Nibley City Planning Commission

04/24/2025. Meeting planning commission meeting here in City Hall. And to begin the meeting, we'll go ahead and do quick roll call. Start. Start. Sorry about. Nick Henskast. Levi. Levi Robert.

Hey, Laird. Oh, That's

a this is an state reporter. Thanks. Thank you, Scott.

And with that, I heard a comment on the agenda is to approve the agenda for the next meeting. Do we have motion to approve the tonight's agenda? I'll make motion to the

the agenda for tonight. Correct. Second? Second. K. Sure. Oh, mister Shane, a motion Okay. To approve the minutes from the last meeting. K. So we have a motion to approve,

this evening's agenda, seconded by commissioner Bau, including the, approval, for the prior meeting on March 20. Later? Two post. Passes three zero. K. Wanna go ahead and begin item number one on tonight's agenda, which is a public hearing for a zone designation for parcels 31226, 31227, and 31228 located approximately 294466, and 98 South Highway 91 to commercial in conjunction with a Logan City Nibley City boundary adjustment. You might even wanna open for discussion or give us the details. Excuse me. Yes. So,

this area, both the Nibley and Logan City Councils have already indicated intent to adjust the boundary, transferring these three properties into Nibley City. The the parcels included, they the the really, the planning commission's role on this is to recommend the zoning designation. This is a similar process. If you're if you recall months back for the watermark property, there there's a a very similar process that we're going through for this one. The just as a a little more background, the the applicant, they're they're in Logan City. It's it's quite a ways away from any city utilities. It's a lot closer to to to Nibley City utilities. It's this area is in our annexation plan, and so it's it's eligible to to be annexed into Nibley City. The applicant is is proposing to to operate a landscaping business on on this property and and has proposed a commercial designation in order to do that. So this is this is the plat the annexation plat or the boundary adjustment plat for for the three properties out on the highway. I'll I'll just show an aerial so you can kinda see a little bit more context there. So just just north of the stoplight for 3200 South, just south of Nibley Parkway, just in that area there on on the highway. So the future land use map designates this area as commercial. Just looking at one of the goals that Lani's goals for Skoll, the general plan, really speaks to encouraging a mix of development types, commercial, residential, and industrial within the city in suitable locations. And given this this, future land use map designation and, and its context on highway, you know, near near other commercial industrial properties, Staff's recommendation is to recommend the zone den designation for these properties as commercial in conjunction with the boundary adjustment, with findings that the proposed commercial zone designation is consistent with the commercial designation. Cities adopted future land use map and the rezone of support commercial and economic development goal two to create and maintain a sustainable economic base for Nibley City that will provide tax revenues, increase local employment, convenience of shopping. So the next just just so you know, the next step in the process would be for both both the zone designation and the boundary adjustment to go to city council for consideration. Right.

Thank you, Lee. With that, we'll go ahead and open up the public comment period so anyone who has signed up on the list. I see BJ Smith's name on the list. So, BJ, when you please just state your name and address. Feel free to pick anything you'd like. Yeah. So I'm BJ Smith. My address

is well, I wrote down my Midland address, which is the Canyon Landscaping. So I'm trying to see a 26.

I already decided

problems. So true. I just wanna introduce myself, let you know I'm the applicant of the different data that happens. One of the property owners

sign a lot on this. We've been offering Canyon Landscape before

probably twelve years at Nibley. This would be, you know, similar function, but if we own the property well, we do own the property, but since we currently lease, we have a minimum improvements

in because, you know, it doesn't make sense to invest that. So we would expect that this an eventual building with this desert with this zoning would look more suitable to the commercial park that's adjacent to it already that is in Italy. So where Malouf and Sig and also their but we're starting warehouse we have some landscape from this that would look actually better than what we're currently operating since it would be a new new facility. So, anyways, just wanna introduce myself and make myself available for any questions if you had any. So

thanks so much, Vijay. Does Trevor still work for you, Vijay? Yeah. Congratulations. Oh, yeah. Yep. Yep. I got you. Goodbye to him. He came here for the first time this came. Sad for me. I was a bathtub. Oops. So thank you. Yeah. Thank you. Does anyone else have any would like to approach and discuss anything from who's in attendance? So you you don't have to sign up necessarily on the list. If you should get a chance to. But then if not, then we'll go ahead and close the public commentary on this item. Anyone else sign up or anything or submit anything? Okay. We'll close the public commentary for this specific item and move to the next item on the agenda, which is the which is discussion and consideration for recommendation of the zoning designation for parcels 31226, 31227, 31228, excuse me, and 31228 located at 29442966, and 2998 South Highway 89912 commercial in conjunction with the Logan City, Nibley City boundary adjustment. Any discussion with the commission? So is

if 590 House, can I presume that they can?

I'd say yeah. I you know, I I should I should have mentioned there is a a home other than this this property where, you know, the where Canyon Landscaping, there is a res residential property as well there, but they have also signed on to the the application.

No.

I I don't know if anyone's living there, to be honest. The one the one to the south?

Property, like, actually, we've

developed the tanks and what we would be using the premises that previously used it as a rental, and we continue to

continue that. Okay. K. That's the one that's the view. Sure. No. There's there's another house South of Anderson, and that doesn't include this proposal.

Just north of this loop.

Designation, the three's parcels. Yep. Do

you remember the the the.

I'll second that. K. We have a motion

or recommendation for the commercial zoning definition for the three mentioned three parcels mentioned in the at the three addresses also mentioned in conjunction with that. Logan City, Nibley City boundary adjustment, seconded by Claire. Any further discussion? Stop it. Think it fits the nature of where that and happy to have him commercial business and then we can. So with that, I'll just go ahead and vote. All those. All in favor, Yes. Yes. Any opposed? K. This item passes three yes zero post. K. Item number five. A public hearing, for the second amendment of Midway Meadows subdivision development agreement, including modifications to development plans, area density, and stormwater and park amenity requirements. Yeah.

So there there's a lot of different components of this this amendment. I'm going to try to break them down, explain them, as well as staff's recommendation. The applicant is also here to, help fill in some of the gaps of of my explanation, in particular, the when you get into some of the numbers, associated with with kind of the the estimates the cost estimates for the the different improvements and such. So but the the there's a number of things in this agreement that impact the number of units, unit type, configuration, stormwater facilities, amenities, as well as required park and street improvements that that are being proposed tonight. So first, I'm gonna get into the overall plan, which from from my standpoint, this really is the primary function of the Planning Commission and your recommendation to city council. There are some other items within this agreement that are more budgetary in nature, and you're you certainly can weigh in on those. But, you know, the city council typically is is that's more in in their purview, the the the the budgetary items. But I I'm gonna go through these first with the the changes in the development plans that they're proposing. So first, they're proposing to add 39 townhome units and re relocate 12 other units. I'll show on this on the screen on on the next few slides kind of how that how those are laid out. And they're proposing to remove 17 single family units, so replacing, several of those with these with these townhome units. The total housing unit count, if if this is approved, would increase from 273 to 295 units. They're also proposing to add a clubhouse to the plans. They're proposing to remove the improvements on 900 West Half Road, which is on the southeast corner of the development. They would still dedicate the right of way, but they're proposing not to not to improve the street as part of this. And then to remove a large detention pond that's adjacent to the city park space, it's at 1.24 acres. So I I show a breakdown here of of the number of units. First, what was originally approved, so a 153 townhomes, a 120 single family homes. So if this if this proposal was approved, that would change from a 192 townhomes, 100 and a 103 single family homes. This this changes the you know, one of the things in the RPUD ordinance is is regulating the percentage of townhomes. So in their current plan, 56% of the units are are townhomes. With a proposed amendment, that would that would raise to 65%. And I'll I'll explain later kinda how that goes into how that relates to the city code. So this is the approved plans for Nibley Meadows. It's which, you know, it's currently under under construction. Phase one, two, and three are are well underway there. This is the amended development plan that they are proposing. And the next slide and this was this is provided by the applicant, gives a a good overview of what's changing. So you can see in in purple, those are additional townhome units. I believe the, let's see here, the orange is is are the single family units that are being removed. Maybe I'll so I can point with my cursor here. I'm gonna Come out here. So you can see all of these single family units would be removed, and in their place, you you see these townhome units with with the private drives being extended. So these these private drives are dead ends now, and they would extend to this this public road, this 3410 South. There's also some the this cul de sac here would be shifted to the east. There's there's currently a row of single family homes over here. And in their place, there's there's more townhomes in this area. There's also some single family homes which were impacted by are are are impacted by a wetland in this area just south of the park as well as some townhomes up up in up in this area, and those those are proposed to be relocated again kind of down down to the southern area of the development. This stormwater pond would be removed. And in its place, they're they're they would build a stormwater system, which if you remember with the Hawk Hollow development, we're pushing the stormwater to to a regional regional pond across the street where there's a wetland area just across 1200 West. So this this would push that that stormwater to that area and provide for, you know, additional capacity for for future development in this area for for stormwater. And, Tom, if you wanna get in more into the kind of the stormwater portion of it, Tom could probably get into that more as well. Let me go back to this. So in addition to these these changes to the plans, and and some of these are in relation to to what's shown here. They're requesting to remove the requirement for a payment in lieu of the splash pad improvement in the park space. And instead, they would build this clubhouse to fulfill the requirement of of the city code for open space amenities. Currently, they're they're within within the agreement, the the applicant's required to pay a $150,000, and it's indexed to inflation. So that's probably a a bit more now since, 2021. But but they they're proposing to build this clubhouse, which does fulfill that requirement. The developer needs to ensure the stormwater facilities downstream the park or size to handle stormwater flows generated from the park space, and it it would also remove the requirement for the developer to install 25 parking stalls, trails in the park, and park park restroom. So the developer and and they get into this more, but they're justifying removing these requirements due to additional expenses imposed by by these regional pond improvements. This, in order to approve the these plans, it would also necessitate deviation from Nelis City code. Now these these aren't deviations from the code that was in place at the time that they were originally approved, but they are from the current code because because the

I think it's just, like, one

clarification for the the new one. Yeah. It's not I think it's probably not a deviation because they are under the the density from application.

Right. But they but they're but they are they're they are applying for this today. And so depending on how how you wanna interpret that, but but it is it is a deviation from the exit from the current code. But I will I will explain that. So when they apply originally applied for this r RPD, there it was actually allowed 12 units per net developed Laker, and 80% could be townhomes. That was reduced. So the town the the maximum threshold for townhome, 60%, and the maximum density without any, provision of transfer development rights is five. And so this this would increase to seven units per net development. I think they're pretty close to six now. Is it it's about what it's at. This but they would need to increase it to seven, which is still well below, you know, the standard at the time that they were approved. But we wanted to make sure that this was in the agreement because it is a new application changing, you know, changing that. Another modification, the code that they would like to make, and and if the applicant wants to explain this a little bit more, they they talk to us about some issues with with lending. They're they're proposing, these townhomes really to function at, like, an apartment complex. They want this they want them to be on one undivided parcel, and I guess there's some issues with lending. We have nothing in our code that prevents them from doing this anyway, but we do require the individual townhomes to be platted so they could potentially be sold as individual units. That it would deviate from our code to allow them to plat it on one parcel. So that that's called out, and they've, so they've requested that as well. I wonder if, it's a good time to invite the applicant up. I don't wanna vouch for all their numbers. I think I'll let them do it themselves. I we have reviewed them as staff, but rather than me muddling through them, it'd probably be best if they just, explain the logic between behind these numbers that really it takes into account the both the cost and the extra value that the changes bring to to them and to the city. You know? I mean, it's no it's no surprise that more units mean more money. So they have factored that into the these numbers here. Trap I I don't know. Chair, I'll let you yeah.

So so we were confident in

in talking about this regional pond concept that or the moment kinda stands in the way of the stuff to the east flowing through to the west. And and so we were asked to kinda come up with some ideas on how we can make revisions for that. We worked with Tom and Levi and and the consulting engineer about sizing and routing to bear. So that's kind of the impetus behind this is how can we how can we route the storm drain and it's it's a big storm drain that runs from the East all the way through the West.

So you can see I'm sure the laser. Yeah. I mean, can I I don't yeah? I I I forgot to bring the pointer, but yeah. So it's above.

It's there. It's gonna Yes. There's dog leg at the bottom. There's roadblocks and you see that dash field. That's one of the pipes that runs through it. And then on the top there, by the green where we

share our boundary with Hot Hollow,

there's a a pipeline running through that. And so as we started this discussion, it kinda it kinda just cascaded into a bunch of changes. So how can we how can we pay for this? The all these new mines,

gigantic ones, running through the development, how to make that.

So there's then there there's a couple of other changes. One is to get rid of that green pond, which basically opens up the entire park area. Because at the time, the city said, no. We don't wanna own that because we're tired of all these little ponds everywhere. I think that's one of the reasons why you guys started looking at this regional concept. So part of this proposal includes getting rid of that and and dedicating that to the city. Unfortunately, we have already built some of that, so we've incurred some of the cost. There are some other pond areas, like, just to the right of that, the to the east of that. There's a pond that's going to stay. Actually, there's two little ponds there that are gonna stay. So, anyway, as we looked at how do we pay for this and add some additional units, it it just started this cascade of of changes that are kind of explained in this spreadsheet. We'll go back to that. And and the color coded to go spreadsheet, but we kinda broke this down into steps. And step one is basically just establishing the cost of to the city and the cost to West States of dealing with this pipeline and the pond. And so what we said was, well, there's certain cost to running these bypass lines, and and and there's a value to the city in dedicating the the land. We took a hit on our side of maintenance. You know, they said, well, you don't have to maintain that fund anymore. And so we kinda did a perpetual fund analysis on that, and and so we've we've credited that against ourselves in in in favor of the city. So as we work down through that, adding the pipes and the dedications, all that, we end up with this kind of a balance here, thousand dollars in the end of this favor. And this is really kinda hard to do. So so it'll be interesting to see how this develops. But this is this is this is what we've come to. So now in so that is kind of a balance of where we stand as we do this land and pipe exchange, and then we go to this next step, which is how do we pay for this. And so we we just put a value to an entitled unit of $30,000 for a townhome and said, well, to true up those books, it it would take about 12 more units. But now the problem is where do we put them? And so now this this kinda it keeps puts into effect, removing some of those single family lots where we can line up the new ones, and it just it just kinda cascades from there. So if you go to the next page, you can see the top little section is the is a repeat of that summary where we trued up with the 12 units. And then and then we just kinda go down through the cascade. The next section where we removed 12 townhome units is basically a little bit for convenience where we just picked them up out of phase three and put them in the phase four since we're making this adjustment. And part of the reason for that is the core just would not process applications to remove the benefits. So there's, like, very recent security for a case that snubbed the core of the shares and their jurisdiction, and they just basically quit processing anything. We were slow before, but now there's no end in sight. And so that wetland area that we have applications in, they could be there for ten years. It it you know, nobody really knows. And I've asked them about it, and they kinda joke me when you blow me off and just say, well, it's the way it is. So that affected those. So, basically, that's a wash, just moving them from one area to another. And then it affected three single family lots, and those were the ones that were kind of across South Boomi Park. We did the same thing there except when we took single family lots and just transformed them into an equivalent value of townhomes. And then the third section down is where we had to remove out those orange lots that Levi highlighted, and we're just trying to balance the books from there. So we get down to that balancing of books and and we're we're saying that we're carrying a negative down there on West States, the bottom of the adjusted total. And we just say, okay. Well, what would it take? It would take about 22 units to true up the books. And how do we justify that? We get down to the bottom section and we say, okay. It on that little loop road at the bottom of Base 4, we weren't using half of the rooms. And that's where we shifted that cul de sac. And we said there was a world lots of 900. We took that out and we that cul de sac so that we could use that other side of the road. We said, in fairness, we're building that road anyway. So we don't have to build a road for the new units that we put along there. So we credited Citi for that. Where we we just said there's value for us. There's a value of time for the moved units, and this is completely subjective, but it's a guess on how long the core of engineers may make us wait to ever build those those units that they just won't process the application for. There's the value of the 25 parking stalls that Levi mentioned. This was a it's just kind of a last minute zinger at the city council when we first went through this. The 25 stalls, the park trails, and then the restrooms and associated utility stuff. The the utility stuff for the restrooms in the park are already in and the road is in, and we're obligated to do that. We did that with phase one. And so that sort of balances the books, and I I just you know, we're $53,000 off and

tune that up. So I'm but we figured we've got to

get into the discussion as we go. So I I think the spirit of it is we kept the townhomes where there were I think our overall density as approved in the original was 6.25 units to the developable plan here less. So I'll come across acreage. Then that's now gone from 6.25 to 6.75, and I think it was just rounded up to seven in the development agreement. But it that's really what it is on the net development later. So 6.25 to 6.75. So I think as we work through this, I think we've kinda kept the spirit of the original, you know, concerns that we've shared on the one that we placed the town homes in the two different areas and the concentration be at the South end. And and so that that was our intent here is to is to kinda retain the spirit of that first layout, but also accommodate what I think it it it helps us. I think it helps the city. As far as the one parcel on the bottom, it's it's with today's interest rates,

you can't

you can't make a project work for a a rental project. And so this on the South End is always intended to be. Either a light insurance company or or something like that, really, the lender is HUD, and HUD has just said, you you have to have them on. So that's really what's driving that.

Thank you, Travis. If we have any questions

Okay. Appreciate it.

No one? Okay. So we'll move on to the public public comment period. Excuse me. I have no names on the sign up sheet. Is anyone in attendance? Would they like to come up and say anything? Otherwise, we'll move on to the next item for discussion. No? Okay. We'll close the public comment period on this item, and then we will move forward with, the next item, which is the discussion, in consideration for sorry. Yes. Thank you. For the rev recommendation discussion and consideration for the rev recommendation for ordinance twenty five fourteen second amendment of the Nibley Meadows Subdivision development agreement, including modifications to, the development plans, area density, stormwater, and park humanity requirements. All of them for discussion. Mister Kanishi?

If I could just, real quick, just explain staff's recommendation on this after after Travis spoke. I appreciate all that context from from the applicant. So staff's recommendation is to recommend approval of this, but with with some conditions and findings, and I'll I'll explain those. So staff is requesting a condition that the developer is required to build the half road of the master plan on your West Street on the southwest corner of the development. The reason for this is Nibley City code does does require this. And although it isn't directly servicing lots, you know, with driveways on it, there there is a long term benefit to to this to this development with with that road. We in other similar developments have have required roads such as this, you know, half roads, and and we feel it's it's in in accordance with our with our city code, and and it's it's a it's a fair exaction for for this development. This second one is and, really, the the second and third one are are related, but developer must coordinate with Hawk Hollow Development on their findings and USACE COE determination slash requirements regarding wetland adjacent to bypass pipe. And then third, developer must construct bypass piping running along the north of City Park in its entirety to the east boundary at twelve hundred west. So the this was a recommendation of of Tom, our city engineer, just just in the in the design of of the stormwater system. There was just and maybe you could explain it a little bit more, Tom. Easy. So Yeah. Let me let me go back.

The exhibit that Travis presented to us, stop the piping right at the west edge of that green hatched area, the green shaded area. To connect those ponds that are further reached, we really need to pipe that through. It'll it'll also help get a full park once the Nibley or excuse me, once Hawk Hollow gets their park and and everything done. So there's just a lot lot just brings continuity to it.

Alright. So the the findings that that staff recommends is the proposed amendment is in compliance with Nibley City code nineteen thirty two zero four o b two at the time the original development was applied for, and that's and that's in relation to the the density and the townhome percentage requirement that I that I mentioned before. Proposed amendments comply with city code nineteen thirty two zero five o, which requires that 35% of net developable acres is required to be used for amenities and open space. I didn't go into that, but when you reconfigure things and you you add buildings, that does impact the open space, but they still they they still meet the the minimum open space requirement. If we said to go twenty one twelve o five o b requires the improvement of 900 West Master Plan Street within the development, and the decreased required improvements to the park space are offset by the proposed stormwater improvements and increased park dedication.

That's it. Sorry for jumping. Yeah.

We can get into any any details

you want on this. But K. Yeah. Yeah. So we'll go ahead and open it up for discussion. Sure. Sure. K. My question for staff on on the numbers from the city perspective,

do you feel that those are accurate in terms of,

like,

if the city was to pursue those same amenities that are removed, would would that be a similar cost that the city would incur, or would it be drastically different? Like, the It is. Yeah.

So the thing that value comes in this regional bond exchange of that their stormwater bond, thinking that Pac Hollow and the Niddly Meadows Park l one. With that, you'll you'll notice on the very bottom section there, if you take all that out, those are just, like, time time value. They're really kinda arbitrary numbers to try to try to make it look more equitable. But if you take all that aside, because I I don't know how you put a a value to time or anything else, but you take that all take that out, and there's really a a disproportionality in the city's favor. Just wanna point that out. So if you if you're asking me and I think the value is is with this larger market is we're getting another acre and a half of stormwater climate can be used to this park. There's two single family lots down south of that park. We we talked about maybe shifting something around even further so we can get those other two bots. I think it's another 10,000 square feet or so, maybe 12,000 square feet. But but, again, I I think the value is there, and and I think, Travis, you can correct me if I'm wrong, was just trying to make that an equitable trade. But in my opinion, we're getting a pretty good deal.

Yeah. I I think one thing to keep in mind is is those those values that that Travis has on the screen. Whether or not the city could pay for them for that price, we've already agreed to the the like, for the restroom, for example, that's in the agreement that they pay 60,000. It's probably gonna cost the city more than 60,000 to build a restroom, but it will regardless. So something else with the park trails. So with with or Hawk Hollow coming into play, the the design of the park is is gonna change. And, really, it the the nice part about Hawk Hollow is you've got you'll have a basically, a continuous sidewalk all the way around the park between the trail that that's gonna be provided on the on the east side of of the park by Nibley Meadows along that 1100 West Farm Lane. And then both south and south north and west of the development, it's along street frontage, you know, that'll have have sidewalk improvements. And so I think it not to say that there won't be any need for any park trails, but I don't know if there's need need for a circular one that goes around like that. We'll still need parking, but, yeah, I guess that's the part of the justification there is all the other costs that that they're incurring with the stormwater basin.

Larry? I'm assuming the collapse will be similar to what's the Hari Beach part. Heritage part? Like, it's a straddle pool under what level and then who maintains it. Yeah. The

we've had it really unintended on on doing pool. And what's interesting about this is that we're contemplating either doing the clubhouse or not doing the clubhouse when we process the first time. And it's interesting in one of our development agreements, it says there's the option. But in the other one, it doesn't say we have the option. So we're this is really just the two development agreements in alignment because it was really our choice. At the beginning, we had to do something, and we said, well, maybe we'll do a clubhouse, maybe we'll do a clubhouse. And the city said, well, if you don't, then you'll have to pay towards a splash pad or something else, an amenity in the park In addition to all the park tech fees that you guys will really break this over and hold on. Actually,

it's

partly the machine increase. I will let that go. I'll separate it. But that was it's really just a clarification of that when we have the choice to in the visit. I'm assuming it would be, like, Carriage Park, like, kitchenette and the the art goes in garage doors around it. Yeah. Yeah. There's a gap with the area on screen in the kitchen area.

It's sort of big I don't know if we'll be able to do a pool here,

but I think we'd rather have a menu for a week.

So are

I'm not a fan of a flash pad. I don't tell my granddaughter. You know?

Yeah. I a

great idea. Probably up to.

So I was flatbed on these things. Wow.

Was there a lot of backlash and hatred from the city staff on Slackbed? I didn't realize that you were so bad.

But a lot of our residents want a splash pad. We keep hearing that.

I

guess, retention models depending upon I guess, the retention models depending upon the core of engineers out long that they've been

The wetlands.

So, yeah, we're exploring the permitting requirements. I know there's two viewpoints, I guess. I'm more conscious because I don't wanna put the city at risk. Our consultants working with us is pretty confident that it'll be a no permitting because we're not modifying the wetland. If anything, we're just adding water, which will enhance the wetland. So he doesn't see a problem with it. We haven't gone down that road yet, but we do have a preliminary plan in place, and we have some relative cost estimates. I don't have those available for you today. I hate to see it not fall through, but I think it's a good idea. I'm pretty I'm very confident it's gonna go. It's just I I've I've talked to multiple consultants about just adding stormwater to to weathers, and it it's viable.

Tyler, do you think we're gonna circle back to you? Yeah. What's going on? Right here. So

well, they're adjacent, but they're it's their backyards. So before they had a row correct me if I'm wrong, Travis, but there was a row of and I I can show on actually, on the previous slide. You can see that row of homes. This is oriented differently, tilted tilted to the left. So north is to your to your left. No. But but the previous the currently approved plans have have single family homes that will front on 9th West, and then this one, that just has their backyards or and, I guess, one side yard here. So they're they're proposing to remove the requirement to build the half road there, but staff is recommending that that still remain a requirement for the development.

So I'm I'm looking at 211250. Where because it it cites that it's collector roads. Streets can form a transportation master plan, so the night shall provide all Ontario and electric streets that is provided. Is 9th 9th West not much?

It is. It is. Yes. So I can pull I can pull up the master plan if I need to. But if you follow my cursor, it's it's really an extension of 10th West. So 10th West goes goes south and then curves, and then it it shows it tying in to 9th West, and then it and then it basically goes due due north south. 8th West also ties in in the master plan and, you know, comes comes directly south and tees in this area. So it's a it's a master plan street. If it was a local street, this might be different. But because it's on our master plan, we're Yeah.

To the

east. That's is it a geography to the east?

There's not current any current applications. No. Someday, it'll probably develop, but Yeah. Not it's not we don't see it as end and end.

If there's no to develop, then the road just sits there for

an extended period of time degrading the road and just give them the liability to see to not repair it when the government actually does.

Because I see how that will because, yeah, we've got one coming.

Maybe I'll maybe I'll just pull up our master plan real quick. Well, you you can keep talking, though.

Or it's

it's been invented.

Yep. What's it gonna do? Yeah.

If if it's not if the land of the East of them developed for

ten fifty years, what values are wrong? Well, it I mean, we've got a similar situation on Enco that's going here on eighth last time. Sorry. 250 West. That road's probably been built for eight to ten years. Like, it's not good. It's it's it is what it is. Yeah. And it's just it's just tough to see what you do long term development because with that, you got road events from the north side of that subdivision that looks like it should connect on the 10th West. But then, you know, are we gonna create more from parcel with the way those roads are going through as far as we can do it?

Well, they're in the middle?

Yeah. Because the we when we invented the transportation plan, we did the dash lines to signify the intent of where a direction you might go, but not an actual plan. So this isn't the same as an arterial there. It has to be there. So if you go back to the flat map well, I I said is is the proponent carried into the road or not? Well, and I mean, argue for something that doesn't matter. We we we had the same thoughts.

The the staff's interpretation of the code is that we're required to improve the frontage along there. So in my argument, well,

gonna have to donate and have to dedicate that have with you know, flat.

My argument was, well, if you're gonna do that and and we're gonna have to build that road, I'd rather not build that road because it's the same thing. It's gonna sit unused. Tom's argument was, well, if you don't build it and we take a fee in lieu, then either the city's gonna go spend it on something else

or

possibly change or whatever. Will change. Right? Yeah. Yeah.

So I can see here with both sides. I if I'm required to do it, honestly, I I don't believe it matters whether we build it or not. We just I'd hate to build something and see it fall apart. You know? And I I I can also see Tom's argument that, you know, he would be able to the city would be upside down. So Mhmm. If we're required to do it, it doesn't. Yeah.

So we need to or

That's what you said. It's gonna connect to the backside of that subdivision. You have a little tiny triangle piece of it that likely to be problematic as far as, you know, how that's gonna be the impact that could be on that that line.

Well, that's isn't that all one landowner? Mhmm. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I so I think that it's just gonna be we need to know when that parcel develops, just develops the record. I wasn't generally in favor of a big swooping road through our North End, but, you know, that means that we were

doing that.

Somehow, it has to get from one side to the other.

They could they could rectangle editors in the dictating there. Well Yeah. That had required a change.

Well, I I so I I get question appointment. If if the proponents accept that we'll put the bathroom in or payment blue on buying that. If all the the master transportation is binding, it's noted that if we had a dashboard, that was meant to be a general direction, not the actual lay of the land. So I don't know if we can extract a road, be required on this or not, where that's not designed as a add a master transportation plan, just a directional aspect. And I I think you can very easily have a future development where you have two backyard backing up to each other versus, you know, a backyard with a road and then another backyard with a road.

So and that

and I I don't know if we wanna have any further discussion.

I I I think there is some logic to that Northwest location as you go further south, the way the parcels line up. And let's see here. I guess it shows 800 West, but just it's right on the border between several parcels there. So I I I do think that alignment was logical. And, originally, that I mean, that was a requirement of the development, and it was tied to the master plan. And the master plan hasn't changed in that area. That one? Yes. Yeah. I mean, it was it was in the original plan that was part of the development agreement, and the justification was because it was a master plan roadway.

That, I think, for me, personally, I mean, obviously, it seems like, as the developments progress, you're through the stormwater situation. Right? You're just trying to basically take what you're doing to improve the stormwater network overall and figure it out. Just having heard those costs. Based on those costs of incurring, you're you're trying to figure out how to make the project work, which I do appreciate. You know? Just making sure it's a successful project for both of you, Citi, obviously, for what the the stormwater network is. So I have no issues with the new layout or design or, frankly, the density, personally. Okay. I'm not terribly wild about the single parcel thing instead of the platted parcel, just to be honest with you. But given the lending situation, I think you explained that. Right? That might just be the reality of where we're at as of April 2025. I think. Right? And so that's basically all. I mean, we covered most of everything else that I had questions

specific to this project.

Anyone have any other discussion or the motion? Right. K. I'll make the motion

that we accept the works of twenty five Second amendment of the city, that's subdivision development with the conditions specified by this.

K. We have a motion from Claire to

recommend

recommendation for the second amendment of Nibley Meadow subdivision development agreement, including modifications to development plans, area density, and stormwater and park amenity requirements, including the conditions identified via staff. Do you have a second? So that was recommendation for approval. Yes. One second. Second by Troy. Do you have any further discussion from the commission? Any other questions? None? K. Well, then we'll go ahead and go to a vote. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? That's four in favor, zero opposed. Thank you. Thank you. Alright. And we will head to the next item in the agenda, which is discussion and consideration for the commercial site plan review and approval for the HAV three Orthotics three twenty five West thirty one South here in Nibley. Do you mind if you'd like to introduce the project, please?

Alright. Yeah. So this this is a project just right next almost right next door to us, right right to the east. So this applicant is proposing to build a 3,000 square foot orthodontist office at 325 West 3200 South. This is a neighborhood commercial zone and our p p d overlay. It's in it's in the Richland Park subdivision. The use is permitted within the zone. The reason this is in front of you today is is, for a a site a commercial site plan of this size. The planning commission is the approval authority. So the applicant has submitted required materials, site plan, architectural renderings, construction drawings that have been and and have been reviewed by staff. So this is the proposed site plan for the for the orthodontist office. The one on the left is the proposed building. On the right, that's that's really a future phase, and the next the next slide will kinda show kind of a grayed out area for that. But but you can just see that site layout, the parking and the on the side and the rear of the building with the ingress and egress off of 3170 South to the rear. This is a this is the landscape site plan. So you you can see that, as I mentioned, there's a portion of the site that, at this point in time, is not proposed to be developed. But just conceptually, they've they've shown the kind of where the parking and the building, would would go at the the street trees and and the improvements on the site. There include, you know, some turf grass, some some mulch, and then, you you know, several trees and and shrubs throughout the site. This is the this is a rendering that was included in the plans of of the building. I'll I'll go into more detail on on the materials there. You can just see what it's it's proposed to look like from different angles. So I'm gonna get in into a little bit of of the siding and the percentage of of siding. The the reason is is this relates to the commercial design standards commercial and institutional design standards. So on on the front of the building facing 3200 South, that's that was really the facade that the staff considered the the primary facade there. They're they're proposing 64% of that, primary siding stone, and then 36% is, camclad, which that would look. They're proposing that 45% of of the ground floor include blazing for for that, and I'll I'll explain later kinda how that goes into the the standards and those considerations. The the other facades have have some more of the secondary siding. So there there's 35% stone, 31 or 11% cam clad, and 54% EIFS on on both sides of the building. And then the rear, they have that EIFS siding as well, 43%, 38% of the the stone, and 90% of of the cam clad woodlog. So how these relate to our standards, We we don't get a lot of commercial development in Nibley City, so we're not very well practiced on on reviewing these. But we do have a commercial architectural design standards. We've, you know, we've talked about, oh, we need to update those. It's been a while. But but for now, they they are adopted, and and so that's that's what we're that's what we're looking at here. So the this first requirement, I'm there there's there's several requirements in there, and and staff went through, you know, everything that was applicable, but I just wanna outline some of the ones that that I that relate to to what I've talked about here. So brick, cut stone, or concrete block must be utilized as the primary building material, especially on street facing facades of 60% grade of the building. Secondary may include any of the above as well as cement stucco, architectural metals, and concrete and cement board siding. So in in staff's viewpoint, they meant the intent of of this, the the street facing facade. And you could say, well, they're all there there's three streets facing facing this building. However, it does say they may be used on less visible facades, the this other you know, these these secondary building materials. So staff feels that, you know, 3200 South really is is the primary street for for this building, and and so that's that's where that staff feels that they've they've adequately met this requirement. Texture and color finishes emphasis on earth tones, simplicity, and balance of facades is is there's you know, and a lot more words than that in our in our in our code. That that's that's really the focus there. And and with with those colors that they've they've chosen and the different textures, it you know, it's it's an interesting building that we feel meets meets those int the intent of that. Now this last one on the slide, avoid blank facades with no fenestration on the primary street frontage. The Ground Floor of the primary facade shall be 60% fenestration in the pedestrian level. They proposed 45%. Included in your packet is a justification for an exception to this. The the standards you know, we're not used to this because most city code, it's cut in stone. If they don't meet it, then they don't meet it unless, of course, we have a special agreement or or something, you know, like we like we just went through with Nibley Meadows. Generally, the first the first answer is no. We're you you need to meet this. However, within the standards, there are there are a few phrases that suggest that there is discretion with with the planning commission, you know, as the approval authority for an exception to these standards. So the standards allow for exception in case of innovative design and discretion of the governing body. And the the applicant has provided justification, and they've they've explained, you know, the more this innovative design as well as more energy efficient building and a need for patient privacy, it was difficult to meet that that 60% fenestration requirement. So they're they're asking for an exception to this to this requirement. And as I mentioned, it's in the packet. They go into more they go into more detail. And, by the way, the the applicant is here if you have any any questions. I didn't mention that. So landscaping, staff has reviewed the landscaping and and found that they meet the minimum landscaping requirement, particularly with the number of trees, the the the ground materials, which are required currently to be you know, no more than 20% can be turf. So the the city recently adopted these water wise landscaping requirements, and they've they've what they proposed to adhere to that. For parking, they submitted the application before the the last parking code changes, and and now I I think they would they would meet them with either either one. But what has been put in front of you is was the initial or the the previous changes. So 12 parking stalls would be required, and they provided 14. And what was counted really are just those parking stalls adjacent to the building. They are showing some other parking stalls that potentially could be shared between the two buildings, but but staffs really just counted counted those ones, and they they meet that requirement. I didn't put this on the screen, but they are proposing a monument sign. Their monument signs are are allowed in this in a zone with with some height and square footage limitations of 20 square feet, no no more than five feet in height, and they've they've met those requirements. The the construction drawings have all been thoroughly reviewed by the city engineer, by public works for their water, sewer, and stormwater improvements. One thing that is is needed, the staff recommends is the condition of approval is a private stormwater agreement with the stormwater ponds being on on private property there. So staff's recommendation is to approve the commercial site plan with the findings and conditions that well, first, for the findings, the application is sufficiently compliant with Nibley City design standards for commercial institutional uses with an appropriate justification to modify requirements for minimum fenestration on the primary building facade. Two, the application is compliant with minimum parking standards Midway City code, the time application, proposed signage, complies with Midway City code. The proposed utility plan, complies with Midway City engineering design standards and specifications. Proposed uses, permitted use in the neighborhood commercial zone. The conditions that any future additions or development of the site beyond the proposed orthodontics office in support of parking and landscaping is subject to further site plan review. So we haven't received, obviously, the detailed plan so that they would it's just clarifying that they would need to come back at the time that that the rest of the sites proposed. Stormwater agreement must be in place and reported on the property prior to construction, and then they they need to provide an engineer's cost estimate for bond estimates and then pay a development inspection fees, which are based upon those cost those bond cost estimates. And that's it. Unless you wanna add anything, Tom. And the applicant's also here.

We'll open that for discussion. No.

So the what's the modification from

how does the metal stone? It's the amount of glass, really. Yeah. So so 60% of fenestration, so windows and glass, is is required on the Ground Floor, but it does also say you can make an exception to that. And and they have provided a a good solid justification for that exception. Really, three three different reasons for that. They they still provide 45%, so there's quite a bit of glass there.

But for me, like, being as the proximity to residential and the density of there maybe to reduce glare and stuff like that. Just Right. Yeah. Potentially. Right? Just depending on the nature and orientation of the building. But for me, it's an interesting looking building. I think it's really cool looking. Just jokes aside, like, surprised we don't make it like a barn or something. So this is really cool, I think, in my opinion. And I would be excited to have something like this just in our city. So Yeah. It's great. Hopefully, that'll be awesome. Yeah. Pretty cool. Tyler, you're being quiet, and may you have any questions or thoughts? K. 325 West Virginia South with gas, conditions and conditions. Do you have a second?

I'll second. Okay. We have

a motion to recommend the commercial site plan agreement approval for regards to Godfrey Organics at 325 South or 325 West 3200 South, including the findings and recommendations from staff and second and earlier. Any further discussion or questions? None? K. We'll go to a vote. All in favor? Aye. It's four in favor. Any opposed? K. Vote passes four in favor, zero opposed. Thank you. K. Move on. Go to the next item on the agenda, which is a public hearing for ordinance twenty five fifteen oh, excuse me. I skipped one. I I my my apologies. Item number eight. Discussion and consideration of the conditional use permit or residential facility for a person with a disability at 3378 South 1010 West.

You guys introduce the project, please, or do you want me to? I'll introduce it. And it does look like the applicant's online if you have any questions for him. So this this is a residential facility for persons with disability. It's proposed at 3378 South 1010 West, which is in the Nibley Meadows subdivision and in in one of the townhome units. They've already been built there for up to four individuals. This is a conditional use within the r two zone, which is why it's in front of you today. The the city has a chapter for for for group group home facilities such as this 19.42 that includes some standards that relate to distance from other residential facilities as well as life required licenses and certifications, gets into parking. But, really, parking is is should just be comparable to what what they would be for a residential home. In this case, you know, it's just four individuals there. Based upon these standards, we go through them in in more detail if you'd like, but but staff has reviewed the these standards and and and what's being proposed, and there's no apparent violations with with any of the standards. And, also, with the the number of individuals in in the site, there's no reason why I'm anticipating detrimental effects of the proposed use beyond, you know, just what a what a normal residential home would would have. So it is staff's recommendation to approve this this conditional use permit for residential facility for persons with disability at 3378 South 1010 West with condition findings noted below. So the the proposed use or findings is the proposed use compatible with the site context. There's no anticipated detrimental impacts neighboring properties. There's no apparent violations of city code with the proposed group living facility. And then the conditions that the business must maintain and become compliant with proper licensing and certifications required by the state of Utah, and the group living facility must adhere to the standards of nineteen point four two.

Questions, concerns, thoughts?

I have some questions. I think it's a good idea, Hector. My best friend is is too satisfied. Fragile syndrome, so. Yeah. And, eventually, when they die, they want to be put in a call because they'll not be able to. My question is, is the disability, is it is it physical? Is it mild, moderate, or severe type of disabilities versus online? Most of conditional use.

So it's permitted. I don't I don't think we can necessarily specify. Type of disability. I'm just curious.

I

I don't I I get I I just you know, some questions we're not allowed to ask. Right? You're not allowed to ask. Okay.

It's good. It's not yeah.

I don't know. Right? I I don't I don't know if we can get into that detail. I mean, we can definitely specify that four people with disabilities. There's different types of group living facilities for different purposes. We don't really parse it out further than than that. And it it it may vary. Right? It's it's four different individuals, and it yeah. I I mean, I I I think the I think that I think this is something that's pretty heavy regulated by the state for those types of issues to make sure that the that they're licensed, that the the agency is licensed. And and I feel like the chapter we have covers those kind of things, the the the regulations within the chapter as well as state code. But Yeah. I don't know if if the applicant wants to speak to any anything maybe.

Yeah. What ish? Yeah.

It's really not one of these.

Maybe just to make sure, can can you hear us? Is the applicant online?

I'm not sure if he's Yes. I'm online. Okay.

If if you wanted to ask him to add anything, you could.

I guess the question I was asking is really I can't ask. So

Any other questions or informations, thoughts?

I thought I think it's good. I can I can make a motion? Sure. And I make a motion for Buchanan Sheaves, permit for residential disability for persons with disability at 3378 South 1010 West with Ryder Hayden

for approval. Yeah.

That's second. That's second. Okay. We have a motion to approve the conditional use permit or recommendation, excuse me, to approve the conditional use permit for residential

were you gonna say something? I just wanted to clarify. You you you your motion was for approval. Is it also to include the findings and conditions?

Just approved. Yes.

For approval, the condition used to prevent the residential facility at or for for persons with disability at 3378 South and then West with the conditions. Right?

Okay. Setting straight. Is that okay? Do do we have to go through You don't have to. Okay. We're good. This is my first phone. So I wanna make sure we do it right. So so we don't have to go through the process to then amend? We we can just move forward as is?

But That's to the best of my knowledge, you don't have to because you didn't you didn't vote on it. Okay.

Yeah. Okay. We'll just re I'll restate the motion to make it clear. So Claire has made a motion to recommend the conditional use permit for the residential facility at for persons with the disability at 3378 South 1010 West, also including the recommended conditions via staff. Seconded by Troy. I will second that. Great. Do we have any other discussion? See any? We can go ahead and go to a vote. All in favor? No. Okay. Any opposed? Oh, no. Okay. K. Any opposed? Okay. That was four in favor and zero votes. Thank you. Okay. Item number nine on the agenda, which is a public hearing for ordinance twenty five fifteen amending new city code nineteen twelve forty, mixed residential zone RM, Nineteen twenty, neighborhood city code nineteen twenty thirty, mixed use. And 1932, residential plan unit developments, including modifications to set back, amenity requirements, rear loading housing, mixed use development, and removing our end location. Mhmm. Bye. Alright.

By by the way, that was that was an abbreviated version. You're fine.

So

the most of these have been discussed in previous meetings, and I'll I'll go I'll go through those, you know, for for everyone listening and and and and for the planning commission. But I wanted to start with this this proposed amendment to to the ordinance. The this first bullet point here, which would require that 10% of the land within an RM development be for commercial, or it could be commercial with residential vertical mix mixed use. It's really the ground floor would need to be dedicated for commercial. So this this zone, the the mixed residential, it it it always has been drafted as a mixed use zone, but there's no requirement for for commercial currently. One of the things that has been discussed is, well, you know, these developments should be in areas where there is transportation facilities, good access to to to those facilities. And so that's the justification here is that there's there's really an overlap overlap of what may be viable commercial and where these these transportation facilities are. Now there and and I I should mention that I I did have some discussions with Troy and with Nick in between the last last meeting. There we we had a meeting to kinda discuss and debate these. This is what's in the current draft. We definitely make modifications to that. I think I think there's whether whether outright requiring it or or somehow incentivizing it, I I think there's a benefit to incorporating some commercial component if possible. I'll go through these other ones. So there is a design standard to require reloaded, ingress and ingress for multifamily housing. There's there's it it would remove the RM application map. So there it would be you know, any any rezone would be based it would be would be at the discretion of the of the planning commission city council. Just it would just take a step out of the process of amending the map. There's a slight modification to setback standards for rear loaded housing. So, currently, front, front yard setback's 20 feet and rear is 15. So with rear loaded housing, it would it would flip that where it'd be 15 in the front and 20 in the rear. That that allows for a driveway that's large enough to to park a a vehicle in. That's kind of the justification for that. The 20 foot setback isn't necessarily needed in the front. It would reduce the building height from 50 feet down to 40 feet if it's within 300 feet of an existing residential zone, and then it would modify language. So currently, it says that if you're within 300 of feet of an adjacent single family zone or if it's not divided by an armchair or roadway, you you need to line that with single family homes. So this allows for some more flexibility where it it doesn't necessarily need to be a single family home, but the units are limited to two stories, and they're no more than a 100 feet in building lanes. So it still kinda points to a design that's that's more compatible with with a a single family zone and and maybe a transition area. It removes the requirement for clubhouse pool or splash pad from list of required amenities and then adds a fee fee and new option for required open space and amenities. The the fee would need to be for the open space, would need to be set by city council, and it it would just be based on the acreage. The amenities is based on the the cost of of the amenity, the the estimated cost for the amenity. So they they could play a fee in lieu, and then that goes toward, you know, park parks, facilities in in Niddly City. What's in front of you also includes applicable standards to our PUD. So, there's there's set some several of these apply in both zones. And then there's also this mixed use requirement in the town center area. It it puts those those requirements so there there's an allowance, I should say. There's an allowance within the town center area in commercial zones for mixed use. It's a different it's a little different than this than what's being proposed for the RM zone. It's a 50% requirement if it's a commercial zone, but it it the reason for the change there is to clarify some some language. There was some conflicting language in there and and just clarify some design standards that that would apply. So that's our general rundown. We can get into the specific language. I can pull up the code, the code language. I believe it was included in the pack at this time. It definitely needed to be. But this was really primarily meant to be what's in front of you based upon discussions. You know, there were several workshops with the planning commission on on the RM zone and trying to pull those together and and where there was some agreement with the planning commission on on those changes. K.

Well, we'll move forward into the public comment period. Dan, thanks for hanging out with us. Please go and come up and say would you like please just state your name and address and

Dan Larson and Edward. So then, like, about any showing up here at the city for forty two years and a half. So I've been working with my developing valley and Northern Utah and Southern Idaho. My friend was here it's important since I'm gonna start with some of his things. Not so much towards this code, but he's been going around and selling anybody that is in your guys' position. Some of what the market's sitting in CashVal's. You know, if you get on deepgram.gov, go to Bragg, go to the Mike and group, and start looking at what's going on currently in CashValley, you'll find that 85% of our growth is just internal. So who's moving the movie? Your kids are staying. And what we're finding as well with the great run up in housing, more than half and this comes from back. More than half the people in Cash Valley, if they had to turn around and buy there at the end of day, they couldn't afford. And so that's really good to say because everybody coming out that's trying to live in our communities can't afford to live here. And I'm sure you guys have seen it in the last five years. I appreciate Nubly starting to open up a new more affordable housing. I I do feel a little bit mad about that because I knew it was gonna build the staff. Sherry Pippen just says we can't make it work, but you're gonna have to take that project to Logan. So other things he was looking at well, that was the gist of it. It's it's just know that we're working it's it's really where people are gonna start in cash buy. It's where our kids are gonna move to, kids looking for a place to live. And and it's tough because our jobs aren't supporting the cost of our homes currently in Pali. A little bit about, you know, zoning and master planning. As a developer, a lot of cities. And the thing the cities I appreciate working with most are those that have a plan. Master plan that tells citizens, your own citizens, hey. This is what you need. This type is gonna go. They know that if I'm moving here in five years, there's gonna be town homes there. There's gonna be apartments there. We want an industrial park down here. It goes a lot better with the citizens if they know what the city's planning for them. And so I appreciate the efforts that you guys have done and made in your master plan. Part of that's gonna be your zoning and your mixed uses. A little bit, particularly on your RM zone, I'm gonna criticize it because if you're trying to in my mind, trying to get one zone that should fit a whole bunch of zones. You're trying to get that one size fits all just like those lousy gloves you put on and, like, figures and everything. I would really need to take

and see what you're trying to do here. You want

You wanna have a zone for, you know, two or three units break. You gotta have a zone for 10 units break. You gotta have a zone for 18 units break. And you gotta have a zone for 20 plus units break. Brandon, you go. One of those residential, and, you know, four or five are all gonna fit in this model. It makes it very tough for all of our people. There's some great pieces in here. But, again, I think you really get to pick it up and start planning a little better of where you wanna be. The first element in here, know, you look at where you currently are trying to put multifamily city. It's not viable to put commercial there. It's not where the city wants their commercial. You may get a dog show up there, but you're not going to get any real substantial commercial to work in a 120 townhomes or in 500 townhomes. It's just not gonna happen. They're gonna plan and make a commercial center, group it together, and then build around it.

As we've studied commercial

One that's going all kind of spelling works. But you can have all road users situated at the big they are. You see the same things with sports teams, gas stations. And And so if you start thinking about what commercial you want to wear, start thinking about, you know, the bigger piece box I want there, how many rooftops is that being pulled to it, and you see like, rotation pulled from the other strand. Just trying to think what's the bottom on this side. Oh, one thing I on this is kind of your part fees. Right now, in here, if you have, say, a 150 townhomes, that requires a 2.5 acre park, which, alright, at at first glance, that's not too bad. But if you go back to your study that you guys did, you've got 83.96 acres to park currently. Right? 8,000 citizen. So you got 100 of an acre for every current citizen. At the rate you're requiring multifamily to bring it in, it's more than double that. In addition to that, you're also requiring people to bring in $4,500 in parking fac fees. I would say you're charging new people trying to move in an employee four times the amount of your current citizens, which, remember, just trying to come here with your kids. I'm all in favorite parks and open space, but make sure it's affordable for the people who wanna live here. And then also make it so it's small enough and usable that you don't just end up with patches of open space that people can afford to take care of. If you were to look at one you can put on a one acre park, which is multiple of them. I can put a full basketball court,

pavilion and sizable space to fly counts on one acre park.

Three and a half acre park. I don't know what I'd do with that much park space for a 150 townhomes. And so I I'd look at that part of it, and I get it. We want cash value to stay world. I grew up on a dairy farm and do your dad's still farms. My brother here still farms. I would love to see the farm around you. You'd like to see that remain being part of cash value. And so that's just some of my thoughts. I don't envy your job. It's a lot of work and a lot of hours sitting here by yourself thinking how can we make this better. But I'd encourage you to take and and really plan out your city where you wonder, where you want medium density, where you want medium high density, where you want low density.

And then zone it appropriately in the zone so your citizens

know what's going where, and they can trust you. When you say, okay. I'm buying here. The next piece is gonna be two two lots per acre. Or they know, I'm gonna buy here. Over there, there's gonna be a commercial center. And so I'm gonna encourage you. Far as it's own few things are reaching. I would see if you can cut back some of our requirements or get back a parking pack fee. It doesn't seem really fair to require somebody to bring in double park space that everybody currently has, plus probably $4,500 to get on board. So anyway, if you have any questions, I'll answer them, but that's just kind of some of my thoughts.

You bet. Thank you. K. Dan was the only one brave enough to wait the meeting out and sign up for the public comment period. So thank you, Dan. Appreciate your comments. With that, we will open it up for discussion consideration for the same essentially. So Anyone

anyone wishing this

approach to we're back to our best friend, you know, when we say I just wanted to correct one thing Dan said. Our park impact fee, it did used to be 4,500. It's now about 9,000. So just wanted to set the record straight there. It's about 9,000. Yeah.

The the code. Yeah. Yep. So I'll leave that bring it up. I will maybe it's Mhmm. So this code, we've we've really thought of discussion about our end, what it is. It's Genesis and origin.

Today. Mhmm.

And to me, you know, this code way with the density and all the intricacies of the code and maybe the apprehension in terms of where this would be applied based on the history of meetings. Right? That's where I you know, when we when we're trying to talk, it doesn't even make sense for me. One thing that can keep kept coming back to me is with the code with this code and the density and and and kind of the history again and how we got here. To me, this would basically just be a code in an area or areas for this code to to make sense would just be as Dan mentioned, you know, we've got we need to have, like, a a central hub for commercial large project. This would basically be a zone where it would just be on the outskirts just like in in a long major arterials and major roads, essentially. And so to me, by us requiring percentage of commercial, I would assume economics would be a factor in this. So no one's gonna basically say, I'm gonna put RN in the middle of NITLY because I can't make the commercial work. Right? But by us thinking about requiring percentage of commercial that, obviously, economics from the plate packet here and, realistically, the zone and its geography would kinda take care of itself. Right? Where for commercial revival, for someone who want to develop a property using this zoning designation, it would kinda just have to be next to a mirror where preexisting commercial exists or preexisting commercial zone exists just just because of the that can expect. That's my rationale

and thought process of it.

Right? Wondering it. That's kind of how long I'm thinking in terms of how the where we're at in terms of the evolution of this this zoning proposed today. So that's where that's my opinion, the thoughts. I I agree.

You know, like, one of the big things that we've talked about in the map,

We're proposing to take away the map. I I think replacing the map with specifics on where the zone is. Mhmm. Like, a budding commercial, budding the town center, or maybe specifics like at the intersection of two major arterial or something very specific would fit that area and not be isolated, Marshall, and the. Right. Right. And I don't mean to I mean, maybe you decide we need to go to those lengths, you know, right, to basically replace the concept of the map with, like, Dan mentioned saying, let's just stay where we want this, and then that's what it is as an idea.

I do think although maybe our future land use map doesn't do that now, we should just do that with our future land use map. We should just specify where these places are in our in our general plan. I'd I'd hope to do that with the update. Now we're not there now, but to me, it's hard to say it's hard to say exactly where that is in words of, you know, a picture, a map can say more and be more specific. But but I think I think the

the future land use map should do that. Yeah. And I think, like, I I don't and I still think I agree specifying geographical where we we want some. It's maybe I shouldn't say this, but maybe it is is implied again because of the economics behind the way we're it's written before us now. Like, I would assume no one would apply for this zone given if we do approve this and commercial is required,

but they're not gonna

try and do a development where commercial just won't work. Otherwise, that's ruthless. Right?

But So is that a this is supposed to be a stepping stone between r two a? R two

This is big This is this is Yeah. This is the most this is the highest density.

No.

Risk. No. And I'm I'm I'm not for pocket small pocket box either. Feel like they get put in and they sit there, And then the city mows the grass and waters it,

and that's just more maintenance for something that you buy three So and I and I think for for for me, this is us figuring out RM. And then the next evolution for us will need to be what's after r two a. Yeah. Because that chart of our PB, we have not. Right. Right. Tyler, I'm I'm curious.

I'd like to get some feedback from you. So let me just make sure Adam said this because we've got three changes to it. So we're there's proposals, modify the RMZone, modify the RQD, and then also modify the, I guess, we're just modifying these two.

And then and then there's one that's in the commercial standards on mixed use. And that's that one's really more clarifying and just saying there's there's some saying saying that there's some design standards that apply. So that's why that's why that's folded in. The RPUD, some of the things that apply to that that we discussed should apply to RM. It seemed like they if we're gonna apply them to RM, why not RPUD? So, like, things like the fee in lieu of open space, the the rear loaded townhome or multifamily. Let's see what else.

So I think going to the, like, the town that it doesn't increase the the cost 500 basis for the power. And the developer wants to have a exclusive more expensive development, pools and all that stuff. And, like, they'll they'll know the transport. I do think that's positive. I I I think there's probably a little bit of chasing this. Do you do? Do you want? But I think it's a good start on develops.

The now what we did is so

on the RTD I'm sorry. I looked through. If if if I may ask, do we change the labeling of the files going into the the the the Teams meeting? Like, just say agenda item one and the description. Because it it when there's a whole likeness, there's a whole bunch of documents in this part. Like, for me at least, I'm with you guys.

So the numbers so agenda anyways,

so the how does the TDR impact the RPD? Are we mending that?

Not on the current draft. You could you could if you'd like to. Unless unless you have unless you have TDR and then it and then it goes up and and that's and the TDR isn't in this chapter. It's it's in the TDR chapter. But, yeah, it's that that wouldn't change in, like, with this current draft. If you wanna change it, go ahead. But

Oh,

we can put my open

up our own zone to be inside the entire city for one eight one eight students. You have to have a smart plan. They use to build to do this. Requiring let me tell you right now, if if we you're gonna have a one acre lot in your backyard that all of a sudden 10 units could pop up on with 10% commercial space, which makes zero sense. Let's see. Well, that's what we're talking about when we first started was

being specific on saying, like, this can only be zone if it is a funny commercial. Or Well,

Well, it it doesn't work that way. The people come in the commercial. So if you don't have the high density housing in a smart location, that commercial comes. No one said I'm gonna build a Walmart and hope that they will build townhomes. It doesn't work. The people come first, commercial comes second. The only reason we have proved North of the office here is because the town in Italy town is very the the original park. If we didn't have original park, then we'd never have that North Of Knox office. So so it it it it doesn't work this way. It doesn't work this way. This this we need to define where it's gonna be or or we're gonna and and and minimum size. There is a concept to minimum size of the development. If you have a large set of development, you'll deal we'll deal with more professional builders, better designs, and the larger the parcel, the more you can work with it to have it walking towards me. There there should be no no situation ever that we would consider on a one to two acre parcel to allow 20 acres to be built. But that's that's how this is written. Wait. Two two way parcels you want I just said it. Two acre in the ballpark. Like, that's a terrible idea. Because you know what's gonna happen? People are gonna buy all these parcels, tear down the old homes, and you're gonna have these apartment park apartment companies off the earth. And there'll be no rhyme or agreement no rhyme or reason to it. It'll be just chasing the dollar. Karchner is looking at a 38 to develop. We can have walking paths. We can have sportsbooks. We can all these other things. It is a whole lot cheaper to pay $9,000 and not put in a suite setup and and bastardize our maintenance than it is to do with, you know, a 20 acre development correctly. Like, you have to have a minimum size if we're ever gonna consider some of these. The 10% open space. So this is the next thing. How are we gonna calculate the 10% open space? Is that the 15 foots? Is that the 15 foot setback in the room? Is that include the 10%? Or we take the the required setbacks from side yards, front yards, and buildings, and we're another 10% on top? Is it marital? I'm talking 10% of the space moving. Well, it's not developed. So what I'm saying is you're proposing a 15 foot setback in the yard. Does that count? All of the spaces. It is currently 35. Which one which zone are we talking about? Right.

So okay. Yeah. Fine. That's that'll be fine. Alright.

But you put the minimums 10%. I think that and that's what Tyler.

So what? Because we learned this on Redwood Park, but we still have enough space to do it. Do you count this required setbacks in the city as an open space, or do you exclude the required setbacks in the city?

Okay. That's true.

Because if you don't exclude the required setbacks, your setbacks in the room will be open space, and literally, you're just gonna do a lot of housing. There will be no open space, period. You're have a asphalt, and you're gonna have a little river swell for the water, and and that's it. So there's so many more definitions that we consider in this before we even try to consider improving this thing. I think in the in the the the town center I can't Ridgeline Park, we're we're called out. We addressed in there because that was a miscalculation of planning zoning and city council best until that proposal came. And all of the open space was considered the required setbacks in the subdivision itself. We didn't get the initial versions. We didn't get the density and setbacks and stuff.

The the one thing that was addressed, it wasn't the setbacks. It was in it was in public right of ways. So there was there was at one point in time, and I think it was right before I got here, they they were counting part strips and and, you know, the, like, landscape medians. But but it was clarified that those those don't count, and that and that was changed. Now the setback areas, if it's, for example, a townhome, platted townhome, you could count landscape areas in front of a townhome, and that's in the current code.

What's the current call? Far

less dense. Oh, wow.

Well, this is ten ten units. I mean, it it when Ridgeline Park came in, it allowed 12 units. So, I mean, it's it's been adjusted. But

Yeah.

It it's from the prop the the property line to the to the right of way. Yeah. The bill or, actually, for a townhome, it or or any any multifamily home, it's from the building to the right of way. It's a foot it's a foot from behind the sidewalk. So it includes the sidewalk, the park strip. Usually seven. Usually seven. Sometimes more. Some of these are tagged.

No. No.

Five foot.

Seven foot park strip and then five foot sidewalk is our standard. And then there's an additional one foot behind that sidewalk where the that that'd be where the right of way ends in there. Probably boundary the left.

It's 13 feet in. Okay. So we are not including that setback above? Because

Is that's not You're not including the right of way, but it

I mean, it's already codified right away. I'd have to check, but I I I believe it has it has very similar language in RM that it does in RPUD. Yeah. So what what's in what's in front of you? Any section of the code that isn't applicable isn't included, and it's just any any section that was redlined is what's in front of you. So the whole chapter isn't actually here. We can pull up any any of the chapter, but but just just for the sake of presenting what is applicable, it's it's really just the sections that are affected.

No. Or would you I wanna make sure you're capturing correctly.

So we're good. So we're just in the open space.

But it just reduced them. 10%. It just continues. It will it will always draft it. We it's all on the app. You You know, how much help happens going to that's not the open space.

Well, I think I think in this I think in this scenario, though, if we're gonna go toward a fee and Lou, there won't be there won't be as much open space as you see it at Ridgeline or so there needs to be even to make a fee in lieu worth it, there needs to be an allowance for some reduction some significant reduction in open space.

I'm not gonna tear down this screen. But that's that's the thing. It's like, you're not able to pay. Well, first, in favor of doing the thing to allow me to be here unless you are close to a significant. That's what we have from a strategy. You know, it's a local city project. Well, there's no Logan City project. There's no Logan City Park. There are and I'm mindful of that. He hasn't we have an equivalent park near

But the parity agent, like, real

Yeah. The entire

even even our future plan. It's like, I know the The device would be big. Yeah. And so that would qualify for the d in lieu because that part will eventually be the route likely if they do that development because then we have the fees and the other income we go through.

But anywhere along 12 West unless That's a major Let's just say, say, theoretically. Right? Because we're talking about this. Wouldn't matter because it's not directly adjacent to commercial lease on property anyway.

But it's a major artery for from Hiram De Nittler Right. To Logan. But, again, wouldn't matter.

I I I guess maybe if we can take some of these things one at a time. So is there general agreement with what Tyler's talking about for the fee in lieu that they need to be within a certain distance of a of a significant park? Maybe we'll maybe we'll specify it by size of a park because we have a lot of stormwater basins that Yeah. Yeah. Probably don't count. But maybe maybe more than two acres or something of a public park with within a within a Well, it just happened to be or something. Park. Right. Like, my neighborhood's not a park. Right. But we call a lot of things parks that aren't do we need it we need to I I think we need to specify what we mean by by that. Gotcha. City. How how great park right here?

That's

What's the what's the acre's best place?

So we we have sold about 96,000 square foot. It's acres. So about two acres. Yeah. I think you gotta

is that is that a city park?

I think it should be a ratio, though. It's not classified as a park. It's a tree.

Yeah. It's not a city park. It's a soccer field. It's not. It's a It's a soccer field. It's a It's a master plan, I think, way back when in 2011,

they plan to expand this building out that way. And But, like, my question is, I I understand your argument. I do. But I don't does that matter, I mean, in that context? Because, really, maybe I'm off here, but the way I the way I think we're trying to push, at least even in my mind anyways with this zone, is, like, okay. We're trying to address RM. Right? Yeah. And it really it all comes back Okay. Full circle discussion of, like, is RM viable here, right, based on the history of how we got to this discussion. And so for me, like, trying to make this a viable zone with all the dynamics involved with it, if if we slide in that commercial requirement, does that simply just say from an economic standpoint? Other than that, kinda alleviate all of our concerns because, really, for a developer to go and try and develop in this zone and if we require it to be directly adjacent to the preexisting commercial zone parcel, you're like, how likely is someone gonna even come in and tell there's commercial there anyways? You you just said it. Right?

So I don't know. I think I think the the better way to do it is if the development is located on an arterial road, requires x amount. Sure. Yeah. That's great. You know, you want it on 12 West, 3200 South, you want it on 26, wherever, then then you're gonna have commercial. But then again, that re well, let sorry. I like what you're doing. Let's attack these one at a time. What was the first question? So the so the first was,

is is there general agreement to to change this? And I guess this this type of discussion will probably lend to continuing this item because we would have to draft these things. Yeah. But, anyway, is there is there general agreement to change that that provision and to add something that says, do you're eligible for the fee in lieu if you're within a certain distance of a park? And we can draft the specific language, but

is is is there or not? I mean, that that would realistically apply to any zone. But we don't have any zone with the Stetson. Yeah. Obviously, but that would be I would that would we should apply that to any zone. UD,

town center, and, like, again, the bills. And I think maybe a concept that I'm just shooting from Nick on this one. The original provisions was 35%. So So if you're gonna do it in blue, you must be within half a mile of a equivalent park size of 35% of your development. So if you're doing a tentative development, you must be within so much distance of a three and a half acre park. And that creates an easy mathematical format for the developer's scale to originate. Is it because yeah. Because if they're not within the three and a half acre park, then they only do a a seven acre belt, let's say.

Oh, or or or a proportional

fee? More proportional fee. Or they all yeah. Or they're leaving one acre here and then picking up two of these. So you still get one acre in the development, and you still get that all there. As long as that one acre is purposeful and not your setbacks and side yards built. That's what I meant by and to use it, like, I got it.

Yeah.

Centralized area or

I I don't know how to word that. But So what do you guys think about Levi and and Tom exploring that one? If if you're gonna do be in lieu, you must be within half mile because because I think that also gets kind of part of part of your goal is make it more transient. If you're a mile, people are gonna get their car and drive. If you're half mile, they're gonna walk the stairs. So it's gotta be a distance that people are not gonna drive there. Right. Or ride a bike too. And if you're gonna do a fee and load, then your equivalent park space that's within half mile must be 35% open space that you're tripping up.

Well, the park is going in on Southwest. How big is that park

off all? It's, like, six or 70 acres.

Six or seven It's about 30. Well, I'm It's about 30, yeah, when you add it all together. See. If you include Nibley Farms, Nibley Meadows, the city owned parcel, it's 30 something acres. Yeah. Right. Right. I guess we should specify if it's a planned park as well versus a Yeah. Just gonna make that come. Yeah. Whether it's a plan plan park and, I mean, I think the plan there's some logic for the plan park because if it's a plan park and they pay a fee in lieu, you could use that fee in lieu to model to to develop the park. But

Yeah. And it it has one big big tape, one of the bunch of trees.

Okay. What do you guys think about that? I think that's one. Yeah. I guess. Okay.

I just wanna make some progress here.

Then or intersection of collector roads. Maybe that I think that's the only time we'd wanna consider a required.

Are you so do we need check zones then, or or is this on a conditional if we if it's if if it meets the parameters, we're gonna require it. If it doesn't,

then Yeah. If you're if you're on a plan or tail your road and I'm both transportation plan, I'm talking 12 West, 10 West, 2632nd, the eventual, the 4489 and 165. If you're adjacent to those, then then you're gonna have to pass through.

So with the eight plus and the eight plus, do you consider

a collector mode? That's collector but not arterial. 12 plus is arterial.

But it's offset to the requirement, you know, and more density. You get there with the two acres. Because, again, the medium was that makes it. Right.

Are you just saying increase based density or the supposed incentivize Commercial.

If you have increased density based on the percentage of the other commercial. So if you do a 10% commercial, then you get a decent 10% for you.

Instead of requirements?

Well, I think I think yeah. I explained it. On some of the some of, like, one sixty five eighty nine flat out should be required. Yeah. But on some of the others, it's just hard. It's just so hard to plan commercial without people there. Okay.

If you do it on mix, then you're gonna end up with small commercial.

And and small commercial. There's nothing wrong. That's that's that's to shoot.

But but in the wrong place, the commercial becomes could potentially be a blight. So you need to have the offset of the value of the residential dwellings to lower the cost when Okay.

And that was kinda like the thought process with the commercial is, again, we're not the right now that it's April, whatever, 2025, this if if we require the commercial, this is not a viable year because the rooftops aren't there, but we want it ready for when that they come. Right? Mhmm. And so that that's where we're just trying to juggle it. Like, what do we do with RM? How can we make it make sense? And then knowing that if we do require commercial, we're gonna have to consider something else anyways because we just wouldn't have it in a zoning being below r two a period, right, other than our PUD? We have our PUD. Yeah. So you could say,

if you don't want commercial, we do have this RPUD zone. And then we'd have to we probably need to entertain reducing the Anchor size requirements for Which goes back I I did exactly the six to the acre and eight to the acre or 12.

Yeah. But we but right now, I Yeah.

Yeah. I mean So then do it like I hate doing this, but then I guess the question, do we just, like, do we just wait for the general team to take its course

on something like this? I don't I mean, you're essentially You're putting it I mean, I don't wanna say the word because it's not officially this, but you're essentially putting a moratorium on Oh, shit. That's on the books. Right? But but not really. Because a moratorium, that's a different process than there's but

What's

five? You were saying eventual one of the entire commercial industrial one. I think we'd be drawn about where where can we see? Yeah. You know, x amount of feet from a from a intersections. I think I think we could create a a a a likely commercial area. And then if it doesn't work, we can automate it.

So that so should we just then focus our this RM zone for that very specific scenario. Now let's clean it up knowing that this is probably not a viable zone for another while until we actually get a commercial development in Nibley, and then it's ready.

Well well, we don't have to have a commercial zone. I think we gotta identify what likely to move. This is the second problem. If if you own one of those parcels on Main Street right now and you're taxed at a single family, well, your your base is on your tax to be forfeit. That's not You sell that commercial, you're gonna triple your Oh, yeah. And so so, no, there's no financial incentive to create a virtual zone until you're literally ready to launch that. Future land land use map. So if someone comes here and say, yeah, this is what we wanted, and we'll we'll prove yourself. But I think, again, we can look at it. You need to look at the zones and have a good idea of where commercial likely is gonna go eventually and not necessarily more torn on our end, but we'll play the steps where good planning on where it should be.

I think in some cases, you could have an RM zone with no commercial zone. And let's say the only thing that's viable is just let's say it has a little bit of frontage on one sixty five, for example. They they they can put some commercial there. 10%. What I mean, we said 10% here, but let's say they they could put 10% RM. The rest of it's residential. Everything behind it's residential. Yeah. It's the it it's not viable for you know? So it doesn't I don't know if saying it's it needs to be adjacent to commercial is the right is the right thing to do because it might be that only a little bit of commercial is viable, in the whole in that whole area, in that whole development. You know? Development.

The data works in new project. It doesn't work. So the 10% commercial, I think, does require a higher density, extra unit or two. Because if they can't rent it at $20 a foot, they'll rent it at $10 a foot or $5 a foot. And, like, they'll they'll run it at something, but the only way to make it work in your product is if you can offset and make that essentially a loss. Like, they know that commercial is gonna be a loss for a decade. Yeah. But still for them because they have the official back. Right?

Okay. So would you say that's that's an outright requirement or just a just an incentive that if you provide commercial, you get this additional density?

And, yes, if you do understand that, you can get it actually to do 20%.

An incentive. Not not an not a requirement. Yeah. You you still have to have you still have to have inertia.

Maybe you see intersections in twelve months. And then then as the city does grow and develop, we we can amend that as we see how

you're saying 10% required. You go out and say, we're gonna

Yeah. The army zone is x. And and I'm just just again, I believe, be honorably by to get this moving forward. The army zone is 10 units the acre. We'll define exactly where we're gonna do the RM zone eventually. But in these specific zones, the RM zone will require 10% commercial, but your that's gonna be 12 units a year.

If you're outside of those zones, it's it's

Because we have kinda determined it's likely that will be I'm thinking about, like, the Flower by Laura. I gotta go pick up a boomerang for my son. Like, she's doing it in their backyard. Well, if the developer has an incentive to do the extra units, they can lease that space, and we can get some of these little OT total entities. But if they don't have an economic incentive to even build to start with, it's numbers.

So

No. No. No. No. I see. My my question was

what's your vision of commercial?

Because what I'm noticing in the trends now in these commercial neighborhood zones, whether mixed mixed commercial and residential, you get these what they call live work units. And nine times out of 10, you're gonna get a salon or a nail place. You know, I love the idea of a boutique or something like that, but the the reality is you're getting those two as the primary, live work unit or or at least mix residential with commercial. So I think if we we I think we need to define what commercial means.

So that is that is the cost. That is one of the thing I wanted to bring up was cutting out some of those uses and limit it specific to, like, retail or service oriented, like, a bar.

Yeah. I'm not saying there's not room for live work units at all, but maybe put a limit on live work units. For example, commercial with 50% of those the commercial space could be live live work, and then it could incentivize what you're talking about, a little boutique or something of that sort. Well And these are just thoughts that Yeah. So so

you know, if someone wanted to do Workspace executive office space, it's just when you have a conference. Like that, I I'm okay with that because these units typically typically in in in a smaller community like ours, you're not gonna get real viable businesses in those locations. Like, we we've got the 926 Hundred South, and we can never get that development going. Like, that's a big commercial anchor. I think there's a chance to commercial anchor out in South Wales. But there's only so many locations we can have in commercial. But, you know, if I don't get my emails done, but 500 emails done in the walk down block or block and a half, I get the put it on slide. I guess I don't necessarily have problems. So I I think it does create a more vibrant community to do that. Now I don't have time to experience. Maybe, Tom, coming from Logan, maybe you have you have different experience. No. I just I just wanna point out that's the typical

commercial use that you get. Now there's other ones out there. There's one, for example, on right near Beehive. You know, you have the apartments upstairs, and you got the storefronts.

They're not full. Is that, like, the new that donut place now

too? No. That's that. West Side Little Beehive. I think there is I think there is a donut place there. There is a donut shop.

So those take a little longer to fill, but but that's a definite distinct commercial use on the Sure. A lot of these live work units, you can't really tell if they're commercial or residential views blend in. You might see a sign. Levi, we we were talking about this earlier, and Levi gives the example. Was it Portland, Oregon? He used to walk in. It's just like a condominium or a a townhouse, you know, where the and she'd taken the garage door out and put in a a entry door for a salon. His hair looks great.

Well well cheaper than it was $8.

No.

Sure. And then that's great. I guess, I I just bring that up, so maybe we need to define that. Yeah. Yeah. Just think what is You're talking about the Pro District.

And then it's an old name of the. I I couldn't afford living the Pro District back then. East Portland. Yeah.

Montevilla.

Yeah. Okay. Sure.

Is there Mike? Broadcasting this? Yep. People actually watch a lot of news.

So buffer is industrial. If you look in the future, land is expanding Southern water is all Yep. Industrial. And so keep that in mind and so you don't get taken a poke. Make sure when you define your commercial that you don't get an apartment complex that rents their own gym to themselves Oh. Or rents their own DC office to themselves and sell you know, just think slick a little bit while you're doing this. As you mentioned, defining what it can be. Make sure you don't get somebody that comes in to, oh, yeah. We'll get it commercial. We're gonna put our leasing office there and run it from ourselves today because it's a commercial use. It's, again, the bond,

all sorts of things. So Real stories

that in Logan, I think one of the first mixed commercial residential developments they brought in was a vending machine for That

was used as a Yeah. There's there's also one

have it's the spring amount. It can't be evaluated to the that

of the profit. Yeah.

Yeah. Thanks, Dan. Yep. Yes,

sir. That's the machine hallway.

So so and what do you guys think about it? We want to try to review and and map out sections where we think commercial likely could be I think yes. I think so.

I mean, that again, that's was asked the genesis of how we got here. We're interested to I mean, he mentioned that industrial zone in Hyrum. I was literally thinking the meeting that caused the events that that got us here. Right? It was somebody applied for r two in that medium density or whatever industrial area, and here we are.

So so. I don't know if we've done it well, but we have already done that with our future land use map because we have commercial, and then we have commercial and medium to high density residential. So we could just tie it back to that if we want to. We could just say, according to our future land use map, anything with a commercial designation or or mixed commercial designation.

So what's

the big land grab we we have 50 acres in our commercial land use map. I think we should say no more than 50% of the commercial land use maps on this stage and the RNZ. Because if you do want to put people there, then you do want a commercial adjacent. And there's a possibility to fill the entire hang up with with identity and never gonna be.

Yeah. A little bit. A

little bit. The balance of semantics. You know, I think and again, then and what we've always clear of, you know, just so you guys you have probably every ten minutes. I'm always clear of picking winners and losers based on our zoning. Like, because because you guys both yeah. I think Sue and everyone else. If we put our own zone across the street, that land does form. Right. So we take the future land use and say it can be done in there, but there's a limited use there's a limited maximum that we can have in that zone. Then it's whoever wants to get there and do it first, and and then we're not making those ones. So everyone has an equitable shop. Sure. And it's not based on us putting a dot on.

Yeah. I mean, that again, that I think I'll just continue. I probably keep saying the same thing, but it's like I envision with all these commercials, like, we the thread of the needle of all the confluence of things that make sense Mhmm. Then if then we just have to it should make sense. Right? Or either it's an intersection or adjacent zoning to commercial, whatever it is, I'm I would I think that's okay. You know?

I I do think we want to do a slow roll on because the state I I remember rumors it's on the five year plan. If 4400 South gets developed by state, that fundamentally changes all traffic. Yeah. And I would I would presume anyone heading to Salt Lake from Rock River Heights all the way to to Millville will come down 165, turn on the right corner on the corner and south and go again versus Deliback and Logan and Delibalt South Wales. So as we do this, I think we wanna contemplate also that we don't wanna lock ourselves and get landlocked on these corners, these intersections, knowing that in the next five to ten years, the traffic patterns could change significantly. That that kind of takes me back to I don't think you know, we've got our future land use. I think we only wanna allow an x percentage of that to be developed into residential. And, again, if it never comes, we can always win that in the future, but I don't think we'd want to flood the market before we have a chance. Yeah.

I agree. Some of it too is, like, if we can strategize areas, like, especially along the other highway where we're clearly having access in issues with u dot. Right? If we can somehow figure out how to get some frontage roads along these highways, this would be perfect for something like that as well. You know?

Yeah. That's that's kinda hard. That's all developed all the way all the way down to 4400%. That's right. Sorry.

My my final point, and then I'll stop talking. I I think we need to have at least some minimum 15 so we can have enough of the flow and design standard throughout today. That I agree with.

If five acres goes then, you got a lot of density in a small area.

And and and the day may come that once those big commercial anchors show up, five acres may be sufficient to get adjusted.

As the population ages on Hollow Road before they start.

So you meaning of the density and and the commercial and everything or just period? Sorry. Sorry. So we're talking about minimums. Right? Minimum. For RM, period. And then what so what what is what would we have for a five acre development that would at least give us our PUD? No. You need 40. Yeah. So what if we It

Used to be 20. We upped it to 40.

We I don't know. But if there's if if without a density transfer, you'd only get five, then Right. A smaller parcel makes sense.

Yeah. And I and then if you do TDR, you could lower it to 20. We do allow that. But

And we're we've just seen plans that slam 40 townhomes at five acres. That's a fairly large size development.

I know I know a project in Salt Lake that slams 30 townhomes on one acre. Yeah. We're not. I know. I'm just I'm just saying you can fit that on on a small piece of land.

And that

Yeah. I I I know. I'm just saying, like, when you think of scale, there's a way to design it on smaller space.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Two plus or three five plus acre elements to somehow figure out how we can loosen up some things with in terms of density in those spaces, right, and still get the appropriate design, the flow, and, you know, and and I agree with you. Right? And and you always say this to you to use your words. Like, developers good ones aren't gonna develop bad projects that don't work, that don't have the flow, that don't have the amenities to then sell those properties. Right? Yeah. And so to me, it's like we do have to trust that the developers are gonna

design things on in their own benefits too. Right? Well, we've kinda case in point of that. I I think the typical townhome over here at Midland Park is about a thousand thousand square feet. Buyer apply are about thirteen thirteen fifty square feet, but they sell at the same price. Why? One has more aesthetic appeal than Right. Yeah. Is the value buy. One is more limited location.

Yeah. And I and I think for me, like, I'd like to see more things like the once you hit a threshold, now we require you to have multiple housing types. But I think that just encourages diversity and different things like that. So I don't know how we address the one to five acre development, what that kinda looks like, but I think we should start thinking about how identifying those thresholds and just say, once you hit this, you must have variable You know? You know? Do different things like that. And I like the acres

with our open space subdivision. We reduced the minimum lot size, minimum frontage. That was So you can get a high frequency there. But I I think under five acres, it's it's smaller single family homes with the open space subdivision. I think that works fantastic. Five acres more, then you can start having this continuous. Because there's another thing again, to avoid neighborhood blight, you have to have sufficient economic power to maintain the province. And you can't you don't want a one acre with five townhomes on with attached roofs because now you don't have a large enough HOA to be able to, you know, repair and fund and do that. You know, so there's state law that governs HOAs and reserves to be able to maintain the property. You know, that stuff. Mhmm. And then you you have a large enough situation so that HOA can create enough, be subject to state laws to make sure, you know, you don't have one window that's broken out and one roof that's bad. Like like like, it be it is a problem. So that's why I I think it it needs to be larger so you can do that.

K. This is hard. I it's difficult. Right? Because then you you don't wanna just you don't wanna deter somebody who has I don't know. I'm trying to say this, but it's like it's almost like Karina would always argue. You know? Are we are we just basically deterring good people from small developers doing good good work? You know? I don't know if you wanna be a city that has that sort of cookie cutter hole. You know? I don't know. Mhmm. You It's remember

that sign where people took stucco and they put a little bit of the stone the baked stone inside and looked like it was old cottage and, like, stone falling off. Right. Yes. That's what rookies like like,

I

the the guys with pickup trucks and box receipts create problems. Yeah.

So maybe I think, like, I think we it would make sense for us to see what a maybe we reduce our PUD to a smaller acreage and then let it get built out and learn through that process, and then we just have to figure out it's just in the at the evolution of how this should go. Right. So just taking maybe instead of taking a giant leap, we just have to phase into it. Mhmm. Right? Well and that's that's why I'm such a defender of the OpenSpace solution

is every time that we got built, we learn from it, and we improve it. And I think we have a fantastic cost. And I I these like, we want to avoid unintended consequences that may come up front, but we will absolutely learn from our own code's mistakes. Yeah. Yes. On the

sorry. On that on that note with and I I'm sorry. This is kinda going all over the place. But on the open space subdivision, we have we obviously have an open space requirement. Do we also allow for the fee in lieu similar language for the in the open space subdivision? Because I think sometimes we have open space subdivisions where there's not a good place to put open space, but they force it in, and it's in someone's backyard that we count as and I know we have standards, and we've we've improved it. But I want I wonder if we do the same thing. We we allow we allow it in certain locations to pay a fee to pay to pay a fee in lieu Oh, yeah. Of open space. I don't know.

Yeah. Yeah. It's kinda holding me.

The the I I don't have as much ownership to it as you do because I wasn't here when a lot of them came through, but I poke holes in a lot of them.

Yep. Mhmm. But we have six acres of grass that we have to pay to maintain and do all that. And I'll tell you, the path if we if we had the path plus 30 to 50 feet or whatever, that's all the people everywhere. That's all that gets used. Right? And we have this we have six acres of ground that we have to maintain. It's not cheap. Right? And I still think we'd get the same thing with the same feeling with the pack plus a buffer. What what neighborhood are you I live in Mount Vista.

And that's just like the open grass and stuff.

It's native grass. It's just right near field of the chat. Yeah. So we it's a great neighborhood. I love being here. Yeah. I but I honestly truly think you see. You get the same result with a path plus a buffer than six acres of open space. I mean, you bring It's subdivisions.

If you're not gonna put in in some of the backyard that they own and maintain and people can enjoy by driving by and looking at it, you're you're having to form an HOA now. Yep. And then there's a cost there, and that affordability keeps going further away the more things you add to it. But now you have a mortgage and a 150 each one of them. And we're lucky that it's just in space.

So That one is with you.

But we're also open spaces by Hillside. Right? Yeah. Yeah. So so the So the So the topography would have limited That was all for this.

Right. Yeah. But I'm just telling, like, as we think about these open space neighborhoods, I just because I live in one, and I really think we would get the same result in terms of what the benefit brings to the community if we had a path plus a buffer with some cool trees rather than six acres of just Not a hill. It would be the same feeling, like, prompts because I live in. Well, so so the only counterpoint after that is down in Lehigh.

I can have a development down there, It's like more down there. And all the residents complained because they have a path plus 30 feet. There's not enough figures lined in the case play for as we play soccer. Sure. Yeah. Right. But it's perfectly flat ground. The so the topography, I I I think you're exactly right, especially in maybe the the the use that you're in because

yeah. If it's flat, you guys would do something. Because it's hillside, what do you do? It's just a nuisance. Just a tubing hill. It is. Yeah. And and the kids love to bring their Two months out of the year. Or we learn motorcycles and go over our burns and chew up the grass and eat dearly.

Yeah. Anyways, not to you know, we don't need to go off with somebody. Okay. I I just I just wanted we don't need to go Yeah. Because now we're talking to new space. Into more detail, but I just thought what we're talking about, and fee and Lou, you know, we do require open space in those subdivisions and See, I that applies. Shouldn't

be

I I think open space I think open space is important.

Yeah. But the context of the same open space, like, we're we just talked about about Vista with RM. I don't even think they're the same. Like, why are we even why even have it? I think it's important for

for these developments to have accessible open space.

Two Higher density. Higher density. Yeah. But but I I just don't I don't think it makes sense to complete, like, the art the open space neighborhood. Like, we like, my neighborhood and this an open space in an RM, like, shouldn't I even be in the same ballpark stratosphere to me? Density? Yeah.

So part of the the history of that through evolution, all the the the discussion of what it was is to increase the density and the impact of the system's ability, what is the offset of that? It's right? Increased part fees so we can develop existing parts. The other is trying to create larger parcels of open space that can be dedicated to the systems as a whole. And so it was used as if we're gonna allow the the the impact of additional density here, what is the offset and the benefit? So that's that's kinda where it all originated from. And I kinda feel we're still going to the spirit of that is if if if we're not gonna require you to have open space to take care of your own community, so you have your own blog or stuff like that, and your density is gonna impact the citizens, well, then Dean Lou, I think Lou, so we can go develop more parts for the citizens. Right. And so that was kind of the the entire history of it was providing the citizens an impact and offset to the changes of code and the initial fee. More traffic on the road and Yeah. If that works. Well, yeah, now we're getting 90,000 breaks.

It's basically and that's the thing is the park impact fee A lot. Is is only is only enough. I mean, we have a lot of park land. That's why our park impact fee is so high. Right? Yeah. It's to maintain that level of service. It's maintain the current level of service as we grow.

But our impact fees can only go to new.

Right? Yep. That it goes it goes to new. It's it's not it's not to maintain existing. It's it's for new.

Accumulating acres from new parts? Yes. Right? Yeah. I think the sustainability

is gonna become the question. Continue to grow. Yeah. We're we're already feeling the strain in the John. The growth stops maintenance continues.

Yeah. I think.

Once growth starts, it would come from our property taxes Yeah. Sales tax rate.

When you

have to have a year to be paid to the system. Right. Yes.

When you have 10 units, you have 10 people paying the same moveback fee for the snow plows. So the density becomes sustainable eventually. It's only good to smart. Yeah. We have a lot of more density to pick up on. Oh, finally, just we we okay.

So, Levi, we're we're.

Yeah. There's a lot there's a lot there.

So okay. So I know that we're talking to and it's expecting us to or they would like us to come to some resolution to our end eventually sooner than later is my He he's waiting. But it doesn't matter because he he Don't Yeah. It doesn't matter. Don't worry about that. Yeah. Yeah. But they would like us to button this up because we need them.

Yeah. I mean, until until it is I mean, the recommendation is r two a for that area, and I think the intent was to revisit it once once you go through this. There's no guarantee that it's gonna be RM, but revisit that application.

But he's not planning for his. He's not

planning anything. No. He's just doing No. So I don't know so I don't know if this can work for him anyway Yeah. To be honest, depending on how it's depending on how it's drafted. May maybe maybe he's not if if we draft something up that says, oh, it it's only in these areas. Now he's on 1200 West. Depending on how that's written. May or may not. Potentially.

But the key response

to the agency. But

They proposed our end.

So if we can define with a certain amount of distance and the offset for the deed in sorry. We've made it in the middle of the old space. I'm okay with that. If we can delineate exactly where we want to require commercial and give an additional for unit offset by the requirement of commercial, I'm okay with that. But leading everywhere else, then it may or may not delineate at that 10 units here. And come up with some sort of calculation on future land use that we're only gonna allow this this zoning to be applied in x percentage of acreage of the future land use. Okay.

Mhmm. X percent of acreage of commercial areas or of

What would be the difference between still requiring commercial and then it being smaller, obviously, dedicated to smaller areas in number then but while also taking RPD to five acres? Would we eventually would we essentially be achieving the same thing if we did that? Lowering RPD to five acres. Right? But then saying RM can only actually RM must include commercial and can only go here. Would would we basically be achieving the same same thing we're talking about?

Sure.

And minimum 15 acres for the.

Minimum 15 acre. Because I still think Is there is there agreement on that one? I mean, I think the other one I I wasn't sure about that. Sorry. I'm not sure if I we didn't address your question. Okay. And maybe I didn't word it right. I probably didn't. I'm not sure about five acre RPD to to address your question. I'm not I guess I'm not seeing how that

Well, so the mathematics because the RPD must have minimum four single panel. Oh, okay. Yeah. That's what I'm saying. So the mathematics becomes a So and certainly it's got to even make That's true. Yeah.

10?

I mean, 20 was before, and I think 20 was pre so Fireflies states is 20 acres. Is that and I think it was raised to 40 because some people said, it's too it's too small to be to get what we want out of it. But that's that's at the time. Yeah.

Yeah.

It was. But that I that's that's a comment I heard was and we didn't get enough at Fireflies.

Six acres of town homes. I think twenty eight years is a good number. It's just to make that one work. You because the whole purpose of that one has different styles of housing different options of housing style, basically, something like that. So you can have a mix of little patio homes, bigger homes, smaller homes, and and townhouses also. It's really like that flow. I I think it's I think it my personal is tough. Less than twenty eight. It's tough. He gives it the the variable. He's like Plus 30100% open space. So you gotta take on 20 acre development, you gotta take seven acres out of rough Yeah. So so, realistically, like, I'm I'm gonna keep coming back to this five acre example

to get any if they don't wanna do an open space neighborhood with SFRs, what's what's viable for a five acre development to get higher density than We don't allow it. We don't allow it. We don't allow it. You need a bigger project.

We only allow it for larger, master planned areas. But

I mean, we have one parcel now that's RM that's doing this thing. No.

Right now.

Is there one? We have one line.

We just have one.

Yep. Officially one in.

I I hesitate to suggest this one because I I hope the TDR works for somebody, but it may be worth revisiting on the RPUD. And this plays into, I think, what we're talking about, raising the allowable minimum den density from five to something like seven or eight. So you can still because I feel like five is probably you're just it's just not gonna be viable. We saw Nibley Meadows here. They went up to seven. If we if we raise it to seven, you could still make a townhome single family project work, and then we still have that incentive. You get up to, like, 15 with with TDR. You get the higher density. Just as I've seen we've had discussions and the our that that I think there's an unintended consequence there that people just don't wanna do the RPUD because of that five. It's it's just too low. You're I mean, there's no incentive to do any multifamily. You could you do small lot single family. But Yeah.

Issues with TV. Like, there's so much emphasis and, like, so much, like, hopes put on TDR that you kinda hurtled everything. But then TDR isn't it's either too confusing or not enough incentive that people are willing to go through the whole process. And so you you kinda handicap everything else. So I think there even needs to be like, undo all of the stuff that we cater to TDR or make a big change to TDR. Because Yeah. Has anybody ever That's a to see about doing TDR and express any interest at all? Yeah. Yeah. A little bit. But

that's a to me, that's a bigger discussion. We The TDR. But but I I feel like in the interim, at least allowing a little bit of density where it would be viable to do a townhome single family project, still allow the TDR. I I I think I think that's a whole other I mean, we spent a year and anyway. So

So, Tyler, they kinda alluded to this. Maybe we have a tiered system of five acre RM zone, a 10 acre RM zone, 20 acre. Even a RPUV could could do a five, ten, 20 acre and have a certain density at each of those increments. I I can't remember who did was it you, Don? We we did we did discuss that. Made me think about it then. Yeah. There's so many yeah. There's so many possibilities from just hard to We we just get everything. Still not addressing this big gap we have from our Two units today or maybe

Just trying to jam too much of this. This is the context of how to say, how are we gonna deal with five acres? This is what you can do. I think we are trying to do too much, but we're also

we also need to do something. Yeah. And

I just I don't know I don't know why five acres keeps popping into head, but it just I'm just watching. It

wasn't a blessing. It's getting that max. 35% of homes. So homeowners turns into thirteenth. Taking roads out and crawling down, you'll buy it. So now you have 40% of townhomes. You got four four and a half acres of townhomes. You have five and a half, six and a half acres of sorry. Four and a half acres of single family, five and a half, six and a half of townhomes. You have to have enough economic base to be able to maintain those properties or it will turn really under the

How many cost being I guess that's Yeah. How many actually five acre and below parcels are out?

You've got there there were none because you know I'm biased. Well Anyway, I mean

Sir It's true.

There's yeah. I mean, yeah, there's some, but the there there's a lot of history there to the minimum acreage because the old PUD code, which there's three projects that developed under that code. One was the cottages, one was Sunset Park. Those are both senior housing, and then one is that the townhome development up by the charter school. Those they didn't have the minimum acreage, and there were some there were issues with the HOA being able to do what they said they thought Yeah. They could do. So that's why they that's the main reason. As I understand, they raised the the acreage, and they added all these other components of the RPUD is kind of lesson learned from what happened with those projects.

It.

See, the 2,000 panels and things like that, building problems. If if if there are an isolated twin hometown with shared home with shared walls, there it it becomes a problem in the wrong situation. Now

Rose Park is then you don't have those problems. Same kind of homes we should see. You know? That's where I work. Yeah. Rose Park is going crazy out there. Yes.

And Brother sold his house, and now he can't afford to buy it back. Yeah.

That's all I remember. Anyways, it's 09:15. Yeah. It should be respectful of people's time here, Aaron. This is all great.

What where did you You need a we need a Some some

Can we just motion to get

it? It stops me.

But we shrink the acres, and we don't have a defined area that we're allowed out of all the zoo.

I don't think I don't think we can go too slow. I mean, what else?

I think

15 acre minimum. Yeah. Well, let's So RM, 15 acre minimum. RPUD, 20 acre minimum. And I'm probably gonna put seven for the RPD, seven units per acre, if you're okay with that. I'm gonna tighten up the The one. The fee in lieu so that it can only be applicable when you're close to park space and define where commercial is required, which which areas that commercial's Okay. Like Some level of commercial is required. And with that, allow additional density in those areas as well. Yeah. Too

large too big.

Yeah. I think it should be smaller. That was

yes. Is is it a 40 acre maximum? And then and then once you get to 40 acres, you gotta do our PUD.

Yeah.

So it's 15 to 40 acres.

We have do you need to find

because where where this can be administrative instead of legislative.

Just say agree. Seaways around the mix. Mhmm.

Big. One one development at a time. I see ways around that max.

It's like you're saying you gotta be sold to business to a bar. You gotta be sold to business.

It's it's not just the development, but the but you can't have two adjacent ones. It's the zone. The contiguous zone can't be more than RM zone can't be more than 40 acres.

So the developer goes and buys 40 acres and buy another 40 acres right next door. No. We're seeing it here. Can't do that.

Distance.

If they want all of that, they'd have to do in our our PUD. And then that

I'm saying, yeah. Yeah. I started off. So it's now 80 figures.

No. Because No. Because they're contiguous. Yeah. As as long as they're contiguous. If we can

Yes. My notes are It

doesn't

15 to 30 acres for for an r for an RM zone. It's very specific to where it's just not gonna apply to any I mean, we keep adding all these things. It's gonna be like, who's

we wanna Who's gonna do it?

Who wants Put better definition on what commercial means? Yes. Yes.

Where the commercial yeah. Yeah. Something about it can't just support that that building. I yeah. I I I get the point there. Trying sure. Trying to avoid the

yeah.

Okay.

So make we've been looking it up. You'll make a motion to table

to table the agenda item. Okay. It's table? Table and continue.

Yeah. So if you postpone it, you have to set a specific date when you're gonna revisit it, tabling, and sleeping it open.

Before But we could we say we're on first reading before before the

Okay.

It's table.

Session with box 25 for Right. Continuance

on No. It's not acting. Just table it. If it's a table it's Would you just say make a motion to table item on the agenda? Sure.

Yeah.

Thank you. Thank you. Exciting. That's it. Okay. So we have a motion from to table item 10 on tonight's agenda, semi factual. Any other discussion? Let's go to a vote. All in favor? That's four in favor of zero. Thank you. Okay. Staff report.

Yeah. So, I mean, I'll I'll come back just just to wrap that up. I'll I'll come back with, proposed changes hopefully by the next meeting. That's that's the goal. Yeah. It's a lot. K. Draft some stuff up. Hopefully, meet the mark there. Not not allowed to report on. There's just in general, there there's a lot of development happening, a lot of final plots that now, again, you don't see anymore that thanks to thanks to the state, it they're all staff approvals. But we recently approved and recorded Johnson Meadows Lane subdivision, which is on 3400 South, Ridgeline Park, Phase 7. Nibley Meadows Phase Four is about to record. So just to let you know, there's there's a lot of developments marching forward that staff's staff's working on Heritage Parkway. We're we're getting through the final cloud on that one. And so, yeah, plenty of that going on. I think a handful of you are going to the APA Utah conference that's in two weeks. Should be a good, like, a great conference, good agenda there, and it's local. So if anyone else that's not signed up wants to go, let me know. But I we've got we've got a good showing there. I think that's all I got. Tom, if you want to add anything.

Just to be an updated capital projects. So these are public work projects, roads, stuff like that. So we have a contract for constructing the the East half of 1300 West that we just kinda right by I think it's Zollander Acres and and Nibley Farms there. I just spoke with the contractor. They're planning on getting on it pretty quickly and getting it done just around July. We just opened bids for the remaining the last phase of 1,200. That's phase five. So this is, from 2500 South up to Logan's 10th West at 2200 South. That's a whole re road reconstruct. We put more barriers in there. We put the concrete turtles on there. I I take that to council next week, and I'm asking them to approve a a contract with Staker Parson that's for a little bit about 1,300,000.0. Their schedule shows them completing that at the July. I also have a well that's on that's out for bid now. Next week is the bid opening. This one occurs we're planning that one on 12 West on that right by the, the wetland. The regional storm drains would be East of Nibley Meadows, North of Nibley Farms right in that area by the green waste site. If that comes through and we can afford it, we should be under construction with that this summer and developing that this fall and then building a well house sometime during fall and spring next year. That's a total different bid. Oh, there's one more that we're in planning stages, a pedestrian crossing that connects the Ridgeline Park development to Andrew Park. We're looking to a for a high visibility crossing, and we had we had a a meeting. It it's just like a a steering committee almost that we looked at three different options. We hired Horace Engineering to evaluate these options with staff, and Airman was in there. And we came up with, I think, a pretty good plan. What it'll look like is a rapid flashing beacon to be on the east side of is it four hundred west? Three forty west. Three forty west. Kinda that main entrance for Richmond Park. With and then it'll take out a few parking stalls. It'll add a center median, just an area of refuge because that asphalt is, like, 90 feet wide. So we're trying to find a safe haven for folks that are trying to travel that. So it'll come with a center median, and we'll put a planter or a part strip on the south side, take up a couple parking lots. What that'll do is really enhance that whole crossing and allow people to get to and from there pretty easily. Any questions on any of those? There's a ton of people who are on Princess Street. Yeah. We're just gonna try to make it safe.

One more thing. The general plan process is is marching forward. We're gonna start getting into public engagement soon on that. We're gonna doing some things in conjunction with Heritage Days. We'll do kind of a a workshop. We will table at Heritage Days. We wanna do a separate event that's kinda more deep dive on the general plan, so watch out for that. And we'll probably also do something around that time frame with the planning commission. I don't know if we do it as a joint workshop with city council, but getting into we're we we've set up the general climate scenarios. So as we as we develop these these development scenarios, we we wanna have a workshop with planning commission city council as well, probably separate from from the general public one, but but you're welcome to come to those as well. K.

Taylor. Talent. P squared. Ready to go. Yeah. Thank you. K. We'll we'll call this meeting adjourn. Oh, yeah. I'll call. Yeah.

I just found out a few people and there's Yeah. There's a handful of others. Yeah. I mean, Nibley Coach

I've been tracking my I've been tracking my time. Right. We're still There's a lot.

Capital projects versus development.

There's other things. 50% of my time is one of the Yeah. Yeah.