Nibley City Planning Commission

- The commission amended the agenda and voted 5-0 to remove items 2 and 4 from consideration because related issues were still being worked out between city council and staff. - For the public hearing on the proposed RM rezone at 1425 W 2600 S, staff explained the request would extend mixed-use residential to support a townhome development adjacent to existing RM zoning, but staff recommended denial because the site also has strong commercial potential and fits the city’s commercial future land use. - Public comments on the rezone were mostly opposed or cautious: one applicant representative said the project and broader plans were still being assembled, while nearby property owners urged keeping the area commercial/light industrial due to traffic impacts and corridor compatibility. - The commission also heard a second public hearing on the companion rezone ordinance from commercial to RM for the same 5.2-acre area, with no new support expressed and the same concerns raised about preserving commercial land. - During the RM zone workshop, commissioners discussed possible code revisions, including clearer housing-type definitions, reducing or removing some amenity and open-space requirements, limiting driveway widths, and revising buffer/setback standards to better support rear-loaded or shared-driveway housing forms. - There was broad interest in adding a tiered or size-based framework for RM or RPUD-style development, with discussion of whether smaller parcels should be allowed at all, whether larger projects should be incentivized, and whether a maximum acreage should be considered to avoid concentrating density in one area. - Commissioners and staff debated whether the RM zone should remain a legislative approval tool or be restructured more like an RPUD overlay, with staff asked to research options and bring back a rough draft for further review rather than making immediate code changes. - In the flag lot workshop, staff said the current code is very restrictive and does not allow flag lots on arterial streets, but several commissioners were open to considering them in limited cases if access, fire, stormwater, and setback standards can be addressed. - Staff was directed to research flag lot standards in other cities and bring back possible amendments; commissioners emphasized avoiding nonconforming lots while still allowing reasonable access on deep, narrow parcels where appropriate. - Staff updates noted the 2500 South amendment was approved by city council with an access restriction on 1200 West, the general plan consultant selection is nearly complete, conference attendance opportunities are coming up, and several development and road projects are moving forward, including 1200 West construction plans and a bid-awarded capital project at 1300 West.