Nibley City Planning Commission - 05/15/2025
2026-04-10
Yep. City, city hall. We'll go ahead and call do a roll call.
Yep. City, city hall. We'll go ahead and call do a roll call.
Alan Bigelow, assistant reporter. Great. Thank you.
Alan Bigelow, assistant reporter. Great. Thank you.
We'll go ahead and, start with item number one on the agenda, which is approval of, the prior, the minutes for the for the prior meeting on 04/24/2025 as well as the, agenda presented in from
We'll go ahead and, start with item number one on the agenda, which is approval of, the prior, the minutes for the for the prior meeting on 04/24/2025 as well as the, agenda presented in from
Second. K. Then we'll just go ahead and go to the vote. All in favor? K. All in favor. So we'll go ahead and, open up the next item on our agenda, which is a public hearing for amending city code nineteen twelve forty, mixed use residential. Nineteen twenty thirty, mixed use. Nineteen thirty two, residential PUB. Nineteen forty eight, transfer of development rights. And twenty one ten twenty, open space subdivision, including modifications to minimum and maximum project acreage setbacks, amenity requirements, rear loading housing, mixed use development, removing RM from the application map, and allowing the in lieu of open space requirements. Awesome. Levi.
Second. K. Then we'll just go ahead and go to the vote. All in favor? K. All in favor. So we'll go ahead and, open up the next item on our agenda, which is a public hearing for amending city code nineteen twelve forty, mixed use residential. Nineteen twenty thirty, mixed use. Nineteen thirty two, residential PUB. Nineteen forty eight, transfer of development rights. And twenty one ten twenty, open space subdivision, including modifications to minimum and maximum project acreage setbacks, amenity requirements, rear loading housing, mixed use development, removing RM from the application map, and allowing the in lieu of open space requirements. Awesome. Levi.
I thought since it was a short agenda, I'd I'd make the agenda item worth it. Right? The the name of the agenda item. But so the and and this, there were enough changes here that I thought it was appropriate to hold the public hearing again. There was a public hearing on this last meeting, but there are pretty substantial changes. So that's, that that's why there's there's still public hearing on here. But I'll I'll go over the the changes briefly for of of what I already talked about, in the last meeting and then spend a little bit more time on what has been changed since then. So as far as the just kinda backing up a little bit, some of the purposes of of these amendments is directing RM zone and appropriate plan areas consistent with the general plan, and and I'll I'll go over kinda how how posing to do that with these changes. Disperse rather than concentrate higher density residential development. There's some standards in there that that point to maximum zone size, for example, that that help to do this. The current use of the RPUD were appropriate. There's some changes here that that make the RPUD a little bit little bit more, palatable. And and in some cases, it it it makes it's gonna make more sense for a developer to to pursue an RPUD rather than an RM zone. So requiring some level of commercial mixed use in appropriate areas and discussed in the last meeting how the these will apply just to certain areas, not necessarily within all all areas. So on these transportation corridors and such, and then allowing the fee fee and move open space in areas that are already well served by parks. I'll go over the the draft amendments that that were already incorporated, just just as a reminder to everybody. And then the next slide will get into what has changed since since the last meeting. So this first one required 10% of land within our own development before commercial or commercial residential vertical mixed use. There are some changes to that. I'll I'll get to those on the next slide, but this this would only apply in certain areas. It amends design center to require reloaded ingress and egress for multifamily housing. So, currently, we do allow front loaded. This would this would require reloaded. Removes the application map from the RM zone, and I'll I'll talk about what what it would replace that with. There's still a restriction on where they could apply it, but it's more based on the future land use map. And then there's a slight modification to set back standards with with reloaded housing. So currently, it's 20 feet front and six and 15 feet in the rear, and what staff is recommending is for for these, you know, reloaded housing, which multifamily really should all be all be reloaded. But single family, it could apply as as well if if they choose to do rear loaded housing. It it would decrease from 20 in the front to 15 and then increase it in the rear to 20. And part of the logic behind that is is the 15 feet isn't very useful. 15 foot driveway isn't very useful. You can't you can't fit a vehicle in there, anything more than just coming in and out. So 20 feet would allow allow for parking stall. That's kind of the logic behind that when you have the rear loaded housing. Reducing the building height to 40 feet if it's within 300 feet of an existing residential zone and then also modifying language. So currently, it requires that if it's within 300 feet of it of an adjacent single family, it the it it needs to be the single family within that 300 feet unless it's unless there it's divided by, like, an arterial roadway. But instead of of saying it needs to be single family, it would limit construction to two stories and no more than a 100 feet in building length. So a little more permissive on on building type. Still looking at making sure it's has some some design element that is that is congruent with with a single family neighborhood and allows for that transition, but but not necessarily single family. And and so and then the next is to remove clubhouse pool or splash pad from the list of required amenities and then adding this fee in lieu option for required open space and amenities. And I'll explain some modifications to that based on the last discussion. The majority of these standards also would apply to the RPUD zone, and then and then there's also a modification to the mixed use requirement in town center area. It's primarily just a a clarification there, but but there's some some language, some change there, and I can pull pull up those specifically. So these next ones that I'm gonna describe are primarily based upon the discussion that that we had in the last meeting. So this first would establish a minimum zone size of of of 10 acres and a maximum zone size of 40 acres for the RM zone. So not not necessarily a project size, but a but the zone itself. So the the area that is contiguous as as an armed zone couldn't be more than 40 acres, but it needs to be at least 10 acres. I think, you know, we threw a few numbers around, but the that's that staff's recommendation is is between ten and forty acres. Lowering the minimum size for an RPUD from 40 to 20 acres and then raising the maximum density of an RPUD from five to seven units per net developable acre. This is partly to to make the RPUDA a little bit more enticing, I guess, to to developer as opposed to an RM zone pointing to kind of the process you go through with an RPD legislative process there. And so that's that's kind of the intent of those changes. The the five units per acre, that was put into place with the TDR ordinance, which you know, TDR could still apply, but five units acre, it is it's a little too low to make an RPUD worth it to a developer unless they use TDR. Upping it a little bit to seven makes makes it so that there can be some kind of a development. They they they can still use TDR to get higher, like, up to 15 units per acre, but this just makes it a little bit more feasible to have an RTUD potentially, you know, without without TDR. Only only allow our own zone in high density residential and town center areas as defined by a future land use map. There was a discussion on whether to include it in commercial, industrial areas, and different things like that. Staff's recommendation really is just to point to the future land use map, and high density residential and town centers seems appropriate for the RM zone. We're going through the process now of of updating the the general plan and the areas we're we're looking at. You know, we could we can get a we can update those and refresh those, but, currently, the the designations that seem appropriate for RM would be the either the high density or residential or town center. So that's that's what staff's recommendation would there would be. And it could change anytime the future land use map is changed so it's not tied to a map map that's codified in the code you know, in this code, but it does point to to our plan. And then the we had a a lengthy discussion about commercial and residential mixed use, which, you know, as as displayed on the slide before, would be required for 10%. The ground floor would of of of the buildings would be required to be commercially used except for for 10% of the project. But this just limits it to if you're 200 feet within 200 feet of state highway or within 400 feet of the intersection of two arterial streets. So thirty two hundred south, 1200, forty four twelve hundred west, forty four hundred south, 2600 well, a portion of 2600 South. If you're at the intersection of those, then then you would need to have that mixed use component. But but for any project that that needs that mixed use component, it allows for an additional two units per acre, so up to 12 units instead of 10. So there's a a bit of an incentive, really, for any project to, to have that mixed use component. The open space, it was discussed in the last one that it should really only apply if it's well served by by parts, and so staff just recommends that this could be applied if it's within a half a mile of a city park that's at least two acres. So that kinda weeds out. There's there's some small park city parks that are more little stormwater basins, so not necessarily those, but, really the main the main parks around the city, two acres is kinda covers all all the ones that that have some kind of amenity and have substantial space there. And then, also, this last one would be to extend this fee in lieu of open space option to open space subdivisions as well. So they could they could pay this fee in lieu if if they're within a half mile of a city park. So that's all it changes. A staff's recommendation is to recommend approval of of this ordinance. I'm not gonna recite the whole thing. Like I was thinking you. Yeah. Okay. Okay.
I thought since it was a short agenda, I'd I'd make the agenda item worth it. Right? The the name of the agenda item. But so the and and this, there were enough changes here that I thought it was appropriate to hold the public hearing again. There was a public hearing on this last meeting, but there are pretty substantial changes. So that's, that that's why there's there's still public hearing on here. But I'll I'll go over the the changes briefly for of of what I already talked about, in the last meeting and then spend a little bit more time on what has been changed since then. So as far as the just kinda backing up a little bit, some of the purposes of of these amendments is directing RM zone and appropriate plan areas consistent with the general plan, and and I'll I'll go over kinda how how posing to do that with these changes. Disperse rather than concentrate higher density residential development. There's some standards in there that that point to maximum zone size, for example, that that help to do this. The current use of the RPUD were appropriate. There's some changes here that that make the RPUD a little bit little bit more, palatable. And and in some cases, it it it makes it's gonna make more sense for a developer to to pursue an RPUD rather than an RM zone. So requiring some level of commercial mixed use in appropriate areas and discussed in the last meeting how the these will apply just to certain areas, not necessarily within all all areas. So on these transportation corridors and such, and then allowing the fee fee and move open space in areas that are already well served by parks. I'll go over the the draft amendments that that were already incorporated, just just as a reminder to everybody. And then the next slide will get into what has changed since since the last meeting. So this first one required 10% of land within our own development before commercial or commercial residential vertical mixed use. There are some changes to that. I'll I'll get to those on the next slide, but this this would only apply in certain areas. It amends design center to require reloaded ingress and egress for multifamily housing. So, currently, we do allow front loaded. This would this would require reloaded. Removes the application map from the RM zone, and I'll I'll talk about what what it would replace that with. There's still a restriction on where they could apply it, but it's more based on the future land use map. And then there's a slight modification to set back standards with with reloaded housing. So currently, it's 20 feet front and six and 15 feet in the rear, and what staff is recommending is for for these, you know, reloaded housing, which multifamily really should all be all be reloaded. But single family, it could apply as as well if if they choose to do rear loaded housing. It it would decrease from 20 in the front to 15 and then increase it in the rear to 20. And part of the logic behind that is is the 15 feet isn't very useful. 15 foot driveway isn't very useful. You can't you can't fit a vehicle in there, anything more than just coming in and out. So 20 feet would allow allow for parking stall. That's kind of the logic behind that when you have the rear loaded housing. Reducing the building height to 40 feet if it's within 300 feet of an existing residential zone and then also modifying language. So currently, it requires that if it's within 300 feet of it of an adjacent single family, it the it it needs to be the single family within that 300 feet unless it's unless there it's divided by, like, an arterial roadway. But instead of of saying it needs to be single family, it would limit construction to two stories and no more than a 100 feet in building length. So a little more permissive on on building type. Still looking at making sure it's has some some design element that is that is congruent with with a single family neighborhood and allows for that transition, but but not necessarily single family. And and so and then the next is to remove clubhouse pool or splash pad from the list of required amenities and then adding this fee in lieu option for required open space and amenities. And I'll explain some modifications to that based on the last discussion. The majority of these standards also would apply to the RPUD zone, and then and then there's also a modification to the mixed use requirement in town center area. It's primarily just a a clarification there, but but there's some some language, some change there, and I can pull pull up those specifically. So these next ones that I'm gonna describe are primarily based upon the discussion that that we had in the last meeting. So this first would establish a minimum zone size of of of 10 acres and a maximum zone size of 40 acres for the RM zone. So not not necessarily a project size, but a but the zone itself. So the the area that is contiguous as as an armed zone couldn't be more than 40 acres, but it needs to be at least 10 acres. I think, you know, we threw a few numbers around, but the that's that staff's recommendation is is between ten and forty acres. Lowering the minimum size for an RPUD from 40 to 20 acres and then raising the maximum density of an RPUD from five to seven units per net developable acre. This is partly to to make the RPUDA a little bit more enticing, I guess, to to developer as opposed to an RM zone pointing to kind of the process you go through with an RPD legislative process there. And so that's that's kind of the intent of those changes. The the five units per acre, that was put into place with the TDR ordinance, which you know, TDR could still apply, but five units acre, it is it's a little too low to make an RPUD worth it to a developer unless they use TDR. Upping it a little bit to seven makes makes it so that there can be some kind of a development. They they they can still use TDR to get higher, like, up to 15 units per acre, but this just makes it a little bit more feasible to have an RTUD potentially, you know, without without TDR. Only only allow our own zone in high density residential and town center areas as defined by a future land use map. There was a discussion on whether to include it in commercial, industrial areas, and different things like that. Staff's recommendation really is just to point to the future land use map, and high density residential and town centers seems appropriate for the RM zone. We're going through the process now of of updating the the general plan and the areas we're we're looking at. You know, we could we can get a we can update those and refresh those, but, currently, the the designations that seem appropriate for RM would be the either the high density or residential or town center. So that's that's what staff's recommendation would there would be. And it could change anytime the future land use map is changed so it's not tied to a map map that's codified in the code you know, in this code, but it does point to to our plan. And then the we had a a lengthy discussion about commercial and residential mixed use, which, you know, as as displayed on the slide before, would be required for 10%. The ground floor would of of of the buildings would be required to be commercially used except for for 10% of the project. But this just limits it to if you're 200 feet within 200 feet of state highway or within 400 feet of the intersection of two arterial streets. So thirty two hundred south, 1200, forty four twelve hundred west, forty four hundred south, 2600 well, a portion of 2600 South. If you're at the intersection of those, then then you would need to have that mixed use component. But but for any project that that needs that mixed use component, it allows for an additional two units per acre, so up to 12 units instead of 10. So there's a a bit of an incentive, really, for any project to, to have that mixed use component. The open space, it was discussed in the last one that it should really only apply if it's well served by by parts, and so staff just recommends that this could be applied if it's within a half a mile of a city park that's at least two acres. So that kinda weeds out. There's there's some small park city parks that are more little stormwater basins, so not necessarily those, but, really the main the main parks around the city, two acres is kinda covers all all the ones that that have some kind of amenity and have substantial space there. And then, also, this last one would be to extend this fee in lieu of open space option to open space subdivisions as well. So they could they could pay this fee in lieu if if they're within a half mile of a city park. So that's all it changes. A staff's recommendation is to recommend approval of of this ordinance. I'm not gonna recite the whole thing. Like I was thinking you. Yeah. Okay. Okay.
Great. Is do we have any oh, go ahead.
Great. Is do we have any oh, go ahead.
Just I have a comment before we open the public hearing. Okay. Is that alright? Yes. I do apologize. I made a slight error, and I was reminded by our city recorder. Commissioner Chang, you motioned for the both the minutes of the previous meeting and for tonight's agenda, and then commissioner Rabayu seconded. Is that correct? I was It was Tyler. Okay. Alrighty. I wanted to make sure because I wrote down commissioner Rabau, but when all planning commissioners are present, then that's
Just I have a comment before we open the public hearing. Okay. Is that alright? Yes. I do apologize. I made a slight error, and I was reminded by our city recorder. Commissioner Chang, you motioned for the both the minutes of the previous meeting and for tonight's agenda, and then commissioner Rabayu seconded. Is that correct? I was It was Tyler. Okay. Alrighty. I wanted to make sure because I wrote down commissioner Rabau, but when all planning commissioners are present, then that's
necessarily a possibility at that point. So I appreciate it. Yep. Thank you. Thank you for clarifying.
necessarily a possibility at that point. So I appreciate it. Yep. Thank you. Thank you for clarifying.
Great. Okay. Do we have any obviously, we don't have anyone in attendance. Anyone send anything in specific to this one? Didn't think so. K. Then we'll move forward with, the next item, which is obviously discussion and consideration of, amending city code nineteen twenty forty, mixed use or mixed residential zone RM nineteen twenty thirty, mixed use nineteen thirty two, residential planning, unit developments or RPD. 1948 transfer of development rights and twenty one ten twenty open space subdivision, including modifications to both minimum and maximum project, acreage setbacks, amenity requirements, rear loading housing or loaded housing, excuse me, mixed use developments, removing RM from the application map, and fee in lieu of open space requirements. So we'll just open up this to discussion.
Great. Okay. Do we have any obviously, we don't have anyone in attendance. Anyone send anything in specific to this one? Didn't think so. K. Then we'll move forward with, the next item, which is obviously discussion and consideration of, amending city code nineteen twenty forty, mixed use or mixed residential zone RM nineteen twenty thirty, mixed use nineteen thirty two, residential planning, unit developments or RPD. 1948 transfer of development rights and twenty one ten twenty open space subdivision, including modifications to both minimum and maximum project, acreage setbacks, amenity requirements, rear loading housing or loaded housing, excuse me, mixed use developments, removing RM from the application map, and fee in lieu of open space requirements. So we'll just open up this to discussion.
Maybe if I could add one more thing just just for your information because I do think it kind of relates to this. If if you might remember, what started this whole discussion was, Karshener Homes came in for an annexation, and they've actually since they're not pursuing that annexation right now, and they I don't know. They might be selling the property. There's they they might not. I we we don't really know what's what's happening there. But I think regardless I mean, despite despite all of that, I think these these changes in this discussion has has been good, and they're positive changes. And regardless of of what's going on there with a specific developer, I think it I think what we have what you have in front of you is an improved ordinance that fits better with the framework of of our code, with the RPUD, and with and just just improvements of things, you know, that we've learned as as we've gotten developments in the city of higher density developments, just just different improvements and things that that we think would would help the ordinance despite, you know, whether there's a specific developer pursuing this zone or or
Maybe if I could add one more thing just just for your information because I do think it kind of relates to this. If if you might remember, what started this whole discussion was, Karshener Homes came in for an annexation, and they've actually since they're not pursuing that annexation right now, and they I don't know. They might be selling the property. There's they they might not. I we we don't really know what's what's happening there. But I think regardless I mean, despite despite all of that, I think these these changes in this discussion has has been good, and they're positive changes. And regardless of of what's going on there with a specific developer, I think it I think what we have what you have in front of you is an improved ordinance that fits better with the framework of of our code, with the RPUD, and with and just just improvements of things, you know, that we've learned as as we've gotten developments in the city of higher density developments, just just different improvements and things that that we think would would help the ordinance despite, you know, whether there's a specific developer pursuing this zone or or
That so the yeah. So Sierra was at the last city council meeting, and they say they're in talks with them. There's no I I I there they haven't there's nothing official, but they did say I I can talk about it because they did mention that in the public meeting that they're they they well, first, Karshener said we're gonna withdraw our our application, and then Sarah Sierra said, well, where are the other ones on that application? And we're asking you to just hold off for a minute. So it's it's on hold. And if Sierra can work something out with Karshner, they might just continue with that annexation, and then and then we'd go from there. But but Sierra has actually indicated that if they did, they would just do an r two a subdivision type type subdivision. So anyway. But despite all of that, I think these are these are good changes, and we don't need to do it just for one developer.
That so the yeah. So Sierra was at the last city council meeting, and they say they're in talks with them. There's no I I I there they haven't there's nothing official, but they did say I I can talk about it because they did mention that in the public meeting that they're they they well, first, Karshener said we're gonna withdraw our our application, and then Sarah Sierra said, well, where are the other ones on that application? And we're asking you to just hold off for a minute. So it's it's on hold. And if Sierra can work something out with Karshner, they might just continue with that annexation, and then and then we'd go from there. But but Sierra has actually indicated that if they did, they would just do an r two a subdivision type type subdivision. So anyway. But despite all of that, I think these are these are good changes, and we don't need to do it just for one developer.
K. Any discussion? No. We're moving on to discussion. You can say we're Yes. Nobody here. So we Yes. Troy, you wanna get started?
K. Any discussion? No. We're moving on to discussion. You can say we're Yes. Nobody here. So we Yes. Troy, you wanna get started?
Like, the intersections. Like, if you imagine on a map, like, that's extremely tiny. Is that where we want to be meeting? Let's see. 200 or 300 feet. That's weird. Yeah. It was two 400 feet. Right? Plus 200 feet of the highway, 400 feet of intersections of curios.
Like, the intersections. Like, if you imagine on a map, like, that's extremely tiny. Is that where we want to be meeting? Let's see. 200 or 300 feet. That's weird. Yeah. It was two 400 feet. Right? Plus 200 feet of the highway, 400 feet of intersections of curios.
Yeah. And and and maybe that can be clarified a little bit. It's it's not necessarily that only those areas could apply, but if any part of the the intent is that any part of the project is is that close. So it's really I mean, 200 feet, you're you're pretty much abutting the highway at that point. It it's really for areas that are that almost they're pretty much up frontage on the highway, but it just gave a distance because there might be there might be a little gap. But may maybe that could be clarified, and may maybe that would help that if if any part of the project were within 200 feet or within 400 feet of the intersection, then then it applies to the entire project. Does that make
Yeah. And and and maybe that can be clarified a little bit. It's it's not necessarily that only those areas could apply, but if any part of the the intent is that any part of the project is is that close. So it's really I mean, 200 feet, you're you're pretty much abutting the highway at that point. It it's really for areas that are that almost they're pretty much up frontage on the highway, but it just gave a distance because there might be there might be a little gap. But may maybe that could be clarified, and may maybe that would help that if if any part of the project were within 200 feet or within 400 feet of the intersection, then then it applies to the entire project. Does that make
sense? Yeah. Yeah. That makes sense.
sense? Yeah. Yeah. That makes sense.
I don't know if that addresses your your concern or not, but that's that was the intent.
I don't know if that addresses your your concern or not, but that's that was the intent.
I will say, I I I think it's really bad. You know, when we tried creating a. It may come in here. So that that was a concern. Remind me we're trying to track this this or modify this code based on what they will just wanna say that. Mhmm. So I I I agree that this is improving on this this particular code. My I guess, my my question would be is the fee and load, how is that gonna be returned
I will say, I I I think it's really bad. You know, when we tried creating a. It may come in here. So that that was a concern. Remind me we're trying to track this this or modify this code based on what they will just wanna say that. Mhmm. So I I I agree that this is improving on this this particular code. My I guess, my my question would be is the fee and load, how is that gonna be returned
as soon as you do that? The value of it? Yeah. Yeah. So
as soon as you do that? The value of it? Yeah. Yeah. So
so as far as the land, the open space, that that would be set by city council. So they would have to it would it would just be in the fee schedule of. One acre is x amount, and and, you know, we'd have to do some research to see what what what the appropriate amount is, but that that's the way the codes are right now. If it's an amenity, it would just be based upon the value of whatever what the amenity is.
so as far as the land, the open space, that that would be set by city council. So they would have to it would it would just be in the fee schedule of. One acre is x amount, and and, you know, we'd have to do some research to see what what what the appropriate amount is, but that that's the way the codes are right now. If it's an amenity, it would just be based upon the value of whatever what the amenity is.
So Do do they, like, typically get an appraisal? Because every piece of property is valued different based on location, right, and utility and all that. Did they they don't actually get a real appraisal? Do they who makes that these these schedules? Or
So Do do they, like, typically get an appraisal? Because every piece of property is valued different based on location, right, and utility and all that. Did they they don't actually get a real appraisal? Do they who makes that these these schedules? Or
They could do that. And they could say on the fee schedule based upon appraisal. Yeah. And then if if it was, then then it could just get appraised. That's that's an option. Mhmm. Yes. But this doesn't the code doesn't necessarily say that. We felt it was more appropriate for that to just be said by city council, whatever they whatever they think is appropriate.
They could do that. And they could say on the fee schedule based upon appraisal. Yeah. And then if if it was, then then it could just get appraised. That's that's an option. Mhmm. Yes. But this doesn't the code doesn't necessarily say that. We felt it was more appropriate for that to just be said by city council, whatever they whatever they think is appropriate.
Question. Yeah. Yeah. Like, I think of mine in the the big figures and it's open space. That's really not I mean, he can build it. That's not a prime builder. That's not a prime building. That's not a prime building. That's not a prime building. That's not a prime building. We wouldn't get a credential and a true residential phrase value there versus just like if it's just black, you know, whatever. I think it could be 300,000. Good question. Okay. Good. Tyler? So can can you pull up the the list of the changes?
Question. Yeah. Yeah. Like, I think of mine in the the big figures and it's open space. That's really not I mean, he can build it. That's not a prime builder. That's not a prime building. That's not a prime building. That's not a prime building. That's not a prime building. We wouldn't get a credential and a true residential phrase value there versus just like if it's just black, you know, whatever. I think it could be 300,000. Good question. Okay. Good. Tyler? So can can you pull up the the list of the changes?
Go try to look at the future land use map.
Go try to look at the future land use map.
This is only being used in high density. I I can't remember where you said that. It's either, yeah, high density residential or town center. But I can pull up the future land use map. Let me just pull it up from the website.
This is only being used in high density. I I can't remember where you said that. It's either, yeah, high density residential or town center. But I can pull up the future land use map. Let me just pull it up from the website.
We should find ways to go. We're we have a talent there, and I think the only one is one of those leads to COVID. Right?
We should find ways to go. We're we have a talent there, and I think the only one is one of those leads to COVID. Right?
There's more than that. I'll show you. So, really, it could apply the town center is this blue, so anywhere in there. And then this brown is just high density, which I mean, that's already called for, but the orange includes high density. It's medium medium to high density or medium density or high high density or commercial. So any of these orange areas, it could apply in any of these orange areas as well. So that's what's currently on the map. We could amend that. We could change it, but it it bounds it if you know, to specific areas, but it can be changed depending on what the city, you know, wants to wants to. I think I mean,
There's more than that. I'll show you. So, really, it could apply the town center is this blue, so anywhere in there. And then this brown is just high density, which I mean, that's already called for, but the orange includes high density. It's medium medium to high density or medium density or high high density or commercial. So any of these orange areas, it could apply in any of these orange areas as well. So that's what's currently on the map. We could amend that. We could change it, but it it bounds it if you know, to specific areas, but it can be changed depending on what the city, you know, wants to wants to. I think I mean,
we'll align this with some of our even future planned roads that can handle the you know what I mean? With the idea even. I think that was kind of the consensus for our discussion in last meeting was making sure that we're targeting targeting specifically certain areas and and roads at those intersections that can handle. You know what I mean? Theoretically, this kind of density.
we'll align this with some of our even future planned roads that can handle the you know what I mean? With the idea even. I think that was kind of the consensus for our discussion in last meeting was making sure that we're targeting targeting specifically certain areas and and roads at those intersections that can handle. You know what I mean? Theoretically, this kind of density.
Yeah. I I think I think the we should that should be reflected in our future land use map. And I feel like for the most part, it is currently. The if if we're planning for high density residential, and this is really the only high density residential zone other than maybe our PUD, it should be allowed in those in those areas. And and if we wanna say if we wanna say, well, high density should only be in areas with arterial roads or or wherever we think that should be, in my mind, that should be reflected in our in our future land use map. So and just because there's a road doesn't necessarily mean it's the right place for it either. Maybe maybe we want commercial there. Maybe we want industrial. Maybe other uses. So that was that that's just staff's recommendation. It's just to tie it back to our general plan. If we want to if we wanna point to a specific area, that would be that would be the recommendation.
Yeah. I I think I think the we should that should be reflected in our future land use map. And I feel like for the most part, it is currently. The if if we're planning for high density residential, and this is really the only high density residential zone other than maybe our PUD, it should be allowed in those in those areas. And and if we wanna say if we wanna say, well, high density should only be in areas with arterial roads or or wherever we think that should be, in my mind, that should be reflected in our in our future land use map. So and just because there's a road doesn't necessarily mean it's the right place for it either. Maybe maybe we want commercial there. Maybe we want industrial. Maybe other uses. So that was that that's just staff's recommendation. It's just to tie it back to our general plan. If we want to if we wanna point to a specific area, that would be that would be the recommendation.
if you wanted if you wanna make modifications to that, by all means.
if you wanted if you wanna make modifications to that, by all means.
Well, I mean, I think I think that's a discussion for another day to try to talk to future lines. I don't know if that's necessary for this last session. Yeah. Can you go back to the the Jetty files on this one? You know, Brett, I know you were in the last meeting. Kinda what the thought was not too much concentration of identity in any one area, but also saw the projects that would scale that function each way and manage on roofs. You can extend the 48% with all of the meeting.
Well, I mean, I think I think that's a discussion for another day to try to talk to future lines. I don't know if that's necessary for this last session. Yeah. Can you go back to the the Jetty files on this one? You know, Brett, I know you were in the last meeting. Kinda what the thought was not too much concentration of identity in any one area, but also saw the projects that would scale that function each way and manage on roofs. You can extend the 48% with all of the meeting.
that's what the problem is. The special is making sure we had enough scale against it, but not too much. We don't wanna be here.
that's what the problem is. The special is making sure we had enough scale against it, but not too much. We don't wanna be here.
Okay. What what do you have to do here?
Okay. What what do you have to do here?
Well, yes. Actually, a 180 on the lead because then you can only have with so much distance. If it's zone so it's it's a zone size, so not a not a project size.
Well, yes. Actually, a 180 on the lead because then you can only have with so much distance. If it's zone so it's it's a zone size, so not a not a project size.
So the contiguous area of that zone I guess we could say any you need a distance away, but but the way it's written is just that the maximum size of the zone is 10 to 40 acres. So that that could help limit that if I mean, if you have two that are right next to each other, they would count as the same zone.
So the contiguous area of that zone I guess we could say any you need a distance away, but but the way it's written is just that the maximum size of the zone is 10 to 40 acres. So that that could help limit that if I mean, if you have two that are right next to each other, they would count as the same zone.
Two two independent projects could coexist but cannot exceed 40. Right. Yep. And so so it is kinda it's kinda first first search.
Two two independent projects could coexist but cannot exceed 40. Right. Yep. And so so it is kinda it's kinda first first search.
Now you could you could you could add language. You could say, well, you can't have more than two zones within a certain distance. That's although I'm not sure if that's what we want in, like, the town center area nor reading this. May maybe this shouldn't apply in the town center area.
Now you could you could you could add language. You could say, well, you can't have more than two zones within a certain distance. That's although I'm not sure if that's what we want in, like, the town center area nor reading this. May maybe this shouldn't apply in the town center area.
Yeah. The whole eastern border that will be required to have No. It wouldn't. It's more to be more to 100 feet of it. They used to be. Right?
Yeah. The whole eastern border that will be required to have No. It wouldn't. It's more to be more to 100 feet of it. They used to be. Right?
It shouldn't be high rated. If it's if it's not right by the highway, it wouldn't be required to have commercial. It's not within 200 feet in the current ordinance or within 400 feet of the intersection, you know, 2,600, 3,200. Those those ones would also need need to have some commercial component. I mean, I it's hard to prescribe every little situation. I think I think it's a balance of, like, I I I I like, that's the thing is the city doesn't have to zone the whole thing RM. If they want more commercial, they can zone it commercial. That's another I mean, that's another option. But this at least points to well, if you have a potential for commercial, which we're saying, if you're right along the highway or if you're at an intersection to Arterios, you should have some opportunity for some level of commercial, especially if you're doing a high density project. Maybe you could do more. And in that case, it might be you can either you can either still include it in our own zone or the city can say, you know what? We want we want commercial on this parcel. We're gonna zone it commercial. We're not gonna zone it our own.
It shouldn't be high rated. If it's if it's not right by the highway, it wouldn't be required to have commercial. It's not within 200 feet in the current ordinance or within 400 feet of the intersection, you know, 2,600, 3,200. Those those ones would also need need to have some commercial component. I mean, I it's hard to prescribe every little situation. I think I think it's a balance of, like, I I I I like, that's the thing is the city doesn't have to zone the whole thing RM. If they want more commercial, they can zone it commercial. That's another I mean, that's another option. But this at least points to well, if you have a potential for commercial, which we're saying, if you're right along the highway or if you're at an intersection to Arterios, you should have some opportunity for some level of commercial, especially if you're doing a high density project. Maybe you could do more. And in that case, it might be you can either you can either still include it in our own zone or the city can say, you know what? We want we want commercial on this parcel. We're gonna zone it commercial. We're not gonna zone it our own.
That's always a Yeah. We can the city can just deny the rezone request.
That's always a Yeah. We can the city can just deny the rezone request.
Let's say it's right on the corner. We see a lot of commercial potential there. We could say, no. This is a commercial parcel.
Let's say it's right on the corner. We see a lot of commercial potential there. We could say, no. This is a commercial parcel.
Let let me I'm just I'm just thinking through mathematics in my head and how long. Yep. So one of 10 acres you're saying in the we have a max so on the the town center complex area, you have a max of 40 acres of identity.
Let let me I'm just I'm just thinking through mathematics in my head and how long. Yep. So one of 10 acres you're saying in the we have a max so on the the town center complex area, you have a max of 40 acres of identity.
On our end zone. You can do RPUD bigger. But if it was RM the way it's currently written, it's 10 to 40 acres, period, whether it's town center or anywhere else in town. You could say in the town center area, there's no there's no maximum. If you if you wanna allow bigger than that or but
On our end zone. You can do RPUD bigger. But if it was RM the way it's currently written, it's 10 to 40 acres, period, whether it's town center or anywhere else in town. You could say in the town center area, there's no there's no maximum. If you if you wanna allow bigger than that or but
that's up to you. And this allows how many years do you earn it?
that's up to you. And this allows how many years do you earn it?
The base is ten. If you have the commercial component, it's twelve, and then you can get up to twenty if you use TDR.
The base is ten. If you have the commercial component, it's twelve, and then you can get up to twenty if you use TDR.
Yeah. Yeah. I mean, that's that that was kinda how it was crafted is if you wanna get that higher density, you can. You just need to What's the what's
Yeah. Yeah. I mean, that's that that was kinda how it was crafted is if you wanna get that higher density, you can. You just need to What's the what's
the current density for the project that's being They're trying to do 10. But That's based on the concept.
the current density for the project that's being They're trying to do 10. But That's based on the concept.
Yeah. Yeah. They're trying to get right at right at that 10, but we'll we'll see what they come back with because they they can't they can't do what they originally proposed because the zoning was denied. The the RM zone was denied. So But the one that currently For for that for that sliver, they're gonna have to come back with another plan. Yeah. Yeah.
Yeah. Yeah. They're trying to get right at right at that 10, but we'll we'll see what they come back with because they they can't they can't do what they originally proposed because the zoning was denied. The the RM zone was denied. So But the one that currently For for that for that sliver, they're gonna have to come back with another plan. Yeah. Yeah.
But that one, as we've seen it, is 10. It's ten. Yeah. Do you have a do you have a copy of that somewhere just to bring up this for reference by chance? Just to see what it looks like at that scale. That's that's based off of that. Right.
But that one, as we've seen it, is 10. It's ten. Yeah. Do you have a do you have a copy of that somewhere just to bring up this for reference by chance? Just to see what it looks like at that scale. That's that's based off of that. Right.
Yeah. I'm gonna I'm just I think it helps. I know it helps me just seeing, like, what ten year what it looks like on-site like that. Does does anyone on the commission have an issue? I don't I hate to jump the specifics within the context we're having this conversation, but I'm curious about open space neighborhood, being Lou, and and even the be in lieu on on some of the RM with respect to proximity to the park to the parks. What about future planned parks?
Yeah. I'm gonna I'm just I think it helps. I know it helps me just seeing, like, what ten year what it looks like on-site like that. Does does anyone on the commission have an issue? I don't I hate to jump the specifics within the context we're having this conversation, but I'm curious about open space neighborhood, being Lou, and and even the be in lieu on on some of the RM with respect to proximity to the park to the parks. What about future planned parks?
I think that's on there. Oh, it's okay. It is. Yeah. Like, it should be. If it's not yeah. We should get it in. Like, I that was the intent is that that it'd be planned or Plan parks. Yeah. I I believe it I believe that's in there. If it's in if it's in the master plan, then that counts as well.
I think that's on there. Oh, it's okay. It is. Yeah. Like, it should be. If it's not yeah. We should get it in. Like, I that was the intent is that that it'd be planned or Plan parks. Yeah. I I believe it I believe that's in there. If it's in if it's in the master plan, then that counts as well.
Okay. Yeah. So this is 10 units an acre on how many this project scale is, what, about 10 acres, is it? With It's about it's closer to
Okay. Yeah. So this is 10 units an acre on how many this project scale is, what, about 10 acres, is it? With It's about it's closer to
well, the area that they're showing is proposed for development is is closer to seventeen eighteen, I think.
well, the area that they're showing is proposed for development is is closer to seventeen eighteen, I think.
Is it about six on the left? Yeah. You're right. Yeah. 18.12. Yeah. 18. 18? Okay. So this is 10 units and eight area. Basically, a 20 acre just under a 20 acre in your mouth. Yeah. So that's With townhouses. Yes.
Is it about six on the left? Yeah. You're right. Yeah. 18.12. Yeah. 18. 18? Okay. So this is 10 units and eight area. Basically, a 20 acre just under a 20 acre in your mouth. Yeah. So that's With townhouses. Yes.
Yeah. And that and that's the thing is 10 units to the acre is you're probably not gonna get much higher density than a townhouse. I mean, I suppose you could you could get you could get a condo or an apartment building
Yeah. And that and that's the thing is 10 units to the acre is you're probably not gonna get much higher density than a townhouse. I mean, I suppose you could you could get you could get a condo or an apartment building
with more open space if they wanna do something like that. I'm just trying to think, like, at at 28 let's say, at 20 acres is a project this size. Do we want to mandate multiple housing types,
with more open space if they wanna do something like that. I'm just trying to think, like, at at 28 let's say, at 20 acres is a project this size. Do we want to mandate multiple housing types,
like, require it? Oh, I see what you're saying.
like, require it? Oh, I see what you're saying.
Just so it's it just doesn't feel like a monotone development. It's just one thing jammed in there. Kinda I would might see a percentage of a project like this require a detached element. And it doesn't necessarily have to be a quarter acre lot either. You know? Like, we're not you know, 2.5. You know? And and and may and I don't know if we have to mandate this through setbacks where, you know, I'm not just trying to rubber stamp a 3,000 square foot home on that kind of a site. You know what I mean? Anyone have any thoughts about that in general? Like, once we once it reaches a certain scale, meaning a size requiring variable housing types just to kinda break up the monotony of development like this? I think it's. Yeah. We I think you could I think you could entice it.
Just so it's it just doesn't feel like a monotone development. It's just one thing jammed in there. Kinda I would might see a percentage of a project like this require a detached element. And it doesn't necessarily have to be a quarter acre lot either. You know? Like, we're not you know, 2.5. You know? And and and may and I don't know if we have to mandate this through setbacks where, you know, I'm not just trying to rubber stamp a 3,000 square foot home on that kind of a site. You know what I mean? Anyone have any thoughts about that in general? Like, once we once it reaches a certain scale, meaning a size requiring variable housing types just to kinda break up the monotony of development like this? I think it's. Yeah. We I think you could I think you could entice it.
You know, like, right now, the big hindrance is the minimum lot size, like, the single banks. Yeah. So, like, you can just reduce that dramatically and then open up some smaller parcels. Yeah. Smaller homes, two single family that mixes with multifamily aspect that still allows you to reach the numbers.
You know, like, right now, the big hindrance is the minimum lot size, like, the single banks. Yeah. So, like, you can just reduce that dramatically and then open up some smaller parcels. Yeah. Smaller homes, two single family that mixes with multifamily aspect that still allows you to reach the numbers.
Do you have any people to stages? And the same.
Do you have any people to stages? And the same.
Why don't we just increase the density in RPV? Why it's creating a ARHU zone? We're if we modify the ARHU zone, then just creating another elevated ARHU because that one already has to reduce lot size. It already has town models. It already has models. It's in town with that. But I So you're saying change any region from 20 Out of that list doesn't have I'm just saying, if you wanna create variable out of the text in the RM,
Why don't we just increase the density in RPV? Why it's creating a ARHU zone? We're if we modify the ARHU zone, then just creating another elevated ARHU because that one already has to reduce lot size. It already has town models. It already has models. It's in town with that. But I So you're saying change any region from 20 Out of that list doesn't have I'm just saying, if you wanna create variable out of the text in the RM,
you're creating your Yeah. Yeah. That's a good point. So may so, I mean, let's just continue down the train of thought. I'm not saying there is momentum, but then why not just say RNE's a maximum of I mean, this goes back to 20
you're creating your Yeah. Yeah. That's a good point. So may so, I mean, let's just continue down the train of thought. I'm not saying there is momentum, but then why not just say RNE's a maximum of I mean, this goes back to 20
Yeah. So if you I mean, yeah, so 10 acres. I'm just trying to think of, like, where a natural cutoff would be to then encourage a develop development like that to have variable. So it's not just a snag down its throat. It's a 100 account. Well, it wouldn't be. At the most rate, it's gonna be
Yeah. So if you I mean, yeah, so 10 acres. I'm just trying to think of, like, where a natural cutoff would be to then encourage a develop development like that to have variable. So it's not just a snag down its throat. It's a 100 account. Well, it wouldn't be. At the most rate, it's gonna be
I guess you would be you could have a much
I guess you would be you could have a much
400 is net of two acres. Under into four four hundred, but really a little less because it's net developable acreage, so maybe it's 80 to three fifty townhomes.
400 is net of two acres. Under into four four hundred, but really a little less because it's net developable acreage, so maybe it's 80 to three fifty townhomes.
a little stuff. I don't think we allow for intensity in the Townsend. Because that that tool designs multiple types of housing, you can see how this ends. I'd love to see the other end of the same way. We have town halls to go about courts. It's gonna have a big bar.
a little stuff. I don't think we allow for intensity in the Townsend. Because that that tool designs multiple types of housing, you can see how this ends. I'd love to see the other end of the same way. We have town halls to go about courts. It's gonna have a big bar.
This okay. This density isn't really higher than what they're building there. Would that Right. I think what's gonna be difficult for the rest of the town center is to get a 75, to get a 40 acre get a large project to do all that. As you go north, there's a lot of different landowners. There's the parcels are it it gets trickier to do that, and I and I I guess you assemble you assemble it in, but right. But you're saying that you don't want this kind of density there, or you or or you want you want to have a variation? Okay. Yeah. And this and this would require the commercial. But I just think if you're not allowing it in the town center, where are you allowing it? Like, to me, that seems like the most appropriate place for I I think that should be where it goes if if we're going to allow it. I mean, if if we want if we want a walkable town center where, you know, the commercial is is more servicing the the neighborhood and and more walkable, the density gets us gets us there, but doesn't mean the city has to approve it. I mean, it's still a legislative decision. But in my mind, if we're gonna have it anywhere, why not the town center? Once once you get the zoning, but the zoning is a legislative decision. They still Yeah. No. The town centers are too zoning except for Ridgeline Park. So they still need to come in for a rezone application, and there's still a discretion of, do we want do I wanna allow this type of development here? Is this the right location for it? I I mean, I think we still need we still needed to find the descent the town center a little better, but I I would at least the way it's been envisioned is that's kind of the area where you allow the higher density. You you you encourage more of mixed use. And, yeah, we we want parks and open space as well integrated throughout. That's that's those are kind of the components of the town center that that I've seen, but and and that level of density isn't I mean, yeah, with TDR, you could get higher. But the TDR, it already allows, within the town center, even outside of any rezoning, you can get up to 15 units per acre in the town center with the current TDR ordinance. There's a lot.
This okay. This density isn't really higher than what they're building there. Would that Right. I think what's gonna be difficult for the rest of the town center is to get a 75, to get a 40 acre get a large project to do all that. As you go north, there's a lot of different landowners. There's the parcels are it it gets trickier to do that, and I and I I guess you assemble you assemble it in, but right. But you're saying that you don't want this kind of density there, or you or or you want you want to have a variation? Okay. Yeah. And this and this would require the commercial. But I just think if you're not allowing it in the town center, where are you allowing it? Like, to me, that seems like the most appropriate place for I I think that should be where it goes if if we're going to allow it. I mean, if if we want if we want a walkable town center where, you know, the commercial is is more servicing the the neighborhood and and more walkable, the density gets us gets us there, but doesn't mean the city has to approve it. I mean, it's still a legislative decision. But in my mind, if we're gonna have it anywhere, why not the town center? Once once you get the zoning, but the zoning is a legislative decision. They still Yeah. No. The town centers are too zoning except for Ridgeline Park. So they still need to come in for a rezone application, and there's still a discretion of, do we want do I wanna allow this type of development here? Is this the right location for it? I I mean, I think we still need we still needed to find the descent the town center a little better, but I I would at least the way it's been envisioned is that's kind of the area where you allow the higher density. You you you encourage more of mixed use. And, yeah, we we want parks and open space as well integrated throughout. That's that's those are kind of the components of the town center that that I've seen, but and and that level of density isn't I mean, yeah, with TDR, you could get higher. But the TDR, it already allows, within the town center, even outside of any rezoning, you can get up to 15 units per acre in the town center with the current TDR ordinance. There's a lot.
Well, I was thinking of the presentation. For looking at all this for those of you that have the experience. It seems like these, refinements, I guess, of the ordinance would make it a win win for the developer and buyer just improve efficiency and cost.
Well, I was thinking of the presentation. For looking at all this for those of you that have the experience. It seems like these, refinements, I guess, of the ordinance would make it a win win for the developer and buyer just improve efficiency and cost.
That's basically the city. It's not like Yep. This is the reason.
That's basically the city. It's not like Yep. This is the reason.
How how is it a loss for the existing residents?
How how is it a loss for the existing residents?
I consider it That would be the time. Like, just just the next day. I mean, with the when we have an increased tax base, right, like, it's proportional to the liability that the city is taking on and and then some. Right? Whereas typical development introduced liabilities that development doesn't isn't able to. So as a current homeowner, there is deficit in your tax base from your home, and so this leads to future tax increase. So we can either keep a status quo and increase taxes later, or this development reduces that and prevents tax increases.
I consider it That would be the time. Like, just just the next day. I mean, with the when we have an increased tax base, right, like, it's proportional to the liability that the city is taking on and and then some. Right? Whereas typical development introduced liabilities that development doesn't isn't able to. So as a current homeowner, there is deficit in your tax base from your home, and so this leads to future tax increase. So we can either keep a status quo and increase taxes later, or this development reduces that and prevents tax increases.
Maybe. Yeah. I think we're we're discussing chocolate vanilla. And which one do you prefer? I mean, to me, I mean, if you go from
Maybe. Yeah. I think we're we're discussing chocolate vanilla. And which one do you prefer? I mean, to me, I mean, if you go from
if you if you design a city from this point with high density only in mind, now you're looking at the park park. I get a place. You manage manage that kind of population, and you create a new one. You need the factories. And it changed the whole field of city.
if you if you design a city from this point with high density only in mind, now you're looking at the park park. I get a place. You manage manage that kind of population, and you create a new one. You need the factories. And it changed the whole field of city.
Yeah. This is again, I think the way it's written, it's not saying this goes everywhere. It's very limited location. So
Yeah. This is again, I think the way it's written, it's not saying this goes everywhere. It's very limited location. So
What should be the transcript to your rooms? It kinda feels like why it be too much? It's one of those hits. I understood. You don't know what to do. There's so many different aspects. There is. I've seen and we know years from now.
What should be the transcript to your rooms? It kinda feels like why it be too much? It's one of those hits. I understood. You don't know what to do. There's so many different aspects. There is. I've seen and we know years from now.
I will say I'm comfortable with what we're talking about here. You presented. And I I can't just assess the Internet. They can't have a date in the building. They're sharing what they like living there. They pick up all their neighbors. So they just got near. It's a success story.
I will say I'm comfortable with what we're talking about here. You presented. And I I can't just assess the Internet. They can't have a date in the building. They're sharing what they like living there. They pick up all their neighbors. So they just got near. It's a success story.
I like the idea. I would not like the next one. I feel like I'm too close to
I like the idea. I would not like the next one. I feel like I'm too close to
But it is what it is. It's what I need to see. See, Snyder said, we're kind of a better. Right. There's some of Troy's saying too. But but there's increased cost. You know? I think the acreage 40 acres is too big, personally. Now what that shouldn't say, especially the r r U P U P U D is lower down to 20 acres. So shouldn't have made and the only base that we that's over on Western Pacific property isn't in in the lease so far. Mhmm.
But it is what it is. It's what I need to see. See, Snyder said, we're kind of a better. Right. There's some of Troy's saying too. But but there's increased cost. You know? I think the acreage 40 acres is too big, personally. Now what that shouldn't say, especially the r r U P U P U D is lower down to 20 acres. So shouldn't have made and the only base that we that's over on Western Pacific property isn't in in the lease so far. Mhmm.
eighteen years. And so and probably years still to come. And so so I I'd like I think this is a good start. I'd like to see the increase lower. I'd I'd probably go for this. I would try. So
eighteen years. And so and probably years still to come. And so so I I'd like I think this is a good start. I'd like to see the increase lower. I'd I'd probably go for this. I would try. So
Yeah. I would I would say, at this point, just based on the discussions that have been had, if if if anyone wanted to offer any amendments, I would just recommend that that you do that now. Now if you don't know and you need to work on them and you want to continue this and come back with specific amendments, that's fine too. I mean, there's no rush here, really, even though, like Tyler said, I think some are getting fatigued and kinda wanna you know, we're we're there's some that's real of at some point, I think it's make a decision. It is it it's good to make, you know, to to move on and make a decision, but that's what I would suggest is if there's something you don't like, you want change that you feel like you can offer a specific amendment, you know, you can do that. If you just if there's something that's not sitting right that you think you could craft something that could get it to the point that you would be comfortable, you can continue this and
Yeah. I would I would say, at this point, just based on the discussions that have been had, if if if anyone wanted to offer any amendments, I would just recommend that that you do that now. Now if you don't know and you need to work on them and you want to continue this and come back with specific amendments, that's fine too. I mean, there's no rush here, really, even though, like Tyler said, I think some are getting fatigued and kinda wanna you know, we're we're there's some that's real of at some point, I think it's make a decision. It is it it's good to make, you know, to to move on and make a decision, but that's what I would suggest is if there's something you don't like, you want change that you feel like you can offer a specific amendment, you know, you can do that. If you just if there's something that's not sitting right that you think you could craft something that could get it to the point that you would be comfortable, you can continue this and
and come back. Right? I mean, like I wanna take that. It shouldn't it it's gonna take as long as it needs to take to make Mhmm. That might take I mean, we did we need to make a good decision. Right? Like, this doesn't need to feel like we need to rush it through either. Right? Yeah. So I think there's a lot of variables involved. I think, you know, I like the fact that regardless of what happens with our end, it's still going to be a legislative decision no matter what because that that reason is gonna have to be approved first. Right? So the city can still make, a legislative decision in its best interest regardless with this on a matter. For me, I just like, we were talking at the planning conference a little bit about these type of projects, and it's like, is is really our and I I still can't think of the work the opposite of creativity where it's like, we had as the creative we can get for a high density project is just to slam, you know, whatever like, that project we were looking at earlier is just basically slam all these townhomes in there. That's as creative we can get to address the needs of housing in our not only it's not just our city. It's probably any city in in you know what I mean? That's dealing with this right now. And that's kinda where it's just like, I feel like, you know, I just something keeps I just keep trying to internally figure out, like, how do we encourage this variable housing scenario where, you know, why not? Where did this like, a lot of the topics at the conference, right, were like, where did the starter room go? You know what I mean? Like, you're basically going from townhome to, you know, 2,500 square foot plus home. There's nothing in between anymore. And that just keeps speaking to me. I'm not saying I'm right, but I just keep thinking, like, why can't we improve that in the city? What would be so bad with that in what sense? Why can't we build a 900 to
and come back. Right? I mean, like I wanna take that. It shouldn't it it's gonna take as long as it needs to take to make Mhmm. That might take I mean, we did we need to make a good decision. Right? Like, this doesn't need to feel like we need to rush it through either. Right? Yeah. So I think there's a lot of variables involved. I think, you know, I like the fact that regardless of what happens with our end, it's still going to be a legislative decision no matter what because that that reason is gonna have to be approved first. Right? So the city can still make, a legislative decision in its best interest regardless with this on a matter. For me, I just like, we were talking at the planning conference a little bit about these type of projects, and it's like, is is really our and I I still can't think of the work the opposite of creativity where it's like, we had as the creative we can get for a high density project is just to slam, you know, whatever like, that project we were looking at earlier is just basically slam all these townhomes in there. That's as creative we can get to address the needs of housing in our not only it's not just our city. It's probably any city in in you know what I mean? That's dealing with this right now. And that's kinda where it's just like, I feel like, you know, I just something keeps I just keep trying to internally figure out, like, how do we encourage this variable housing scenario where, you know, why not? Where did this like, a lot of the topics at the conference, right, were like, where did the starter room go? You know what I mean? Like, you're basically going from townhome to, you know, 2,500 square foot plus home. There's nothing in between anymore. And that just keeps speaking to me. I'm not saying I'm right, but I just keep thinking, like, why can't we improve that in the city? What would be so bad with that in what sense? Why can't we build a 900 to
on encouraging insights and and incur and encouraging the variable having type n in this scenario. Does am I crazy? Like, does does anyone agree with that? Or, like, Brett or Tyler? I I just I just feel like general. Like, a detox. Right? Gerald, like, in ten years, maybe twenty, it's gonna be a year for someone to help before. Yeah. Yeah. You think possibility for my kids and my grandkids. Right. It's not gonna be Yeah. Expensive. Yes. Yep. And we hope I'm not belittling. I'm just saying that. Today, that's all we all we have. Like, really, we're that we like that kind of creativity where that's that's what we have. I just don't see why we can't Yeah.
on encouraging insights and and incur and encouraging the variable having type n in this scenario. Does am I crazy? Like, does does anyone agree with that? Or, like, Brett or Tyler? I I just I just feel like general. Like, a detox. Right? Gerald, like, in ten years, maybe twenty, it's gonna be a year for someone to help before. Yeah. Yeah. You think possibility for my kids and my grandkids. Right. It's not gonna be Yeah. Expensive. Yes. Yep. And we hope I'm not belittling. I'm just saying that. Today, that's all we all we have. Like, really, we're that we like that kind of creativity where that's that's what we have. I just don't see why we can't Yeah.
It is economics. Mhmm. Forget it. It is. Yeah. You're building a unitary
It is economics. Mhmm. Forget it. It is. Yeah. You're building a unitary
detached right again. You can consolidate the resources, consolidate the expense. Yeah. It's about it's the most recent that I saw, like, $80,000 per single patent in the platform. That's before we started at. Right. So you put land on top of that, that's why a lot of the cost of 15,000.
detached right again. You can consolidate the resources, consolidate the expense. Yeah. It's about it's the most recent that I saw, like, $80,000 per single patent in the platform. That's before we started at. Right. So you put land on top of that, that's why a lot of the cost of 15,000.
Yeah. No. And you're right. Economics obviously is the end to that to that question. I just feel like maybe we could entertain you know, may maybe if we're having some apprehension of, like, you know, loosely applying and not maybe that's a bit dramatic. Right? This is on, all up and down our road. Maybe we figure out a way to say, okay. These 40 acre developments can exist maybe in these very specific target in there. And then we say, what's the next evolution step up from that? Maybe it is something. It must there's a variable problem instead of the right. And I just think, like, how we get there, I have no idea. You know, maybe would it have to be where we'd have to literally target named intersections that say RM can only be here and then everything else, we have to create a new zone? I don't know.
Yeah. No. And you're right. Economics obviously is the end to that to that question. I just feel like maybe we could entertain you know, may maybe if we're having some apprehension of, like, you know, loosely applying and not maybe that's a bit dramatic. Right? This is on, all up and down our road. Maybe we figure out a way to say, okay. These 40 acre developments can exist maybe in these very specific target in there. And then we say, what's the next evolution step up from that? Maybe it is something. It must there's a variable problem instead of the right. And I just think, like, how we get there, I have no idea. You know, maybe would it have to be where we'd have to literally target named intersections that say RM can only be here and then everything else, we have to create a new zone? I don't know.
I I just think we do that through our future land use map. Hope hopefully, we get there. But if defining the defining those areas. But I think what you're talking about, we're trying to incentivize, you know, for example, smaller homes, detached homes. I know the state the one thing that came in the the last legislation is there's an incentive with our modern comp housing plan to adopt kind of an overlay where you allow up to six units per acre. There's a maximum square footage of the home. It needs to meet a certain affordability. And then if you do that, they're trying to incentivize it for the cities. That's all you have to do. That's the only strategy you have to implore as a city, and and they're really trying to push it at the state level. So I think at a future meeting, maybe we discuss that and see if that's getting it kind of what we're because I think that's partly what you what you're kinda pushing forward with that. But it's baby steps, I think. You know? I mean, like, I I attended brand
I I just think we do that through our future land use map. Hope hopefully, we get there. But if defining the defining those areas. But I think what you're talking about, we're trying to incentivize, you know, for example, smaller homes, detached homes. I know the state the one thing that came in the the last legislation is there's an incentive with our modern comp housing plan to adopt kind of an overlay where you allow up to six units per acre. There's a maximum square footage of the home. It needs to meet a certain affordability. And then if you do that, they're trying to incentivize it for the cities. That's all you have to do. That's the only strategy you have to implore as a city, and and they're really trying to push it at the state level. So I think at a future meeting, maybe we discuss that and see if that's getting it kind of what we're because I think that's partly what you what you're kinda pushing forward with that. But it's baby steps, I think. You know? I mean, like, I I attended brand
presentation. Did have to speak to me. I'm like, you have this transect of a ecosystem, right, where we have the forest that naturally evolves into a prairie that naturally evolves. You know what I mean? You just have the sequence of development types ranging from highest density to what you'd say the lowest density, and we're missing kinda that middle part here. Right? And I just think that, to me, that totally makes sense where we have certain areas along the highest capacity that we could target something like or or not accept if it doesn't meet those criteria for this reason application. And then anything else, we we need to figure out how to develop better part. Maybe it's something with our PUD that we even reduce it or, you know, figure out how to basically say, this is what's available here. Let's proceed with that. Yeah. Right? I don't know. Maybe I'm just on a soapbox now. I have no idea. But
presentation. Did have to speak to me. I'm like, you have this transect of a ecosystem, right, where we have the forest that naturally evolves into a prairie that naturally evolves. You know what I mean? You just have the sequence of development types ranging from highest density to what you'd say the lowest density, and we're missing kinda that middle part here. Right? And I just think that, to me, that totally makes sense where we have certain areas along the highest capacity that we could target something like or or not accept if it doesn't meet those criteria for this reason application. And then anything else, we we need to figure out how to develop better part. Maybe it's something with our PUD that we even reduce it or, you know, figure out how to basically say, this is what's available here. Let's proceed with that. Yeah. Right? I don't know. Maybe I'm just on a soapbox now. I have no idea. But
I mean and I mean, back to your point on, you know, why why do we have so many townhomes? There's definitely a demand in the market, and it's driven by the affordability. The our building permits, the last since I've been here the last five years, I don't I don't think you can blame me. I think it's the the market. But Yeah. Our majority townhome, it's not single family. They're I don't know if it's two thirds to a third, but it's it's pretty, prominent majority townhomes. We have some condos over here as well, but but that's what people can afford. That's a especially first time homebuyers can afford, which that I feel like, you know, for new housing, a lot of it's driven by first time homebuyers, and that's the closest thing that they could afford, some of them.
I mean and I mean, back to your point on, you know, why why do we have so many townhomes? There's definitely a demand in the market, and it's driven by the affordability. The our building permits, the last since I've been here the last five years, I don't I don't think you can blame me. I think it's the the market. But Yeah. Our majority townhome, it's not single family. They're I don't know if it's two thirds to a third, but it's it's pretty, prominent majority townhomes. We have some condos over here as well, but but that's what people can afford. That's a especially first time homebuyers can afford, which that I feel like, you know, for new housing, a lot of it's driven by first time homebuyers, and that's the closest thing that they could afford, some of them.
Yeah. Yeah. But in theory, the less single family homes you've been, the more expensive they're gonna be because they're gonna be such a minority. They don't need the rich. They're gonna ever have a their own home in the future. She did. Because we're not building we stopped building them. We're built just by a small percentage going forward. I'm talking I'm not talking to NFT. I'm talking problems. They're gonna be so rare that you're just being attacked.
Yeah. Yeah. But in theory, the less single family homes you've been, the more expensive they're gonna be because they're gonna be such a minority. They don't need the rich. They're gonna ever have a their own home in the future. She did. Because we're not building we stopped building them. We're built just by a small percentage going forward. I'm talking I'm not talking to NFT. I'm talking problems. They're gonna be so rare that you're just being attacked.
Viewer buyers, like, me. Fewer buyers. Right. But that I mean, that goes right along with the principle of scarcity. Right. As land becomes more scarce, it becomes more expensive. It's more expensive. You increase density or you increase cost as an example. They get it it I mean, we're just following the path of every municipal development across America.
Viewer buyers, like, me. Fewer buyers. Right. But that I mean, that goes right along with the principle of scarcity. Right. As land becomes more scarce, it becomes more expensive. It's more expensive. You increase density or you increase cost as an example. They get it it I mean, we're just following the path of every municipal development across America.
It's it's everywhere. It's important to get it everywhere.
It's it's everywhere. It's important to get it everywhere.
Right. Okay. So it's townhomes are.
Right. Okay. So it's townhomes are.
That's basically economically dependent. Yep. Tires.
That's basically economically dependent. Yep. Tires.
Does anyone have any other discussion points of I mean, there's a lot of there's a lot in here. I know it looks density. That's easy to explain. But is there anything specific to any part other parts to the consideration that we choose with? So in
Does anyone have any other discussion points of I mean, there's a lot of there's a lot in here. I know it looks density. That's easy to explain. But is there anything specific to any part other parts to the consideration that we choose with? So in
satellites, mixed use calls mixed use.
satellites, mixed use calls mixed use.
Democrats change. You you hear an easier list. Yeah. But I still think there's a large group here with what wants to enable could and should they be able to afford once. If we're gonna do the testing, I think we need to like, we all have space on the vision. Like, that that one is still all of you need. I don't wanna touch that one. But you should create a modified r two subdivision, which allows for smaller 100 smaller yards, smaller paths, the 4,500, 5,000 square foot patio home to to give that transitional housing. Because right now, we go from three local town homes and town homes in between quarter acre 2,000 square foot. So if we wanna do this, we wanna send that. I think we need a whole another version of parts of the market, something like that, which allows for Parex Savo. I would love that. Otherwise, we're gonna have a huge gap. Excuse me. Think about a whole quarter acres and then and that that's, again, a discussion for another day. We tried to accomplish that a little bit with the RPUB. I think we shrunk the branch to, what, 70 feet. Eight. But more concept of a detached. We're still gonna have a five digit five digit.
Democrats change. You you hear an easier list. Yeah. But I still think there's a large group here with what wants to enable could and should they be able to afford once. If we're gonna do the testing, I think we need to like, we all have space on the vision. Like, that that one is still all of you need. I don't wanna touch that one. But you should create a modified r two subdivision, which allows for smaller 100 smaller yards, smaller paths, the 4,500, 5,000 square foot patio home to to give that transitional housing. Because right now, we go from three local town homes and town homes in between quarter acre 2,000 square foot. So if we wanna do this, we wanna send that. I think we need a whole another version of parts of the market, something like that, which allows for Parex Savo. I would love that. Otherwise, we're gonna have a huge gap. Excuse me. Think about a whole quarter acres and then and that that's, again, a discussion for another day. We tried to accomplish that a little bit with the RPUB. I think we shrunk the branch to, what, 70 feet. Eight. But more concept of a detached. We're still gonna have a five digit five digit.
Not that we're not on board with what we're about to do, but if we want to vary in lifestyle, prioritize, you have to create the economic ability to create
Not that we're not on board with what we're about to do, but if we want to vary in lifestyle, prioritize, you have to create the economic ability to create
I would get bigger. Something like that. It's it's yeah. Ten forty north and ten west, like,
I would get bigger. Something like that. It's it's yeah. Ten forty north and ten west, like,
basically, low and has a variable of products when
basically, low and has a variable of products when
So we we do have when we when we change the open space subdivision and within an r two a zone allowed for smaller lot sizes, like, 5,000 square foot lots. I think I think we're getting close to that. So the fields, you're that's gonna be on probably the next agenda. The that's the give the old Gibbs property over there. They're proposing, like, 5,000 square foot lots, and then they're going to dedicate open space to that they're proposing, I should say, to dedicate, like, six acres of open space to the city. That would be kind of an agricultural space. They would keep the barns there, and Morgan Farm could put horses on there. So that was but but the that's getting closer, and there there's an incentive to do that through the open space subdivision.
So we we do have when we when we change the open space subdivision and within an r two a zone allowed for smaller lot sizes, like, 5,000 square foot lots. I think I think we're getting close to that. So the fields, you're that's gonna be on probably the next agenda. The that's the give the old Gibbs property over there. They're proposing, like, 5,000 square foot lots, and then they're going to dedicate open space to that they're proposing, I should say, to dedicate, like, six acres of open space to the city. That would be kind of an agricultural space. They would keep the barns there, and Morgan Farm could put horses on there. So that was but but the that's getting closer, and there there's an incentive to do that through the open space subdivision.
I think for me, in the context of what we're talking about, best to have to tell you personal experience, my space near. The neighborhood we have and the makeup of the home. So, like, we have person to take care of this. And I think, fundamentally, if we were if we impose this space requirement on the neighborhood context we're talking about, that kind of somewhat defeats the purpose a little bit of it where, hey. We're trying to give you this affordable option. But, oh, by the way, you have to spend extra to take care of this on the space. Right. Authority contradicts the idea. Right? Yeah. So I wanna be personally, I think we should be a little bit careful with how we deal with future considerations about some of those things like that because it just kind of is a big contract
I think for me, in the context of what we're talking about, best to have to tell you personal experience, my space near. The neighborhood we have and the makeup of the home. So, like, we have person to take care of this. And I think, fundamentally, if we were if we impose this space requirement on the neighborhood context we're talking about, that kind of somewhat defeats the purpose a little bit of it where, hey. We're trying to give you this affordable option. But, oh, by the way, you have to spend extra to take care of this on the space. Right. Authority contradicts the idea. Right? Yeah. So I wanna be personally, I think we should be a little bit careful with how we deal with future considerations about some of those things like that because it just kind of is a big contract
to me, anyways. Yeah. No. That's one well taken, and I think I think it's worth looking at.
to me, anyways. Yeah. No. That's one well taken, and I think I think it's worth looking at.
I mean, we don't we don't like to do what the state
I mean, we don't we don't like to do what the state
tells us to do. Right? But I think from what I've heard, I I I think that option may be in line with what with what we're talking about. Yeah. So I I think I think that's a dis that's that's a discussion for a future meeting. But
tells us to do. Right? But I think from what I've heard, I I I think that option may be in line with what with what we're talking about. Yeah. So I I think I think that's a dis that's that's a discussion for a future meeting. But
We do, like, conservation. We set aside open space. It's not kinda what they did over here. There's an apple creek. Even though they wrote no other rules.
We do, like, conservation. We set aside open space. It's not kinda what they did over here. There's an apple creek. Even though they wrote no other rules.
Right. To me, it it somewhat depends too. Right? Like, the conservation bot's cool, but if they fence it off, it's not I mean, is it conservation lot for the private homeowner or for the city? The public? Yeah. Because that's not for the public. Right. You know what I mean? That's they fence it off and put chickens on. Anyways yes. Yes. Which is cool. Yes. So but we're here to talk about. But then the city's Alright. Let's get him on track here. Anyone have any other discussions, concerns, whenever you're done? The
Right. To me, it it somewhat depends too. Right? Like, the conservation bot's cool, but if they fence it off, it's not I mean, is it conservation lot for the private homeowner or for the city? The public? Yeah. Because that's not for the public. Right. You know what I mean? That's they fence it off and put chickens on. Anyways yes. Yes. Which is cool. Yes. So but we're here to talk about. But then the city's Alright. Let's get him on track here. Anyone have any other discussions, concerns, whenever you're done? The
future date, I guess, can you understand the second place? A smaller single family loss size subdivision. We we intentionally engage an engineer to actually draw one of the same.
future date, I guess, can you understand the second place? A smaller single family loss size subdivision. We we intentionally engage an engineer to actually draw one of the same.
So original line part, these ones are about 5,000. Five to 6,000. This this single family lock. Most of them some are bigger. Some are eight to 10, but most of them are five.
So original line part, these ones are about 5,000. Five to 6,000. This this single family lock. Most of them some are bigger. Some are eight to 10, but most of them are five.
Yeah. Make sure we're not making decision based on the date.
Yeah. Make sure we're not making decision based on the date.
Like, only time once we're being built for having today instead. It will just. Yep. I I just this is my personal opinion. I just I just appreciate when I see more like, when I go direct to an area, and it's just a variation of of the project. It's a variable design, variable thing. You just meet it just to me, it seems more inviting as a human. As a resident, I like to just see variation. You know what I mean? Instead of just like, here's one monotype development on this big 20 plus acre. Right? That just I don't know. That's just my personal opinion. Anyone have anything else? Or wanna make a motion or an amendment to anything or speak up? You've been in motion. You've recommended approval of meaning 19.2, 19.12, or two, or two. Excuse message planning unit development, transfer development rights, and all the space subdivision will be modifications to minimum maximum project acreage set by communities. Requirements, rear rear loading houses, mixed use development, moving our end application map, and I can feel new space requirements. Basically, item number four. K. We have a motion to recommend approval for item number four. Are there any additions that SaaS outlined or any other additions?
Like, only time once we're being built for having today instead. It will just. Yep. I I just this is my personal opinion. I just I just appreciate when I see more like, when I go direct to an area, and it's just a variation of of the project. It's a variable design, variable thing. You just meet it just to me, it seems more inviting as a human. As a resident, I like to just see variation. You know what I mean? Instead of just like, here's one monotype development on this big 20 plus acre. Right? That just I don't know. That's just my personal opinion. Anyone have anything else? Or wanna make a motion or an amendment to anything or speak up? You've been in motion. You've recommended approval of meaning 19.2, 19.12, or two, or two. Excuse message planning unit development, transfer development rights, and all the space subdivision will be modifications to minimum maximum project acreage set by communities. Requirements, rear rear loading houses, mixed use development, moving our end application map, and I can feel new space requirements. Basically, item number four. K. We have a motion to recommend approval for item number four. Are there any additions that SaaS outlined or any other additions?
No. Just just what's just what's drafted there.
No. Just just what's just what's drafted there.
K. K. I'm gonna say the full length of this. We have a motion.
K. K. I'm gonna say the full length of this. We have a motion.
Roughly 50 acres in Italy. And then you don't need to.
Roughly 50 acres in Italy. And then you don't need to.
Okay. Fair enough. K. Yeah. Previously, I've talked to a lot of people. Our lawyers specifically said that have things even in my ear happens to me. I still
Okay. Fair enough. K. Yeah. Previously, I've talked to a lot of people. Our lawyers specifically said that have things even in my ear happens to me. I still
I try. But I'm still using the Yeah. Other Yeah. I'm
I try. But I'm still using the Yeah. Other Yeah. I'm
Okay. Interesting. Okay. Here we go. Yeah. Hey. We have a motion to recommend approval for item four, which is amending the city code nineteen twenty forty, mixed residential zone RM, nineteen twenty thirty, mixed use, nineteen thirty two, residential planning unit developments or PD. 1948, transfer of building rights and twenty one ten twenty, open space subdivision, including modifications to minimum and maximum project acreage, step backs, amenity requirements, rear loaded housing, mixed use development, removing RM application map, and allowing the in lieu of open space requirements by Brett, seconded by Blair. Any other discussion? None? K. All in favor? Aye. And have one recusing themselves of voting, so that'd be four on paper, one Staying. Abstained. Mhmm. Thank you. K. That concludes all items on the agenda, staff report. Yeah. So the
Okay. Interesting. Okay. Here we go. Yeah. Hey. We have a motion to recommend approval for item four, which is amending the city code nineteen twenty forty, mixed residential zone RM, nineteen twenty thirty, mixed use, nineteen thirty two, residential planning unit developments or PD. 1948, transfer of building rights and twenty one ten twenty, open space subdivision, including modifications to minimum and maximum project acreage, step backs, amenity requirements, rear loaded housing, mixed use development, removing RM application map, and allowing the in lieu of open space requirements by Brett, seconded by Blair. Any other discussion? None? K. All in favor? Aye. And have one recusing themselves of voting, so that'd be four on paper, one Staying. Abstained. Mhmm. Thank you. K. That concludes all items on the agenda, staff report. Yeah. So the
the state legislature passed some changes that we need to that requires to make some changes to our city code. So staff's gonna focus on that for a little bit, try to get up to date on on state code. So if we didn't talk about parking enough, we need to bring that back up. So I know we had a we had a little bit of a discussion on whether to count garages as parking. Well, the state said you have to count garages. So that's one thing. Just one example. So we need to bring some changes back. Another one is lot line adjustments, which they're no longer called that. They're called property boundary adjustments. So we need to change our our code with with regards to property boundary adjustments. Few other thing minor things, but that's probably gonna be staff's focus for the next month or two or bring bringing those things back to you is is you know, what I don't ever get time on for that. Our general plan is is in process. We we're gonna have in next month, in conjunction with Heritage Days, we're going to have a public workshop probably gonna be here. We're gonna make a big push. It's gonna be the week of heritage days on on that Tuesday. We wanna get, you know, people here, and it's gonna be interactive workshop, breakouts, and things to for the general plan. I think shortly thereafter and I I need to talk to the consultant about this and see how this fits into the process. But I think we wanna have maybe a joint session with city council and planning commission to focus on there's three different scenarios we're coming up with with the general plan to have a discussion on those three scenarios. And and, you know, beyond beyond the the public discourse, have have one that's kinda focused with city council and planning commission before we go in on to the next step in in the process. So that's that's kinda something to look forward to probably next month. And there's gonna be a survey out there. We'll table it at the heritage days as well for at at family festivities for to talk to people. Just trying to trying to get out there and let let people have a chance to help shape the general plan. As far as city council goes, just some updates there. They they did approve the boundary adjustment between Napoli and Logan City for the that property out on highway near Malouf. And and Logan City has also approved that, so that should move forward. There's although on that same note, the other boundary adjustment, they didn't get we that never got recorded in time. We waited for the developer, and they they never came. So that's that's probably gonna have to come back probably only to city council, but that's the watermark property. If you remember that one, went through the whole process, and then I don't know where I don't know what the developer did. They just we're just waiting around for him. So, anyway, But this the city council, they're still discussing the Nibley Meadows development agreement, so that's there there's some modifications to that that'll probably be considered at at next week's meeting. I'm trying to remember if there's anything else from to kind of update you on there. As I mentioned, the fields development on the Gibbs property, it it's probably gonna be on the next agenda, and that one is going to be a rezone, consideration, and a preliminary plat in the same meeting and a development agreement. There's some provisions in development agreement to consider. So so they if you remember, they came in for a rezone application twice, and they've been denied twice. But now since since that time, the open space subdivision code has has been updated, and they have a specific proposal. So that will then you can consider it then. So the the planning commission is the approval authority for the preliminary plat. So if you approve it, it would be conditional upon that that rezone going through from R two to R two a. That and we did just receive a rezone application that will likely be on the next agenda to rezone some property where mount Mountain View Machine and Welding is located and Majestic Mountain Stage, and there's a there's a vacant piece of property there. They have requested to rezone to industrial from it's currently zoned commercial. And as near as I can tell, those uses, when they were permitted, were allowed in a commercial zone. They're no longer allowed in a commercial zone, and they're looking at, you know, potentially selling the property and making this viable for the future. And so that presents a problem for the property owners when the building really was built for industrial uses, but industrial uses aren't currently allowed in in in a commercial zone. So something that those are that that's just some things to look forward to in the next meeting.
the state legislature passed some changes that we need to that requires to make some changes to our city code. So staff's gonna focus on that for a little bit, try to get up to date on on state code. So if we didn't talk about parking enough, we need to bring that back up. So I know we had a we had a little bit of a discussion on whether to count garages as parking. Well, the state said you have to count garages. So that's one thing. Just one example. So we need to bring some changes back. Another one is lot line adjustments, which they're no longer called that. They're called property boundary adjustments. So we need to change our our code with with regards to property boundary adjustments. Few other thing minor things, but that's probably gonna be staff's focus for the next month or two or bring bringing those things back to you is is you know, what I don't ever get time on for that. Our general plan is is in process. We we're gonna have in next month, in conjunction with Heritage Days, we're going to have a public workshop probably gonna be here. We're gonna make a big push. It's gonna be the week of heritage days on on that Tuesday. We wanna get, you know, people here, and it's gonna be interactive workshop, breakouts, and things to for the general plan. I think shortly thereafter and I I need to talk to the consultant about this and see how this fits into the process. But I think we wanna have maybe a joint session with city council and planning commission to focus on there's three different scenarios we're coming up with with the general plan to have a discussion on those three scenarios. And and, you know, beyond beyond the the public discourse, have have one that's kinda focused with city council and planning commission before we go in on to the next step in in the process. So that's that's kinda something to look forward to probably next month. And there's gonna be a survey out there. We'll table it at the heritage days as well for at at family festivities for to talk to people. Just trying to trying to get out there and let let people have a chance to help shape the general plan. As far as city council goes, just some updates there. They they did approve the boundary adjustment between Napoli and Logan City for the that property out on highway near Malouf. And and Logan City has also approved that, so that should move forward. There's although on that same note, the other boundary adjustment, they didn't get we that never got recorded in time. We waited for the developer, and they they never came. So that's that's probably gonna have to come back probably only to city council, but that's the watermark property. If you remember that one, went through the whole process, and then I don't know where I don't know what the developer did. They just we're just waiting around for him. So, anyway, But this the city council, they're still discussing the Nibley Meadows development agreement, so that's there there's some modifications to that that'll probably be considered at at next week's meeting. I'm trying to remember if there's anything else from to kind of update you on there. As I mentioned, the fields development on the Gibbs property, it it's probably gonna be on the next agenda, and that one is going to be a rezone, consideration, and a preliminary plat in the same meeting and a development agreement. There's some provisions in development agreement to consider. So so they if you remember, they came in for a rezone application twice, and they've been denied twice. But now since since that time, the open space subdivision code has has been updated, and they have a specific proposal. So that will then you can consider it then. So the the planning commission is the approval authority for the preliminary plat. So if you approve it, it would be conditional upon that that rezone going through from R two to R two a. That and we did just receive a rezone application that will likely be on the next agenda to rezone some property where mount Mountain View Machine and Welding is located and Majestic Mountain Stage, and there's a there's a vacant piece of property there. They have requested to rezone to industrial from it's currently zoned commercial. And as near as I can tell, those uses, when they were permitted, were allowed in a commercial zone. They're no longer allowed in a commercial zone, and they're looking at, you know, potentially selling the property and making this viable for the future. And so that presents a problem for the property owners when the building really was built for industrial uses, but industrial uses aren't currently allowed in in in a commercial zone. So something that those are that that's just some things to look forward to in the next meeting.
K. Alan, anything? No. You You wanna say anything? There's no. We're done. Do you have anything for us? Crashing the party? K. Well, thank you. We'll call this meeting adjourned.
K. Alan, anything? No. You You wanna say anything? There's no. We're done. Do you have anything for us? Crashing the party? K. Well, thank you. We'll call this meeting adjourned.