Nibley City Planning Commission

Question and consideration for the preliminary plat for Hawk Hollow subdivision, which is a standard subdivision located at approximately 1150 West, 3200 South in Midway, Utah. The applicant is, Midway Hawk Hollow LLC. And I'd ask Levi, to open up to, and discuss the project for us. He's ready.

Yeah. Just a second. Okay. Sorry. Just scrambling a little bit with technical difficulties here. So, yeah, just just as a introduction to this project, so this is this is the the subdivision. It's it's located at about 1150 West And 3200 South on on the South side of 3200 South there and just east of of the roundabout. The applicant sorry. I'm gonna I'm not I'm not a good multitasker. My my wife will be the first one to tell me that. So sorry if I'm I'm stumbling while I'm trying to get this stuff going. But as as a little background, a few months back, the the applicant came in with a rezone request, and the, the rezone was granted, but with some conditions, one of which is that the property needs to be subdivided and, also, that there needs to be a a a land swap between Nibley City and and the property to facilitate additional park space to the park, which which is being developed at at as part of Nibley Meadows. You can see that on the screen. I'm gonna pull up the presentation here in just a sec. This is the one. Pull this up. Get that going for you. So you can see the layout and everything. I wanna bring it up here for you. So this is what's being proposed, what you see up on the screen. This this does closely resemble what what the applicant submitted in in conjunction with the rezone. They they did submit a a concept plan that that, you know, was pretty much this this exact same layout. There's some some modifications to stormwater that I'll discuss a little bit later. They did previously, they showed kinda stormwater ponds in different locations that I'll I'll talk about that a little bit. But as you can see, there's 23 lots in the subdivision. Just to orient you, 3200 South is is that North Street, and then 1200 West is the street kind of on the left left of the screen. So you can see those two accesses for for the subdivision there. And then on the south side is that's that's open space, and maybe I'll escape so I can kinda use my cursor. So this this space about, you know, right in here, this is currently owned by by the property owner, you know, this this whole kinda square. But if you follow this line all the way down and and this area over here, this is city owned property. And so all of this this subdivision is contingent on the approval of a a land swap. And and the agreement of that is is the next item on the agenda will be considered. But but wanted to to give you a context on the subdivision first, which is why this is kind of the first item on the agenda there. Like, one is kind of contingent upon the other. So so through that land swap, this part of the property, this the city would would trade for for this property adjacent to another park or a planned park to the south there, so it expands that that park space. So just a little bit on on the subdivision itself. And I and I I should also mention this item on the agenda, I wouldn't I wouldn't get too hung up on the details of that land swap. This is really to determine if the subdivision meets Nibley City standards. The land swap really should be considered separately from that. So so I I would I would just advise you to kind of focus on on if it's meeting Nibley City standards, you know, this is the the planning commission is the approval authority for for standard for for subdivision, for preliminary plat. And so, you know, for this first item, that's what I would focus on. And and just in general, this this subdivision does meet minimum lot size, average lot size, street frontage requirements for the R two a zone. As far as utilities, and I I can go back to the plan a little bit, these have been reviewed, and we've had we've had a lot of discussions on on utilities with the applicant, you know, with the city engineer, public works. And the the final location, kind of the second bullet point of the water and sewer, it it may be modified a a little bit. We're working through kind of how to most efficiently provide that the best in the best interest of the city, you know, to ensure water quality and other things. And and Tom Tom's been working on that. We've been we've been coordinating with them. So, one of our one of our recommended conditions, and I'll I'll go through all the conditions at the end, is that that that final location of the water and sewer line, it it it will be coordinated with with city staff in conjunction with the final plat. So there there may be some modifications there with with those locations, but but for now, you know, it has been reviewed, and and it it can, you know, can work this way. Stormwater, this we've we've had really a lot of discussions on on stormwater on this. So the reason why and and you saw concept plans before. There was there was some stormwater ponds on the on the property. We we are trying to develop a kind of regional stormwater system that goes to the wet to the wetlands, which are just to the west of this property, 1200 West. And if if you wanna kind of know more of the details of that, Tom Tom will get into that. But in general, we're we're working with this property owner, and this really is tied into the land the this land swap and those details of, you know, as far as who pays for what, and that's all that's all subject to review of of city council. But but in general, you know, we're trying so that and this and this really is a a better deal for the city if we can push the stormwater across the street there. That park area is gonna be a lot more usable if we don't have, you know, a small stormwater basin in the corner. And so, that's what that's kind of what we're going for there. There is there is a Nible Blacksmith Fork Canal on the north side of the property along 3200 South that's proposed to be piped. And this this is this is consistent with what if you some of you might remember there was a subdivision approved previously, a a Hawk Hollow subdivision, open space subdivisions, different owners. But, anyway, they they they're consistent with the wishes of the canal company. They're, you know, they're proposing to pipe that canal on 3200 South. And then they have shown on the on the preliminary plat, you know, cross section improvements that conform with the transportation master plan and design standards. There there we do have a standard that you need to have a traffic calming. When if it's a local road coming off an arterial road like this, an entrance to a subdivision, and they are proposing, curb cuts for for traffic calming there.

Let's

see. Back here. Okay. I wanted to get into this detail. So the the we have a provision in Nibley City code which requires a pedestrian connection at least every 660 feet for, you know, if if there's if there's not a roadway connection, then it requires an eight foot trail connection. Maybe to display this, it'll be better if I go back to this. So as you as you can see, if you look on the right side of the subdivision, kind of along that east side, between that street, which comes in the inlet and the trail adjacent to the the park, it's a little bit more than six sixty. It's it's about 700 feet. So

it doesn't

yeah. Sorry. You better if I so between here and here, it's a little bit more than, 660 feet. So it doesn't quite meet that standard. However, we tell the staff that this, as proposed, is a better location than, let's say, if they put it here or here. And, I mean, really, any between any of these lots is is probably not as ideal as it would be adjacent to, the park and the open space. And so the next item on the agenda has a a provision in the agreement where there's an exception to that provision in the code that allows them to to design it this way, and staff is supportive of that of that proposal. So it, you know, calls that out. But, you know, that's I I would say that item in particular is is I I would call it a more of a legislative decision of whether you you want to grant that exception to to the code through by, you know, by by agreement. Because, you know, we have found that, no, it doesn't meet that that provision, but but through the through through the the development agreement, it would. So there are also through the national wetland inventory, it it is showing wetlands on the southeast corner of the property. And so we're we're asking to require wetland delineation and bill permit. It it does overlap with that trail, the the wetlands that are shown on on NWI. And so, you know, we we we're just we just wanna make sure that, proper process is followed for any any required mitigation for the wetland or, you know, if any fill is needed there. As far as street trees, they're not shown on this plan, but but, you know, we're recommending that it's a requirement of final plat. There for a standard subdivision, oddly enough, there's not a preliminary landscape plan required, but there is, for final plat. And so that we just wanted to call that out that the the street tree requirement would be met. So staff's recommendation is approval of this preliminary plat with the fall there there's several conditions here. I'll I'll go through them. One is that this ordinance twenty five zero five, which is the next item on the agenda, this land adjustment agreement, and it's also a development agreement with the applicant needs to be approved by city council. We're recommending that a note on the plat be be added that property owners adjacent to 3200 South And 1200 West install and maintain landscaping and clear sidewalks, particularly along our arterial this is in Nibley City code, but along our arterial roadways, a lot of times, property owners don't quite understand that, so we wanna make that clear right on the plat. Coordination with Nibley Blacksmith Fork Irrigation who holds the water right on a land drain that relates to the property, coordinate with also with the irrigation company regarding impacts and changes to canal. And then there's also a canal irrigation turnout on the northboundary of the project, and we're recommending coordination with that property owner to ensure adequate flows and operations are maintained with proposed improvements. The next condition is a water model will be run to update the water model to ensure adequate flows are maintained. Cost will be billed with development fees. This will be in conjunction with the final plat, by the way. Same with this the sewer model will be run to update the sewer model and ensure adequate flows. Costs will be billed. The development fees, acceptance of stormwater design is contingent on acceptance of land swap and regional stormwater pond. So that's that I I already described that that stormwater issue that really it only works if with with that with the land swap. So, I mentioned this, the wetland delineation and fill permit approved by ACOE is required prior to final plat approval. Indoor and outdoor water use calculation certificate for equivalent shares, financial surety, and payment development fees required time of final plat. And the last is final location of waterline and stormwater drain. We coordinated with city staff at time and final plat. And that that's it. Yeah. Thank you. We're we're happy to entertain any questions or anything you have. Tom's Tom can get into more details on, you know, some of the design on the utilities and and, you know, whatever other questions you have.

Is there a representative of Hawk Hollow that wouldn't mind speaking or do you have anything to say? Or No. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Great. K. We'll open it up for discussion amongst the commission members. Joy, you have your name in each one? Is there anything to

discussion right away.

Question for Levi and maybe on the in C code twenty one twelve sixty where it talks about the production right away, it doesn't specify anything in there on, like, curb cuts or accessing those paths. Is that, like, not allowed, or Or is that something that can be done? I know there's quite a lot of these throughout Midway, and, like, if you're if there's any kind of rolling, this makes it hard. So if you're pushing controllers or wheelchairs or scooters or whatnot, just accessing those, like, going up on driveways via a bigger curb cut, not an ADA or something like that. So that was the one thing that kinda popped.

I don't know.

I think yeah. Go ahead, Tom.

I think you're identifying a couple installations in some of the more recent subdivisions. To just have a curb cut, though, from a road doesn't make sense if there's not a an opposing trail on the other side. So we look at those individually and try to if there is a trail that continues on the other side, then you would have the curb cuts that connect there. And in in most cases, I try to avoid mid block crossings altogether just because people aren't really normally looking for them. And it it creates a danger to to pedestrians trying to cross to those locations many times. But and I think I know what you're talking about, but, yeah, those ones predate me. Not that I'm blaming anybody else, but I can't because he's not here. And, yeah, I I had the same thoughts. Like, why why why? And I promise it will look better at those.

If you go back to the platform, I just wanted clarification. Okay. So this is an old this is just a standard RPA submission. But on the settlement border, that's that parcel will be essentially just dedicated setting. Is that accurate?

Correct. Yeah. Through through through a land exchange. And so the the land this can only go through if that land exchange is approved. So it needs to be contingent on that.

And if like that. That's do we take burden responsibility to maintain longer or do anything with one Any excessive state positive one?

Yes. So we will inherit any deficiency. So the requirement for delineation, if they'll permit us, that protection for the city, It it's, in my opinion, it's encroaching that that trail particularly is approaching in the wetlands. I think through a fill permit, it's going going to be less than a tenth of an acre, so there shouldn't be any mitigation to it. But I wanna make sure that it's that that or the delineation is accurate and that the road doesn't you know, it's not bigger than it's what it's shown on the national wetland inventory.

There's that risk too. So if it isn't That's figured out, though. There's not any ongoing response. No. We just have to

preserve and protect it. We can't go in and fill and destroy it. So we'll just have to keep it there. We don't yeah. But if we wanna put a soccer field in there, that might be an encroachment.

Why is it still 28 where

Yes.

Right? The sidewalk on 3200 South that go through the property and actually connect to the other 100% private house between

So that that's a good question. We we did have and this is part of the land swap agreement and extension of that sidewalk to the, to the west because there's also a gap there, to the where the roundabout picks up, and it's part of that proposed agreement for them to build that section of the sidewalk. But the other one, I don't think we included that. But that would be on the city to To finish. To finish that. Yeah. There's a little gap. Yeah. So we so we have we have the project that that we just finished where that sidewalk is goes right up to the edge of of Nible Meadows. Right? Or is there a gap there? Yeah. Yes. So on the Oh, the trail. You're talking the trail, not the sidewalk. Yeah.

The one the east boundary of this property would be 1100 West right of way, and that's supposed to be converted to a trail with Nibley Meadows. And that'll go all the way up, and it'll kinda circle around to the east. And then through the frontage of Nibley Meadows all the way to the Riggs property, which is where we stopped our project last year or this year, we we continued that. They should join right there. The The only gap that would remain with this land agreement if it if it goes through is that little section in the upper right hand corner. It'll be a 130 feet that we'd have to figure out how to connect, work with that property owner in the future.

We have the right of way. Right? You could build it, but I'd have to check on that. Okay.

I

think for me, I just was curious about given some of the history of my neighborhood and some of the difficulties my neighbors have had with with fencing over canals and easements and everything, do we have any of those situations here? And if so, if we remedy that and how we approach we wanna identify those on these flats and everything to protect our citizens that are buying these lots. Yeah. We So then that's great too. So through

iteration of the developer, there there there's there's issues with dead end water lines, and the original plan comes off of 3200 South at the intersection, comes in and dead ends on that cul de sac. Then it loops around the other way and then connects and dead ends on 1200 West on the south axis. To mitigate water quality issues, they showed a a loop that went between some property lines and things like that. And since we really would prefer not to have fences impeded on and stuff. So they've been working with us pretty where they we relocated up to the trail. So it's not gonna impact any property owners. Kinda back to your point or your question, are there any canal issues? The only ones are on the north facing, the north boundary that will be piped. So there may be some boundary issues there, but we've been working well with Nibley Blacksmith Ford, and we have a permitting process now. And they they should be able to get a fence as long as it meets their conditions and built Yeah. I agree. Their their yeah. I know I don't I don't want her to point out that we've been working with the developer to try to avoid those situations with the other utilities as well. Yeah. Good.

Yeah.

That that's a good question on because the canal issue and Tom Tom mentioned we we are having some ways to mitigate that, but I think we can even avoid that in this case. I don't think there's a need for a canal easement because I believe there's you need 10 feet on each side of that of the center line of the canal, and I I believe there's at least 10 feet here between the property line and the canal. So I think I think we're good there. I think we do wanna avoid that. We're we're dealing with some headaches on that if we can. Even even with mitigating measures, if if we can be avoided, that's that's ideal. And I just feel like in any circumstance where

we feel like it's not I don't know if we can outright require that as a note on these flats, but just to protect people from misunderstandings

in the future. It's gonna be too easy to Yeah. The easement is there, but it might that's a good point. It fences. Yeah. Probably go forward.

It doesn't. It doesn't. But I guess what It would be like if if they needed access easement and in my neighborhood, for example, issues with people not being able to put a fence for access because they cannot company doesn't want to fight that persona and, like, we're taking offense down because we need to get through here. You know what I mean? Big parts. Yeah.

Yeah. But in this case, it's not in their yard. It's in the park strip. And I believe there's enough separation there where they shouldn't have to have an easement on people's private property like we have in some other places. I it it appears to me on this based on at least the resolution on the preliminary plat.

Right. You're saying that, like, the rear yard park strip What is that sort of

Yeah. And, hopefully, they actually do. We'll see. But we're at least gonna try. Yeah. We thought we would try.

I'll make a motion. Make a motion we set the preliminary plat for a column subdivision. Let's take a look at conditions stated. Commissioner

Schenck has offered a motion to approve preliminary plat for subdivision with the conditions identified through staff. Second. Commissioner Robal seconded. So do we have a general motion to approve? Say aye? Aye. Okay. It's five five approved zero nay, I guess. Onto the next item. Who's this? So we'll go to the next item, which is a, public discussion on ordinance twenty five five, the development and land adjustment agreement with Nibley Hock Hollow LLC for the Nibley Hock Hollow subdivision for the adjustment of boundaries between city parcels and the developer parcel located at approximately 1050 West 3200 South setting forth terms and conditions and including an exception to Nibley City code twenty one twelve sixty f three regarding pedestrian connectivity.

I think Levi did a good job of introducting introducing this. Do we have anyone signed up for public comment? I I have I have more details on this. Okay. Go ahead. Just just just to talk about the actual agreement. Okay. So, there's a number of terms in this agreement, but I I I wanna be upfront that the reason this is on the planning commission agenda is because of this one provision in the agreement of the exception for pedestrian connectivity. Had that had we not put that in the agreement, the rest of the provisions really are under the purview of city council. Now that said, if if you see any issues with it and you wanna make any recommendations to city council on those provisions, you're more than welcome to. But but just wanted to be clear that that this agreement, which is, you know, setting forth the primarily setting forth the conditions for the land exchange that that we mentioned in the last item, it's it's primarily a city council decision. And and, typically, they would make that decision, you know, out outside of, planning commission involvement. But, anyway so just the specific conditions that are included is that the property line needs to be adjusted between the current Leon City property and and right away, the proposed open space that's displayed on the preliminary plat, which is the last item. Developer to design and construct a sidewalk walk that connects the project to the existing sidewalk near 3rd 200 South 1200 West Roundabout. Developer shall design the and then shrug curb gutter sidewalk adjacent to city parcel and installs install waterline electrical service to the property. The city needs to vacate the right of land 1200 West West, and then the city agrees to grant this this exception to Nibley City code, regarding pedestrian connectivity. So that's kind of a summary of the terms of the agreement. The staff's recommendation is approval of of this ordinance. We already kind of explained the reason why we're in support of the the exception to the to Nibley City code for that pedestrian connectivity. We have met with the applicant about you know and and they've and and and we've discussed and the numbers behind what's a fair deal for the city, what's fair deal for for the applicant. We're not presenting those tonight. We're we're working on those. But as I mentioned, that's really more of a city council decision. It's more of a budgetary decision for the city. So so that's that's kinda why we're we're not getting into those those details tonight. But but, yeah, our our recommendation is approval for this agreement. I don't know if you had any.

Thank you, We we did not have anyone sign up on the sign up sheet for comment. Is there anyone in attendance that would like to come to the podium and speak? No? Okay. Well, I guess we'll close the public comment period for this item, and then we'll move on to item number three for discussion and con consideration, for ordinance twenty five five, development and land adjustment agreements with Niddley Hawk Hollow LLC for the Hawk Hollow subdivision. The adjustment boundaries between city parcels and the developer parcel located approximately 1050 West 3200 South setting forth terms and conditions, including an exception to Nibley City code 211260F3 regarding pedestrian connectivity. And with that, I will open it up for a discussion amongst the commission. Joy, do you have anything?

Brett? No. You're still waiting for the study of the wetland, and that and that connectivity will go on how it stands then.

Yeah. So so and that was that was kind of addressed on the last item. It they they're they'll they'll be required in conjunction with final approval to do a wetland delineation and a fill permit for that. But that that was already, you know, kind of addressed with the preliminary plan.

David, any questions?

Approve on the board with the plans, including the exception to twenty twelve sixteen.

I'd second. Second. K. We have a motion, from commissioner about to approve ordinance twenty five five, aforementioned land swap, city code or accepting city code twenty one twelve sixty f three. Second, for commissioner Schenck. Do we have general consensus to approve? You wanna say yes? I'll be approving a

Oh, recommending approval.

You need to restate that? Sure. This goes to the council.

Yeah. Yeah. A a motion to recommend approval. We have a a recommendation

to approve ordinance twenty five five. I'll just say the whole thing. Development and land adjustment agreement with Nibley Hock Hollow LLC for the Hock Hollow subdivision and the adjustment of boundaries between city parcels and developer parcels, setting forth items, terms and conditions, including the exception to city code twenty one twelve sixty regarding pedestrian connectivity with a second. Thank you. Thank you. And with that, we'll I'll just ask for general consensus for Jeff, generally,

see if there's any further discussion. Oh, okay. Thank you. Do you have any further discussion?

I'm keeping you on my toes. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Well, then we'll put it out to vote.

All in favor, say aye.

That's five, approvals, zero. Oh, any opposed? No. Okay. Thank you. It's my first rodeo, so thank you. I appreciate it. Doing great. Okay. Alright. Item number four on the agenda. Another public hearing, for ordinance twenty five four, amending Nibley City code 1924160, nineteen twenty four two sixty, nineteen twelve forty, nineteen thirty two eighty, nineteen twenty four two fifty, which, parking requirements, including amendments to minimum parking spaces and new development, establishing minimum bicycle parking and allowing for alternative parking plan twenty one twelve sixty f three regarding pedestrian connectivity. Before we open it up to any public comments, Levi, do you wanna introduce this Mhmm. Please? Thank you. Yeah.

And this has been discussed a lot, but it's been a while. Right? Because we haven't met for a few months. So I'll probably reiterate some of the things we've already discussed. So on parking, kind of the reason we're we're doing this right now, the existing parking requirements, they they're they include minimum parking spaces based upon square footage, dwelling units, number of beds. But, you know, the current standards are outdated. They've we actually don't really know how long they've been on the books, but quite a long time. And and there's just been some observation that they may be overly restrictive, which which this does have impacts on affordability, on the feasibility of of development, the design of development. And so that's kind of what brought up that's the reason for, these these recommended the the recommended, changes to the parking ordinance. So staff has done research, looking at nearby cities, parking requirements, and as well as the Institute of Traffic Engineers, parking generation manual. You know, I would say one finding that came out of that is there's really no there's no consensus. I would I I would say there's no true, like, best practice for parking. It's really it's a policy decision. What is what is the city what is the city's goals? What are what do we want? What do we want to do? But in in general, trying to get it right so that we're not overly restrictive, I think, helps in in other ways with economic development, with affordability. The Institute of Traffic Engineers part and generation manual, it's it's, I would say, one of the better sources for data that's readily available that's kinda nationwide data. So that's that's why we consulted that that parking generation manual. It does break it down based on, you know, average parking, parking rates, eighty fifth percentile. And, staff provided a a draft, you know, initially to update the chart that was largely based upon the eighty fifth percentile of parking rate in this IT parking generation manual as closely as we could, I I should say, you know, with that asterisk because land use is the way we have defined aren't the same as as theirs. The context of, you know, is it suburban? Is it rural? Is it urban? Is probably a little bit different in our city than it is in in other cities. So, anyway, that that was proposed. But based on that and based on discussion, you know, I I have to give props to Troy for you know, Troy. Troy did a lot of, research on this and and observed and brought forward to the the planning commission, that that those metrics were seem to be excessive, just based on, at at least, on on specific, land uses in in the city and and what's provided and and the you know, how much parking is is being observed. And so so Troy provided an alternative updated chart for minimum parking. This has been reviewed and discussed with the planning commission. And and Troy did provide an explanation, and that and that you know, his explanation is is in the agenda item report. But in general and you can you can speak to this more, Troy, if you'd like. But, you know, Troy did a lot of research on case studies of cities of similar size. You know, staff's research was more based upon just cities across mainly across the state of Utah. But but Troy's was was more based upon the cities of similar size that have recently reduced their their parking minimums. So they've gone through this exercise so that, you know, that they're kinda they're they're not the outdated ordinances that that, you know, a lot of the ones that we research maybe. Based upon that discussion, there was there was general consensus among among the planning commission to go with the numbers that that Troy presented. And so that's that's what's being presented here. Now staff did take some liberties that of consolidating some of the some of the categories just for sake of brevity. But and, Troy, before this meeting, ray raised the point. You you can get into that on on your discussion if you want. But the there there may be some some discrepancies there. So I I'm not aware of them. So if if you wanna bring them up, you can't get I I did we did try to, you know, stay with with those metrics. In addition to changing the the chart, you know, the of required parking, the following changes are also incorporated in here. So we we're allowing for an alternative provision of parking based upon a credible parking study. So we've done our best to get these numbers where we think they're reasonable. However, we know we don't we can't predict everything, and and we understand that if if a development comes forward, they may be able to provide research which is more updated and may and may be more valid than than, you know, what we have in our in our chart. So that's kind of the reason for this. This this would be subject to review. And and then, you know, based upon that review, the the approval authority could could approve, you know, potentially a a reduced amount of parking based upon that study. Another provision in here is to only require the provisional parking with new construction, and this would remove the requirement for meeting the minimum parking requirements if if the use is changed. So this would just you know, there is some trade offs with this provision, but this would allow for let's say a business finds a space suitable and they feel like they have they have the adequate access and parking. Regardless of those requirements, they can move into an existing building and, you know, set up shop there. And we can't we can't tell them, oh, you know, you don't have enough parking for your business. So, really, it just applies to new construction would be would be the change there. And, you know, this the reason for this is is to help with with economic development. If if if businesses find that it's it's suitable, then that you know, then we're not inhibiting that, that potential. The I I guess the the trade off there is, you know, it could it could lead to some spill over parking if if they're us underestimating their you know, how much parking they need, but that's the trade off there. So that that is included in here. There's also park bike bike parking standards, which we've discussed, and these are largely based upon recommendations from the active transportation plan, which is next item on the agenda, but those are incorporated in into this. We we thought this is this would be a good time to do that as as since we're going through this this exercise now. So this is this is our existing chart just to put it up on the screen. Not gonna go through each and every one. We we can discuss each, you know, each one if you if you wanna get into it. This is the updated chart. Been a while since I put this together, so I'm trying to remember what I was doing with these these colors. I I believe this this gray kinda tan, it those are ones that haven't changed. They're they're essentially the same as they were. The blue, I I believe, is it it's indicating it's a different metric. It's It's different than than what than how we measured it or what we required before, so it's kind of apples and oranges. The green is signifying that it's a lower requirement than before. So as you can see, the majority of that there's a few that are the same. The majority of them, are either lower, we're requiring less parking, or they're just different. So, like, for example you know what? I think I misspoke. The green means it's lower. The blue, it's it means it's different. So, like, for example, manufacturing and specialty space trades, one space per thousand feet, that right now, we would just say it's one space per employee, which then we have to go figure out how many employees are here, and that changes and fluctuates. So that's a little bit difficult. I I think the square footage is more more appropriate. Little bit more on the alternative parking plan. It allows the applicant to conduct study to determine parking demand and propose lower parking requirement based upon the study. You can take as part of this, you can take into account shared parking with mix of uses, and then city engineer reviews plan and study recommends parking requirement to approval authority. Bike parking is based upon the recommendations of the active transportation plan. It's generally about one fifth to one tenth the requirement in number of vehicle stalls, but it's not required for all uses. And there is a standard for the type of rack. I mean, it's pretty loose, but but just just so that there's two points of contact. It's just more usable. And then parking needs to be within a 100 feet of of an entrance. So staff's recommendation is approval of this ordinance for parking requirements.

K.

We did not have anyone sign up for a public comment.

Nobody wants to talk about a park here.

That's perfect.

Please. This is like

to item number five. Thank you. Which is the discussion and consideration for recommendation for ordinance twenty five four mending city code nineteen twenty four six one sixty, nineteen twenty four two sixty, nineteen twelve forty, nineteen thirty two eighty, nineteen twenty four two fifty, parking requirements including amendments to minimum parking spaces with new development, establishing minimum bicycle parking or alternative parking. And with that, we'll open it up for discussion.

One for the number of the draft.

Yeah. I'll put I'll put it up on the screen.

Yeah. Wrong. There's a lot of lines, colors, numbers, but there what I was looking at, there was two numbers that changed from the last discussion. It was under home establishments and offices. And on the last discussion, home establishments were

six slash five. And that I believe it says three and a half.

And then office is worth three and it's labeled as two. Wait a second. Oh, we have either number. I just wanted to call out the difference between class.

So you're saying it was discussed three and and the draft says two?

Or For office. Yeah. Office is what's the last spreadsheet was showing three, and then this one says two. Right?

Yeah. And I thought that's what was on on your draft, but I we can change I mean, if the commission wants to change that, you can. I'm I'm yeah.

The food establishments was listed at there was there was two food establishments. One was listed at 605, and this one is listed at 3.

Yeah. So if you want if you wanna if the commission wanted to change that, that's that's fine. Yeah. I might have been mistaken. I might have been basing that on an older draft or something. So Could be. I don't I'm not sure.

But, I mean, I'm from from my personal opinions, I mean, the the idea and then why I told the consensus was in the last mission meeting was for these commercial developments allowing the developer to have the the flexibility on what they saw the need is. And so whether we go with the last discussion numbers or or once presented tonight, it that achieve the same goal to me.

Tyler, do you think?

I think

trying to find it. Still think the residential sector dwelling should have two stalls, not one.

I think it I think it does,

Tyler. What does that just say? It's two space for one, like, Austria space off street space, this should be. But then if you have a second one on only in the parking space for secondary dwellings, that's Yeah.

So so yeah. So state code doesn't allow more than that for a secondary dwelling. However, a detached accessory dwelling unit does allow to, and that's still and that's still in the code. Where? I don't think it's in here because it's it's already in the code, and it's not proposed to be changed. I don't think unless unless I put it in by reference.

Oh, yes. Yes. Details.

Yeah. And that's per state code, we can't allow more than one. Yeah. Or we can't require more than one. Yeah.

Yeah.

So we have to one space for. For the code, we have to find maximum options.

It's really just based on what they tell us. So it's so if it's a short term rental, they have to specify how many people they can rent it to. And and so if they say this is for 20 people, that's the maximum number of people that that would will be at the rental. We say, okay. Five stalls. You you could. Yeah. You could. Honestly, that's that's just extrapolated from the existing standard. That that's no that's no different than what's in our current code. We didn't change that one. I think there's some logic there. You you know, I may and maybe maybe maybe I have something there that they could be manipulating that. But in general, this is being screened at the time of business license, and they and we ask that question. How many can you you know, how many do you grant? We could we could follow-up and see, okay, how how many people are actually here. So I think there I mean, there would have to be enforcement there. I don't know. Because depending on just depending on the rental, you know, you can have you can have bunk beds. It could be like a hostel, or it could be one bed in the room. So

Also, what the maintenance is. We all well, we're not parking. So What do we would you guys be able to get a change to 1.5 stalls per bedroom rounded up? So if you got two bedrooms, you gotta have One of the so so if you got two bedroom mouse, you need two stalls. But not based upon people, but based upon the number of factors in the patient. The number on that, you know, so if you get say, it's one and a quarter per bedroom, you gotta round up. We don't need three parking stalls for two bedroom. I I I don't I don't I don't like the idea of doing it based upon occupants because the occupants can be manipulated too easily. And then the parking problem will be there regardless in who's gonna go count the nightly rental with some of their two days and whether 20 people there or visitors from the neighborhood. Is that because that's the second thing is a lot of the VR paid in cash value. There aren't that many patient visitors cash value. They're coming here to visit family. And if you've got additional family members coming to a location where your migrant rental is, you have to figure parking problem. Sure.

Yeah. I mean, I'll just say I at this point in time, I don't think it's been a big problem, and we don't have a ton of these in Nibley. But I I know recently there were we we just reviewed a vacation rental that they told us there's something like 25 occupants. It's a big house, and they provide basically a parking lot for them. And they were they were they were actually okay with that. This is just an anecdote. It doesn't cover every but but they were amenable to that because they're it it worked for them. And I think in general I mean, yes. They they can they can say whatever they want on the application, but but they're gonna have to have a maximum occupancy when they rent it out on the on an Airbnb or a VRBO. And so they could be consistent with that. But I'm fine with that. Yeah. I'm I'm just saying it hasn't been a problem. I just wanted to point that out.

But It may never be a problem. Again, I don't go for the city. They find the problem. But it becomes what what I'm what I'm really looking at is prevent staff. Remember, research Airbnb and VRBO to see what they publish there or business license. Yeah. Exactly. But I'm one of five. What do you guys think? Is there a better way to tie it to a number of bedrooms or number of occupants based upon what they play? What if they have solvents of going to a bathroom and your bedroom's changed? Three or something like that. Yeah. So I made it.

I could see both sides of that argument on, like, to the extent of for, like, entrepreneur entrepreneurial incentive to make sure you have enough parking so that you don't get, like, major use for your rental. Did did you do you find that when you, like I I mean, I don't know if you you see that when you try to rent a space. It's like people have negative reviews because of parking issues or whatever. They're not renting their, you know, Airbnbs. That that's not really something to look for, I guess.

But Well, I I mean, I've rented not rented space on about. It's kinda like you're sending, isn't it?

Would which would be easier to please? So when you get when you get the 100. When you get the occupancy, do you just, like, divide it in half and say you need that many spaces? Is that essentially it? No. You have to be it's one for four

people. So you have two people and you're gonna have five spots. Mhmm. Well, I mean, over Thanksgiving, I mean, we're in a big house. We're in two, and everyone came. And nieces and nephews were all driving cars. Yeah. I said 10 cars will park and walk. Man, it sucks to be this guy. Yeah.

And that's who we're here to I mean, we're protecting the the neighbors. Right?

So it's business to say no one's free parking. Yeah. Then the neighbors complain, that's when we deal with it. We monitor through the the nightly rental. Oh, no.

Yeah. That's probably their appropriate place. I'm not sure if we pull that into here. That.

Let's review that. Wait. But you need six cars and can get six cars if you have a driver. It's running off the screen.

Unless it's graphs. Right? Don't park on the park. I don't park

on the park. Strip either. It's dark. We will get you for that. Park strip, sidewalks. No.

It's single. Okay.

And if you're parking overnight, we're gonna get you anyway anyway, but doesn't matter.

And then this is licensed or like,

it's easy to throw the air condition. You could, I guess. You could throw it in. I mean, it's probably better to go in the other one, but since this is what's in front of you, if you wanna add

It's from parking to be counted. No.

But I think what I think what they're saying is just spillover parking. We have we have a metric of the amount of parking, but there can't be any spillover parking.

Yeah.

It is it is it's kind of more suited to be in that other code. Yeah. Yeah. In the meantime, we're gonna get a 100 of these come through the door and

no. I'm just kidding. That's the life. Yeah. Well, I can't find it in the chart, and I'm worried that I'd do you have the power to delete something? Because I thought you're gonna mess around with things. It controls you. I think I can be Controls you. I hope not.

I mean, if you do, we can we can go we can go on the backup version that I have my my hard drive. Sorry. I I think I I thought we were trying to take that away from you guys, but I I don't know if we really did.

Convenient. That's not true.

That's true. Yeah.

I I believe I can double check. But if if it's not in here and it's not deleted in here, it is in the existing code. And it's in it's in the ADU ordinance. So if it's not showing up on this document, it's it's covered.

It's in red.

It was?

Short term rental. We we can check your recent changes after the meeting to find that.

Yeah. We we'll we'll make sure that it's covered either way. Whether whether it's by reference or it's just in the existing code, we can make sure it doesn't disappear.

Right. What's in her? They need

the attached AD. One that I wanna say one second. One

The bottom line is still there. It is. Yes. It was the app. Okay.

Okay. Thank you. Claire? My only concern is the bicycle parking. For or a possibility of bicycle parking shall be motivated under a show. It's necessary. Part of it is impossible. On. Maybe David was Good point.

Good point. I mean, that language came from from our consultant. I I think it was

I think it's.

Yeah. Do the same to us.

If It says must. It doesn't say must. I do think it might be difficult for some developments to do it. I think it's encouraging them to if if it they can. I I don't know. It might help in some instances if there's if there's an awning or something they can put it under. But Yeah. Sure. Potentially, it depend it depends on the design and it but, I mean, you have a good point that if we want to do it, maybe we should say shall. And, otherwise, it's it's weak, and maybe we just take it out.

Or take it out today. Leave it to developers because if you put, then the city's gotta put a lot more.

Right. Depending on the context, it can be difficult to to provide. I mean, it's somewhat expensive. Maybe not as expensive as a parking stall, but

Bunch. Yeah. You can't. That's my that's my only concern. I know, well, recording is really neat.

Fair. For me, personally, I I've always been I have this consistent message for me personally this whole time on this particular subject is I just wanna make sure that the developers have the freedom to recognize the needs themselves for what they need to facilitate their their project. So it sounds like we're achieving that, so I'm happy. And, personally, I just wanna thank, commissioner Bell and staff, obviously, great for your hard work on this. I know this is a lot of work, a lot of detail. On the surface, it seems like dry content that really does have a big impact to the city. So I just wanna express my appreciation for

us for for Troy specifically in staff. Yeah. So Nice work. Yes. Thank you. Well, if I did my work well, my my stuff is a base map.

Because I went to those meetings for parking. I came out more confused Thanks. And then the fire the thought voice stopped. Really?

Okay. Is is that at least for this round of discussion?

I will make a motion. I'll make a motion. We recommendation of the orange is 25 hyphen zero four, also amendment n c nineteen point twenty four point one sixty, and then eight point twenty four point two sixty, and nineteen point twelve point zero four zero, and nineteen point thirty two point zero eight zero and nineteen point twenty four point zero two. And for the parking recommendations with adjustments to what was brought up. What Troy said, I think, and then also what's the recommendation? Well, he the number he's matching the numbers. Going going back to the previous conversation, the number. Right.

So maybe maybe just to clarify so that I can get it up on the screen, food establishments, changing that from three point what what did you have, Troy? Changing that from 3.5 to five or six?

There was both. I think it was I think the last question was with on whether if I drive through or not. Yeah. So

Okay. We can do that. And, also,

remove the item for three for possible parking shoppers. It's and then they suggest that

Brent

didn't probably they need a accessory.

That's already there. Shortener. Shortener. Shortener. Shortener. Shortener. Shortener. Shortener. Shortener. Which will will address it. And that's not

So, Teresa, I'm just gonna restate that motion, just for clarity. So commissioner Schenck, voted to recommend, ordinance twenty five four amending city code nineteen twenty four one sixty, nineteen twenty four two sixty, nineteen twelve forty, nineteen thirty two eighty, nineteen twenty four two fifty parking requirements, including amendments to minimum parking spaces and new development establishing minimum bar bicycle parking allowing for an alternative biking parking plan with numbers to reflect the original submission from the last meeting. Yeah. That's fair to say. Do we have a second? And

the the bicycle parking, do you remember that? And and removal of bicycle parking.

Oh, excuse me. And also, I see it. Yes. They cover they cover they cover.

For the Joy, second.

Okay. Do we have any other discussion?

I I think before you vote, it would be good if we got on the screen those numbers They know so you know what you're voting on. It sounds like because I'm not sure exactly what what the original numbers were. So food establishments without drive through, six spaces.

Yeah.

And then food establishments with drive through is five. So I got those. And then professional, corporate, or general office is three instead of two. Right. Was that it? Yeah. That would be all. Yeah. That's fine. Okay. I'm gonna go down to the bicycle parking and just delete it too. So see here. I mean, you you sorry. You're good now. Okay. Yeah.

Okay. So I think we have a motion for approval and a second. Motion approved, mister Shane. Second, Troy. Any further discussion? Okay. All in favor?

All opposed? Any opposed?

None. So that would be five for approval, zero. Thank you. We're getting there. Okay. Next item. How are we doing? We're doing good, everybody?

Can I get a drink of water? Okay. Yes.

Water break? Recess? Thank you.

You're doing five minutes? Yeah. We can do five minutes real quick. You don't okay. You don't have I could just Okay. It'll take, like

Alright. We're gonna go to item number six on the agenda, which is a public hearing to discuss res resolution twenty five two, adopting the Nibley City active transportation plan. That's but we open it up for public comment, and I ask for Levi to introduce the the subject. Yep. So

I I think when I when I give this presentation to city council, I I I didn't I failed to do it here, but put up a a slide of acknowledgments. We had it. We had a steering committee that guided this this project through its development. Troy and Claire were both on that as well as, you know, several city staff, a few from council and and, parks and rec committee. And we we had it we also had a private citizen that was that was involved. But this this plan is exciting. So it is it is the city's first of its kind. It really, the purpose of what we're talking about is to create a safe, connected, convenient network for walking and cycling throughout the community. So currently, this we have a trail master plan that that was developed in 2016. This this stands as an update to that trail master plan. It also provides guidance for our transportation master plan, really aiming to bring kind of bring it all together into into a cohesive network for for biking and walking and rolling, you know, and kinda non motorized use. So I'm gonna go over the different elements of the plan real quick. So there's goals and objectives, which really focuses on safety first, community accessibility, connectivity, and then guiding future development. The they they did the and and I I on on I should mention this. We we contracted with Alta Planning and Design who specializes really in in this type of work and active transportation and and developing plans and and and designs of projects. So so, you know, and and our our our staff as as well as the steering committee worked closely with them to develop this to ensure that it was, you know, reflected in the community's goals. So there was a there was a review of existing relevant plans done, the the general plan, transportation master plan, parks plan. So that that was done. Existing conditions analysis has looked at current facilities, land use, travel patterns, sidewalk con connectivity, network gap, safety issues, opportunities, corridor, and intersection characteristics, and and collisions. So looking at a lot of different factors to try to get at this this recommended network. But but, also, public outreach was was done to inform the plan. There was a community survey specific to this plan developed, and I'll I'll go into the details of that. There were, there was also couple of other community surveys, that were relevant to this plan. The the USU well-being survey. Some some there were some questions asked in the well-being survey. So some of the findings were were also incorporated here. There was a there was a survey specific to Nibley Elementary that that was also provided, a summary of that. And then there the go back to the the survey that was done for the community. There was web map a web map as part of that survey where where people could display, you know, issues of the network, destinations they'd like to reach while using active transportation to to help with that analysis. There was also a bike walk audit done. This is we I wanna say, about 20 people that went out toward the beginning of of the plan, and we we kind of we had a a loop that went around the community, both a a bike a walking loop and then a biking loop to try to identify, deficiencies in the network, things things that are working well, things that aren't working so well. So really kind of on the on the ground. And we we invited you know, we had this steering committee committee members, but we also had other members of the some members of the community, some members that represented different groups. You know, there was one that there there was a mem a a member of our community that's blind that that came, and that that was that was good to get her her perspective on, you know, navigating our streets from from that perspective. We also did some outreach as part of bike night out at Heritage Days. Just, you know, I'm trying to get as much feedback as we could from people. You know, that that that event is more focused on kind of the fun element, but we incorporated some some feedback from from that event. So based on all all of this, there's a record what's in front of you is the recommended active transportation network that includes a variety of different facilities that are to be recommended for implementation and then policy and program recommendations and an implementation plan. So I'm gonna switch to this real quick. Just, like, get through this easier. So a vision statement for the plan to create a vibrant and inclusive community in Nibley where all residents, regardless of age or ability, can safely and comfortably roll, walk, and cycle to their local destinations by prioritizing a well planned and connected active transportation network. So the steering committee, helped, develop this vision statement. We felt this was reflective of of the goal for the project, really summarizes what we're what we're trying to do with this plan. A little bit of detail on on existing conditions. Currently have about eight and a half miles of paved paths, bike lanes, and natural surface trails, and then there's several more miles of facilities of in in existing plants in in Nibley City. Looking at you know, the the consultant looked at and and with feedback from the steering committee, key destinations to connect to both within Nibley and outside of Nibley. I believe that circle is kind of a three mile catchment area, which on a bike is kind of a reasonable distance to to bike to. And then the just on the right, you know, looking at our land use plans, that's that's just a map of our future land use or yeah. That's future land use map. Looking at sidewalks, the sidewalk network. So, you know, you look you go through a lot of our established subdivisions. Just just the fact that Nibley's developed since we've had standards for for sidewalk, curb, and gutter, the majority of of the city does have complete sidewalks. There's there's some areas, primarily in undeveloped parts of town or older part parts of town. There is some missing sidewalks or incomplete, meaning they're just on one side of the road. So that that was looked at, just kinda see where where the gaps in the sidewalks are. Key destinations and corridors that were looked at, parks, schools, place of worship, employment centers, and then these corridors, 3200 South, 2600 South, 1200 West, 1000 West to 800 West, 640 West, Main Street, Hollow Road. These are kinda more of the regional connectors that are, you know, important for to accommodate the active transportation users when we think about using active transportation, you know, for that for active transportation, making those connections. So with the survey, there were 314 survey respondents. And just just a few tidbits on there, get into more of that. And if if you wanna open up the plan and and see more of the the findings there, But just, participants are split between preferring more separation, but will ride in conventional bike lanes, and those who are not comfortable with the existing network and prefer using low stress facilities, paved paths, separated paths. And two thirds of the respondents walk or bike for recreation at least a couple of times a week. So, you know, though those who took those who took the survey were more likely to be walkers and bikers, but, you know, not not all of them. The well-being survey, and, you know, this one was, I would say, more might be a little bit more representative of the community as as the purpose of it was was kinda just in general well-being. But but there were three three hundred nineteen responses. 71% listed enhanced safety as important or very important. 66 listed improved walkability and more trails as important or very important. Transportation developments in Nibley. So in general, the the majority of the community sees this as an important issue to to improve, you know, walkability in trails. Little bit on on Nibley Elementary, and we we chose this This this was actually we we did, with, some of the city staff and and the mayor and few others, we we did we did a walkability virtual academy, and part of that was a this is prior to our the development act of transportation plan. We we did a an an action plan, and and we focused a little bit on improving conditions for Nibley Elementary. Nibley Elementary, you know, we have more elementary schools, and and we and I think this plan addresses issues on those. But this survey in particular, we focus at first on Nibley Elementary. It's it's a it's an all walk school. The meaning they don't have school buses that service it. So, theoretically, everyone is in with the walking distance. But, you know, according to this, 58% of the students drive, 42% bike, walk, or other. So just thinking about ways that we can increase that. You know, all those kids live within a mile of the school. So, theoretically, the we should be able to get the majority of them walking to school with with the right conditions. One one part of the survey, 31% listed other kids trust adult to travel with as a way to encourage their child to use active transportation. So there I will say there's some things in the survey that the city doesn't have a lot of influence or control over, but there may be opportunities to collaborate with the the schools to overcome those barriers, you know, like a kid that doesn't feel feel safe, you know, because of strangers or dogs or who knows what. So there were a 146 responses on the on the web map. There are mostly barriers along arterial roadways, which shouldn't be a surprise. You know, those those are the usually crossing the roadway or even traveling along roadways like 3200 South, you know, and also the high highway and one sixty five. These these are, you know, barriers for active transportation users, and and the public also suggested more cross city routes, you know, get being able to get all the way across the city safely on, you you know, using using these modes. And then this is the proposed active transportation network. There's a lot up there, but we can focus on any one facility if if you wanna go through. But just as far as the improvements that are recommended, this is everything from paved paths. So all the green on the screen, those are those are paved pathways. If it's if it's a solid line, it means it's either existing or it's been approved, like, through a subdivision. Some of them haven't been built yet, but but they've at least been approved. The there's different types of bike lanes. So, you know, it's a standard bike lane like you see here on 3200 South. It's just a stripe with with the bike symbol that that's shown in on on some of the streets, a buffered bike lane where you have you have again, it's just using paint, but but there's there's a bit of a buffer painted on the the roadway. So there's there's more of a buffer between cars, you know, demarcated between cars and and bicycle users. And then separated bike lane, that's that's, like, 1200 West. That's what we've, you know, implemented just recently on 1200 West. That's where there's a physical barrier between the bike lanes. So these are those different types of facilities are shown on the plan. Oh, as well as neighbor so this this term neighborhood byway, this is where this is a a route that prioritizes movement for for buy bicycles and and those walking. It's it's a neighborhood street, but that will actually, you know, get you somewhere, a a connection through. And there may be traffic calming so that, you know, you don't have speeding cars going through. So peep people feel comfortable on on the street just writing and and getting through. I believe that's and then, you know, there's a couple of corridors that they identified that need further study. One of those is Main Street, Highway 165, and there is this, Highway 165 study coming up. So there aren't specific recommendations on what to do with with Highway 165 in this plan, but just referencing that through those studies, we can develop a better recommendation. Same with Hollow Road. We've had we've had ideas of of doing a what what's called advisory shoulder, advisory bike lane on on Hollow Road. But but as recommended, it needs some further study to it's it's kind of an experimental what what they call FHWA, an experimental type facility. And and that's so there it it needs more study before we determine that it's a permanent facility there. I'm gonna read every single one of these if you wanna just wait. This is this is list of projects. So you can see, the plan was the plan does include planning level estimates. And then that last column, implementation, this is where it gives the city guidance of whether we should pursue this as a project, or should we wait for development to implement that? And I think that's a key part of this this project where, you know, we have all these lines on the map. What what should we actually chase as as a project versus versus, you know, waiting for that development because and a lot of that has to do with, is it going to provide a connection that's gonna be useful prior to that development? Is it or or or does it make sense to just wait for that development to occur? So that has been incorporated. One thing that is not in the plan, I'll say and and Tom mentioned it. You know, we, when we were going through the process, there isn't a project prioritization here. So that's that's gonna have to be another task that the city is gonna have to take on to prioritize the projects for for implementation. At this point, they're listed out. There's guidance on whether it's you know, we should implement them or wait, but but we we still need to prioritize them. Yeah. Traffic calming in sidewalks. So there's some guidance on providing additional, you know, traffic calming on streets and which which streets are they are appropriate for for traffic calming. They provided the this chart's provided here depending on the roadway, whether it's an arterial collector, local roadway, what type of, traffic calming is appropriate. You know, typically, for example, on our on our interior roadway, you're not gonna put in a a speed bump, for example, but you might you you might put, you know, some kind of vertical speed bump like that on a local roadway. So there's there's different types of of traffic calming that that can be implemented depending on the context of the roadway.

And

the policy and program recommendations, one is to our transportation master plan alignment. Likely within the next year, we'll pursue an update to our transportation master plan. And so we'll want to refer to this this active transportation plan, ensure they're, you know, they're aligned with one another. There there's some recommendations in in the active transportation plan, for example, to update our our cross sections. And so, you know, that will need to be consulted. And the addressing parking in bike lanes was is another something that's pointed out here through through policy. We can address this, you know, make making sure it's more clear that it's not legal to park in bike lanes. It's a little bit ambiguous. We don't have a specific law on it. Depending on how you interpret state code, I I think it's already illegal, but but it it it wouldn't hurt if we considered in incorporating that in our own city code. Implementing traffic calming, you know, we definitely talking about traffic calming. I mean, 1200 West is that that would it's all about traffic calming, but but an ongoing traffic calming program, Not not necessarily just one project specific, but throughout the city focusing on on on traffic calming. Bike parking requirements, already there doing that. Street connectivity standards, we've talked about this. It's it's something that's on our list to to focus on. And this is really important for for active transportation plan planning, you know, for active transportation users, street connectivity. If you have to walk if you have bad street connectivity and you have to walk two or three times as far, you're probably not gonna walk. So, street connectivity really helps with with active transportation users. Update paved path standards. In particular, you know, in going through parks, there's recommendation for for additional width. Rather than just five feet, go to, you know, eight or 10 feet, but 10 even 12 feet if if there's if there's a lot of, you know, different users and more more traffic going through there. And then promote established education programs as well. So staff's recommendation is to recommend approval of this resolution to adopt the active transportation plan.

Great. Thank you, Levi. Yeah. First so for the public hearing, we did have a write in, a written, or I guess Did we? We did. I don't know if you have that or if you guys no one's here, obviously, to approach the standard. It says we have Ezra Eanes as a written Oh, we took off. To read or do we did we want to know? Okay.

He took off. Okay.

Alright. Just getting on here. I wonder if anybody was just signing in as attending the meeting. Could be. A lot of people have the.

Yeah. So no one's no no one here to to comment public privacy, so we'll close that part of the meeting. Move on to item number seven. So discussion and consideration for recommendation for the resolution 25 to be able to adopt the Maple City active transportation plan. And we'll open up for discussion consideration with the the commission. Joel, do you have anything? Very important on this.

That it's adopted. Good to see the city moving forward. It's good. Yeah. I I I I hope we can do I would like the last before the trail. So so we've got these studies, but what are we actually trying to do these things, or they just study? What are they?

What what I these projects? Yeah. So they we we we can and we do pursue these projects as as as we as we have resources too. In a in a lot of cases, they're implemented through development. So if if a facility crosses, you know, subdivision, we require it at the time of development, and that's we've been doing that for several years now. And so we're starting to see patches of these, but, you know, we're trying to develop a more cohesive network. And I do think and I I alluded to this. I I do think we're gonna have to sit down and prioritize which ones because we can't do it all. Yeah. But, this gives us a starting point of if what what a good solid active transportation network would look like and what it might cost, and and we can we can start chipping away at it. I mean, Blacksmith Fork Trail, one thing I'll say about that, that's a regional connection. And I think something like that, there's opportunity there's there's there's some exciting opportunities for grants, and, you know, there's a lot of work that would have to be done with that with property negotiations. And and I know there's been a lot of when when it was brought up several years ago, there there's been a a lot of people maybe opposed to it in the community. To be clear, we see it as likely to be on the East side of the river, not on the West Side, just with the amount of development on the West side of the river, amount of homes. It's probably not feasible there, but or it'd be very difficult. But, you know, the county recently got funding for a trail from Ridgeline Park up to Logan, you know, 1700 South for for the Blacksmith Fork River. Part of it is probably gonna actually have to go on the highway because of Joe Furman's property, and they're not allowing trails through there with the easement that was granted there. But but, you know, they did get $4,000,000 to construct that trail. They're they're working on it now, and that's actually a Utah project. And I I foresee that could, in a later phase, extend down to the south. And if we wanna help prime the pump on that, it could happen sooner. But yeah.

Yeah.

I'm always nervous about the

yeah. Did you jump right? So

and forgive me if I this did you say it's not prioritized yet? It's just nothing's prioritized. Yeah.

No. No. And the and the consultant did offer an example of of a meth methodology for project prioritization. So we I think we we should go through that. We just we didn't have it in the scope of work to to prioritize the the projects. So this is as far as as we got. We'll keep, you know, working on it. And as I think the project prioritization will could we can go through that exercise as part of a budget like, a budgeting process. But

Yep. It's it's looks like Are we doing our street section? Because a lot of these just belong on roadways. So with this proposal, are we are gonna have to review and amend the potential cross section of the streets?

Yes. Yeah. So that's what's recommended in this. There's they provided cross sections, But but, really, that's at this point, it's it's a it's guidance to do that. That's not it it wouldn't be codified the same way. It needs to be actually incorporated into the transportation master plan. Providing guidance as we update that transportation master plan. And we could do it before. We could go through and go through an amendment process sooner than and and update those. But but I think it probably makes sense where we're going to be updating in the next year to just consult this and and ensure that that these different facilities are are accommodated. And but they they have the what is provided in this plan is is recommended updates to to cross section to accommodate these facilities. So, yeah, that is something that we have to do.

Brett, do you have any answer?

Brett? This is kind of a guideline, not part of concrete.

Well, you know, I think in some cases, it it it it it would be a requirement because it's we have for example, for new development, when it comes through, we reference that it has to adhere to the trail master plan. This is an you know, as we say, an update to the trail master plan. So in that case, it is a requirement for new development. Now as far as the city is concerned, it is a guiding document for us to make decisions about us, you know, ultimately, the city council to make a decision about how to invest in these things. But but if but if a developer comes through the door you know, if this is adopted, developer comes through the door and says they wanna put, you know, subdivision in, we will consult this document and say, okay. There's a trail there. You need to provide that facility.

I think the survey said more than 50% like this. I think consultation, but but now some surveys said 95% of the people felt unsafe walking in English. And I thought, what?

With high crime rate or something like that, then AUS is one of them. If I'm not, like, fine consent. Yeah. I think yeah. And I I I have to look at the question. I I I think the point is sometimes they feel unsafe. Whether they feel unsafe all the time, there's probably there's there's times that they feel unsafe, whether it's crossing the street or

That's probably the and I'm I'm blaming it on its 22 for South and Thor is, like, say, from East West. Oh. Just small cities.

Yeah. But, I mean, that's a good point. When people think of East West, they might people don't always know exactly where the city's boundary is, and they they might think of that. Yeah. Yeah.

It's not just one of them. Five.

The worst

changing the flow that goes to the next Unless that, I think it's a good location. Right? I'm sure the road would have to be Or bicycle. Yeah. Which we We call it an update to the trail here, But that might be a good idea.

For me, personally, I just think it's obviously, I rec like, recognize them for all how long they put into this. I'm sure there are a lot of hours spent. And anything that we can do to further guide the future to recognize all the modes of transportation I'm supportive. I think the coolest thing about this, honestly, for me, someone who hasn't lived here has been probably anybody else probably in the room is just even getting an inventory of what is. It's kind of exciting to see, and and that way we can obviously see where we need to go. Just have those maps and kinda getting a a baseline of what's out there. It's pretty cool just in general. I know that's kinda probably low hanging fruit for this, but it's kinda just need to see all the stuff that we already have and then give give some guidance on where we need to go. So I appreciate everyone's this stuff. You know, Ziv, that's all I have. And does anyone have anything else or wanna make a motion?

Motion to recommend the adopting resolution twenty five zero two adopt the, efficacy active transportation plan.

K. We have a motion from Troy to recommend the res resolution twenty five zero two to adopt the Bitly City active transportation plan. Second red rep? Do we have any further discussion? It's a good idea.

Yep. My own discussion is inherent because, like, we we we have consultants, and there's no way around gotta hire consultants. We're very expensive. Pretty much, they gave us transportation plan that says, widen new roadways and layout transportation plan on the grid system with the exception of the existing trail networks that we already have on the trail. I don't know if there's any way around that, but, like, I'm not gonna stop you. There's there's nothing different in this document that we're not already doing. So so, I mean, this is just it's just a worthless comment, but it's just frustrating that, you know, situation and we're having an an expert taking snippets of pictures in commercial areas and industrial areas, which we don't have here. It's not relevant here. And our master transportation plan is I mean, our master at the transportation plan. They're they're literally just following the grid system of our existing roadways. So no discussion. No point to both or anything like that. But, you know, Tom, you could have done this by yourself and say, it's funny. That too. Right. That too. Yeah. That's Exactly.

That's that the time time and expertise I mean, they there there is a lot of using our existing network because, really, we're not gonna plow people's homes down to build a Right. To build a trail. So we got we gotta use what we have, and it's it's guiding where

Yep. We get we get to work. Change the cross. Maybe lower in the islands. How much is Yeah. No. Hold on. I'm just fine. That is good.

Good. Yeah. And, you know, and it it is nice to see some future planning, right, where we have obviously, Niddly is gonna extend south. That's where the available land is. So even just identifying those corridors, even though they already exist, I don't know if you mentioned. And I I do like the fact that it just helps to identify, like, if you're gonna subdivide here, this this is a part of the process. Yeah. Yeah. It does it does include

the annexation area.

So but I I do get you one time. We just need to put some call me features on twenty sixth of our south. Because my son, Martin, are taking these kids first grader and get to school. There's high school kids wide. It's a pretty white. Yeah. Yeah. It's wide and flat. Right? Yeah. I said, they need to put a dip like it's around. They do go flying. They take out the bottom muffler. He clocks the same kid every every day.

Do we have any other discussion? K. So we have a resolution for recommendation seconded by resolution from Troy, seconded by her motion. Thank you. For recommendation for approval, seconded by Brett.

We'll go to a vote. All in favor?

Five. Any opposed? We have five in favor, zero opposed.

Mister chairman, I have to wait ten minutes. Okay. So I just thought you guys

Yep. I think we've reached every item that needs a vote, so we're good there. Right? Yeah. Yeah. So we'll we'll go to item number eight, Bretton. The torch.

Yep.

Okay. He's just gonna talk to you if you have a minute. Oh, you can. Yeah. So we're gonna go to to item number eight, which is the workshop for the mixed residential zone. Lee, Donnie?

Yeah. So this this was brought up by the the planning commission recently when the the zoning in in conjunct the zoning recommendation in conjunction with an annexation, just south of Nibley Farms was brought up. They they requested an RM zone for for a portion of that, And it was it was brought up to, you know, review the zone and and re reconsider some of the standards there. In general, it was it was discussed, you know, really as as a homework assignment for the planning commission to to look at it and see, you know, what deficiencies there were, what changes you think should go into it. I I just wanna mention a couple of things that that we've discussed as, you know, you know, city staff that could, be considerations for change. One is, on on the design standards, particularly with townhomes, we allow front loaded town loans. Town homes, we kind of discourage it in it. Again, kind of kind of to your point, Claire, if we if we just say we don't like it, it's not the same as saying you can't do it. And we kinda discourage it, but we allow townhomes to be front loaded on interior streets, you know, public roadways. And, what you get with that is this this huge swath of driveways that just is not a great design when you think about walkability. You know? And and so may it's a consideration to either require or more incentive at least provide a strong incentive for rear loaded townhomes. We think that's a better better design, but, you you know, when you're facing a public street rather than having all those driveways have the parking access in the back through through alleys. Another consideration is removal of the eligibility map. We've kinda discussed that a little bit. It it seems to be just kind of this extra step in the process where someone comes in, they want an RN zone. We We have to change the eligibility map, then we change the zoning. It seems like it it I mean, maybe it's a deterrent to applicants from applying for RM, but but we have a future land use map that specifies, you know, different land uses. We have high higher density areas. If we really want this RM zone to be, like, legitimate zone, maybe maybe we ought to just remove the eligibility map and just consider that at the time of of rezone. You know? We don't have I mean, any any of these new ones obviously would have to go through a rezone anyway. So that's that's just something to to consider. That was originally established because at the time, again, we were only focused on that one property north of, Clear Creek Park, and and that was the only thing added. And we're slowly getting other others that are being considered. And so if we're if the city is actually willing to entertain these these new areas, may maybe we just do that through that process, through the rezone process. They can be denied if if, you know, if the city doesn't feel that's appropriate. But it it seem it seems a little arduous to have to go through two steps to get to yes or no. But other than that, not a lot to recommend from staff. I think we just wanted to if if you just have a discussion about what you think should be changed. And if you have any comments on on the the two considerations we had, I don't I don't know if that even reflects the concern that was expressed by by the planning commission. So, certainly, you know, whatever else we can incorporate.

K.

And I can bring up I guess I can bring up it's a workshop. I'll bring up the ordinance just if we wanna, like, point to anything specific.

I guess, while he's doing that, Troy, do you have any general thoughts?

Thoughts. Pause. Now I speak now on this subject.

I I I agree with both the points that Scott brought up. The direct waiting has been on a certain line in the past, but against some other planets, seeing very not pedestrian friendly with the model driveways. Section twenty one and twelve sixty section c specifies, like, alleys are basically prohibited in the lead. Would this be a conflict to that code that that would need to be amended?

No. So oh, wait. 20 oh, 21. Yeah. It it conflicts with it. Right? It has for quite a while. That's a that's a good question. We've I we should probably qualify that statement. And where is it again? 211260.

I should see. It isn't their date code for account.

No. And there's not there not that I'm aware of in state code. I think

They have a few things with some tenants. Like, the town homes over at Ridge 9, they're all black and in.

Some of them are, but some of them aren't. So so this some of them are along public roadways with all those driveways. There's others that have an alleyway, and the front door faces onto either a public road or or public trail.

Yeah. But but I would say look at the the bill of that versus the rear loaded. Because all they did is they put the protection on the front of the yard, like like, those bills. Versus the subdivision that we've also came through RM. They were in front loading on Southwest. That's a complete situation. So if you go to Ridgeline, you're meandering through, and it's almost like they're just small single family homes. You go to Original Park, but they're open. You got you got the the stormwater retention with rocks in the front. You got asphalt in the back, and you just have the structure there. For a community, it's not nearly as appealing I would think. And frankly, you can see that results of of the sales and what's going on, what's not. And so it's a tough thing how to do it. And that's why I mean, so give you guys a little bit more context. The RN Zone, the RPNB Subdivision in Richland Park was a legislative action. What that means is the codes, the instructions are here, but it's essentially it allows the cast versus an RM zone, r two way, things like that that's administrative. So if you come in and you meet the standard, then you're then you get approved. Yeah. But it doesn't allow the flexibility for the divisions of the design. So Richland Park, we didn't took years. The city worked with the developer, came up with plan how to how to make it all work together. Same thing across the street here, you know, plan how to work together. My biggest concern on the RM zone, we codify it, and we'll be straight up. You know, that that proposal went from 12 West all the way up to 15 West. But we know we're gonna have roads from the north and south. You got two endpoints on this linear identity housing project. We don't have really influence of trail Yep. We don't have really a way to designate. Yeah.

So it seems like, functionally, we need to come up with a way to administer or promote this idea of, like, how do we base so because the RPD, it's, like, 40 acre. Yeah. Right. For the projects. Yeah. Right? Yeah. So so what we're really talking about is how do we entertain the same concept of freedom of control, meaning we're working with the application to make sure it fits the site properly and what we need to protect our citizens, you know, everything Right. On a smaller than a 40 acre bucket. How do we do that? Let's say just direct

so what that because multiple types of housing. We got condos to town homes, single family homes too, senior living in all that stuff, all kind of mixed into one. It all kind of land seamlessly back and forth together versus you look at a apartment complex where it's just just rural houses, the exact same housing, some little taller, some little lower, and we got an angled roof in different colors, but it doesn't have a a community fill. It's definitely not water. Yeah.

So So can we just I mean, maybe I'm this might be a stupid question. I'm gonna ask it anyways. Can we just reduce the minimum

for our PUD and get rid of RM? That was gonna be my thin question. Why why didn't counsel decide to create another

I just said, you know, active? Because I think I was the only one here. The because you would just barely start.

Well, I even on the I no. I mean, I I was I was heavily involved in the RM. I it didn't start till about a year after I started here. So what happened?

And there was a Munich station of what? Two hands. One of the yeah. And they were sitting like that. That happened with the Stratham. Well, they're honorable. Yeah. The proponents said that their open space in the park called that historical park, which is a press, you will see, is not it's theirs. And and now school district like this has not been used to schools. School districts,

there's there's some sort of

thing between Logan City and Cache County with Logan's high school. So there's nothing to do with school or school. We will so anytime someone comes in and says, we need to protect our schools, that's our virtual solution. That's cash and there's Yes. That's done. So we don't need to worry about that. But what it was is if we are gonna build the impact of high density development on the Green Park and Heritage Park and the streets, then we wanted to adopt both building them, so we could have the impact of these to offset what we're getting back.

Yeah. But, like, why why create something different when all you had to do was just lower the number?

Because lower the So so part so part of the reason Yeah. So part of the reason for that is we wanted to keep the RPD intact because there's some provisions in there, for example, that require, like, the a mix of housing. There Open space. Open space. They there's some restrictions in there that we wanted we wanna keep intact. And and the reason and the reason and and Tyler is exactly right that at the time, the city was trying to and as much as possible without kinda selling our souls, appease this developer. And so making it administrative was one way to do that rather than rather than legislative. Because it's legislative, then it's then there's a question mark whether it's going to what they propose is gonna get approved. It's it's it's discretionary. Right? And so could could you make RM legislator basically, just an r p RPED. It does have I think I think one thing we've we've seen with, you know, the 40 acre minimum, I think there there is some, I think, a four 40 acre plus development, there is more opportunities to mix housing. Yeah. Once you get smaller than that, it gets difficult. So are we going to say open space, trail, all all of those things? It it's it's difficult to do that. So that's kind of why there's that 40 acre minimum. The question is, is there some place within Nibley City code to allow for higher density housing on smaller than 40 acres even if you don't get quite as much of that critical mass that you do? And you don't get quite as much of the mix because you just don't have the acreage. And I think the RM could do that, but but, you know, Tyler's right. You you don't have the same control over the nuances of the design. Now we have stand we have we have a lot of standards for our PUD. You know, some some cities, they have a PUD ordinance, and it basically just leaves it wide open. It's just a negotiation. Logan City does. They don't use it that often, but they did, for example, with the new target development. They just came in and said, oh, what's your plan? Oh, let's talk about it. They negotiated a little bit, and then and then they came up with we have we do have a lot of standards in our PUD and which, by the way, are very similar to what's in the RN because we when we adopted that one, we said, look. We had we didn't have a lot of time, and we said, I think we would rather copy our own standards than copy another city's standards because we we know they work, and they're they're tried and true, and they work for our city. So yeah. I mean, you have a point. You could repeal it and say, we're gonna lower this, or or you could say, oh, it's an RPUD two or something. And

says, either just create a mini version of that so we get everything we need and just say this could this is applicable, you know, 10 to 20 acres, and anything less than 10, it doesn't make sense.

Whatever. Well, so so that's the other thing. Again, making sure our folks are managed. So we have the r u v value, which we specify certain parcels. Only originally given. I think there are five first bipartisan delineating by the court. So so I'm kinda like, if you're if we're gonna say you do RMA work, then you should still be doing RPP in person. I do like the idea of keeping the larger parts itself because it it it allows for better design element and allows for more professional organization because of the scale of the project. So I do like having a larger development aspect as far as acreage go. And then the second aspect of that is, you know, we we created our transfer density bonus. So we reduce the amount of units you can get, five units the acre versus 10 units the acre unless you're doing density transfer. Well, it seems silly to me that we're gonna just open up and RP I mean, sorry, the r m. R m zone allow for 20 units the acre. If we're restricting what was a code that was already written really well, we can see the results of it. And I'd be more in favor of so we created the RPD, which you see is is what's the one across the street? Meadows?

Yeah. Meadows. Mountain Meadows.

You've got

you have Fireflies. No. Fireflies Estates and Ridgeline. Those are the three. Yeah. And then but is it There's there's some provisions in the RPU that only apply to the town center, but but there's not but there's not a lot different. It condos, like, for example. Yeah.

Great. I really like getting the it's it's useless that we so if we wanna mess with the density, I don't think we just say you can do 20 was the anchor. I think we do some some sort of modification to the town center development, still require mixed use buffered zones. The condos have to be next to a town home, town home has to be next to a single family home. Conners can be stacked next to commercial. They're like like so so you have a neighborhood that flows and makes sense.

Yeah. I get I I I still kinda get hung up on this question of if it's a small parcel, are we just not gonna allow higher density? Okay. Period. So we're only gonna allow it in these in these areas. I mean You got

two. Open section. Open section. Other parcel owners and. Again, because what I think what we want is that I'm looking at stuff rates, and I don't like inviting more super rates. I like going to our city and meandering and manual air and being aware of stuff like that. If you can get three or four problems together and say, let's come up with a master plan. Let's put Trail here. Let's put Trail there. Let's make a partnership to do a larger development whether there's joint ownership or not. Like, that's the intent I would like to see it sell at Italy. So we have large tracks of plans with very, very wise development, not carving up one block at a time. You wanna carve up one block at a time, then r two, R 2 a is an open space. If you want higher density, then have a project that's enough scale that we can really make this thing work. That's that's you know, historically, we quote we quoted what they build out in Daybreak, you know, and the Herriman Town Centers and the ice skates and all these things. But what it was is you had enough scale that the economics made sense to do it versus these onesie twosie type bits. So we're gonna open it up. I think we do require larger parcels to do it, to require more insight to it. I do like the aspect that it's a legislative decision. Now I think isn't the state didn't they change our ability to make the legislative action? Was that that was No. Straight action by a public recall

or You can I mean, you can still do an RPD the same way? It's just once it gets subdivision, that's that's what it all changed. So, you know, like, tonight, the preliminary plat came came in front of you. It's not going to city council. None of them can go to city council, and final plat is staff approval. So you you can't even you can't review it. Change

them until we score it out and see what we get. So in the state bar, I don't I don't want it to be part of complexity by part of the complex. I wanted orient development as apartments, condos, townhomes, senior living, a nice big shop, and pickle

homes. Now we have now we have the city has approved an RM zone, and that's Wesley Nelson Farm property. And so so I feel like we at least need to keep it on the books to because because that's established.

It's a which buffer by convo convo's in here. That's that's the intent. Is we're coming off port with 2600 South in USA 9, the busiest road in Caschen. We're hoping we can get a grocery store, department store, something there. Well, the best thing to buffer that with is going to be higher density housing. And Right. Lower the density as you move closer to the existing.

Right. But what it but it doesn't it it's not an r it's not a RPUD, and it doesn't and it and it But

next to what we're hoping is gonna be our anchor point of the most complex, the RM zone never

So I guess that's my question. Is is there a place for RM zone in those types of context? I mean, I'm I'm thinking along 160 If someone let's let's say there's there's a shopping center that develops along 165, and there's a 10 acre piece of property, and it just it seems like the right place for some higher density housing. But, really, all they can do is is low density. Right? Medium low density. So I I I'm just wondering if there's a place for this some in and then and maybe it's piecemeal. But

k. It would be Talton. Right off the 165. It's a high density. I think we did that. I I don't think I I personally am not in favor of big five acre high density 20 inch the acre. Like, I don't want I don't want a 100 get 100 units crammed into the five acre parcel route. So the reason on 12th West here, we we only did one parcel of the RM. Is that because of the three parcels?

That's that's just what they that's what they proposed. Yes. And really what and and and and, really, they base their recommendation. What they they did come into city staff, and they they consulted with us on what what they can do. And they had options. Right? They could propose they could have proposed RPD, and we we actually said that's an option. But they said, well well, they said your your zoning your or your future land use map shows high density residential here, and it shows medium density residential there. And this fits in that, and that fits in that. So that's what we're gonna propose. Yeah. I said, well, you could try, and we'll see what happens. And But So Okay.

They couldn't do an RVU maintenance. It's only a 30 acre. Right? Well, we you can do it with two owners. Two owners just have to agree to do. Because what's your But if your density is housing, hey, who gets the higher density? The higher density housing is the most valuable piece, so it becomes a more slow. Oh. Makes sense. Yeah.

I guess the theory, right, would be if you can get some land owners to agree to a large scale project, then you'd have a professional developer, I mean, and manage all that. And if you make it a legislate legislative action, then we have the ability to say,

this is room continuity. Let's bend the roads this way. It works out. I'll turn it here. I'll bring it up to him.

Yeah. You but I I think you're right. Like, in various specific contexts,

the RM could could have seen I just I just I just think that sometimes that that's the only piece of developable property in the area. You're not gonna get 40 acres. That's that's part of the reason what what narrowed down to those five areas. Right? Is there's it's just not feasible at least in in the current city boundaries. Now, like you said, the Southfields, that's different. And may and maybe

Why do we wanna allow 20 I mean, do we wanna allow 20 units a acre in your back?

Well, it's our

net. Twenty years the acre for our guys.

And it's 10 just to clarify, it's 10 as a base. It's 20 if you bring TBR in the r m in the current r m zone. But yeah.

Ten years.

For net developable acre, I mean yeah. I mean, that's Ridgeline Park.

What?

I think they're about they're about eight or or nine per net developable acre.

Put as much.

I guess some portions of that development are 10 or higher. Townhomes

Yeah. But, again, that that you and some.

But we have a lot of single family already.

Visionary. It went through there for okay. They're they're different. They both the neighbors I mean, it it's it's just a different proposition. So different value. Ridgeline costs more than 5. They're just different. So and that that's what I did. I I'm I'm in favor of high density wrapped in either a modification of the town center ordinance or the RTG ordinance. I'm not in favor of holding up of the RMIT ordinance to smaller acreage in ones.

Yeah. And that's kinda what I'm I was thinking in terms of when like, we were talking the other day about this discussion. And mine, I was kinda thinking more of a higher scale discussion of, like, do we even value our end or or should just be absorbed by our PUD? You know what I mean? And just kinda figure, like, we gotta figure out what the future of this thing is or do we do we want it or not? You know what I mean? I mean, it's that Yeah. If you don't want it,

you don't have to have it.

Yeah. Just don't want to find it out of these cubits.

And and just a little history, it was 20 units to the acre. Firefly Estates was approved, and then and then the planning commission city council looked at it and said, we don't really like that. Let's let's go to let's let's increase it to 40. So

It's got two complex problems here. Let's see. Finally, gone with here we go. You're 50. It's all. The townhomes, the condos, the twin homes, they have a townhomes, And you end up getting neighborhood wide under single family ownership, you know, speakers. I think it takes time with the Clarity path. It's yours. So if you don't have a large scale of each way to manage that for the entire community, you're you're risking it to apply as well. Because you need to have a controlling force that has the best interest to fix it. Now, there's two ways to do that. If it's department complex and you're talking twenty, thirty units, you're talking multiple dollar project. The owner of the project is gonna fix the roof. But if you're talking five, ten townhomes all by themselves, there's no HOA. There's no no mechanism to say that you have to paint yours. You have to fix your roof. You have to do this. Then it gets then it it just it turns into a problem. I mean, you have the same thing with single family homes, though. I mean, you talk about that kind of stuff. I walk out to any street of We have a connected wall. Yeah. It's a problem. It's a connected wall. My house is taken care of. Your house is not. Your house burns down. Now I'm screwed. Your house leaks and it comes through my common vault. I I I I I've seen it through the softwood. If you don't have a project scale, have some sort of management aspect to it, some sort of scale, over time, it does make it work well. And you're right. Single family home is the same thing. Like, one side of the street is nice, one side of the street is not. What I'm talking about is when you're sharing space, you need to have an overarching control.

Is that something that the city needs to be concerned about? Like Yeah. That's

You know, it looks hard to know if they were right.

I but I think we already have a neighborhood. Like, I we we have some of these homes that are super old. Like, we have a abandoned house down the street. It it's the same

thing. It's it's not. Because of my rights well, I'm sorry. Okay? You're right. Anything can go bad. But what I'm saying from my experience, if you have a a unity of twin old families connected shared walls, if it's not large enough that you can have an HOA or something to fix and repair it, it becomes problems over You know, a single family home, the home gets bad, it will waste and when it goes fixed. It yeah. It's it's it's just I from my experience, it's just a different context. When you're you're having the shared community attached walls, attached garages, and and separate these two. You know, we have expanded that. You can have a technical higher density. You can build a RPD in the backyard. You can have apartment basement. Like, Like, we we could spend a lot of fees for that or the housing.

So I don't know. I is there is there some consensus here on the direction? Tyler's brought up a lot of points, and some of you chimed in a bit, but I just wanna make sure there's there's some consensus of of the direction to go I was just Yeah. With this.

I so I I I understand that now. I I thanks for the the context. I I see your point on the legislature's administrative,

and

that does sound good on paper, but at the same time, if if we are looking for right? The the whole idea of having higher density multistonic phones is to build those kind of homes leads to cheaper prices of those homes. Right?

A a a a range of affordable would you say cheaper? Yeah. A a range of affordability. And when you push to legislate changes,

like, you said the ridgeline was was years of negotiations, right, that that pushes lots of cost up for the for that development, which then negates the whole point of making, you know, the lower cost for these higher density homes. So if you if you made it as an administrative change, right, like like, if I said, a lot of the stuff from the RPD is already in the code, and so we already have a lot of that in there. You know, if if that cuts out like a year of back and forth between city council and developer, like, that's a lot of cost savings, which you would hope translates to faster development and lower cost in the housing.

So Yeah. I think I think for the a 100%.

Excellent. The reason why Bridgestone took so long is there wasn't a focus. Right? We have a name in the loud tone. So the what we share voting is being negotiated. We want to want this to be public hearing. There were The little posters put up and they would be here. It gives the entire process. Now it's not it's not the only thing is is that it brings to the table to say this theory. And if if the proponent on that submission come in, work with Tom and work with Levi, and the experience they have and talk with mayor and students, we would have a plan. We would have done a design and we're gonna have grow here with a trust system here. We would have something to say it's like, if it's not a let us do it, then we told and we have to prove it like, you know.

Right. I mean but I guess the question is with Ridgeland Park and, again, I all all of those got approved, like, a month or two before I started. Actually actually, Nibley Meadows got approved while I was here. But the question is, how much did they deviate from what's already written in paper? Because what what what's on what's in there, we're going to enforce anyway. I know Nibbly Meadows I know Nibbly Meadows. They reconfigured it. The council said, oh, we don't like the townhomes on 3200. Why don't you push them down here? And but in general, we still use the code as the backdrop. Like, you meet the code, and then, of course, they negotiated. They said, well, we want a restroom, and we want park, and we will prove it if if you add these other things. But in general, I feel like we use that code, and it took time to develop it for for each of these. And that's and that that may have informed all of those discussions. But I don't know. I I feel like if you look at Ridgeline, if you look at FireFly and Nibley Meadows, what you see is mainly can be reflected through what's already written in our code. So perhaps an administrative process could work. I don't I mean

I

I think you need to work through the open space and the amenities, and that's is particularly if they're talking about dedicating open space to the city, the the that all needs to be negotiated because that's gonna be a city responsibility. But, I mean, we've got all these open space requirements. We've got architectural standards that there were no no no one said, oh, I don't like how that roof looks. Why don't you change that? It was all based upon what was in the code. I guess they could have. I guess we could. We could say, you know what? I don't I don't like even though it's in the code, I don't I don't like, whatever vinyl siding put brick or whatever. But I just from from my viewpoint, I didn't I don't see other than those, there's some nuances that were brought through. I don't see a ton of deviation from what's in the code from what was approved.

Well, I I I can tell you this. It's the nuance Because it is legislative, they have to present a plan that will be regularly approved. So you're not negotiating much because it's not as being striated. They know what the barrier to be accepted is, and so they start at a higher level. They're bringing their a game. And that that's different. You could see that if they have a set of barrier of a minimum standard. We may have moved. Maybe better be close to that start.

So would it be fair to say I'm hearing maybe we actually don't need to change anything about RM because we're really only looking to implement him on areas that truly make sense. Right? Where they'll they'd have to go on and apply, and we'd have to say yes to this parcel because it's actually next to this commercial whatever. And, actually, we don't have to change anything, technically. So Yeah. We did. And then and then realistically, mediate mediating the idea of this discussion to conclude that maybe we just reduce the limitation or the minimum, I guess, acreage for, like, an RPUD to something, like, 20 acres or whatever.

Possibly. Probably Or 10. Shrink the pads. Like, we already said you can have smaller pads on the whole spaces. Yeah. Make smaller pads on the single panel columns for the the variations of

To allow for multiple housing types. Yeah. I I think Was 10 acres comfortable? Is that too small?

It works.

20 minimum then? 20. As a as just a way to continue this discussion.

Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. I I would propose that we we review the town center overlay zone

and first look at modifying that versus all of them up all of the bits of yards. Yeah. I think I think in And we're going and sorry. We're going through a town center master plan exercise right now with the county wide planner. Right? The idea there is let's form a bit an updated vision of what we see for the downtown center, and then we can update the code based on that vision.

And I see this in I think we've seen this concept we were talking about in practice actually this year where we have this and then see what feels like. And we've actually adjusted our code in this this year based on what that feels like. So maybe this is just a simple compromise of, like, we just need to maybe entertain the idea of changing the minimum to something we're comfortable with, see it in practice if it happens, and then we can adjust from here. Okay. Do you have this one? Please.

Just

feel still I'm I'm coming in inside. I came from a different world here where high density was 30 units an acre, and low density was is eight. So what I see here in Nibley, we have two units an acre as our base. You get an r two way. You get up to four through negotiations. And then we have this big jump to 10 units an acre. Perhaps we need to maybe we take this RM to a whole different level and make this our medium Yeah. Look at six to eight units an acre Yeah. Have smaller smaller larger parcels

rather than 40 acres to down in the ground 50. Let's work in phases.

So so rather than

I don't know. I just like I said, I don't wanna That's a great point. And yeah. We already have the zone. Let's let's now take the zone instead of RM. I don't know what RM stands for, but sounds to me like residential. Residential medium. That's that's a mix. Instead of Yeah. And maybe we mixed residence. Rename it to something that's mid area between that RPUD and that r two a. Just a just a thought. What if you're

We we did support some of that.

How the design changed as we learn how the Yeah. Even I would love to even go this way.

Yeah. Like you're saying, these densities you gotta feel what they see what you gotta get in there and feel it. And,

it's a thing in the past. Yes. We just if we get $68.06 to eight acre, I guess, the acre or something like the old space and have it's the the the little part in the bottom between the trail blocking out of it. Like, that's what I think we all want.

Yeah. I guess the question is I I I think I I've seen that deficiency in our code as well that Tom pointed out. It's just kinda this middle, and that's part of the reason why I like the changes to the open space subdivision that allowed smaller lots with r two a because it's kinda getting more at that middle area, these small just small lot single family. But I guess the question is and I'm not sure how much, you know, like, they do this in Logan or or other places. The the RPUD, the incentive is you get the additional density. But there's all these open space and all these amenity requirements. Question is, do we do we edge toward allowing standard subdivisions with with zoning by right that allows Higher density. Higher density. I mean, he and even higher density. Even if it's even if it's just small lot single family, even if we're not even talking about townhomes.

But And there's the set of giving 30% on space, the higher

Yeah. There's that too. Love the in lieu payment. In lieu. Yeah. Payment in lieu. Conditions.

So we just gotta be careful

because we might just get two units in here. And what that's gonna look like along 12 West Corridor is a white vinyl cord. Just gonna have this tunnel. It's gonna gonna be added all the way to higher white vinyl on either side. You know, we need to be smart about it and maybe focus on those main corridors where we could have maybe some street some street facing front doors that are reloaded. So RM is perfect for that where you can get those townhouses with the front doors near 3200 South or 1200 South, excuse me, or 1200 West. Yeah. I'll give my directions. And then have rear loading on the driveways. It it just you're gonna have a much I would love to see that. Audible Herb appeal instead of having I I I'm one of the products. I when I go home, that's all I see is wipe on the fences and and weeds because no one tends to poach strips either.

You got the subdivisions where, actually, they almost made an entrance into this road off of tenth class, front end road. Yeah. So that

that was a necessity. They had to tear down all those homes, and then there's a remainder.

Yeah. Yeah. Heavy up.

So keep going further south, and what do you see? You just get that fence all the way to common sense. Right? Yeah.

Yeah. I don't know. It sounds like a big project. I don't think this is something that Yeah. I I think I yeah. Anyway

It was I would love some room. Thank you.

To show you.

I think you're We can we can even do we can even notice it as a tour or whatever. Like, I know we haven't done that in a long I don't even know if we've done it when I was here. I mean, I started during COVID, so we weren't doing a lot of that stuff. But but What what is the We could do a tour thing. Get that. Yeah. They the park they they do they do a bus tour where they go around. And to to me, that's a different that's a different tour, but the I haven't been on it yet. Is it CVTV or I don't know.

I think you have to rent a CVTV. And

I don't know if we need a whole bus if it's just the planning commission, but I think we can get a van.

K.

So one thing I'm one thing I'm pretty interest

Right.

I think I mean, Logan does this every week. They notice a tour site tour or something. But So their planning commission before a planning commission meeting, they actually tour

every site. They they take the commissioners and anybody else that wants to come. They'll they'll tour the sites.

I guess we can open it to pub I mean, you see how many show up. I don't know. Maybe maybe they would maybe they would show up if if we had a fun bus. But

Well, Tyler, if you if you can if you could answer your question, we we talked a lot about Ridgeline and Nibley Meadows, but I'm wondering what the HOA fees are. I'm hearing they're pretty astronomical for Ridgeline. My point yeah. That's that was gonna be my point. We're we're trying to get this affordability, but we're mandating all these amenities, which now force an extra fee.

Yeah. That's what we have.

Right. You know, explore

I really like the payment in lieu. And and it might not work in every case. Let's take a certain parcel on 12 West And 2600 South. That one's right next to a big old open park area. I mean, he's got two parks within a block. That I I'm I'm thinking maybe we reduce the open space requirement, increase a little bit of density, and then take an in lieu payment for Take a payment. Yeah. And and maybe balance that additional density need with this in lieu payment, and it's just some things I've been thinking about as an outsider trying to get in.

Good point. Yeah. Well, it's this has been a good discussion, I think. I don't know, Levi, if you have any technical action items

yet. I don't feel like I do yet. I think I realistically, Levi.

Yeah. Whole city.

I think it where it makes sense only where it makes sense to me. And then that's kinda how we've already established it.

It's the income port and get resolved.

Well, they they would they would have to. I may may may you clarify that. They're opening it up. The current the current just like if if they qualify,

go. Yeah. Yeah. Kind of a thing.

Am I hearing you to say that we as we refine this RM zone and then update our zoning map to designate certain areas? I I would suggest that they just say these are our new designated areas. You could be our RM zone. I mean, we could up to that density. They don't have to. They could still do two units an acre if they want. They could do but We kinda

what what I'm suggesting is we already do that. We already specify in our future land use map medium, low, high density thing. So

we

We need to do that. I I wanna do that with our general plan update. I want I want our future land use map to be more clear. What what is the scope of what we're allowing? And it's almost like if we're

it's almost like a confluence of discussions now. Does it even make sense that we didn't nitty gritty? It's not like this before.

Yeah. I I mean, I don't I don't know about a moratorium because we I I feel like I feel like development's happening. The housing housing is in demand. Like, we've we gotta figure things out, but I don't know if we put we we can't put I I don't think it's wise for the city to try to put everything on hold. Well, yeah. We have to work with what we have, and then and then but, I mean, the rezone, it's a legislative process. So Yes. They could You know? They don't have to rezone they don't have to approve rezones. No.

Based on varying elements and you have to have certain minutes. That's a fantastic idea. I know you you you see a parcel, and you can put some townhomes and some. That's great.

And you can limit like a deal. No. That's a great idea. And you could even tier that and say, 20 acres, you can get 30% townhome townhomes, 70% single family, 40 acres, you get 60% townhomes, and

no. That's great thought. That's great line of thinking. Yeah. I guess that's the other thing. It doesn't need to just be 40 acres. It could be this is what we require if you have 40. This is what we require if you have 20.

The the three markets. I think that. And

somehow, you I guess, in you've gotta design a team cent. Like, in your in your mind, incentivize larger

And it's easy. Isn't this where you end up? Per square foot, Richland Park Yeah. For more Yeah. The market will sort out some niche. If there if you want an HOA today with a whole bunch of football courts and private reservations and fireworks, the market will dictate that. We will get the market asking for a building, the market will build a port. Yeah. How we approach it, just open the whole thing up and monitor the setback variations out with someone.

It it might be good to just kinda set a base zoning layer, though. Just change the zoning map and say, this is where we like it. And and there's nothing in state code that that allows a city to prohibit someone from applying for any other zone. Right. Right. They can take anything and apply for any zone, and then they become that becomes a legislative decision. Right. You know, maybe we establish this is how we wanna see the city grow. We're now doing this Yeah. I mean, if you modified to however you want it to look like in these areas. Yeah.

But I wonder I wonder if we do that through the general plan process. We we let that run its course. So we so we understand I mean, yeah, we can just open it up to like you said, but I I think we should bet that. Go through the Yeah. Public process and Absolutely. What what change. Yeah. And and so I guess I guess what I'm I mean, back to what you were saying, may maybe we back off DRM

and just say Well, even at a minimum, we don't have to leave it. We can just leave RM as is because we can just It's already limited. It's already yeah. It's already limited. Right? Limited, so we could just say no. No. If you go to Saint George right now in in Washington, like,

there are one acre lots selling for a million dollars. There are five lots of square foot lots selling $410,000. Like like, there's certain like, the the dynamics will adjust themselves. And the the if there's a market for half acre and one acre lots and two houses per acre, Like, that will happen. And having some of those isn't a problem. Like, you have a lot of open space for them. Yeah. Yeah. You might find someone that wants that

more rural fill in within their

right by my neighborhood. Yeah? They're all, like, three quartering lots. Where we were talking about

the power lines and all that. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Those are three quarter almost in acres on those.

Yeah. You don't have.

But that's yeah. But the zoning, I think, does limit what is actually going to be developed. Because a lot of those areas in Nibley that are half acre through quarter acre lot, there are two zoning, and I wonder if we would have more quarter acre lots mixed in. Right? Well And I and I and I think Yeah. The sewer the sewer. Yeah. But

Are you guys how much is the what's what's the visionary home that holds on the on? Not not Vista. Not Vista? You wanna hear it. Incredible subdivision. Yes. So when we improve that, we were packed saying that every the only impact for housing. If anything, the existing neighborhoods are impacting the housing value of Vista or whatever. Right. Yeah. Yeah. It's all those kinda bigger lots. But yeah. We'll we'll we'll we'll improve that. Like, the whole thing was loaded up. First and after. You're gonna hurt our problem values. You're dumbing down. It's not true. Quality has nothing new with the law sets.

That's good. We love our neighbor.

Yeah. No. I let let's let's look into doing a tour. Maybe and I don't know what people's schedules are if if it's something we could do, like, ahead of a meeting. I I don't know if we need an hour or two

or what. But That could be a fun idea.

K. It's 09:30. Would the commission be okay if we pushed the next workshop to the next meeting so we can get to the meeting schedule. That's great with everybody.

Well, before we wrap that up, so you think we need to attack that to the general so we can start discussing, John?

So yeah. And I had that set. So the general plan, we're we're about ready to kick that off. And we've got, so Claire and Nick, we're gonna be on the steering committee for that. Unfortunately, we do have to narrow it and, again, open public meetings to the act. We we had to narrow it down to two. But but the planning but we'll bring things to the planning commission as well. We just needed kind of a project steering committee for, you know, to guide to guide the project along. So, yeah, we're we're gonna be kicking that off within the next month or so. We've got we we we gotta select a consultant, and

we'll go through that. Consultants again, Tyler. You love you love them. But I mean, it it's it's just it's it's

I know. Yeah. If if banks just shout it, for instance. Okay.

Well and eventually, you gotta have a product, and it takes a long time to get a product out Yeah. If you don't have some outside help. When you've gotta prioritize like, our city staff That's Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It is.

Okay. We're gonna do a guide on number 10. Discussion discussion and consideration for the 2025, like, should we sketch? Levi?

Yeah. Let me pull that up. So this is this is kind of a continuation of how we've done things this year. It's about every three weeks. Let me do that. Just a second. City applies to this one. Here's the dates. Actually, you know what? I'll bring up the other one so you can see how it works with city council. Maybe this will be more clear. There's a calendar. So the the yellow ones are planning commission meetings. The pink ones are city council meetings. So we're largely following the lead of city council who's already adopted their schedule, but it's about every three weeks, which the the the city and I I think we I think we've already discussed that the planning commission generally thought that worked every three weeks. Sometimes it's a little more. There may be a few cases where it's less, and we can call, you know, we can call meetings if if we think there's too much, we gotta do more. So just keep that in mind. It's gonna be a slow year. Yeah.

Yeah.

Right. Right. But seen that so far. I keep hearing that. I've heard that since I've been here, but I'm not seeing it. I'm seeing it. I'm just waiting for everything to just screech to a halt as soon as I got to this job, and it hasn't happened yet. But Yeah. Yeah. Looks good. So so, yeah, that that's what it is. If you do see any, you know, any anything that you can't be there, may maybe shoot me a just shoot me a message. Say, hey. I won't be at this meeting or that meeting. And if I get multiple ones like that, I think we have some leeway where we can shift things, go, okay. We're gonna do it a week later, a week earlier. Maybe that's something we could do here. But since we do since we don't have a meeting every Thursday in this room now, like, for example, let's say three of you aren't available on February 6, we could shift that to the thirteenth if if you are. Okay. So there's one. But we'll see. It I think I'll do that if there's two or three. You know? If there's one I mean,

we can't always have everyone here. But k. Thank you, Levi. Yeah. So we'll open it up for discussion amongst commissioners, and you can meet issues with this schedule. Seemed to work this year. So I will say I'm granted. I've only been a part of something like this for a year, but I'm pretty sure. The commission last year, and we missed we only had to cancel one, so that was pretty cool.

Any any discussion or, I guess It forces me to pay attention to the account. They're gonna come on.

It'll use me this Thursday. I mean I guess I guess I I could I could be better at sending reminders maybe Monday or something. I don't know. Because I know it did kinda sneak up on people.

Yeah.

K. Do you wanna make a motion? We Do we? Yeah. Yeah. Make some Yeah. Make motion.

I'll second. Alright. We have a motion by commissioner Schenck to accept the twenty twenty five planning commission meeting scheduled, seconded by commissioner. Discussion? K. For the vote, all in favor? Any opposed? K. That's four in favor. No opposed. Staff reports.

Yeah. Just a couple of things. I already mentioned general plan. We're about ready to kick that off. So that's that's exciting. And we'll, you know, we'll be back with I I expect to to have, you know, several discussions with planning commission as as we go through that. Because, really, that is one of planning commission's primary roles is is overseeing the general plan. So

we

When does the lady sheet do? The what? The lady sheet for the the call.

Oh, I need to send out I need I wasn't sure if I got a response on from everyone on on when it's due or or when when they can meet, but I was gonna set up that meeting, and then I'll I'll see if I can do that tomorrow so that it's clear. It it was gonna be the week after next is when I was hoping to get that scheduled. Sure. Yeah. So if you can get it put together there. The we're also working with the county on a town center master plan. I mentioned that. That one's, you know, that one's different. It's not a consultant. It's it's county staff that's helping us with that. They've had some staff changes. So that one that one's moving, but it it kind of has some fits and start. It's because, you know, we're not we don't have a we don't have a consultant that we can tell we're not gonna pay if they don't if they don't deliver something. You're fine. You're fine. So, anyway, we're we're working through that, and it's great. And and Brandon from the county has has has been awesome. He's ecstatic about about this project. I just I don't think it's gonna be a deliver and, hey. We're done. I think it's a process, and it's good. You know? We're gonna keep talking about it and figure out what and I and I think we'll have some kind of discussion on this at the planning commission at, you know, once we get to a certain point, may maybe we'll do, like, a joint meeting with planning commission city council or I don't know. We're we're we're figuring that out as we go. We we just got an application for a rezone for Wesley Nelson Farms, from commercial to RM for a chunk of of the property that was zoned commercial that they would like to build their townhomes in. So that will be in front of you. So after this whole RM discussion, let so, anyway, just

We we which I was gonna kinda ask about. Like, if if we're gonna put the RM thing on the side, we already have one developer that was requesting, and now we have two.

Like, you'll that that's for let's not get into that that you can decide that at the next meeting, how you want to approach that.

It's just the RM is the golden egg for Okay.

Well, we technically I mean, we have an RSL.

I mean, they were already zoned RM. Adjacent the the proper the the area adjacent is already RM. There's there's a there's a chunk that they would like to add. So what's gonna go through the

process of recognizing the parcel?

Yeah. Yeah. Rezoned. That's still in the works. That's coming to a head. I think we have enough information. Go ahead with your No. No. You're fine. Continue. He was asking about the room. Yeah. Oh, yeah. What would happen to that?

Still?

Go ahead. Comment.

Okay. There's probably some things you can't

discuss. So the council not to sign up? No. They they

yeah. And they've been working on since probably November, December. I mean, September. And then they resubmitted they they made a resubmittal last week,

or is just before we Oh, you're talking about 2500 South? Okay. I'm sorry. I've yeah. So Yeah. So they should be on the next agenda. They made a commission. They made a submission.

Just bear didn't have quite enough time to get it on the last city council meeting, but they'll be on the next They're gonna make a decision. Yes. Boom. Then this rezone was submitted the rezone was submitted, like, the day after our deadline for

submitted This means

that'll be you'll see that rezone. Next.

Is there more? I mean, other than that, you know, there there's other I probably ought to report on other developments since you guys don't don't see them. I know it's getting late, but, you know, we're we are receiving final plots for for several subdivisions we're working through right now. Nibley Meadows Phase 4 is we're about ready to prove that, and that that one is the majority of their townhomes for Nibley Meadows. So they they're building phase three townhomes, and they've got building permits for for all of those. That's just a few of them. But they've got a 100 and something townhomes in phase four all in one phase. So you'll see a lot of those townhomes coming up, pretty quickly. Nibley Coach, is another one. We're really close on on getting, you know, all of that final and approved. Ridgeline Park Phase 7, we're very these are all ones that we're really close to, you know, getting to recording and and starting. And then, Todd Stimpson Subdivision, Johnson Meadows, also close. So

We Anyway we just they decided on was it do we get, like, a half million pan, Luke, for that $202,900.

Got that? I believe they did it. 500. Yeah. 500. Oh, we also got us a middle for a commercial development in Ridgeline Park. It's, yeah, Godfrey Orthodontics. So that will be it may be on the next agenda, maybe the one after that, but we we've been reviewing that as staff. So it's, yeah, an orthodontic office. There's you kind of kept one pad for the orthodontic office and keeping another pad for future development on that parcel. So we'll have some neighbors over here, but I think I think that's all I've got.

Capital projects, just advertised for construction, a missing half road on 1300 West. It's about 31 thirty two hundred South to thirty three hundred South there. So here's a a wetland that we'll be encroaching in. We've gotten our permit from the Army Corps, and we we just advertised bids. So we'll have that closed. Hopefully, a contract by end of next month. Start constructing that. 1200 West Space 5 that we're finishing up design. I just had a meeting with the engineers today, and they said that by the February, we should have a package ready to end. More most likely gonna be a little bit later than that, probably into March. But, hopefully, we'd get that advertised and constructed over the Exactly. The summer. But, yeah, that'll go all the way up to Fireflies states. And then Fireflies States has already continued and made that connection to 2200 South. K. We we ran into some issues. The whole intent of this connection was to have unstopped traffic all the way up to the highway on 10th West in Logan. I after they opened up Fireflies States, I realized that there's a really big grade differential from Logan's side to Nibley's to the center line of the road, and then ours is a little more gradual. I was thinking Dukes Of Hazard when I was coming south. So it'll probably stay stop controlled either it it'll have to stay stop controlled in the North South direction. May consider leaving it as a four way stop. We haven't gotten that far, but I'm coordinating that with the the Logan City engineer. That should cover it. Bridge Line Park about I'm I'm actually giving an update to the parks and rec committee next week. We've had to redesign everything due to the wetlands of the youth lady's dresses, but we're honing in on a a design at about an hour well, a half hour meeting today, trying to make some final tweaks just to avoid the u laces stresses and stuff. But I think we have a park and we're starting the the permitting process next month. At best, we might have approvals to begin at fall next fall of this year if we have our finger crossed. Other than that, I I'm just waiting for phone calls on traffic comment or whatever.

Taylor, anything? Nothing. Nothing? Nothing. Alright. Well, thank you, everybody, and we'll call this meeting adjourned.