

As far as my plans go, from my understanding, we we can't touch, develop, modify, do these with the flat flood line about extensive studies, engineering, and commercials. Correct?

Cities don't get involved with the private interface of private parties to the federal government. There there's state law that says we only recognize what's on a map. Unless we have a public road going to, then I have a little bit more say. That's where I do these extensive studies. You're you're familiar with the park. You're familiar with, Hawk Hollow because there's a public road and there's public infrastructure in both of those pool. We we went to a bigger depth in study, and we tend to avoid. We have to change some plans in some cases. But it it doesn't apply. We we don't govern that.

Yeah.

Is eight part of 137 impacted by the webinar or part of webinar designation? I just try to Google what they're trying to find out. So we can you see the dark

broken line? It's a long it's like dit dah dit dah. Just a second. I'm gonna

just, like

That line right there is the National Wetland Inventory recognized boundary.

So if we capture just very good front end of the buffers.

Well, I mean, thirty thirty seven. And there's yeah. Thirty seven and thirty six, a little bit on the the bottom portion. We we

and suggestion that we get a a good one from the qualified.

Why don't we call

one one year?

Some some the scientists. Yes. Yeah. And and they came out and did that,

and we looked at it. And, you know, what and then the ratio of a larger area than the than the formal delineation showed. And after discussing with the city, we just went with larger area. It is against our intent is not to impact that. And and so if my you know, the white party off the back corner of Lot 36 would The spot on not doing that. If you if you wanna see any change to this plan, this is not a hill we wanna die. The we just we just wanna correct any deficiencies to make sure the way it gets out of this is something the city can be proud of, that I can be proud of well for the future.

Sean, can I add to your delineation Yeah? Comment there? I I did recommend that you got a delineation. What what a delineation is is a wetland scientist or aquatic resources scientist goes out, digs holes, explores the soil, or explores all the vegetation around me and determines that this it determines basically a boundary around what would most likely be a a weather. In a delineation, they may they've draft a report based on their findings, submit it to the army corps, and then the army corps, right now, they're not doing anything with delineation. So you're never going to get an acknowledgment back. Right now, it's been there's things in there multiple years just waiting. The army corps does not have any obligation to review nor approve or make any comment on those. The only time they they are on the hook is if you come in and say, I'm I'm going to fill or dredge a wetland, then you have to get a permit or fill a dredging permit. Then they have forty five days to respond. So but in this case, there's really no in in the delineated boundary, both in the wetland inventory and what he he delineated that was never brewed, you can see there's really not any disturbance with regard to any of the infrastructure. The drive access there in the dark shaded area, it avoids it. The setback line on on Lot 36, maybe we just adjust that setback line to avoid it. That that could be a way to mitigate any impact that that known more likely. That

would be the data would resolve any by the bottom, the original accruals by the bottom. Just might might adjust that slightly. The other question I got is look at this and going back to the original local public space, something that you I'm I'm just looking at the cash flow of GIS. I'm not seeing any tree stands or do you have any of the big cardinal trees moving like that? Yeah. We That will be impacted. We were just trying to be concerned.

We have there's there's the the native dish bank blocks that are long digit banks, which our company doesn't like. Well,

okay. But Well, I'm saying that this Yeah.

Say, can we change someone to hear it. You know? We'll be making bumps getting a tree.

So it's it's fine. But Yeah. I'm just taking respect of the the As far as as far as as far as well, we planted

we planted 200 trees in there over the last week to here, and I think we might have six that survived, but I will call them a tree stand. But but there's, know, there's apple tree and and some of those different ones that go over that south

the Southwest corner. I'm just I John, I'm just looking. The the original 10, the original approval addressing some of the potential concerns about the open space of vision. Like, are there tree stands? Is there something there that they were trying to reach against? It doesn't seem like there's anything there. The plan is only the accounts was originally trying to

Well, on the area where that where that is now inside the conservation space.

Because originally,

Rich, and then that's as as the organizing walls over time, you guys do this, you've seen this. You find out what made sense and what didn't make sense. And as this platter has evolved over time, the trees trees are all right here along the section of the sheet. And the original plat, I can't remember exactly where all the lines were. They were all over the place. I I can pull it up so you So this was all buildable area, and it was originally approved with those trees inside. But the but, anyway, yeah, that's that's what's and then the time and I don't know what there is now, but at the time, it didn't really the the the ordinance didn't really just say anything. So we considered anything was would be a tree or not now.

And and, believe I just heard just a couple of pair of faces with me trying to I currently understand. So the the consultation space is actually increasing by two thirds of an acre. Originally, they've been eligible for how many lots? 39. 39. And this would put us at 35.

36.

36. K. So it's still the under they'll get this proposed originally at the time of day and this year's bill. It would be would have been conforming to go to submission.

Yes. Yeah. And I think may maybe it's important to note that the process of approval for subdivisions, including an open space subdivision now, is a little different than it was then. Used to go to city council. I feel like it was a little more discretionary than it is now, but now it's squarely an administrative approval. But when we get a when we get a proposal like this, although we're looking at we're looking at the codes at the time, it is an administrative approval, the way the way I see it. What what isn't administrative is are we okay with these modifications to the code that's legislative? So if we were to get I mean, like we just did, right, with the Fields Subdivision last meeting, there may have been some things you didn't like about it. But for the subdivision, not for the development agreement, but for the subdivision, really, the city should be approving it if they check all those boxes.

Okay. Are you talking with Jasmine? That that might go through the occupation area?

Yes. It it does. It does partly. There are there is some conservation area that when they did that lot line adjustment, it still exists on the new property. And so when they when they purchased that that property, they they moved the lot line. They it it's still affected by that area where the conservation space was. But that's not that's not currently part of this proposal. That doesn't change that. So the shrubs own

that part out that it's in Well Where is it? The Naples? Yes. Okay. The the way

So there's there's a part about right here. So the conservation area went there. And, yeah, the the way that long line my my understanding you can clarify, Sean, but that conservation area, it's it still remained. It's still recorded. And and we're I mean, I know our code enforcement officer is sending out letters right now to to review these conservation spaces, and he's including that property owner on there to go look at the space and make sure that they comply. Yeah.

But the base boundary is l 19 extended the door of cruise trucks. So, basically, every subdivision that was more than, I think, three quarters of an acre, active intubation space attached to it. And and so the drug portion of that was continuous with this, which is continuous with their portion, which is insidious with really. So I got it was it was possible tying together,

but

where the rest of it is backyard, some wild space, this house, some standing. Yes. I guess my question or concern is is we didn't have a Check out. The guidelines to conservation poverty, how does that affect math and the ratios Yeah. Property that is being on on the receiving side and on the the the sending side?

Yeah. I in this case, it's accounted for in the math. We we don't include that we didn't and and this was provided by the applicant. We we didn't include that area that was taken out in the new in the new. Now although we can stop subdivision if we if we want to of of conservation areas, we can't my understanding is state code will not allow us to if there's a lot line adjustment, to say, oh, no. There's a conservation easement on it. You can't do that. Yeah. There's there we can for other reasons. If they're making it a nonconforming lot, for example, we can do that, and we have a process for that. But there's been there's there's been other areas of town where there's been lot line adjustments that involve conservation areas, and we we can't really tell them no.

I guess, I think it we that needs to be considered obvious obviously, in the future so that we don't create a nonconforming office space subdivision. Right. Mhmm. That we buy on that

that that That's gonna be my first question.

Yeah. And and maybe and maybe I may have stopped myself. May maybe we do maybe there is a path that if there is a lot line adjustment and it does create an issue for us to to say no, this makes this nonconforming in some way, maybe there is a way to do that, but the conservation area remains. You know? So the I mean, I don't it'd be one thing if if they moved the lot line and somehow erased that from from the deep, but that that didn't happen.

It was the reason why we approached this. We wanted to look at it and put.

And

that makes it, I think, more difficult to manage computations today. And that's one of the reasons that we wanted to do this this way was to create that separate lot so that there was no question about where the lines were. There was no question about what you know, can you do this activity that you would normally allow on a more residential lot on conservation space? Or are you created within the conservation space, we've dialed the conservation space, and just get rid of all that ambiguity? And if something comes up in the future, there's just no question that this is a conservation. And I I know that it's challenging because the part that we're asking you to read is it is a part that it is concerning to me to if I return the clock back in order to just run this differently back because I think this is a better, excuse me, in a better way. You're this. But, again, at the time, I didn't know. And, you know, not till you get to see it happen and see how it works out. But but that that's that's really why it's that's why you're seeing that extra lot there instead of just being attached to one full.

One concern is, like, Lot 37, it's a flag lot. How close is are they getting closer to the road or or reducing the minimum distance? That's what we're doing the amount of or considering.

It's it's just it's just the fact that it is a flag lot. It is a lot. Yeah. Then and and the way that I read the existing open space subdivision ordinance is it doesn't really open the door to flag lots because it says that they need to meet the minimum log width. It doesn't yeah. It doesn't it doesn't say, well, unless it's an approved flag lot. It just says it needs to meet the minimum width. We looked at it. We looked at all the standards of flag lots, and the one, you know, that they're proposing not to meet is with that access drive. It's it meets fire code. You know, we've had some discussions on whether we need that 20 feet of asphalt, really, or, you know, we could go narrower, like, 12 feet of asphalt with all all weather surface. But that that's what they're proposing, and that's so that's Well, thank you. Asphalt.

Right.

I guess it's. It's just proposal, I think, but it says, yeah, that's a condition.

May I on the 20 foot of asphalt? So that that's driven by a barcode requirement, and we used to call it fire safe driveway. If you're over a 150 feet, they request 20 feet of width of asphalt. So in this case, it's over a 150 feet to that Lot 30 7 and any buildable area in that lot 37. Excuse me. So in in conversations with the fire marshal, there's provisions that allow omission of that 20 foot of asphalt if the structure being built is is equipped with fire sprinklers. So on the plan, there's a note in there that says anything beyond a 150 feet from the street will be constructed with residential fire structures.

I mean, it's actually let me tell if it was from the past.

Oh, then the updated one? Yeah. I don't think Right. And then That's absolutely correct. Yeah. The d a the d a says 12 feet. I I noticed that. I wasn't sure if that was gonna be updated, but the development agreement I mean, we could we could remove that from the DA, I guess, but it's it's in it's in the draft development agreement, and that might have just been Okay. Because there were there were different iterations of the plans, so and that we didn't we didn't catch it on that

draft. That's not that's not right. So we asked all this sheet.

I I think we should maybe decide yay or nay. I I guess it's a nonissue because either way, it's gonna be fire code either way. But within the flag lot ordinance, it does require 20 feet of asphalt. It is on the plans. I guess if the applicant's amenable to it, we could just strike it from the agreement.

It's one thing to accept

an option to apply. So that's another to have issue. That means they might be Right. Right. So we could just strike that from the if if the applicant's amenable to it, we could just strike it from the agreement. And then and then it's a non it's a nonissue. Yeah.

Yeah. There's one ways to deal with it, and and that really the canal really is getting down to especially given that we're gonna stay with the now and be improving where we're designing this. It's gonna get where they need that.

And Yeah. We don't we don't have to be discretion on this now. That's And you can A lot of just not comfortable with the house being built Yeah. On a cloud.

Yeah.

Well and then it needs any any of those building meets will be set back requirements. But now where the calendar is because I I said we can't build we can't get a building permit if we don't set it back.

Right. We review that at the time of the building permit. Yeah. So

okay.

No.

They oh, go ahead. So Claire, what you're seeing is dash line. I wish I had a pointer, but just above the seven in Lot 37, that dashing line, that's an easement that can't be constructed on that end. That's the canal easement in this case.

That's also something that's yeah. Right now, the canal has two easements. It basically is where the water is now. And our plan is to give it out a subscription. That's that's just there is. The reason it winds out is that that's where it winds out. That's where the end of the pipe is. And if they come back and pipe the whole thing and I'll probably get on ramp or say what we get, I have to use them soon.

I just don't wanna see somebody drop the pump in right now, water in their lawn because then that affects me down from three. Yeah. And I keep seeing, you know, question whether they have rights or or not have it. But we'll swallow it as a big issue.

Anything else for Sean and the question? Any other discussion? Any other

Yeah. Thank you. If you if you wanna know anything else. He's the one Correct. I I got a history. He's got got let's shave

the proposal.

So Right. Happy Thank you. No. It's Discussions,

motions, information?

I guess I guess my only concern about this also process is maintaining the integrity of of these open space subdivisions. You know, on you know, back in the day, what was it originally designed was based on certain criteria and insurances and planning, and now we're changing that. No. I found myself in general agreement with part of that. It serves that the letter that was read. How does that affect all the current the current space subdivisions we have throughout the city that are currently built and what changes they make on the bank. Yeah. And then down the road, future space subdivisions. But we're gonna propose this now, but we may change it there. That's just in my overall my first thought is on the agenda. That's my first thought was changing subdivisions based on new new situation, new cold situations.

And, yeah, technically, right, we're we're getting more area for conservation far as designation on the plat, but I guess they're they're losing it.

Just

that kind of you're saying. And and and how that would buy any neighborhood or

or any level of space in,

essentially, we have Well, I think in reality, it so it quick fast me that most of the current public space subdivisions are sort of locked in the sense that they're already maxed out. Right? Yeah. This one has wiggle room wiggle room. Is it my understanding, it it qualifies for 39. It it qualifies for 39 units per boss, but they're going gonna be 36. There is 36, we're gonna be 36. Gonna be 36.

So last three minutes. Is that right? Am I off one? No. It isn't. Yeah. There's gonna be 37.

Well, one one is a conservation lot, though, so that's not a building lot.

Oh, okay. If you're talking building lots. Sorry. Yeah.

Yeah. I guess, we're looking for a new

proposal for a new subdivision down the road after this one.

Can I speak on that? When when ordinances change and zoning laws change, that does entitle even existing subdivisions to come in and modify plats to conform to the new codes. They're vested with if it creates a nonconformity on a on a subdivision that was already approved and recorded before this code change, they may not comply today, and everyone knows grandfathering or existing nonconformities. But if there's a code change or zoning change that allows modifications, they are entitled to that amendment process through the proper approvals and reviews.

Right. If this code does not change, in theory, can they United States will be sent by again.

That that may that may be possible. The only thing that's really driving this is the conservation. That that is an easement, and that would be up to the city council. You're you as a recommendee body to actually modify the conservation easement portion of things. But we we do have the that authority. There's another way to do that is through a plat amendment, which, there's a couple ways to get that that approved and through the process. One is getting everybody in the entire subdivision that's on that recorded plat to sign off and approve it. Another way is to have a public hearing, and that's the case here. We're having a public hearing to modify that. So we're meeting state code to do this stuff.

So we're really we're really are many two things. One, increasing the conservation lot, like, well, 267, and the second one is to the flag lot of Lot 37 to be narrower.

Yeah. Well, it's it's it's really creating two building lots that don't have a conservation area and then creating a conservation lot that own that's completely, within a conservation area. And and with and, also, within the numbers, we didn't include that access easement, which goes through Lot 35. That that's that's not included in In the account. In the calculations. We said that doesn't, you know, that doesn't count toward conservation. But, that's on that's it could go through that that conservation lot. So the access would. But, yeah, so where where now it's just it's one lot with a conservation easement over a portion of it. This is it would it just reconfigures how it's legally designated. It adds one additional building lot than what's there now because right now, there's only it's although there's there's a few different areas you could conceivably build a house, You can only build one primary dwelling on the property. Now you've got two lots two building lots. So you're adding one building lot effectively and reconfiguring the conservation space, taking away from from some of the area, but adding adding additional. So so you're, you know, you're adding additional conservation area

overall. And the road width is not an issue now. It's 20 feet

according to this I would they kinda what I would suggest is to include that in your motion if you don't want to include that as an exception, just to be clear, even though it is shown on the plans. It it there within the agreement, there is a provision in the draft agreement that says that they could reduce it to 12 feet. So you could and I can pull up the agreement if if you'd like. If you'd like if you don't want to allow that exception, I would suggest a motion just with within your motion to to strike out the the provision of the agreement that allows for a reduction in the asphalt width on the access.

Can you do

So this is just a zoomed in version of the original plat.

And the the the the only spec the money eight where Okay.

You could kinda so right here, right here, back back here. Right. There's I mean, back here, there's there's a large buildable area. Yeah. They they've got some issues with the I mean, at at the time with the floodplain and, you know, there's canals and different things to work around, but it's

I think we're dealing with modification of conservation space because we're actually increasing the conservation space. But if we're decreasing that, I think that's the impact that

I'm looking

at one. I I don't see any impact in any of the neighborhood because it was already delineating where they can build the house to the house in the north, house in the I don't see really any wasn't anticipating the big bottle of loss. I don't Don't see really an impact on this at all because it fits within the standards of the current subdivision open space subdivision and the original open space subdivision.

I'm looking moving forward. Do you have any concern with

the wetland area? Is that the wetland concern at all? No. No. Because we don't have it it's pretty much set in the the setback anyways, and he'd only pull with the wetland. Because if you get caught, it's not. And he's an engineer. He feels better than that.

And then it's further to me, and then also just further clarifying that the remainder that is Lot 35 is all all of it is now in concert would be a conservation lot, period. Correct? The entire remainder of the lot? Yeah. The whole lot. Yeah. Yeah. The So it kinda reduces some ambiguity?

That that is easy to to I mean, just backing up what Sean said. That that does that is easier to administer Yeah. If we know where the lot lines are. We we have both in our conservation easements, I think. And, we're getting into enforcing these a little more. We're try we're trying to you know, as the city, as, like, the boulder of these conservation easements. And, yeah, I mean, if it's all in one lot, that's easier to go out and inspect the whole property rather than find, okay. You're 10 feet from here and 20 feet from there. And

Wait, Becky. All of your recommendations again. Yeah. Is there standing water in the lot through my?

If we're in drought.

Sorry. I have to put this in Is there a standing water on Lot 35? It does on weather. Yeah. Right now, we're in drought. So we've tried those. It's it's green. It's green. Yeah. Yeah. I know there is water in the low spot.

Yeah. Like, we go

recommendation. Objection. I'll make a motion.

Okay. I'd like to make a motion to approve the number of times number four. I recommend approval for 25 Dash 9. The development of the subdivision phase one, amend First Amendment, amended lot 35 and creating additional building lot for many conservation area, including modifications to develop zoning standards. And I am five to approve the preliminary path path for Apple Creek Subdivision Phase 1 person management adopting the recommended findings efficiently below striking, both people ask solving, and that 20 PMS.

Right. So So so maybe just kinda I don't know. Point of order. I would I would I would take these one at a time. So so if, yeah, if you did four and strike the the the last thing that you said striking, it does belong to item four. And then item five, there there well, for item five, there's a number of conditions and things. But but for four, yeah, if you wanna do it that.

K. Tyler, it is. I made a motion to record approval for the ordinance twenty five twenty nine, which is for a development agreement for the Apple Creek subdivision phase one, first amendment, amending Lot 35, creating an additional building lot and amending the conservation area and putting modifications, to development and zoning standards or something.

And and then if if you wanna add if you wanna add the the striking the

Oh oh, yes. Then the Oh, yeah. Because that's for the DA. Yes. And and also the requirement of the the plat. Thank you. We have a second. Second by Troy. K. Any further discussion?

In the the motion? Lot 36 is is this thing, so we're just splitting up thirty five and thirty seven. That means technically. Right? K.

Just to confirm me, Mike, you said there was no additional findings or recommendations.

Not for item four.

Yeah. Good? K. We're gonna go Brad, we're good? You're good. K. We're going we'll go to a vote. All in favor? Right. Right. Any opposed? No opposed. That's five in favor and opposed. K. We'll go to the next item on the agenda, which is the discussion and consideration for the approval of the preliminary plat for the outbreak subdivision phase one first amendment. We don't need to introduce. We've been talking about it in the last hour. Does anyone in the commission have any further discussion? So we're going from the legislative to the administrative part of this project now or, we're basically just reviewing this to make sure it's the the ordinance for the old space and vision. So Do you have any further discussion?

Like, for a motion. K. I'd like to make a motion to approve agenda and five. Approve the preliminary plat for our three subdivision case one of the first amendment, including the recommendations of one, two, and three. Both of all the agreement, which includes exception of applicable standards and other terms and conditions must be approved in your outdoor water use calculations and the canal design must be approved by the we would like to park irrigation company prior to.

K. We have a motion from Tyler for the oh, I'll second it. Okay. Good. In a second. So we have a motion from Tyler for the approval of preliminary plat for the Outbreak Subdivision Bay Subdivision Phase one first amendment with the three items, recommended by staff. And then we have second by Claire. Discussion? Any discussion? Joe, you're good, Brett? K. And we'll go to it all. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Can you close? Gonna close. Five in favor. Gonna close. Thank you. Okay. We'll go to the next item on the agenda, which is the discussion and consideration for the approval of the preliminary plat for the Niddly Meadows Subdivision, phases four, five, and seven. You might wanna getting Scott to speed on this one? Yeah. So,

as you might recall, the Nibley Meadows, the the developer for Nibley Meadows, we recently there was approved a, development agreement amendment that includes some modification to the design of the subdivision on the south end of development. So, really, the purpose of this preliminary plat is to bring the preliminary plat in conformance with those, with those changes to the design. In addition to in some cases, when there's we've updated some standards in our code as applicable. Those have been imposed with this updated preliminary plan as well. There's not a lot of those, but there there's a few. But primarily to bring this in conformance with plan with with with the development plans that are that were approved as part of that that development agreement amendment. So so you can see these are these are the areas, really, that were impacted by that amendment, phases four, five, and seven. It it looks a little bit different than the version that you saw when this was in front of you for planning commission. It it was discussed, but if just maybe I'll draw your attention to the the eastern side of this property. They did they did propose, and city council approved with the development agreement, a realignment of that roadway. And then this was discussed by planning commission, but, there wasn't it it wasn't changed until it came to until it was further discussed with city council. So, previously, there was a cul de sac there, and then they had a half road that there was, a discussion of whether that would be the developer's responsibility or the city's. Well, they've they've just taken out, reconfigured this this, and and so the master plan 10th West, 9th West Road is just shifted and low and loaded on both sides by by homes. And then the but but what's shown here is the same number of units that were originally proposed that I guess I'll I'll also mention they've added, and and this was mentioned with the development agreement, a clubhouse and a pool and some pickleball courts that weren't there previously.

And then Is it adjacent to the park?

It's not right. No. It's it's not. The way it's close, but the park's kind of across the across the street about a half block away. So but that's that's private. So those the pickleball courts and the the pool and the clubhouse, that that would be all HOA. And then also just to remind you, this this was approved as part of the development agreement, but the townhomes would all be on one lot, not on a separate lot. That was approved as part of that agreement. Now what wasn't approved, and I don't know how relevant this is to this, but just for your information, is the city council did approve within the agreement that a certain portion of these would be deed restricted, and that's really just through the development agreement, but deed restricted to moderate income house to to be affordable to moderate income households, 80% area median income. So they got that got incorporated in as, just as a way to address kind of affordability concerns with that. So let's see here. Go down a little further. So this has been this the whole design has been reviewed by staff. City engineer public works has has reviewed the sewer water, stormwater. Obviously, Tom's here if you wanna get into more detail there. They're they're showing conformance with our standards. Obviously, there's a few modifications, but they're they're following a similar pattern to what what they proposed, previously. And the there's no modifications to the the canal, the compared to, you know, what what was proposed previously. I mentioned this, the alignment going back to down to transportation, the alignment of of the 10th, the 9th West Master Plan Road. It's been shifted and it but it it follows what's in the master plan. And the proposed row cross sections meet the city specification. They're they're also retained. This this was on the original one, but the eight foot wide trail corridor on this on the south end, and this consistent with the active transportation plan previously in the the trail master plan for the city. Parking, they I I don't have the numbers up on the screen, but they they far exceed what what the city's parking minimums are for you know, they they have two car garages in these townhomes. So that's two, and then you need one parking stall per three units. They have, you know, more in in excess of of a stall per two units. So they're the the you know, as far as parking, there's adequate parking there. They have provided an open space maintenance plan, but, really, there's there's no significant changes from the previously approved plan. Now that they are changing the amenities, they're adding some amenities that that weren't there before. But as far as how the open space is is managed and maintained, it hasn't changed. They have updated the some of the landscaping. So the city, since this was originally approved, we've we've adopted some water wise landscaping standards, and they they for example, within the park strip area, no no turf. Within areas eight feet wide, no turf is allowed. And within the front yard areas of of, residential, and it doesn't say single family, just residential that you, you know, know well, those areas no more than 50% of of the area can be turf, and they they conform to these updated standards. But not as much turf, more kinda local escapes in those areas. They've also updated the they're proposing an update to the architectural design from what was originally approved, so that's included here as well in the in the preliminary plat. And staff has reviewed these in in relation to the architectural design standards and found that they they comply. You know, some of the things there is is the materials being used and and some articulation in the buildings. So that's that's what's being proposed, and they conform with with those standards. So staff's recommendation is it should say approval, not recommend approval. Gonna change that. I'm applying. Approval of preliminary plots for Nibley Meadows Subdivision with finding that application needs zoning standards and requirements of new city code and the improved development agreement associated amendments.

K. Thank you. We might have discussion.

I just have a question. I know it's it's not it's not gonna affect this design, but given the density of this development and the potential development that surrounds this, And we were considered some kind of calculation where we can we encourage an intersection of 920 West and 3140 3410 South, making a a circle, some kind of Mhmm. Stop sign because that's a lot of density right there. Yeah. And everything that's feeding that is gonna be increase the the traffic congestion right there. Should we consider in the future when things like this come in some kind of a trigger where we say, okay. We're gonna require you to put in a circle.

Just about it. Yeah. Yeah. Won't that connect eventually, you mean, sound, which could end up with the development. No. Yeah. Not end of the west,

Which Yeah. So it it would connect to Which So what's in the current master plan is it connect to 10th West, and then 8th West comes down. Like, I don't know if it'd be the through street for 8th West or 10th West. Really, we could do it either way, but the the master plan shows it aligning with 10th West. And these town homes are rentals.

Mhmm. Owners here.

Yeah. The one the ones in this space would all be on one lot. So it's presumed that they'd be rentals, and that's already been approved through the development agreement.

So Kent West is gonna come and then do a jog south, and it's gonna be 920 West on this map. Is that what you're telling me? Right. And and going south of here, it'll probably

jog a little bit further to the west. It doesn't have to, but but it'd be logical if it if it took a jog further to the west. Don't actually west then is because because I don't wanna see Or to the east, not to west.

The was we don't need it we don't need a road on the backside of these people's homes.

Yeah. So this would be the road. This is the master plan road. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. That's still Yes. Yeah. Oh, there's no Yeah. So that's a collector.

Yeah. So it's a little bit wider, 66 foot right of way, and it's, you know, a little I think it's 35 feet of asphalt. So it it's built like a collector street rather than a local street, that 920

West. I

have a question on the where does the turnaround mean that is is 920, is that, like, urban gutter? And, like, the curve is going between people's and into the property for the easement? Or, like Can you do that, Tim? So can you clarify a little more? Yeah. So I'll just put right in that little Yeah. That's the easement. Is this a curb and gutter road that we got the curb shutting into these properties? Or, like, or is no curb and better?

Do you remember the fire access requirements that we were talking about before? So this is to satisfy that. It's a ham it's a turnaround for fire. So it'll most likely be a driveway with gravel. It'd be temporary if you know that road's put through. Yeah. The the east one is still very important, but they could after that road goes through, they'd be able to

Yeah.

The eastman's a little tougher to remove. It'd probably just stay there, but

there'd be no need for it. Not a good point.

Just unused unutilized, I guess.

With bread.

But that and actually, the tenth west, and if we're round or not, we'd be good. It's too late to finish. This one. Yeah.

It's too late for this one, but I think maybe we gotta consider that way of thinking in the future when these come in. Should've would've round about a big gate

Yeah. Congestion in the future. Yeah. So our code does require traffic comming, but only where it interfaces with our carrier roads. I I am ready to give you an update later on tonight on an update to the transportation master plan. So that might be an opportunity to change that.

And and not necessarily it's rounded off, but even just, like, a traffic circle right there. It's those small and traffic circle right

there. Or waste off, at least.

Okay. Choice made a motion for approval of the big flats for in the middle subdivision basis for five seven. Any further discussion? None? Good to go. All in favor? Aye. You need both. Both. Five of favor and aye. Thank you. And next item. Item number seven on the agenda, which is discussion and consideration for the recommendation for ordinance twenty five twenty three amending city code nineteen twenty four one sixty, parking requirements, and city code nineteen twenty four two fifty, accessory dwelling unit standards, including parking requirements for single family and two family dwellings. Goodbye.

Yeah. I mean, I guess I'll just introduce because it's it's pretty quick. I I already did at the last meeting, but just as a reminder in here. So Okay. Later. Yeah. Just a just a reminder, the the state, as part of senate bill one eighty one, imposed some restrictions on how how cities regulate parking. And two of those provisions, the city currently is not compliant with. One is that particularly for a single family dwellings, we don't count the garage toward satisfying the the number of parking spaces that are required. And we also would for ADUs in particular, we don't count what we considered tandem parking. So, you know, where you have two cars and one might be blocking the other, the state has said that you need you you need to count the the tandem parking space. So, now there's there's a few different ways the city can go about becoming compliant with this, and we started discussing those in the last meeting. But staff's recommendation is simply to remove that restriction to count the garage and to toward the number of parking spaces, not to increase the number of parking that is required, but just just to count the garage and to and also to strike the provision for, the basically, that there's a provision in in the ADU ordinance that says that you can't block parking access for the primary dwelling. Well, it would just it would just strike that. So you could count, for example, if they had a a garage and that was the parking for the primary dwelling, well, the ADU, they could technically park in the driveway that that might block the garage spaces and still count that. So that is what staff's recommendation is. But but as I mentioned, you could make some tweaks to that if if if you're so inclined and still become compliant with state code. But the staff's recommendation is is approval of this ordinance as written.

K. Thank you. Discussion. So so the state s d one eighty one basically says that not not count for Rob just as part. Mhmm. And then it can be obstruction, you cannot so so, basically, if if, if if it's obstructed, you you have to consider you you cannot not consider obstructed as part of parking. Yeah. Tandem.

If it's tandem parking Yeah. Now we could get into more detail that we could say, well, you can count two, but not three. But I'm just suggesting the staff is just suggesting to remove that restriction, and then it and then it doesn't. It just simplifies it. If you wanna get into more detail, you could say, well, you can have up to two. You could have tandem parking, but you can't have three in a row. This would just say you can count it if it fits. And so it it would bring the city in compliance.

Again, if you wanted to get into more nitty gritty So the the only reason why, technically, we're not in compliance is because we're not counting

the garages space. We're not counting the garage space, and we're not counting tandem part a a tandem parking space if it's ADU.

Yeah. So that'd be, like, a separate like, if there was an ADU in the back, we flip it plain. We're not counting that as margin right now.

We're not counting it if, like, for example, there the ADU stall that or they're counting for the ADU is blocking one of the stalls for the primary that that they need for the primary residence. So this would this would say, no. You can count those. You can count tandem parking. Yeah.

And in our code, are we still separating the overall parking requirements if you think of it as a site overall between ADUs and and the residents, or are we now trying to move towards a holistic view of the the numbers? Well,

I think you mean, like, if there's a primary residence and an ADU? Yeah. So we've even now, we don't we look at it as a whole site, but we do need to say, okay. Are there two that could be for the primary dwelling, and is there one or two for the ADU? That that actually, that's not on the screen. What is also being proposed to change is, currently, if it's an internal accessory dwelling unit, you can only allow one additional stall. If it's detached, they don't have that restriction. So we do require two. What is also being proposed is to just simplify that and say one additional stall is required, whether it's detached or or interact. That's what you're that's what Yes. That's what staff is proposing. But yeah. I'll just pull it up. Let's pull it up. Good suggestion. Yeah. It's not not too complicated. So

I hate when it blocked. That's stupid. Stupid. Can't see it. Okay. No. Sorry.

Where is it? Can't see it. There it is.

Alright.

So yeah. I mean, you can see the red lines on the screen. So currently, two off street parking spaces per dwelling in addition to any carport or garage. It just takes out per dwelling in addition to any carport or garage. There's two off off street spaces for single family, ads for two family, three off street spaces. That let's see. That provision that additional space is written was written in other portions of the code, but this is just recommended to put it in the same chart. And and there's a little footnote that it applies to single family with residential properties with an accessory dwelling unit and two family residential properties. Two families, you know, if you have a any internal accessory dwelling or two A duplex. A duplex that yeah. If it's on one lot, then that that would allow the third.

But one of the ways that these person that they can get this through, it's skewed weights, the speed. And it makes sense to write stuff saying the state has required the state's pretty much said our order is not unplanned. So being compliant, we need to strike this. But you're not explaining the fundamental change Because the recommendation to take the two spots, which means we have to do with Raj, just means we lost two spots. And we went we've gone around and around over here. And so I think the more appropriate way to be put forward with this is this is the change in state law. This is what we need to change. But I think making the staff recommendation fundamentally changes the amount of parking in the way the neighborhood's gonna work without fully disclosing it to the planning and zoning and city council. Because if they may not go in, they might not read it, they might they may not research it. So I'm just saying when when you have a situation like this, when we need to make and modify code because of state law change, then you need a lot more specific about how it really matters. Because to me, it's far more easier for me because I want we we talk very specifically in those discussions to a small garage park. So we wanted to ensure that the cars were not on the street because we have city parking, city conditions, snow removal, and we hired a full time phone enforcement officer to make sure people aren't on the street. So you can increase your enforcement. We can increase your density and reduce reduce the park. I think it would've been far more appropriate on this to say, if you want to stay with the current code, we need to require four stops to which will be in the garage, to what else. That's how we remain consistent for a code, or we can strike that and then interrupt. So I I think you kinda skewed the perception of what this is and the need without fully explaining it. So I just say, just going forward with state laws, conflict with our our current ordinances, It's from both sides of it. If you wanna keep it conforming with the intent of what we originally wrote, this is what we need to do. If you want to be completely compliant, this will be. I think just straight up recommended recommended that we be compliant with the same thing. I don't think that's necessary.

Okay.

So I didn't go over this in this meeting, but in the last meeting, I did discuss that according to the IT parking generation rates that were looked at and the research that was done previously, that the eighty fifth percentile on on parking on on parking demand for single family homes is about two stalls. So that was looked at. I'm sorry. I didn't explain it in this particular, but I but I didn't. I did when it was first presented, and we had the public hearing.

The the

was completely

so so just statistically alone, say 8080%

minus two card, but it's it's not necessary to the low openness. Right.

Or if there's a change in the state law, just give us both sides and the like, if you want for me exactly on the state, this is what we'd recommend. This is what the eighty fifth percentile should be defined. Just don't inadvertently and I think it was inadvertent. Don't inadvertently pretend potentially create bias to one's idea. Because I don't I don't think you purposely did it, but the way it's presented, it is very easy to see this and say, well, this is a state law. We have to change it as a false response. No. We can just increase the actual I

yeah. And I did mention that that you you can go about it different ways, but this is what Steph's recommendation is based upon the research, and and it is a change. I'm not I'm not gonna say it's not a change. Yeah. It's but but now now now to your point on four parking stalls, now you can you can require four parking stalls. But for an internal accessory dwelling unit, you can't require any more than that. Yeah. So so so you could say you could say just you could say four. You could say three and one additional. That's the maximum that that the state will allow. I think that's

Say three. Let's say if we build one car. One garage and two. If we say, you know, they want two in the garage, then you want to. I think mathematically three for single family or four a two family family. And I think that stays exactly the spirit of what we what we had in the new.

If you wanna if you wanna stick to the if if you think that's the spirit of it and that's what you wanna stick to, that's that's fine. I'm I'm just saying that staff's recommendation is that two is sufficient. It doesn't mean it's sufficient in all cases, and it doesn't that this doesn't preclude anyone from building more parking for the cars that they need to to meet their needs. Right. You know? So it's a it's a minimum based on what what what the general averages are. And and, really, there's some people that may only need one, and this is and even two is more than than really what they need.

Yeah. You got 5,700 square blocks. So one in the neighbor, wild card, wild people. I I just if we're gonna increase the density and with the winter conditions, the other ones, we just can't. We can't reduce the amount of water. We're just it's gonna create chaos for city or management.

I guess maybe sorry. Maybe maybe just a counterpoint to that is with those narrow lots, it does become more difficult. For example, if someone has a one car garage to fit three stalls Yeah. On on on that

gauge. Like, the mathematics now will

fit the dimension once they get there. It I I just don't wanna say it's It it reduces the flexibility of the of the design of the home. Like, if if you have a 5,800 square foot lot and you wanna design a home with a one car garage and just a 20, you know, 20 foot of of driveway and the rest is landscaping, this wouldn't allow that. Well, see, with

50 50 square block into the purpose.

You can do it. I'm just saying that it doesn't allow the flexibility to to do it any other way.

There there are discussions with the d h e u as a garage.

Does that that

matter? What's the question?

Apparently, it is. If it's detached, we don't know.

Right. Oh, that's interesting. Yes.

So I'm just wondering, does it matter to this discussion whether or not ADU has it in there or not? Yeah. Because they're just saying because they put that up garage can't there's a spa.

Right? Yeah. I think as it's currently written and as as it it's being proposed, it counts for an ADU. It doesn't count for a single family dwelling k. If you have a garage.

It's

just right now.

And right now, our detached ADU, we require one. Is that right? Two. Two. Oh, yeah. Right. But So internal would be one extra he touches. Okay.

So other commissioners, basically, I look at it, fellow commissioners, is staff recommendation as we move forward is two two garage basis on a single panel dwelling. Minimum of two, which is gonna be, you know, that two and that's gonna include the garage. I I personally I wanna require three three from a single panel dwelling, four over two, which would include ADU that's detached floor or detached. And four is the maximum we can acquire. Correct, Nava?

Yeah. So for for an into the state kinda divides up internal ADU versus, you know, secondary dwelling. We don't we don't really do that in our code. We treat it all the same if it's a secondary dwelling. We do have a detached ADU. But from staff's perspective and what's demanded from the parking, it doesn't really matter if it's attached or detached. So it seems like we should treat those the same, however we treat them. So that's that's why it's being proposed to add to the chart just single family, two family, state how many are required for single family, state how many are required for two family, two family includes if it's a detached ADU or or if it's a secondary dwelling.

I personally have internal external ADU. It's the same one rooms. Like, and see why there needs to be a parking. And even the discussion on increasing the number of spaces we require, like, they might say, like, reducing flexibility, which increases cost. They're forcing additional cost. People who might be looking for that flexibility where they might not have to be at issue or space because they don't

bills. So

if if we're looking at moderate income and and down that alley of how are we allowing for those kind of developments, then this is counterproductive to that discussion on having monitoring when you're forcing increased costs on the builds.

Thoughts? Well, we understand what you're saying, Troy, that because a lot of families, they grow up. Their children get teenagers, and then they struggle on where all the cars should get parked because their kids are driving.

Two are driving.

And then they're taking them a sidewalk and then they're in great

whereas

before would probably accommodate, and even four is not accommodating teenagers. So I don't know what the balance is. But every young family seem to come up and then their children reach teenagers to get driver's license, then they have to drive to school and do work and do different things, and then there's cars all over the place.

Again, that's that's very generalizing. Right? Like, not all teenagers drive. Not all families have two, three, or four. Most

teenagers have never really drive. You know? And And mostly so students. Yeah. All families will look like a traditional

new parents, multiple kids. So if you have a single parent, one child, or maybe a single person, again, that's additional cost. If they are looking for that flexibility because they are one person in that house, you're you're forcing on those costs onto those individuals and those families. You know? So I mean, the cost we're talking about

is a 10 foot by 12 foot hard surface parking. Is that isn't that the minimum? Is 10 feet probably long or 10 feet wide? It can be gravel or concrete. Again, it is in the middle class like 20. But it but it's It's yeah. About 10 by 20. 10 by 20. It can be concrete. It just has to be hard surface. It can't be dirt. It can't be mud. Has to be hard service. We can do crushed gravel. We can do whatever we can do. So the the the action the impact is not that much, but I can tell you for certainty, the developers will cut costs on every port possible. And we'll just end we'll just end up we'll just end up

parking lots and car phones.

Like, I I lived in 5,700 square foot lot with the house, and I hated it because every street, like, you yeah. There are so many hard parking streets. The home is open. That's it. And So and we're more stepping here in the street. You're not I I

I see your concern. I I just kinda push back on the fact that, like, yes, you might you're gonna have to pay for maybe industry market. But even now with with We also have

to have a snowboard. Sorry. We're looking at the person. Which we which we do, which is a major problem to increase density number to spark. But and also on this side you have, we have always required

work with this, right, currently and and in the past. And by your department, we should see zero speed, which

we still do. Yeah. And Because that goes all the car says. Because you have four kid average of five person households. You got one or two teenagers. You have more than two cars. No. So you you give me a report showing 85 percentile only has two holes. I'll show you where the study is from and show you why we get 1,500 or 1,800 units sitting like we have, which does not even fit in the standard deviation. Like, we open we're not even in the analysis. There's a data point, but you take the WAFS from 3,000,000 people, Cashify does not even fit within the standard deviation. So you can't take those ARPA reports and apply it to our community.

Are you concerned the way that, say, a a decached data, you know, may not have space for a additional part of that just physical space

We're just a cost. No. No. Simple. I I don't have more reframe on the just the regular residential. So, right, it

reframe just two option.

Right? So, like, Levi had mentioned, instead of a two car garage and a driveway, one car garage and a driveway. So if someone's, you know, if someone's looking to build a smaller house, maybe a house square feet or something like that, I'd do a two car garage would be, like, 50% of the whole house. Right? And so having if you're having, like, really small family or maybe a couple, maybe a person maybe a single person and a child group that needs space, your nearest the one car garage and the driveway is more than sufficient. And so when you're having these family that don't fit with the standard, what what most you consider as a normal family with your passing these increased cost and we're we're providing less flexibility to those that advance. And and to be fair, they're you know, if they're I mean, we talk about cost and we talk about development and things like that. If there's a market for that type of house, a developer will be able to regardless of you know what I mean? And so some of this stuff, I would guess, we would just need to see that market flesh out over time, and then maybe we'd reach a point where we need to revisit a code like this and say, okay. We've had an influx of requests from these developers for these one garage homes and whatever, and I think that would be the responsibility of the city to then look at our code and say, okay. Are we inhibiting the further growth for potential for a development like that? But, really, it's me. Hey. Until we see those things like that start coming down the pipe and 4,000,000,000. And I kinda look at it more, like, as a a safety thing for children. We talk about it a little bit in in bits and pieces too. You know, when you you get these neighborhoods with these sweeping curves, these turns And I know you can't stop people in parking the street anyways to your point. And I know the state wants us to count garages as spaces, but we all we all have plenty of those neighbors who don't ever park their car in the garage because it's full of stuff. Right? We know plenty of those as well. And so the more I just feel like from a just a simple health and safety to the residents kind of thing, like, the more cars we push to the street in our in our neighborhoods, I'm personally and generally against that. If our if that's a code if that's done through code. Right? Like so I would per personally, I'd like to see it to kinda stay the way it is, frankly. Still allow the the garage to count spaces and then just require that additional

insight. That's my opinion.

Well, in our current call, honestly, you're you're always gonna have I think we're always gonna enforce spaces. You know? Because we have 20 foot setbacks. The 20 foot setback automatically creates minimum of two parking spaces. You mean 20 foot from the front? That's automatically creating two parking spaces in the back. So it's already assessed. So and in in and within eight foot you can probably squeeze it out without really any issue. This the same line was not written for Italy. It was not written for Casper. It's written for the vineyards. It's written for Warren. When they're doing townhomes, it's really for daybreak. When you're doing the townhomes with the garage right on with

10%.

And what they're saying is you have to count those two parking spaces so that it's a requirement because their code doesn't pass. And and I'm not, by any means, not ready to decrease my setup with that. So our orders right now are already great. It's like, we're not gonna develop or you're saying, hey. I need to amend the marketing. Because it's already it's already taken. But I don't want to create our and you were here for this one. I don't wanna create anomaly, like, portray the parts of the machine that someone at some point comes and takes advantage of. When the market demands change, when they specifically develop, when we have an asset management, I wanted to amend it at that point, but not have a fourth on this because we did see something. Because we can always change. Someone could come in next week and say, I'm gonna do this, and because there's tiny people, we'll open it back up if it makes sense, and we demand them. Just like we did with the high density housing when we're ill open city where we'll get the apartments or we're gonna need building the. If we can zone a different parking home for a specific area that's needed. I'm just not prepared today to let this piece go because I don't really. What I am confident of the mathematics alone in our code will always satisfy. I do not think in cash value with the cold of the temperature. I don't think there would be variables built without it. And then with 20 foot setback and minimum of 50 AMS, you will always have a few cents. But I don't think we're changing any cost structure in our community. I'm just I'm nervous that because of that mathematics, I don't wanna open a loophole that will allow a mobile moment. And and, again, you will hear that. We can go back to the but that's where I'm at.

Well, Cindy, most families in Utah have three and a half children.

To

me. I need to my horses.

My my one is bringing that average. Yeah. But

I think you've got

schools are booing and seeing the cap money's over over a whole beginning. And the school is the reason it's being held and the other schools are going on. And those kids are gonna reach their age. And if you don't believe it, look at Richland Mountain Crest. Look at bigger parking lot, Green Canyon. They're parked down along the street, and the parking lots are full. So where are those cars going when they leave? And so I'm kind of a tyler. I hate to minimize the two parking spots, and then you end up with cars all over. My kids drive a chunker to be asked if they want to jump the heat heat of the heat heat of the month that day, and they haven't been we still haven't got they used to jump with. So no chance. I just know that in Utah, I think cars are high demand for this cash out area. And it could be because we got kids going from Peterborough and Wellsville, community all the way to the mountains. We go to school. Whereas Ridgeline, it's not so much. Ridgeline's a weird a rich school. So the other school board. And there are gonna be cars. Maybe daddy's car, but

car. So so are you asking for three or four? I'm I'm not racing anymore.

Four unable

to.

But, naturally, we're gonna have four slots in the car. If a two car garage, nobody's building two cars with us. Oh, two cars or three car garage. I haven't seen a single car garage all built.

Well, excuse me. How many lot? Three five thousand square foot lots have you seen? 300. That's what that's the initiative. Building around me. Yeah. I think I

I'm fine with 300 single four of them too, and that would cover the dehashing and attaching. Now I get into the mathematics of our current model,

automatically creates that. It will be so changing the cost construction the

the the line of units. 35 units to be Yeah. Of base activity.

But too late. Is it 26 feet of asphalt? 80. For 29 units.

Most of them are billed with 29. We allow 25 or 22 depending on the

yeah. And 22 is really there. Yeah. And that's And 22. And ours is No parking. Two cars parked alongside. It's a single car laying down between the two two cars parked.

Let me pull it

up. I'd like to make a motion that recommendation for a change of order is 25Dash2 again NCC19 24.16. Park requirements, NCC nineteen point two four point two five o. Accessory dwelling unit standards including park requirements for single family, two family. I'd like to make a recommendation that we change it to three off street spaces for a single family residential and four off street spaces for a two family.

K. Tyler makes made a motion for the recommendation for ordinance twenty five twenty three, amending city code nineteen twenty four one sixty, parkroom requirements, and Nibley City code nineteen twenty four two fifty, accessory dwelling unit standards and putting parking requirements for single family and two family to require three spaces for residential single family three three off street spaces, excuse me, residential single family, and then four off street spaces for residential food. There a second? Second. Seconded by Troy? Any other discussion?

The now the ADU? Yeah. That includes

That's all. That's all in '92. I just

the board of Deepgram, which is the thirty first. K. Recommendation

seconded by Troy. Any other discussion? So let's just let's tell

you that we just went through last week or last meeting, little smaller lots. What's what's the likelihood of the having can they can that fit a two car garage?

It can fit a two car garage. And we've we've seen a bunch in Richland Park. They're pretty much all two car garages. But they what they probably couldn't do is a one car garage with only only space for one in the driveway. If they did a one car garage, they would need to have somehow fit two spaces in the driveway.

It's your RV parking on the side of the garage.

If you're skinny, probably not. Five feet? They parked they parked their bike.

Mhmm. Both of them. I mean, so which is for the the Nivelly Meadows, one which is approved, they have a couple of point one threes, which is 5,600 square feet. Mhmm. So And and a whole bunch of pounds that we have to Yeah. Marvay.

Mhmm. So there is a possibility that you could have a single family dwelling with a single car garage in these smaller lots with two parking stalls in front of that. So Yeah. You said yeah. Yeah. I think it's requires

Right. You take three footstep back, like, manually, it's already like, like, we're not really checking

The driving might

be, like, the one edge. Yeah. And and and and I think that could accommodate what what Troy's concern, and he said that we're forcing him when we have two car garage. That's not quite the case. You can have that single car garage or even a carport and then just drive up or just make a 16 foot wide and 19 foot wide driveway, and they park theirs.

Yeah. I would say it it forces either a bigger driveway or bigger garage, basically.

What's

being proposed? You couldn't you couldn't do a small driveway and a one car garage.

Yeah. We're not I don't think we're really creating potentially. K. Any other discussion? Ready to go to vote? K. We'll go to a vote. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? All in favor, none opposed. Thank you. Alright. We'll go to the last item, which is item number eight on the agenda, stat report, and action items.

Alright. Maybe I'll just report. I met with with Nick and Brett the other day, and we talked about the open space subdivision and the the code in particular and just looking kinda reflecting on some potential changes we could think about at after we saw the fields subdivision come through. So that's that's going to be on the next agenda, to discuss that in more detail. The just speaking of the fields development, it was heard for first rating, pass for for first rating at city council for the reason and development agreement, but a final decision hasn't been made yet. There was a they did have a public hearing. I would say it was at least as lively as the one here. Maybe maybe a little bit more, but pretty close.

Yeah.

I was in San Diego.

So It's an account that would be changed prior to the They they had quite a few follow-up items of things to look at, but there hasn't been a final decision made.

They're just did work. Perfect.

As you mentioned

because the long term Well or not We wanna make sure that they

can just show that they do that. Staff product. Your Yeah. It.

Yep. Yeah. So there there was that. I believe the flag lot ordinance was passed. The the the other ordinance that was recommended last week, which was the unlisted and or unlisted uses classification of uses, that one was just passed for first reading, so they'll discuss it more on second reading. I think oh, I I had a discussion just just so all of you know with we we've we've had some discussions, a little bit of work on the town center. And as of late, we've engaged with USU and their landscape architect, environmental planning department. We've been talking with the professor there. We're going to work with some students on coming up with some concepts and different different work on the town center, and he discussed that he'd like to you know, as part of that process, And and, you know, we we're supportive with staff to meet with the city council and planning commission. So we might have a joint meeting. I'm thinking of doing a joint meeting in, like, September, both to talk about that as well as the general plan, because we're getting to a point on the general plan where we're starting to get you know, we've done public engagement, and and, now we're getting to the point where we're gonna have some draft, future land use maps, changes, and and different elements of the general plan. So that'll probably be in September. I I don't know whether we'll do any we usually do that in conjunction with an already scheduled meeting. I don't know if we'll do it at city council planning commission, but I'll I'll let you know as that gets closer. I think I think that's all I've got to report on right now.

I got a couple of updates on development. You see the there are 200 South Roads closed right now. That's because Hawk Hollow is tying in other utilities. So the Hawk Hollow is on their way. They're they're making way. Nibley Meadows is eager to start on phase four on those modifications in '5 and '7, so we'll be working over that pretty quick. Nibley Coach, this is the one off of 660 West. They're they've done a lot of the grading, a lot of the utility work through the main portion. Now that we're starting to cut to the north and into six sixty West, and today, there was a nice long water shutdown as they tied into that cul de sac with the water plant. Poor Claire was at without a shower all day. See? They get to do do the lights. Ceilings. So and the the next part of it would be the gradient of room connection into the boat.

Okay. Nicky. Tom's question. Did any of the

if if my memory serves me correctly, there was a couple of those lots were kind of awkwardly maybe encroaching almost on the right of way. Did we ever whatever happened to any of that stuff, did we ever have to clarify boundary corners,

property corners, or anything in that space? It's been Or maybe no. Maybe it was where the the the house was was in relation to a setback or something. Yeah. That was great. Yeah. Great. I mean, the one on the east side of the cul de sac at the very end, there's a the home that was built in the late eighties Yeah. Mid eighties. And somehow the setbacks got all crosswise. There was a clear property boundary that was recorded with the original plan, but either the building inspector just didn't recognize that when they were approving the site plan or what. But it ended up about 16 feet away from the property. That's what it means. Violation of the front setback. So there's a couple of ways to look at that. By by default, that is an approval, and so there is no nonconformity because the city made a mistake. They're not gonna tell you tell them to tear it down. And then you could also look at it as, like, grandfather. Everyone knows that term. It's an existing nonconformity. So, again, the city's not gonna tear down. So thank you to the point that, yes, there is a really close front setback on that one property, and the sidewalk is it'll end up about 18 feet off there. So there's I have had a couple of discussions with the property owner. We made some adjustments to the plan to bring those sidewalk right up to about where his his south corner would be and then jog it over right adjacent to the curb. I'd like to do the whole thing that way, but we needed some drainage in there so we have the swale. So we couldn't do it to a full extent, but we were able to compromise with them. I've I've met with the owner twice since then. He's just he's been very pleasant to accepting of that modifications.

You're kind.

You're very kind. No. That is true. So now there

So there's it's a call of safety concern because it's not a sidewalk in steamy clean.

Correct. There's a regular additional like, to make that a what do we call a safe

Safe routes. Safe routes to school. Yeah. There's no discussion on that at this point. We don't The assisted living center. Yeah. Okay. So yeah. So about that, so the assisted living center is a future phase. Mhmm. Right now, we have forty just over it's over thirty years. Like, thirty months. With that thirty months, it'll be over thirty months. That's what drove that second connection through that. So we we capitalized on that and got the sidewalks. And eventually, the sidewalk could continue straight to the north and get kids to the to the school, grandparents to watch their kids at school. We don't know. It could happen more. It could happen in fifty more years. It's been that way for fifty years. It might be another fifty years. But if there are any homes, so those are all

it's

That is not correct. Okay. It was discussed in their proposal and things, but it never it was never solidified or it was never a requirement.

Mhmm. Okay. Because they I guess, most of the single time, it will split the kids, then that's why it could be.

Yeah. It it could. Good. And Right now, the site will go right to the existing neighborhood at the end of the, and then then it forces them into the the street. Not ideal,

but it's no different than what's been there for less. Yeah. Depends on I believe we did put it in the active transportation plan as as a recommended, you know, sidewalk gap improvement.

Like a kind of like an info. Yeah. The neighborhood doesn't want.

One doesn't want this this because

they're

Well, it's it's kinda strange that the property boundary

is actually 13 feet away from the curb. All these owners have claimed the right of way.

Well, and until the city city reclaims it as city right of way,

it'd be Yep.

So any other questions on that? That was Great question.

Combination from helping homeowners. They're very pleased and happy. So I went to talk to him for you to make sure the message was the same.

It is. No. I didn't. So during the shutdown, he was bringing out ICs to the workers out there. He he was keeping an eye on one and make sure they did it right now. So he's very well so moving on to other projects coming up. Heritage Parkway, they had a preconstruction meeting. They wanna start sometime soon. The have some road closures to advance coming up too. So all this development requires road closures, and we have our first one here on 3200 South. They're mandated to at least open it up by tomorrow night. Right after that next week, that Midway coach, they're gonna close down 800 West. They have an electrical connection they have to cut across. And while they have that closed, they're gonna complete the curb and gutter along 800 West. And then following that, we have 1200 West. This is the city's project now. They're gonna close that at 2500 South up to Niddly Park Avenue, and that closure is scheduled for the fourteenth of next. It'll be next Thursday, I believe. And then lastly, back to this newly or the Heritage Parkway, they wanna they're gonna tie in the sewer and the water on the 2600 South. And and there's a long kind of shortcut, so they just have to shut the whole thing down. I believe while they have it shut down, they want they also wanna do the curb and gutter and and things in the right of way. That closure is slated for August 25, and that will extend to September 10. So what I'm saying is I'm gonna be disliked throughout the whole city and beyond, and there's gonna be chaos. I've already apologized to staff at City Hall for all these things, but middle of the school year too. Yeah. Schools Schools can start right now. So another thing that's all this is all over the place, and this is crazy. So we we got a grant from community development block grant, CNIB, for $50,000 that we would have to match with another $50,000. Is gonna allow us to update our transportation master plan. So part of the scope of work with this transportation master plan update will include a technical advisory committee and and other elected and appointed officials. So there'll be one or two of you that will be asked to join in some of this planning efforts to update this plan. So with that, it's gonna we're gonna be laying out desirable, roadways collectors, arterial roads. We'll we'll be helping develop road cross sections, which would include the pavement width and the sidewalks and curve, what type of curve. So it's really all inclusive. It it'll include some modeling and some forecasting. So it's it's a really great opportunity to help guide how roads are developed with the development that comes with it.

And when was the last time we did that? I believe it was 2020.

It's '25 Well, '28.

They updated in 2021 or 2022. They updated a a road map, but we and then we amended that last year.

Yeah. That map. Didn't have open space.

Yeah. The full the full scale update was adopted in 2018, but there were some there were some amendments in twenty twenty twenty one.

Okay. Yeah. Yeah. So, yeah, it'd be also an opportunity to kinda co mingle this this update with the active transportation plan as well. So there's gonna be a lot of interface. There's also the general plan that we're gonna have to consider with this bank landfill too. So a great opportunity. It's a big deal. Sure.

John? I I have one more Oh, sorry. Conflict. So I another

So I received a a letter from the Fire Marshals Association. It it was a letter signed by the Utah Fire Marshal, Fire Chiefs Association, and Fire Marshals Association in Utah. And with regard to road widths, pavement widths, the state of Utah passed a law recently that only allows the community to require up to 25 foot of asphalt on our road. That's the only thing we can require.

That's what they proposed, but it was 302. Right? It was 32. 2 b. Yeah. They

they proposed 25 foot of asphalt. Three the fire marshals associated want wanted 35 foot of asphalt. So through negotiations and changes to of the legislature, they ended up at 32 foot of asphalt. So that's the maximum that the state the state has set that maximum. Now the fire marshal wants that a minimum because they say their fire trucks and ambulance can't pass each other off narrow road. So with this transportation master plan also, we we should be starting to consider that. The fire marshal asked us to have Nibley Meadows modify their road sections, and I we're not able to do that because what we have currently placed is a code. It's codified. So we allow them that 29 foot of asphalt or 22. It it's basically their their choice. So we may be increasing that to 32? Well well, we would do that through the transportation master plan update if that's deemed it's a it's a recommendation. The state actually governs Mhmm. As a maximum, but the community can choose lesser. And and I'm a proponent of less asphalt just because it it slows traffic down. Claire mentioned something on 2600 South and 6101000 West. I received about five videos of near misses and one collision

just all within the last eight weeks. My son said there's a teenage high school student blowing that stop sign. Yeah. Blow an eight West stop sign. They were.

Yeah. They were there was just time after time that they blew through blew through this the stop signs in the east and west. And I drove up today just trying to look at it just why why why is this happening. And I gotta be honest. When I was driving up, my my I wasn't drawn to that stop sign. It's it's clear. It's there. It just wasn't drawn to there, so I can see how it sees some of this. The other thing I was considering was maybe it was due to the daylight, the sun getting a few times. But looking at the videos, it looked like midday where there was very, very little shadow cast by the the fences and things. This is just really poor bad poor or poor driving behaviors. Now before we stop, that's not gonna stop it. And I don't know that that would warrant a four way stop. What that could do is reduce the the lethality of of of angle crashes there. That's only if they stop If one stops and then goes and so we're looking in options there. We we've already ordered signs that says, you know, cross traffic doesn't stop with some errors. I'm gonna go measure it probably tomorrow. I was gonna do it tonight, but there's still too much discussion on both projects here. But, you know, maybe there's a larger stop sign there. We we talked about a flashing stop sign. People are opposed to that just because they cancel a flashing light in your bedroom window. So people aren't always appreciative of that safety. We're looking at possibly adding STOP at the stop bar, looking at maybe an advisory sign that says stop ahead. So we are looking at that intersection,

particularly on the it's also at West.

2600

South? Yeah. 26.

202600?

2500 and I Because there there's

it's quite as bad. Yeah. Actually, then there's not a stop sign either way. It it's an uncontrolled stop uncontrolled Understood. I believe so. They're they're when I drove through this so are you talking about that church?

26 to 25? It's going towards Fireflies. If you go through there, that 27

Oh, I'm going to That'd be Natalie Park Avenue.

Yeah. So, anyway, we're looking at the 2600

South Intersection primarily with you now, but

we are going to be studying that entire forum. Levi applied for another grant. Hopefully, we get this one. It's it's designed to help cover the cost of some test methods to see how effective each one is. But we won't care from her about that for a while.

Why why is that why? It's wide. Street.

Exactly. So then it's back to my comment about, like, narrow distance. We we on parking, and we've done this my end of the day 30 feet wide. No. You can't. You can see from kids. Narrowness to give that separation, but that's just an opinion.

We're 30 feet wide.

I'll I'll shut up now.

John.

For those that RSVP to our seven party that's being held, at Sportsman Paradise Inn. Just a reminder, it's on Monday starting at six. Food will be available immediately, and

your family will have a lot of fun.

Sorry. I'm not so much tonight. This this Monday?

Monday, the eleventh. Yep. So it is coming up.

And just real quick for the commissioners, just to give some context to you know, I'm talking about the r two way up the space. So Brett and I were talking shortly after the Elon's discussion and even after, like, Troy and I went went to the couple of the interview meetings and just talked with citizens. They're like, you we talked a little a lot about variation in month sizes in general or our ordinances and things like that. I think to us, as Brad and I were talking through it, you know, this this could be in our we I I don't wanna speak for Brad. I'm just so see if we're speaking more more of myself. You know, since we kinda opened up the the the orders of all these smaller lots, I think it makes sense that we look at this ordinance and maybe just tweak the dials a little bit, kinda bake in some language that says we wanna see some variation in this zone. Just so we don't like, I'll just be honest with you. When I saw the the disconnect subdivision, it was just for our stand, one uniform, basically, lot size kind of thing. I didn't really like the design overall. And so I would like to just discuss as a commission and see if we can do some compromises to pay I think that for for me, personally, I think there's room for smaller lot sizes in Midway. I don't necessarily think one neighborhood has to take on the entire brunt of facilitating all the needs of small lot sizes in Midway. Right? And so I think for for Midly, what's for the best? I see. Again, this is just me sneaking out. Maybe we just figure out where those thresholds should be moving forward with this.

So that's just so we're so hopefully

our hopefully, we'll get it we'll get this workshop on the the end of the month as an agenda, and we're happy to discuss any any of your thoughts as a group and the individuals. Appreciate it. So thank you. And I and I have not asked Levi to do any work per se on this. I was just gonna kinda come up with some basic concepts of, like, maybe how we could tweak this. So I I don't necessarily think we're gonna solve the whole thing if you decide to solve anything at the end of the month, but I'd like to at least if you're willing to entertain the concept to maybe give at the end of that meeting, have some guidance for Levi afterwards if we can just with beside that as a mission if that's something we wanna do. But, yeah, just to give some context to the session. So thank you. So with that, that's it. Then we'll call this meeting, Jared. Thank you.