Nibley City Planning Commission

You guys ready? Yes. Okay. Well, welcome to the February 6 meeting of the Nibley City Planning Commission here at Nibley City Hall. We'll just go ahead and start with Bill Cox. Commissioner rebound and get it started.

Okay.

Okay.

Nick Kinska, and also I'd like to have staff introduce themselves. Levi Roberts, city planner. Tom Dickinson, city engineer.

Hey, York. Assistant reporter.

You would also like to recognize, mayor Davis.

Thank you. K. So let me start. So the first

item is to view the agenda. And with that, members of the commission, I'd like to make a motion actually to amend tonight's agenda before you to remove items two and four due to specific aspects of these individual items that have yet to be resolved between the city council and city staff that quite frankly fall out of purview of the planning commission. So that's when

she and restate it again if you'd like. So we just went went well done.

Basically Seven seconds. Seven days to second we can discuss. Okay. K. Seconded by commissioner Rebound. Any discussion? Yeah. What's what's the So, essentially, just some new information has come to light between the proponent and city council and staff. And, frankly, until that information becomes more clear, that really goes beyond the the scope of the planning commission. Really needs to be handled at the city council and staff level. I just don't really feel comfortable discussing with that, so that's reasonable. And, frankly, for me, like, until that information gets resolved with the council staff level, I would rather even that these items just stay on our agenda. Smartly.

So we'd still have public hearings?

So so when we vote if if the vote were to pass, we would just remove pipes two and four, and we'd still have the public comment.

The the the staff and the author comments on this, there will be agenda items?

Nothing more than what Nick has stated. No.

Do you have anything?

Any other discussion? K. We'll put it to a vote.

All in favor.

500.

K. That's any opposed? K. The motion passes five to zero. K. With that, I would like to we'll go to the next item, approval of last meeting's minutes, And I'll just ask for And then new And well, and a new and a new agenda for tonight. So I'll just ask for a general consensus for the meeting minutes prior to tonight's meeting, 01/16/2025, and then also to board of amended

June. K.

Great. So with that, we'll move to item number one on the agenda, which is a public hearing, for ordinance twenty five seven amending 19 to new city code nineteen twelve forty mixed use, residential zone RM and adding a 5.2 acre portion of, parcels 3227002 and 3227001, approximately located at 1425 West 2600 South. Before we get started on the public comment period, I'd like to ask Levi to discuss the needs of this place. Thank you.

Yep. So just a little background on this as as stated in the agenda. The applicant's proposing to rezone a piece of property about 5.2 acre portion. It affects a couple of parcels, primarily 032270002, and then there's a little bit that it crosses over in 001 from that commercial zone to mixed residential. There there there's the two items on the agenda because of this restriction within the RM zone, which only allows for a limited area to to apply for the RM zone as as as we're aware of. So the code amendment, it kind of accompanies this this rezone consideration. The the proponent has provided a a concept plan, and this this reflects a portion of an existing preliminary flat application for a townhome development that would be, you know, if if this rezone were approved, they they've they've indicated that that, you know, that would be the the purpose of the rezone, you know, why they're why they're asking for the RM zoning is for the you know, to extend that that townhome development on the existing RM zone, which which is, just to the east of this property. A little bit more back background on kinda history. This property was recently rezoned from r two residential to commercial on 06/08/2023, and there there was a rezone application for that one. So that was, you know, about a year and a half ago, that was that was done. And this also includes a portion of area that that was recently approved for a newly marketplace concept plan, which was in, April. Just gonna state some of the things that are in the application, from the applicant. So what is the need for the zone change, change residential to join the residential RM zone to the East? Will public benefit be, create more more first time homebuyer housing opportunities? How does proposal comply with general goals and policies of Nibley City general plan, housing opportunities? Please explain how they anticipate use is appropriate for surrounding area. Have residential RM zone to the East and commercial to the West, and then what public infrastructures in place to serve the type and intensity of the proposed use. If needed, could the infrastructure be reasonably extended at the cost of the property owner and developer? And they stated Heritage Drive needs to be built for the commercial development. That needs to be coordinated with Nelson Farms, the commercial developer, and the city, TIF. But just just so we see kinda where we're talking about that red area is the, you know, the approximate zone area or the proposed RM zoned area. The the 10 is the current currently RM zoned area. So you can see kind of the context around there just to the north is, you know, standard as well as Mountain View machine machinery and, you know, other other light industrial and commercial uses. And then, you know, to the south And real really on all other sides, immediately is currently agricultural uses, but that's kind of the context there. And then, you know, I reference some plans that are in the works right now. So this is just kind of as a backdrop. You can see their their current draft of their preliminary plat, which, you know, within that red area is what they what they provided for this application. So this is kind of what is intended from the applicant for for this area to develop as as, you know, folded into that that townhome development to the east. And then this is just overlaid looking at that commercial development that was previously approved for a concept plan. They could see, you know, some commercial pads in there and office to the north. That's that's just to give a little more context of of where we're looking at, how this fold how this folds together. And then looking at the general plan, when we look at the future land use map, it's listed as commercial and medium to high density residential. Some goals that are that are relevant is encourage land use goal one is encourage development that respects and preserves character of the city and provides a mix of commercial, residential, housing, and some light industrial uses, carefully plan for growth within the city, ensure the development occurs in suitable locations and can be efficiently served over the long term. Land use goal two is guide land use and growth decisions through application of the general plan, future land use map, and relevant goals, principles, and projects. And commercial and economic development goal two is to create and maintain a sustainable economic base for Nibley City that will provide tax revenues and increase local employment and convenience of shopping. And then if you look at principle two a, it's to improve, diversify, and increase New York's tax base, seek revenue growth from economic development activities to mitigate residential property tax increases, and maybe required to offset increased level of service costs. So just some things to consider looking at our general plan, looking at the context of the area. Really, when you look at our future land use map, I think there's an argument to be made that both the existing zoning that, you know, which is commercial and the proposed zoning of RM is is consistent with future land use map when we think about commercial medium to high density residential. The general plan encourages a mix of commercial, residential, and light industrial uses. And, you know, on the one hand, the modern income housing plan includes strategy to consider areas to rezone for densities necessary to facilitate production of moderate comp housing, which, you know, that that can definitely be seen as a reason for approval for of of this. However, when you think about the limited areas in Nibley that are that are available to support viable commercial and economic development in this area, you know, with its proximity to the highway, with Heritage Drive, there, 202600 South, really has the potential to support access for commercial development. You know, access directly on the highway is limited, but But the the but Heritage Drive, there's there's more opportunity to access commercial businesses. And and, really, with the the recent application, it's apparent that there is potential. You know, I it it it's understood that market conditions change, and but but there is potential for some kind of commercial development on on this property. I I think I think that's apparent with with the application that was submitted. And and just considering the context of of the area and the, you know, the proximity to other commercial businesses in the area. And so it is staff's recommendation to deny, and and then this this does relate to item two and to item four, which I I understand are not going to be considered tonight, but related to the public hearing, staff's staff's recommendation is to recommend denial of of both of these or both of these items, both these ordinances.

Thank you. Do we have anyone signed up for, quote,

public comment? I

mean, I didn't list the findings, but I I won't rehash those. They really just summarize what what I've already stated.

None? Okay. We didn't have anyone sign up for a public comment, but if anyone like to approach the mic and state your name and address, we'll just limit all public comments to three minutes. Oh, we'll keep up there. Thirty five seconds.

Yeah. This this is where I'm buying what's gonna happen here. So Okay. A you know, it's brought up against media engagement that will get details, but the the challenge we have in here is is the commercial was proposed last year on that agreement. That agreement expired. And so, you know, it is what it is. We have to do something with it. And so there is a plan in there. We are putting it all together. And, yes, this area will be something dramatic changes will be risk you know, we'll have to work with you in financials. So we we actually try to get this heard and get this thing going because we got the preliminary platform too. So there's there's several different pieces going on with the property. Obviously, we have the church located on the other side on that where's the center South on 12th West. So we kinda gotta get put put these things through. So that's really what's going on there. We'll have a say on this in a few days, but,

you know, maybe a minute or two. But,

yeah, the the application we inherit, the intent is is true. It's accurate. So anyway.

K. There is there anyone else who'd like to make a comment?

State your name and address, please. My name is Derek Howard. I own the properties at the 2490 South 1350 West Majestic Mountain Sage, which is just to the north of the current RM zone area. I was here during those discussions, and I feel that they were well thought out and heard. At the time, we were talking about keeping the areas that were currently listed as commercial as commercial, As a commercial owner in area, I'm a little hesitant to have more RM be put into that area because we're already having a very unclear level of vehicle impact by that high level of occupancy. And I think that we should keep this reserve as commercial light industrial because I think that's still the best fit for that Heritage Drive corridor.

Thank you. Thank you.

Anyone else like to make a comment? Please state your name and address. Thank you. So

partly,

So Yep. I I don't mean to interrupt. Can you have the mic? Why are they just for people online so they can make Yeah. There's a there's a I think there's a couple people online or at least one person online, so he can hear you.

These two buildings right here. And before Dirk moved in, construction owned his building and they ran into this to Saturday. Well, right in this Uber, the canal in this corner, the canal goes on the brand new right here, there's a big break in front, and the canal never get a lot of cleanup in it. And so it would feel like and if the water between the fence line and the residents that use this property had a little double fence where cattle would run down and you go up, slump off the bank. Well, that would be in here and run over and almost up to my front door. And if you guys are planning on developing that, what happens to that wall is that the three or four terminal says I've been

I think you guys can settle. You guys can discuss.

Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Perfect.

Is that all you? Thank you. Appreciate it. Does anyone have any other comments on this agenda item? K. We'll put we'll close item number one. Public hearing is going to now new item number two, which is a additional public hearing, for ordinance twenty five eight, rezone of a 5.2 acre portion of parcels 3227002 and 322701 located at 1425 West 2600 South from commercial to mixed residential. Levi's already basically described the project. I don't think we have anyone signed up on the sheet for public comment. So, again, I'd invite anyone

to go ahead and make a comment. Please state your name and address. Thank you. Once again, my name is Dirk Howard. I own property with Justin Sage at 71350 West. Once again, I'm gonna reiterate that I believe keeping the post commercial zone makes more sense for those of us that are already there and also for ongoing city development. Thank you. Thank you.

Anyone else like to make a comment on this on this item? Okay. Well, thank you for every everyone, for your comments. We'll move on to now the new item number three, which is a workshop amongst the planning commission for the mixed use residential zone. Do you mind if I get us kinda caught up here?

Yeah. I mean, we had we had a a a good, you know, long discussion about this at the last meeting. There wasn't clear direction on what where to go with with the RM zone. Like I said, a lot of good discussion about, you know, everything from whether whether it should be, you know, a legislative decision, more like a PUD, different different items there, and we can we can go over those. But I would say it would be most helpful if out of this discussion, we could get some direction, whether we're pursuing an amendment to the RM zone. If so, what are some things that should be considered, be folded into a draft? If not, what what direction we should go with with this. So that's that's what I would like to get out of this discussion. I mentioned that there are a couple you know, two or three things that this city staff has has noted that could be improved with with the ordinance. But, really, the whole purpose of this, you know, came from an annexation and rezone request for for RM that, you know, was was recommended for denial and and that there was some need to clean up the ordinance. And so if if we could just get some some direction from the planning commission of of where to go with with with this, I know there's there's a lot of different directions that we could go. That would be helpful. Yeah.

Open up for discussion. Welcome,

commissioner Lohrey. Just to keep get you up to speed, Tyler. We amended the original agenda to remove items two and four.

So further discussion between council and the staff.

So we just had our public hearings, and now we're on the. Troy, do you have anything to get started?

After this. Great. So I I'll start by saying that I I completely agree with this task request. We we did have a proponent ask for its own change, and we said that we're gonna look at this and get back to them. And so I I I think at the very least, we should buy suggestions to staff whether we make changes or we just do the zone altogether. I think we should keep the zone and make some changes. So I do have a list of things as I studied. Armzone, I'll start off with the two recommendations that staff suggested. I I do agree. I believe that the item f

of nineteen twelve forty,

which is the map, that should be renewed off of that. Then on the other end, that was suggested by staff on alleyways, which is section I. I I do agree that we should limit driveway widths. Whatever that is, we need to assert that. I think that's all. I I don't I don't think that we should force ad hocways. I think I think we can kind of drive that harder by limiting the distance between driveways, like, a minimum distance between driveways of, like, 30 or something like that, which kinda force at the hand as you get most bigger in the raw spaces. And then if if the distance is less than that, let's say, 30 would need to be resolved by either by a chair driveway or a deck to create that rear loaded part. Along with that, item seven on section audit, that section just talks about multifamily. I think that should be renewed and just apply to all housing in general. So single family, multi family, where driveways are less than whatever distance. You gotta share our driveway or do a rear loaded alley. I I would just say I leave that up the staff. That's their expertise on coming up with numbers. Yeah. Edit? I have other things. So those are the two, okay, from what steps, recommendations. We go keep going. It's heard. Alright. Hi, Hey. Hey. I'm gonna I'm gonna go ahead and talk about a quarter. Section b section b just talks about definitions and their personal tool different other pages. In section a, it talks about providing a variety of housing types. If you look through section b, those two sections that are referenced, they provide definitions, and there's only minimum definition provided for these variety of custom types, which I don't know if it's factual, but I feel as developers, they might go to those definitions, look at them, and say, these are the only things that are defined. These are the only things I'm allowed to build. So I think adding additional definitions for things such as stacked plexus, stacked floor plexus, multiplexes, for air buildings, that work mixed use storefront residential kind of living

units just kind of

puts a definition there and shows that it's not option that's not. Going down to section d, FedEx, I think if we're gonna try and push rear loaded parking, I think setbacks need to be reduced, right, where the the garage is down in the back. So reducing setbacks to five gs, I think. Section g talks about if there's going to be multifamily units, there needs to be a buffer with a single family, houses, or a road or 300 beautiful open space. I think, in a sense, a negative connotation with multi family housing, and in turn, that same negative connotation to the families that live there, just saying these are bad housing. These are bad people who find them far away from our current residence This is a bad message. So I for the buffer, I think if we feel it's necessary for, like, neighborhood compatibility or if there's gonna be, like, a stark contrast between the type of housing, I think rather than, like, requiring, like, a single family buffer, you could just say that multifamily buildings that are near single family homes need to be required to have, you know, same kind of, like, issues and setbacks and other architectural elements to make it look like our latest senior. That way, you don't separate these kind of housing units from the current housing units, but you still get that same kind of look and feel as you would with the with the buffer of single

panel.

Got a couple more of them. Keep on, sir. Section h. I don't I believe it's for the open space requirement. Again, I don't think we need to discriminate against different housing types. If we're gonna require open space, just keep it simple. Here's the open space we require regardless of that. Whatever it is, this is for you.

And then section h two,

the amenities. I think removing the spot out pool of flatbed requirement. As a city, we're we're really pushing for indoor rec center. This kinda goes against those goals. Right? We're saying, if you want any more tactics for indoor rec center, but we're gonna force you to pay higher HOA fees for your one middle person rec center. Just doesn't feel Yeah. Awesome. Thank you.

Brett, any thoughts?

Yeah.

So data mesh is important. So if someone wants to know Workbox senior.

They could in this zone. Yeah. They could in they could in this zone.

And so So that's what they

Right. Or or in our PUD in an RPUD overlay zone. You could build something like that. What number three is is saying is that if you have a a patio home, so on a on a single family lot, but it's less than 4,500 square feet or it doesn't meet the setback requirements, it's it's essentially considered multifamily. And and you have to meet it really in in this case, it just relates to the open space requirement, which, you know, Troy Troy mentioned, it's 20% for single family. It's 35% for multifamily. So once you get to kind of those small single family lots or, you know, patio home type lot, it's considered multifamily for those purposes. That's really the only reason for that. Thank you. So I guess if you went with what Troy suggested, you could probably just strike that as well. But yeah.

Fair. Going off what George said, rather than make sure that's why I have the high of 50 feet, so you could have a a town hall 10 feet collar, 20 feet collar. That's two feet. That's a natural single family. They have a height limit of 30 feet.

Actually, 40. 40. Yeah.

For an r two k. So and that's my that'd be an issue. Yeah. I could consider to check to that. And also the product for commercial or residential fixed rate is on 20 feet setback. Single family is 32. So that's where the front and the side is further more, they try to make sure it's a 30 feet. It only can for single family. So you have to if you want to blend in, you have to change balance everything. So I don't know how you no. No. The good number is to do that, so that makes sense. Yeah. It's

alright. Levi, correct me if I'm wrong, but it's already covered in the code. If you look under the commercial section, there's a it's no that says it basically says, like, with, like, residential, you you do whatever is the most restrict. So if commercial is 20 feet and residential 30 feet, if there were commercial in the arm zone, then you would do the more restrictive. So we're gonna be there 30 feet.

I have to go over the section.

Yeah. I'm I'm not I'm not quite sure if I know which which one you're referring to. I know that I I I know that there is in the commercial zone, there's a a requirement for increased setback. I don't know. Is it is that what you're referring to? So that was that was passed a few years ago where if it's a commercial zone, a budding residential, the the setbacks increase to 30 feet, and then it goes up to 40. The the maximum height is 40 feet. So up to 40 foot setback if you if, for example, if you have a 40 foot building. I don't know if I don't know if that's what you're referring to.

Been a while. And if they don't have Yeah. But I I know

I've for sure. Yeah. They I'm sure there's something to that. I'm just not sure what what it is. Mhmm. Yeah. And you could do something similar here, I guess. Right. I mean, I guess you could say similar to commercial if it abuts a residential you know, another residential zone, you could you could say something like, well, that increases the setback, and it if if if it's a higher building, then it has to be set back even further, know, something like that. You could you could do something like that. If if you wanted to, you know, as as Troy suggested, change the the buffer require you know, the 300 foot buffer or arterial road buffer requirement, that's something else you could do.

Is there a a state code different for town homes versus condominiums? Like, a back end that's for Elliot, that's that's quite a little bit? Or is it can you can you have an interest from the front?

I mean, I think as far as the, like, the building code or or anything state code, there's there's there's different designs you can go with. I know and and we we went over this with the prior version of, like, Wesley Nelson Farms, one of one of their proposals to be considered a a townhome by the building code. You do have to have the front and the back open. It it can't be just just open air. Right? As far as the entrance goes, there's some things in city code that that point to how to orient the entrances and and such, but I I'm not aware of anything in state code.

If

they can do a shared driveway, you know, wider That must be good. Having several 20 foot driveways there.

Yeah. We we have

pretty clear standards and and the current standards right now. It restricts driveway width to 24 feet. It's so common, though, that people just come in and cut the 32 feet or 40 feet, add another driveway. It just if we could maybe just keep them off the public roads, it'd be a lot less enforcement later For parking. For park for the driveway. Because you're gonna say it's a shared driveway, but then they're just gonna come back later and and add another one or or widen the one they have. It just becomes an enforcement issue.

Yeah. That's that's why I'm only concerned. I think there's too many driveways that makes garbage and so immovable.

But I but I do think Troy had a good point on the setbacks. If we're gonna push rear loaded, maybe a 20 foot setback's a little a little high for for townhomes. May maybe I mean, I don't know if I I don't know what the right number is, but maybe a 10 foot setback would be would be appropriate.

Mhmm.

Plus with TDR, you can get up to 20. I think the original zoning was 20 units an acre. Mhmm. And then the TDR came in a couple years ago, which a lap would could allow up to 20. Right back to where it used to be. That's a that's a loan offer. The how the housing needs there, it's gonna come. We're gonna make more road that we have to maintain, or we're gonna make less road with higher density. Just a Mhmm. Who knows that? It's a tough tough discussion. Yeah.

They He still searches for some direction for staff, it feels like. Yeah. I mean, Troy Troy had some points. I don't I don't know if anyone agree agrees with them or or Yeah. I mean like,

repeating the existing arm zone and really talking about the real context of, like I I know this the genesis of this discussion, right, came from us considering flying the RM zone in an uncomfortable area that that weren't maybe ready to in terms of geographically in the city. Right? And I think, for me, personally, it's kinda like, you know, the the step from r two a to what would be higher density through TDR or what this zone in our PUD, and there's, like, nothing in between. And I I don't know if that if that's something that are we really trying to address that context here, or are we really just trying to decide we don't like our And feel like we're

So is this the acreage side for?

No. No. So we can put a

Yeah. One?

You

could. I mean, technically, as as written. Yes.

Yes.

I need to reiterate from Tyler's and I don't wanna speak for you, Tyler. So certainly, company office, you can speak for yourself. But I think some of Tyler's reservation were what we miss out when applying in our in our end versus, like, in our beauty, some of that working with the cities to figure out infrastructure and making sure the project flows and things like that. So I think really I think what we're really trying to discuss here is, like, site size and what makes sense. You know? Like, do we want to entertain a zone like this in a in a parcel that's less than 10 acres, or do we really need to think about how to bridge that gap from the traditional r two a with, you know, higher densities through TDR and different bonuses through open space and all that to literally going from something like that to a zone like this. I don't really know. We don't really have much in code as far as zoning to address, like, the tier the tier of how we get there. Right? So I don't know if that would make more sense if we discussed as a as a group or maybe really, what I'm gonna make sure is that staff has some direction after the night. Meaning, we just need to decide as a commission. We wanna leave RM as it is, and we'll just make sense, or do we legitimately want to do something about figuring out how to bridge the gap from the density you can get through TDR and and and the lights and in a site size that makes sense, like 20 acres or we we really just need to make sure the staff has some direction from us. Otherwise, we should just table it.

They couldn't. So if you look at

six h two,

right, there's the amenity table. If they just have one unit, they require a one and a half acre park. So Good point. That that does force the developer. At some point, there's gonna be small enough acreage that just doesn't make sense for a living. So and this and that's gonna be at least two acres. Right? Like, you're gonna need some room per house within one and a half acreage. So there's not a minimum acreage, but it's kind of self imposed. And then to answer Nick's question of do we like this or not, I'm I'm a 100% for the arms. I think even if we left it unchanged, I think it is very well written and and makes sense in a lot of places.

Sure. The way I look at it, like, we got multiple decisions made here. And some of the some of the most simple ones, the site size, we got density, we got types of housing. Maybe we should fill this off one item at a time to discuss it. And because we've we've kinda plot shoot all over it's hard to get kinda into size discussion here. Okay. Let's talk to site size. Yeah. Because, you know, the point where you just brought up, yeah, one and a half acre minimum that that does restrictions on its own. So let's just think about size it's really in the size. We wanna allow more happy building later, or we want some other project to scale.

Can can either of you summarize our discussion we had the other day about this? We're talking about size size. I we're talking about, like, a tiered approach. My memory is a little bit escaping me, but do you can one of you two kinda reiterate what we were talking about? We we had some interesting discussions about this.

Yeah.

Yeah. I I think. We Is that right? We talked so right now, we have for an RPUD, we have a 40 acre minimum. Right? There's no there's no minimum for the RM zone. And we talked about potentially allowing, you know, a 20 acre or 10 acre project. But with that comes with maybe additional restrictions. Maybe the density is different. The the allowance is different. That was kind of the concept. We so so the so there there may be we would incentivize a larger development. We won't we don't necessarily outright prohibit it. Somehow through through densities, through the, you know, amenity calculation. However we want to to incentivize that, we could we could do that. Yeah. That was the idea. Like,

if we can get these larger projects, like, just in scale, that just opens up more opportunities for more infrastructure design. We wanna encourage I don't wanna speak for you guys to sign. So we were talking about that. I'm like, maybe we just think about this in a tiered approach where we just have thresholds that if you process, that opens up extra opportunity for certain things. But if you don't process, you're gonna get into this. And I don't know what this looks like yet, but we were thinking about that with the hopes that that would encourage landowners. Maybe you don't have consolidated ownership group. Right? But maybe you discuss and say, oh, if we come together and come at this as a project, now we get 30 acres to our project, which allows us to have all this extra opportunity for development, whatever that looks. I thought that was an interesting concept in our meeting. I don't know how to what that looks like in practice or execution, but

that was kind of the summary of that. Yeah. I was just gonna add. I think we talked to open space. You can even discuss proximity to our terrier's roads or distance from our terrier roads. You know? You might not want a big clustered sub subdivision in the right in the middle of some rural area of Nelly that doesn't have really good access infrastructure already. Yeah.

And, like, this is where, like, I I certainly don't have in this realm yet, but at some point, is this something, like, we need to make a workshop with maybe a few members of the planning commission, few members council, and just see what the viability is? Something like this would be an American appetite for it? Or do we just say we talked about it. We couldn't come to a resolution. So maybe because I I do know the way it's selling, like,

an app that says where they have of stay loud there. Yes. Exceptional exceptions around, you know, the the the track stations and things like that. So that kinda goes back to the point. Make sure like, yeah, I I don't think you can open up everywhere because, yeah, we may not have a structured place to do it. Right. So but kinda going back to this if you're okay with, like, do we do we wanna have a discussion on-site size? Or

I'm fine. I'm open to any discussion. I think site size should be I mean, it seems like the starting point of discussion would be a does a five acre

parcel make sense for us?

Couldn't we realistically do to make it a good project for the city? Right? Things like that. Now I don't know how to hash through the details of the specific conversation, but I guess maybe what would do does the commission feel like there would be a good size of it just as a nonstarter in this context and maybe start there?

I think five acres, that's that's quite a few moments in a small area. But another time, it needs to be, like, appropriate for infrastructure. But that's still good default. Yeah.

And and just to come back, maybe to circle the reason why you're here too is, you know, the application just geographically use this thing right off on some so it's really hard to get a context around what that would look like. Just not gonna be an island of itself. Right? I know it does fit within the transition zone of industrial, and that was for the discussion in the beginning. But I just feel like I said, like, yeah. Let's talk about success, but eventually, we need to just decide, like, just gonna table this or because staff's been you know, we need to make sure that we're doing a better direction and what we need.

On on-site side, sorry to kinda flip this on the on the head, but one thing that was discussed with the RM zone previously, and I honestly can't remember if it was with planning commission or city council or or just with with staff ahead of time, was not a minimum, but actually a max maximum acreage because there was some concern of just concentrating higher density in one, you know, in one part of town or one location. And and where the RM zone, it doesn't, like the RPD, require mix of housing types. I mean, we don't want, you know, a 100 acre apartment complex. I'm I'm just saying that when we talk about site size, it may and and there may be an appropriate, not just minimum, but maximum. If

If you're gonna do maximum Oh. Ridgeline, that's 40 acres.

Yeah. I mean, Ridgeline's almost a 100 acres, but Ridgeline Park Yeah. You know? Looking you're looking somewhere.

Well, see what the

It's hard to calculate a maximum a maximum site size because and I'm trying to stay on top. I'm just talking about site size. Okay. So any parcel can be able to so you can't.

Yeah.

There's one owner can develop the acres here and then adjacent to the acres. We we end up with the exact same thing.

It's different owners. It's different owners. Good point.

So so I'm I'm I'm in favor of a minimum site size. And and, finally, there's just economies of scale. If you're not gonna get a 100 acre twenty ten 20 units in acre 12, you cash it on. That's half population cash out. Yeah. You you you got the account as a scale, but even if we ended up with a 20 or 30 acre, if the intent of this is to have mobile transportation plan and resources and bus stops and anything else, you concentrate your people. If we want commercial, you concentrate the people who are on commercial. So I I think that actually works better than having it smaller than, say, a five or 10 acre project because then you you just don't have the scale to really efficiently manage that area in that space. You know, you get you get below five acres. Like, I'm I'm not in favor of I'm in favor of fourplexes for senior living as part of a larger project. I'm not in favor of a fourplex on the city block, kinda like like Iron did theirs. Because you isolate that one asset, it becomes very difficult to minimize that.

I guess I'm thinking of a little developers. Right? Some of you on the management have been developers.

So who do you think those of you?

I'm I'm just thinking about the the the smaller developer with less resources. Well,

in in my discussion, my my consideration is just not for small developer. I think we wanna develop we wanna work professional projects, professional developers, but, ultimately, what what product is being created is the overall feel of our city. And I think I think a small developer doing, you know, a a a a quarter eight development on the complex doesn't fit into the residential environment of, like, a good it is just gonna be hard to company and an overall or or a platform.

I guess I'm thinking about the economy, how unstable it is. K? And just and the the I mean, in 2008, some of the large developers business. Right? So it might be nice to have some kind of way for, you know, less projects that require less less Yeah. Have more flexibility to do unique

projects.

So I have had a handful of conversations with people that have they bought a single family home on an acre, acre and a half. Right? There's there's those are kinda spattered throughout 3200 South or on along the highway. And they say, you know, I'd really like to put in a triplex or fourplex here. It would help my family. What and that's it's just a flat out no. Like, there's no way to do something like that anywhere in Nibley, like, until you get to that large scale. And I think, Tyler, you're saying that's kind of what we're trying to avoid. But are we trying to avoid that in all at all costs in all situations? There's some place for that type of thing to happen, or we just say, no. You have you have your one acre lot, and that's what that's what you get. You know? Well, it depends on the zoning. Right? That that's the thing is our zoning is very restrictive. Our our underlying residential zoning, it's I mean, r two a, potentially, but for a lot of them, you know, if if they've got r two, r one, r one a zoning and they've got a small prop property, they they basically, they've got a they've got a single family home with a with a bunch of land around it. You know? But could they could they resell it?

Two two a.

They could request that.

You would be able to.

The frontage is an issue too. Yep. You can't take them. Yeah. The frontage does become an issue. Most of them, it doesn't. Right. But

If

you'd want two ADUs or yeah.

Inwards, we're get we're getting off top.

Right. I I was just trying to get to where where Karina was saying, like, a small scale project. It really is difficult to to do under our current regulatory environment to some like a like a fourplex or something like that.

It's almost done, like, each one. Whether whether we could flush this out in a general plan, help them find any specific nodes throughout the community where you have a cross section of streets that make sense that you could entertain unique development for infill or whatever. Right? Different things like that. But what I'm correct me if I'm wrong, but kind of what I'm hearing is our RM, we're still basically in the context of spa applying

where it makes sense.

Is that fair to say?

It's not on the land chart, is it? We're not don't know. No. It's we we basically

if someone can apply to amend the map and include the parcel, then it would be

a Besides the West now? Yeah. So 100. I'm putting notes down. So I'm five is where we love the Old West. So we're still stuck on where, what size?

Oh, you mean okay. Yes. We are. What size? Yeah. Oh, because

whatever size it is, they have acres space for park. On the front. Yeah.

Mhmm.

I know. That's expensive. I'm just thinking how expensive is Utah's, like, top three most expensive state in the nation.

So, again, so if you have five acre parcel, you gotta have one and a half acres of open space. You got two and a half acres. Sorry. Three and a half acres will work quite better. And you see acre, that's 35 homes. I think one and a half acre of open space is a good idea for 35 homes. Big difference. No. Because you know that's any is per develop like so if you start off one and a half, you have three and a half acres of development.

You don't count the the domain in space?

Well, you you do. Actually, you would count it you wouldn't count the right of ways, and you wouldn't count sensitive lands, but you do count it in the calculation of of developable, the open space portion. But but it's but it is gonna be lower. It's not gonna be it's most likely not going to be five unless you're not putting any streets in. Right? And you're and and you have no sensitive plan. Street. Yeah.

And then you still have to be able to park 35. Yeah. So I guess there's two ways you can do it. We we hold space, and I haven't had a consensus of mission in city council over the years. We're when we've been willing to give a a give and allow more density, we wanted to make sure we got hold space to count that. One of the discussions we had in last meeting was in lieu of open space, do we allow provision where additional funds are spent or additional impact fees for the overall part master plan? So I get okay. Size, you have one and a half acres. We've been out limiting back from the size of the development at that point. Now if you wanna get rid of the one and a half acre park, x amount further development, you had to develop the minimum to go to the overall park. Because we're we're we're picking up lots of large open tracks of lands on the city to do some incredible parks, and we just don't have enough to build them. Right. And parks are kinda useless. Yes. They are.

It's next year. Mainly it's for the city.

So we we need the one and a half meters there and let the mathematics determine the size and scale of the project, and then build in the provision to offset the old space to to for funds to be applied to the general. Just to fee and Lou? Yeah. Fee and Lou.

Yeah. And I like Troy's idea of dropping some of the amenities as well. Just

flash pad in the mic.

Just initialing myself. I'm gonna have to chill on see all those things. Right. That's why we have city parks for. So any other thoughts?

I I think we would tie it on a

little bit of space.

It's a bigger park and a more maintained park. I'd be more in reverse building. And it's a touch of parking. Yeah. One acre parks here in the And the the community.

Yeah. So do is that overall or are there any like, once we hit x number of units that you have to do, you can't

do?

I mean, I I would say if if we're gonna do a fee in lieu of maybe maybe there's a base density or a base open space that that you need to provide at least some level of open space, but but you can reduce it to a certain level. Like, we say 35%. Well, maybe you can reduce it to as much as 10% by using a feed loop. That's that's one idea.

Yeah.

Perhaps, geographically, the development's right next door to

a city open space already.

Perhaps we can have some tier or or an evaluation process that allows no no park in that development if it's right next door to the entrance doors for the CS. I I actually, I think

at that specified distance towards a future master plan or or the deal. So if you're within a thousand feet of the big one that's gonna be here, then you can do a a payment as well. But then that's a walkable distance to to access the existing parts. And if you're if you're not within a certain amount of distance of an existing part for future time work, then the d would I mean, the payment is not

The the idea there is we're still we're still providing open space in close proximity to all these spaces as we grow. But but but if we already have something there, you know, why why not improve what we have rather rather than just spread it out? The 12 plus, no, if that's correct. I think 35.

Yeah. 35. Yeah. Because that's

Right. But if it you know, both of. There's no there's no plan hardback. Yeah.

Yeah. And if it's it reduces the strain on the city where the the public space that you have to see is one more place to get to take care of. The consolidated. Well, at early five acre park, well improved is is better

than. Yeah. Yeah.

But that's the one on the East West. It's about one acre. I don't ever see any of that. Couple big big tables.

That's the one I think of.

That's true.

If it's well maintained. So we wanna It's full of weeds, David.

Yeah. Move the maker science to stick with park area. Let the park area be the limiting factor of

So you don't see a you don't see a problem with just having the RPV and open space and not RM or or or what?

It's it's it's true.

I

think yeah.

I think a lot of it You know, I think I think the key is and then we're gonna go through the general plan and update the future land use map, but keying in on high density, me what do we mean by high density? What do we mean by medium density? What's that continuum? And and that that really should be the basis for future zoning decisions. I mean, yes, it can technically be it could be applied everywhere. But if we're designating as low density residential and someone comes in with a with an application for RM and that's clearly a high density zone, probably gonna get denied. So I don't know. I I I think I think the general plan process will be a good a good process to I mean, our our code has changed quite a bit since the last general plan. We didn't have our PUD. We didn't have the open space subdivision wasn't really the same as it is now. And and so I hope, I you know, we can use it as an opportunity to articulate that better of where do we want, you know, an open space subdivision type development. Where do we where are we okay with these higher density developments?

Yeah. To me, I think we let the public comment period and the general plan basically say, this is where the citizens, and at least say they're comfortable having this. Yeah. It's gonna buy this that, and we just let it be what it is.

Pretty long. Yeah. Very simple. But I think I think a lot of the things that Troy mentioned so this this code is patterned after the RPUD code. So we could I mean, we go about this a few ways. But if if if there's some agreement with some of those changes, and I I think there's some good points there, and and staff feels there are some some things that could be adjusted with with the existing code. They could apply to both, an RM or an RPUD or you know, they could be put under the same umbrella, really. But

Well, I think I'm just gonna we're gonna just table and, Tim, unless somebody comes up with something tangible to read reassess in the future, I'm gonna say we're just gonna table our end.

Yeah. Just Is that is that what Is is that okay with

that? Hey. Are we okay with the driveway thing? I got that was a big concern. Staff is the driveway thing. Share two I mean, like, if if we want keeping that so we can say where it goes or not, but, like, there's still a driveway thing. Well, because

West Townsend, they proposed 100 units.

Units.

Yeah. It's

the plow drivers, they hate it because they get toward that end and they hit they clip that wing, and it it's rough on. But I guess I'll ask the question. Do we wanna hold off and then be in a situation when someone comes where right back where we were in this single instance. Yeah. You wanna be proactive. Yeah. Yeah. Well, we we talked about some really nice things. So payment in lieu, I love it. You know, the driveway thing, that's another great one. You want staff to research a couple of these things? And Yeah. I think

some of the squeegee

that we discussed.

But it sounds like we don't have a minimum area yet, size.

I'd like to go to the council to. That's great. I I would like to use 10 foot up down home only, like, more and more. So it's still like the next I've seen Yeah. And I'm not I'm not so concerned with a stack on a mix of potential if it's a developer making a choice. I don't want stack on a mix of an existing balancing bad choices. For sure. And it is it is know what to do. So I also still like the idea of making this a legislative decision instead of legislative because the legislative we don't have to write an ordinance in every place. Then the city can just say we're a driveway onto whatever city. And so so it becomes more of a direct negotiation about our own about the roads versus, you know, having unintended consequence of, you know, the drivers.

So, I mean, I I think I think if we're going to more of an overlay RPD, that's I guess that's the question. Do we structure this as and we talked about tiers, right, of of different levels. Is that something we look at researching, pursuing, if there's some way we can structure this where it isn't our it we basically remove RM, and it's just an RPUD, but just different levels

of RPUD. And and I think it's gotta exclude JWTD, the DDR, over, like, DDR duties five inch speaker. Right.

Yeah. So all those thresholds, I think, are important to look at, but I I don't know. I I don't know if others feel the same way. That that that really, the main thing with that is the difference between legislative or administrative approval.

So the the RPV subdivision is and the town town center overlay, those are less like, legislates. And so the benefit of that is is the city does, like, say it. Like, you can put x amount of units in, but we still need a road here. You know, I like I like I like those quotes. I think this school that says, you know, like, the post maybe address having multiple types of housing in the development in the concentrated area, which allows people of different income scales and diversity of of maintenance stuff versus just having a block of

So maybe what we do is and I'll look at Taylor Taylor's notes because I don't take good notes. But look look at the notes and and put together do some research, put something together as a, you know, very rough draft of here's an approach we can take, bring it back one once you're ready. It's probably not gonna be the next meeting, but but bring it back to the the commission to help facilitate this discussion. You know? What what do you like? What do you not like? What do we need to change? So we have something tangible to So I think to to react to. Throw out the minimum

acres. The the discussion we're having now on RQD or good acre for you. I don't let's figure out what Jordan's and then figure out what's Okay.

Yeah. Well, we'll see what we can come up with and k. Thank you. Go from there. Alright.

Let's move on to The last item on the agenda, agenda number four, another workshop on. Levi, get us get us going. Yeah. So

just just to be clear on what spurred this, right right next door, if it wasn't dark, you could see right out the window here. City has a property, and the this the city council opted to buy this property right next door. It came up for sale, and they, you know, weren't sure about expansion of this of this building. Anyway, since that time, we've done we've done a a a study on expanding this building that really didn't take advantage of the area next door. And and the city is now looking at the possibility of, well, maybe we just sell it. It one way to sell it you know, I mean, we could just sell it as is, but but it's a really long, deep lot. We've got quite a few of these on 3200 South. They're relatively narrow, but they're really long. They're why not allow for a flag lot in something like this? Well, our current code doesn't allow it. Plug lots are not allowed on arterial streets. So that's that's really the main impetus for this discussion just to bring it up. At the end of the day, please, you know, do whatever you think is best for the city, the the city with with our own land. We'll figure out what to do with it. But Just figure it out. Consider not just this property, but that's what spurred this this item was, well, we can't do it. So let's ask the commission. Is this something we wanna continue? I know other than this lot, there I I do get quite a few requests from property owners, and a lot of them are on 3200. You know, some are on the highway, but but I just have to say, nope. Can't do that. You don't need frontage. Log lots aren't allowed there. Is that two? It's, like, two acres. It's wait. No. No. It's about an acre. It's a little over an acre. So yeah. Right. But we can't subdivide it as a flag lot because our code prohibits that. So we could sell the lot. The city could sell the lot, but we can't sell it with there's no flag lot. We have to subdivide it, create a flag lot. So that's the main provision. With this one in particular, there's there's other issues, and I I think, you know, that these become issues with creating flag lots in general is the setback provisions are a little onerous. So we require 20 feet of pavement, and then we require additional width for, like, a swale or stormwater. So you need 30 feet of a stem for for your for your lot, and then you need to be 10 feet set back from that stem. So from here, when you look at, you know, right next door, we need we need about 40 feet. We need 10 feet between the house and here, and then we need an additional 30 feet. So we I don't even know if it would work to get rid of this provision. Right. And and a lot and a lot of these lots, that that is an issue where they've got enough room. They've got a little alleyway that can go right next to the house, but they can't set it back 10 feet from the house and then have so and and, you know, we we've talked about flag lots. It's been a little while. I don't know if I actually wasn't here the last time we had a really extensive discussion on flag logs. Maybe Tyler and Brett were

Yeah.

Yeah. What what's the what's the concern you need to address? Flag logs on a territory.

They can't. So do you think that?

Well, yes. We can't sympathize them. But what Why why do we want yeah. What do

The only argument I could think of is limiting access. Right? We don't want a lot of access on arterial roads.

What do you think? Okay.

If the model is good.

No. Anything voluntarily.

There's still something There

should still be some buffer from a house to a driveway. I don't know what that would be. Maybe five feet.

Yeah. I'm so because, like,

I'm not having to, but it's a.

It's currently 85. Right.

Yeah. I I would suggest at least 12 foot if you're there is a a FireSafe Drive requirement if you're over a 150 feet deep, But you could actually I I can't remember what that width is. I think it is 20 feet. And then you have to have a hammerhead turnaround if it's deeper than a 150 feet by

fire code. K. Cool. What if it's not a 150 feet deep? Not a 150 feet deep, you can treat it as a driveway

and have 12 feet. So I mean, do we just have fire code to dictate that rather than There's a flagpole. I'm about 2,600

now, but it's 10 feet. It's 10 acres. There's only a well, it's currently placed on the outside of the box. Yeah. And it was probably created before

the existing fire code restrictions, I'm I'm guessing, but yeah. Could be.

Or maybe not enforced sometimes. We make mistakes as regulators, omissions, errors. Yep. Okay. Yeah. Well, it's been in longer than twenty years. I know that. Perhaps whoever the regulator was wasn't aware of that requirement.

Because it was recently sold at last five years.

Back to the question of why have a swell, it's probably just a thought not to directly run off onto the neighbor next door. Just Just gonna be able to capture some some stormwater runoff.

Yeah. I mean, I guess I guess the you know, this this property aside, our flag lot ordinance is is pretty restrictive. I think it's well thought out. I think there's a I think the city was trying to cover, you know, at the at the time issues that that could arise from flag flag lots. But we've only had one flag lot proposal in the five years I've been here. And I it hasn't been subdivided yet, by the way. They may or may not actually subdivide it. So I'm not sure how you know, I I think there's a fear of, oh, we're gonna have a bunch of these fly lots, and we don't want these. I don't I think they're still gonna be few and far between even if we loosen it up, kinda like what we've done with the ADU ordinance. You know? I think we got that really restrictive, and then we've kinda loosened it up a little bit, and we're still not seeing a windfall of ADUs. Yeah. That's a good that's a good point. Yeah.

Yeah. Just like

I don't No. Both both. Yeah.

Tell you right now. No.

Yeah.

Simple errors, a thing or a

active control. So So So I can

I I'd encourage you to sorry? No. I I'd encourage you to craft something that doesn't allow creating nonconforming lots nor would allow adding to the nonconformity of an existing lot,

if that makes sense. It's not for me. Is it is it all right?

If it's nonconforming, you can't do this. You can't create an another nonconformity or add to a nonconformity, if that makes sense. So I guess, that buffer I was talking about, the side yard setback, now you're creating a a a lane down there. You would have what's our side yard setback? 10 feet. So you have at least 10 feet from that drive access, and then it'd be, you know, 12 foot if you if you decide 12 foot, that could be 22 feet overall from the original boundary. Just thinking through how it would look.

Are you trying to get if there's an existing nonconforming law that you're trying to build behind it, or does the flat law create a non?

To to to already you know, an existing nonconforming law Next, we're not a nonconforming lot. And you do want it down on the second nonconforming lot. You wanna put a structure by creating flagpole.

With the non you wanna pull up the GIS.

Or as I just said, we just cannot it's not performing. You can't Well, because the the flag lock wouldn't be no. You can probably put it.

See, redirect. Oh.

Yeah. We wouldn't If I Nonconforming in what way, I guess, are you saying? Five. Minimum minimum lot size? Yeah. We wouldn't we just wouldn't allow it if it didn't meet the minimum lot size, unless we put some provision in here that flag lots are exempt from that. But but, no, you would need you would, at minimum, need that that amount of space for the lot

unless you rezoned. Couldn't do a flag lot in 3AM.

Right. Because it's a it's a subdivision, and those lots need to meet the underlying zoning.

It's it's not that many. They're they're field groups. They're not that many. 1.88 plus complex. A 100 feet by anything. Four seventy.

1.3 is what I'm showing. Sorry. Oh. Is this the one maybe you're looking at a different one. Right. Yeah. The ones that I've heard from, you know, are just if you look

I mean, I don't I

I don't know if it's a

a lot, but 8th West, 30 200, some of these old old lots here. I mean, look how deep they are. And they really can't you really can't do anything with them. It's not much.

Yeah. You're exactly the track like that. So we're probably gonna look pretty isolated. It's it's it's on this this house house next to us.

Yeah. But it's narrow. It's narrow too. Right? It looks a lot like those lots.

Yes, sir.

Yeah. And we have a little lane. We drive back there. We just you know? They got all their equipment back there to tear all those trees out.

And I was just gonna say, like, there's other impacts as well. Like, like, for this one, one point three acres, get, like, four more houses on there if you did, like, all the blocks. Now all of those, now you have about 10 trash cans sitting in front of that house. Is it gonna fit on that that parcel? And then they all go in a bike lane, and then

there's there's other impacts. Sorry. I was having a on your garbage.

Well, the the backlog isn't true.

You can have up to two. The code the code does allow two. And then and then we have this private lane provision that's almost like a loophole. You just need you just need a couple more feet, and then you can do a private lane.

Which I I I guess I haven't done that research, really. I just I just did some research in the Hyde Park LiveBot sort of vision based on the state. Your lot touches the public right away, you can put a lot.

Including our tier. That's that's kinda, like, the big thing with this. Right? It's on an arteria. Like, if it's on a neighborhood street, yeah, no problem. Yeah. But then

with that, I'm I'm again, that one we used to solve it. There's only one driveway access. But yeah. Like, so high parking, if you touch the frontage, I I think it's a little bit of 15 feet, 18 feet. You touch the frontage, you can do a lot. Mhmm.

Yeah. I don't know if we need 30 feet. That seems a little wide for if you if you all you all you have is just a little house back there, but

I don't know. But that that's the way to protect the the confluence. If you if it's one single family home, then it's 15 built right away. It's And And then you can only get one house here. You want to swell. Okay?

You have we have DG. The digital one thirty two under south. Or the nine they're all, like, allowed to do

one.

Right. It's so newer. Supplement.

I've had a couple calls.

Yeah. Yeah. People have asked people have asked me that question. They buy these they buy these houses. You know, I mean, there was there was recently an ADU that was built. They they wanted to subdivide it. They didn't wanna put an ADU in. They wanted to subdivide it and sell it to their parents. They ended up building an ADU for them instead, But it's it looks like a flag lot. It's just across the street here. Yeah. Yeah. I mean I mean, they they had they've got a a big lot, about an acre. I think it was this one. Maybe not. No. Not that one. I can't remember. I I shouldn't point at the specific one, but but they had they had about an acre of land. And and, yeah, they didn't they didn't want a horse, so they wanted to build a house on there instead. You know?

Well, that's gonna be fun.

Well, that's gonna be.

The the buyer, well, elderly, second generation or third generation sell the new owners. Yeah. Particular.

So

Go no. Go ahead. Say,

would we want staff to maybe do some research on flag lots in other cities in the valley to see what what their code might be before we move forward with maybe things prudent?

Yeah. Come back with potential amendments or

okay. Well, before we do that, so that we should we don't allow development five blocks.

I don't see an issue with it. It's time out.

Yeah. If it's

that's a tough one. If it's appropriate and access is okay, then but 3200 South is a busy road. I have back a trailer off for the 200 South. Don't go at school's time.

If you look at 3349 South, maybe it's another five months. It's the ground box for their row. So the owner of this property, what they ended up doing was to buy a parcel next to it and then put in an extended driveway. So it's a certain driveway instead of a just a little bit. Alright. Right from there. Some of my adventures. Zoom, I don't know. But they ended up buying the parcel next to it and made a circular driveway so we Yes. So we should consider permissions for safety.

Circular driveways.

But we have to consider traffic safety back.

Mhmm. So some people aren't as good at backing in as I am. I was back into my driveway. Yeah. No big deal. Busy road. It's not Main Street, but

K. So, basically, move forward with the idea of Flaglabs, but we let's get some information. Communities. So I think that's it. Stat and paper staff reports?

Yeah. So city council, they they reconsider the 2,500 amendment, and they did approve the applicant's request to remove 2500 South with with the condition that they de restrict the property so that there's no access on the 1200 West. So very long discussion over three hours last week. That's that's what that's where it landed. The the general plan, we we're working on selecting a consultant. We were I won't I won't say who it is. We're in contract negotiations right now, but we we have selected someone that's gonna go in front of, city council either next meeting or the one after depending how long it takes to get that contract together. So we're we're excited about that. And thank Claire and Nick on help helping on that process. Let's see. The oh, a cup couple of trainings coming up. So Utah League of Cities and Towns is on April, like, I wanna say sixteenth through eighteenth. I mean, I'm just pulling my calendars. The same's working. Yeah. So the Utah League of Cities and Towns is the conference is actually just the seventeenth and eighteenth, but with travel, it's, you know, sixteenth through eighteenth. If anyone's interested in attending that one, please please let us know before the next meeting, so I guess within the next three weeks so we can get you signed up there, get get hotels and everything. The APA Utah conference is gonna be local this year. It's gonna be in Logan, and that is gonna be on May on the conference planning committee for that one. If anyone's interested in attending either one of either one of those, let me know. But I think the APA conference is a great opportunity where it's local. Even if you can only attend a day or half a day, let me know. You it's a you know, the the fee is is pretty minimal, considering what you get out of those, and I I think it'll be a a a great conference. We're we're It's gonna be at the Mary the Courtyard Marriott. Is that what it is? At the Yeah. In Logan. Yeah. So Is there a screen on it? Yeah. I will. So just think about that. I'll I'll I'll, yeah, I'll follow-up with an email on those. That is it.

No. There's been a influx of development review, lot of housing, bridge on Parks 789. I might have mentioned this last time too. We were honed in on Hawk Hollow Getting close. I think part of that goes to city council next on the twentieth. So is the other one? We have commercial development or one of our first ones. Oh, come over here.

Nibley Coach is really close. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. They named the coach.

It's getting along.

They they still have to get some of the the bonding in place and haven't really they haven't given us water shares yet. So we're just working to find your The

the commercial access get figured out with

the bridge money development? Yeah. So

we've deferred any improvements, and they've paid us 500

Oh, that's well, that was the the furthest thing. But isn't there another one just to the south that's, like, the commercial piece that still

we need to work through as well? That one's still in limbo. Yeah.

Same story?

Yeah. The the way the development agreement was written, it said that it it's up to the city engineer to

Just tell him to do it. I just told that I didn't know.

For the business. So just not fair to them. Okay.

Is that it? Yeah. Yeah. Capital projects. We have a project coming up this summer and Troy's net rose there at 1300 West. We just had a bid opening. We had really great interest. We had 14 bids proposed for this quarter million dollar project. The lowest bid, we can't tell you who it is yet, but I I do some map check, but, they're under the budget that we had allocated for it. And so we're we're excited for that. Great. Taylor?

And just remember to email your email to your.

Great. Anybody have anything else? Okay. We'll call this meeting adjourned.

Oh, the 1200 West, we're working on finalizing plans and hoping to have them in the next few weeks. And I'll have to do it with you and make sure they're they're adequate and then hope to go to bid right then thereafter and construct this summer. More construction.

Yeah. Yeah. More road. Construction. Road closures. Yeah. Yeah. Where are you?