[0:05] Okay, we'd like to welcome everyone to the uh planning commission meeting this

[0:09] evening, August 25th, uh 2026. We'll go ahead and start with a pledge of

[0:14] allegiance by myself and then a roll call uh by Haley.

[0:23] » I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to theublic

[0:29] for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and

[0:35] justice for all.

[0:53] » Commissioner Shelley Baldley, >> present. Commissioner Scott Justinson

[0:58] » present. >> Commissioner Heidi Murdoch excused. Uh

[1:03] Chairman Justin Wright >> here.

[1:06] » And Council Member Mark Cotrail >> here.

[1:12] » Okay. Uh we'll [clears throat] open the floor up uh to any public comments that

[1:18] anybody might have. They'd like to address the planning commission this

[1:22] evening. >> I wasn't Here

[1:28] you go.

[1:36] » Frank 980 road. Uh I think the interest in the city right now is why this

[1:45] position to be worried about the timeliness of aance.

[1:52] Oh, sorry.

[1:59] » [laughter]

[2:05] [laughter] >> There you go.

[2:08] » Business. Um I my understanding is the state actually passed the requirement

[2:15] for us to have that ordinance in place by October 1st. Clear back before March

[2:20] and we're now finally discussing it at this level. Uh, and if you look at the

[2:25] timeline, that means there's going to be very little opportunity for any input

[2:28] from the citizens of Fruit Heights, and I think that's a real concern on

[2:32] everybody's part. I likewise would like to raise the question seriously about

[2:36] the R3 zone, how that was presented to the planning commission clear back last

[2:41] March to make modifications on that. There was actually a red line document

[2:45] and nothing has ever been done. And now we're finding ourselves in another

[2:49] situation like that. So, I just would raise both those questions with you

[2:52] folks. Hopefully they'll get addressed tonight.

[2:56] » Thank you.

[3:01] » Any any others? Anybody [clears throat] else interested in uh making a public

[3:05] comment?

[3:10] Okay. Um, seeing nobody else, we will go ahead and move on to uh review and

[3:17] approve the planning commission me uh minutes from the July 28, 2026 meeting.

[3:23] » Justin, let's do the swearing in first. >> Okay.

[3:26] » And then we can continue on and everybody can be

[3:29] » okay. So, well, we'll go ahead and um so Ken,

[3:33] everyone, this is Ken Bagley. Kellen's been um I don't know the right word.

[3:38] He's a new planning commission member. Um, this is his first meeting. So, we're

[3:43] excited to have him. And, uh, the city will do your swearing in.

[3:48] » Okay. Where do you want me?

[4:00] So I state >> I Ken Bagley

[4:05] » swear that I will support the Constitution

[4:08] » do solemnly swear that I will support defend and obey the Constitution

[4:13] » of the United States of America >> of the United States of America

[4:16] » and the Constitution of the State of Utah

[4:18] » and the Constitution of the State of Utah

[4:20] » and that I will discharge the duties of my office

[4:25] » and that I will discharge the the duties of my office with fidelity.

[4:33] » Okay, >> you got it.

[4:39] » Congratulations, Kellen. We're excited to have you uh on the commission to to

[4:44] join us. So, >> thank you.

[4:47] » Okay, we'll go ahead and move on to uh review and approve the planning

[4:51] commission minutes uh from our July 28th, 2026 meeting.

[4:59] There any any comments or any any red lines to those minutes?

[5:05] Um I did give Haley a couple um this evening. They were just uh grammatical

[5:11] uh and spelling in nature, but nothing that substantively changed anything.

[5:21] Any

[5:27] thoughts on the >> a lot of minutes?

[5:29] » There was a I think that was the longest uh minutes we've had since I've been

[5:33] » participating. Yeah. >> When I read through it, it it appeared

[5:36] that that was accurate. >> Um the best that I could remember on

[5:40] those. >> Yeah.

[5:42] » Um we we'll need a a motion to uh approve the minutes. I'll make a motion

[5:49] that we approve the minutes of planning commission meeting July 28, 2026.

[5:56] » I guess second on that. >> I'll second.

[5:59] » Second. And what what's the right terminology? Is it all

[6:05] » in? >> All in favor? All in favor say yes.

[6:07] » Yes. >> Yes.

[6:09] » Okay. >> Any opposed? No. Okay.

[6:15] Um we'll go ahead and move on to planning commission business then. Uh so

[6:19] we've uh addressed uh 6.1 and so we'll move on to 6.2

[6:26] uh reviewing MIH strategies.

[6:38] [clears throat]

[6:42] Okay. Um, welcome Mr. Bagley to the planning

[6:47] commission. Thank you.

[6:50] Um, so I think it was a couple of meetings

[6:55] ago that we talked about the um, moderate income housing strategies and

[7:02] I've been doing some work on that and wanted to bring that back for another

[7:08] discussion. Remember, ultimately we're trying to send a recommendation to the

[7:14] city council on um what the recommended strategies would be for the moderate

[7:21] income housing plan. So, let's see. There's one, two, three,

[7:26] four, five, six, seven, eight items. eight different items that the planning

[7:32] commission identified it last time we talked about that could be a

[7:37] possibility, things that we could um um that could be considered and and um

[7:46] for for the city to uh look at. Um, I'm just going to start with um what I think

[7:54] should be our top the top uh uh items to look at and the reasons why and then we

[8:02] can go down the list from there. Um remember and this will be new

[8:08] information you know for for you. We are required as a city to have at least

[8:15] three um three of the strategies. We have to have

[8:20] at least three strategies that are required by the state out of I think

[8:24] there's like 25 different strategies we three of them we have to we we have to

[8:30] man we have to identify in our general plan and we have to identify how we're

[8:37] going to implement and work on these strategies

[8:41] and I'll remind you also that in our current general plan the three

[8:47] strategies that we have identified well they're in the general plan but in the

[8:54] yearly report we're required to to file a yearly report July 1st of each year

[8:59] saying how are you doing on the identified strategies so we the the

[9:05] three strategies we have right now are A and F that's what we identified in our

[9:12] last re re report which was due in July of

[9:19] July of 26, we just simply had to file a report stating how many new residential

[9:26] units we built in the city. So next July, what we're talking about

[9:31] right now is what's going to happen between now and next July. So just keep

[9:36] that in mind. Next July, we will have to report on whatever we've done.

[9:42] So strategy A, which is reszone for densities necessary to facilitate

[9:47] facilitate the production of moderate income housing. That's currently one of

[9:51] the ones we've picked and also in my mind one of the ones that is going to be

[9:56] the easiest to um um to uh to meet. Um

[10:05] this was the discussion at our last meeting. The planning commission

[10:09] discussed that the city's adoption of the R16 zoning and noted that approving

[10:16] the future R16 or R3 developments would demonstrate continued progress toward

[10:20] implementing the strategy. Staff noted that while a previous higher density

[10:25] project did not move forward, the project failed due to private

[10:29] development factors rather than city's actions.

[10:33] So, if the city approved one or both of the

[10:43] um proposed um the current proposed projects that were recently brought in

[10:50] for reszone request, if if you approved one or both of those,

[10:55] you have met this requirement. So, if the city ultimately decides to

[11:03] approve one or both of those projects in in some kind of format,

[11:08] um you would meet that strategy. That seems like a no-brainer to me right off

[11:14] the bat is that you could do that and um that is showing that um that um you're

[11:22] reasonzoning uh for higher density projects. So, in my mind, that one's one

[11:29] that you keep it on the plan. If the the either or both of those plans

[11:37] move forward, um you've met that requirement, it's easy to demonstrate

[11:42] that. C >> can I ask?

[11:44] » Yeah. So, [clears throat] just a question just to confirm. So even if the

[11:48] units that are theoretically if it if resone gets approved and those units um

[11:53] do not qualify at a sales price level to be medium income housing, this still

[12:01] shows um that we're trying and basically the city gets credit. Is that correct?

[12:07] » We're making an effort. Yeah. We will leave it up to the state to ultimately

[12:11] say yay or nay on whether or not it meets their definition of the

[12:16] requirement, but it shows that we're making the effort.

[12:20] » Yeah. >> And I think that's the important piece.

[12:22] » Okay. >> Excuse me. Is there any precedent on

[12:24] what decisions the state has made in other areas regarding the cost of the

[12:29] homes that are built under this, you know, reszoning where they've said,

[12:33] "Okay, the cost of the homes is a little high, but we're going to give you the

[12:36] credit." Um, that's a good question. I think the

[12:40] answer to that to my knowledge is no. There is not a precedent saying that um

[12:47] that um that that is the case. But I wanted to this is probably a good time

[12:52] to talk about this. I I I wanted to to discuss what that threshold is just so

[13:01] you understand it. I've made previous comments that it's

[13:05] going to be uh [sighs] did I forget that paper

[13:12] that it's going to be very difficult to meet those numbers? Um it's going to be

[13:21] very difficult if not impossible. And I've had some recent discussions with

[13:26] some developers about it. Um I still maintain that it's

[13:33] I I mean at some level you could do it, but I I I'll tell you this is what you

[13:38] have to do to meet the affordable housing criteria as it sits now. First

[13:43] of all, it's based on the county's Davis County median income. The highest number

[13:50] that I can find that that's comes from a legitimate source is $118,000.

[13:57] many other there there are other legitimate sources that put it closer to

[14:02] like 108 to 110. So the higher that number is obviously the higher the home

[14:09] value that would qualify, right? So let's just take 118,000.

[14:15] 80% of that is 94,400.

[14:21] That's the That's the That's the household income that a household

[14:27] uh can make

[14:32] and be able to afford an a home. So, I if if you're if you live in a

[14:38] household that makes $94,000 and you can afford a home, you're considered to be

[14:46] in an affordable housing unit. Let's break that down a little bit further.

[14:50] Now, the state requires that a maximum of 30% of your income can be spent on

[14:57] housing. So, if you take 30% of that, that's 20 $2,360

[15:03] a month. That's the nut. That's the number. That's your that that that's

[15:08] your that's your monthly expense on what you can um realistically spend on a home

[15:14] and meet their guidelines. >> What was that number again? Sorry.

[15:17] $2,360. Now, then now let's break that number

[15:21] down. That includes principal and interest. It includes

[15:28] uh insurance, taxes, and utilities. All of those things have to be factored into

[15:34] it. When we were originally talking about

[15:37] this, we were talking about this number somewhere, this home value somewhere in

[15:41] the neighborhood of 400,000. No, it's way off when you calculate all those

[15:47] other pieces into it. The the the um the insurance, the utilities, the the taxes,

[15:56] and I've estimated those things to be on average $710 a month. Um broken down by

[16:02] uh insurance is 150, taxes are 260, utilities are 300, and at a 6.6% 6%

[16:10] interest rate. 2360 a month buys you a $260,000 home. Okay, that's the number.

[16:19] That's the number right now. And that's countywide. Doesn't matter if you live

[16:22] in Fruit Heights or you live in Clinton. That's the number that's considered an

[16:26] affordable housing unit. There aren't anything there there there there's not

[16:33] there there's barely anything out there for sale at that price. So, now

[16:40] let's bring this back to this discussion about

[16:45] um how do you get to affordable housing in in in the city? In talking to some

[16:52] developers now, they're saying with the price of property, with the

[16:57] price of ground in in in in fruit heights and construction costs, so on

[17:03] and so forth, they said we're $250,000

[17:08] per door to just build the structure. So just the cost of the materials to

[17:16] build the building is nearly at the number we are trying to sell the

[17:23] building at the whole thing. That doesn't include the price of the

[17:28] property. That doesn't not include the utility installation and bringing

[17:32] utilities and all that to the property and installing all those things. That's

[17:36] just the cost of the construction of the unit. 250,000 a door. Can can you

[17:43] provide some more details on what 250,000 buys you?

[17:47] » How big is the house? How many bedrooms? How many bathrooms? Is that kind of an

[17:50] average? >> That that would be an average of like a

[17:53] twobedroom unit. Um let let um he said let um

[18:05] 1600 to 2200 square ft two-bedroom unit. Um,

[18:14] so I asked the question, what

[18:21] um what kind of density do you need? This is going to this is going to be

[18:26] part of our R3 discussion. Now, what kind of density do you need to make to

[18:32] be able to sell $260,000 units?

[18:36] and he said well over 30 units per acre probably closer to 40 units per acre. So

[18:44] our R3 currently the maximum that we do is the maximum we allow is 25.

[18:51] » And this the the one of the project developers is saying that is the

[18:59] absolutely bare minimum that I can swallow and make this thing

[19:06] pencil is what it is at 20 proposed at 25 units

[19:11] an acre. So if you're at 10 15, you're going backwards probably. Now

[19:19] this is a small sample size, right? I mean, we've I I I've talked to two or

[19:24] three different developers. Um you you could probably get a myriad of answers

[19:31] on that. The bottom line is is that um if we have an intent as a city to do

[19:41] some affordable housing or try and get homes that are in an affordable housing

[19:46] range, we are going to have to keep that density number up there somewhere

[19:53] somewhere. Just keep that in mind. Now, let's say this.

[19:58] If you could use the city's median income,

[20:03] which is 140,000, almost $141,000 instead of the county median income of

[20:10] 118. Now you've pushed that number to 300,000

[20:14] a $300,000 unit. That that objective is reachable to these

[20:23] developers that are proposing projects in our city. Now they're saying not all

[20:30] of them, but we could get a few of them [clears throat]

[20:34] close to that number. 260, no, 300 to 325ish

[20:42] probably. So,

[20:45] one of the things that I think we go back to the state with, and this is goes

[20:50] back to uh your question, Justin, is that,

[20:55] you know, if you look at this in terms of like I if you'll allow us to use the

[21:02] city's median income, household income, we're

[21:07] we can probably do some things with that. We can probably do some things

[21:12] with that. That's currently not what the law says,

[21:16] but um that's part of the argument that you make back to them is that well,

[21:21] we're making an effort and we're probably in line with what value should

[21:26] be in our city. Um so that that's just some commentary.

[21:33] That's just some commentary. Um,

[21:38] if strategy A, if we can figure out how to

[21:44] make these projects work, that's that we've met that we've met

[21:50] that requirement. Um, that that that that seems like something that we should

[21:55] um we should keep on the table. Okay. Strategy E, which is

[22:02] » Sorry, before we get on, can I ask one more question? Sure.

[22:05] » Is the cost of the development based on what we've learned so far, is it so high

[22:10] based primarily on land prices? >> Yes.

[22:14] » Is it building costs or is it the the profit the developers want to make?

[22:18] » Uh land and building are expensive. Okay.

[22:23] Everybody knows that. But what I'm being told is that the extreme cost, the

[22:30] extreme value of land in this city, >> thank you. It's very high. And so that

[22:37] is dominating the affordability discussion.

[22:42] You you can buy and and it's not just Fruit Heights. You can throw Cisville

[22:46] and you can throw Farmington and portions of Leighton into that same

[22:52] discussion. Bountiful, put them Bountiful and Centerville. Put them in

[22:56] the same discussion. It's high everywhere. there you can get you start

[23:01] to get a little more affordability when you get out on the west side of the

[23:06] county. Syracuse, Clinton, West Point, and I'm saying a little bit cheaper, not

[23:14] drastically. It's just high everywhere, but it's

[23:18] particularly high in this city. and and that is stated as one of the reasons,

[23:23] hey, I got to pay this guy X amount per acre for this property that

[23:31] really affects my bottom line. >> That's probably a true statement. We've

[23:36] heard that over and over and over >> and I think a number of you can attest

[23:41] to that effect. >> Yeah, Jeeoff, if I may, also to back up

[23:45] what you're saying to Ken is that is the number one cost in development. not only

[23:49] the what you pay for raw land, it's the improvements to that land. And uh going

[23:56] back to what you're saying, the criteria, they came up with this number

[23:58] of 30,000 um

[24:03] or 30% is what the ratio they've come up. They figure you is the maximum you

[24:07] can put in for housing and expenses, a debt to income ratio for for a

[24:11] mediumriced uh buyer in our area.

[24:16] I'm wondering where that number came from because that's not the number the

[24:20] the maximum number. If any buyer is out there getting an FHA or VA loan, you can

[24:24] be at 36% which is realistic and conventionally can actually be up to

[24:29] 50%. So I'm wondering who's deciding to put that number so far down that it

[24:34] makes it very difficult for the cities to come up with this kind of a plan. And

[24:39] once again too to say what Jeff is saying on these two proposals projects

[24:43] that we have in our city right now. We have I know one of the developers has

[24:47] committed to put some of the units as far down as he can to see if it can

[24:50] qualify for that amount. Um other one I don't know. So

[24:56] the the the first answer to your question is that's a question we got to

[25:00] ask the state legislature. They're the ones that set that that bar at 30% of

[25:06] housing for um they set that number. That's the number that they have set.

[25:14] » And I agree with you what you just said about uh and Justin brought this up.

[25:18] It's it's vastly different from city to city what the medium income is. And so

[25:22] it affects what housing costs in that area. So I think the argument is very

[25:26] legitimate to go back and say our medium income here is 140 plus. we need to

[25:30] raise that amount up to meet our demand here, not somewhere else.

[25:36] » And other cities are saying the same thing. They're saying this doesn't make

[25:39] any sense to to make high value areas, higher value areas use a counties a

[25:47] county median income. Let us use the median income in our city. Um we'll have

[25:54] a better shot. It it's more proportionate.

[25:59] Um, so I I I mean, but we are where we're at

[26:04] right now. This could all change in January and February of next year. We

[26:09] don't know. That's just where we're at right now. Um, that that that's what

[26:14] we're facing. Um, I know that I've in the people that

[26:19] I've talked to, I said, "Can you hit that 260 number?" Not in this city. Not

[26:25] in this city. No. maybe 300.

[26:32] Um, so that's just that that that's some background. Anything else on that before

[26:37] I move on? So, strategy E is uh create or allow for and reduce regulations

[26:44] related to internal or detached accessory dwelling units in residential

[26:47] zones. We're already mandated to uh create an external ADU ordinance. So

[26:56] strategy should just automatically be forwarded. We we create the ordinance.

[27:02] We have complied with that request for the year. So that that one's the easiest

[27:10] one to we we have to do it anyway. So why not just keep that on the list of

[27:14] things now? Now now you've met possibly two of the three that you're required

[27:20] to. Um

[27:25] number three is strategy F. Uh zone or reszone for

[27:32] higher density or moderate income residential development in commercial or

[27:36] mixeduse zones near major transit investment corridors, commercial centers

[27:41] or employment centers. Now granted that we don't have number one mixeduse zones.

[27:48] We have very little in the way of commercial. We have a little bit. We

[27:53] don't have we we we have a major transit uh corridor on Highway 89. Um but we

[28:00] don't have much in the way of employment centers. So I want to read what our

[28:04] general plan says about strategy F and why that is probably still pretty valid.

[28:12] Um,

[28:19] so this is what we said in about strategy F in our in our last report.

[28:41] Okay, so Fruit Heights has plans to zone or reszone for higher density or

[28:47] moderate income residential development in commercial or mixeduse zones near

[28:52] major transit investment corridors, commercial centers or employment

[28:55] centers. Fruit Heights City's general plan, zoning map, and transportation

[29:00] plan encourage development around transit corridors and commercial centers

[29:05] access by Main Street, US 89, and I-15. The city, this is this is the this is

[29:12] the important part. The city has identified a number of vacant parcels

[29:16] that it will consider as locations um to implement a new zoning

[29:21] classification that targets higher density housing. Incentives geared to

[29:25] encourage higher density may include higher density deed restrictions and

[29:30] waiver of impact fees. Um this was our implementation goal. We will work with

[29:35] developers to modify infrastructure and lot size requirements. We will hold a

[29:40] work session with the planning commission and city council to identify

[29:44] densitive incentives for new development in the city and and create a toolkit and

[29:50] resource guide for developers that included guidance based on work session

[29:55] feedback. This is what we did. So far, there have been a number of work

[30:00] sessions with the planning commission to identify areas in the city that would be

[30:04] appropriate for higher density zoning. When the process is finished, the city

[30:08] intends to modify the general plan and identify on a map areas that should be

[30:12] considered for higher density zoning. Um, you remember when we had a number of

[30:18] these discussions and we actually went in on a map and identified uh some areas

[30:24] that collectively that we thought, you know, could be considered for this. And

[30:29] we even broke some of those down into saying maybe this is R3 an R3 area,

[30:35] maybe this is an R16 area. And and we did some of that work. In my mind, if we

[30:41] finish that work, we have met that requirement. We have largely met that

[30:47] requirement. And because we've already committed to do it and we're partway

[30:51] down that road, it would seem to me to let's finish that. It doesn't mean that

[30:58] you're going to develop any of those properties. It doesn't mean you're going

[31:01] to reszone them. It says we've identified areas that could be high d

[31:07] higher density areas in the city. That to me makes a lot of sense. So I would

[31:13] recommend that that stay on the list and be one of the top priorities for

[31:21] furthering that work and uh meeting that requirement. If we chose those three,

[31:29] it's a matter of just implementing what we said we were going to do as we've

[31:35] described here tonight. We don't have to change anything. Anything else that we

[31:39] implement is going to have to be amended and included in the general plan. So the

[31:45] fourth thing that out of this list of eight that I think is is worth taking a

[31:51] serious look at is O. And let me read that to you.

[31:59] This was essentially Eileen Moss's idea and I think it has some merit.

[32:05] So, it says, "Apply for or partner with an entity that applies for state or

[32:10] federal funds or tax incentives to promote the construction of modern

[32:14] income housing. An entity that applies for programs offered by the Utah Housing

[32:19] Corporation within the Utah Housing Corporation's funding capacity. An

[32:25] entity that applies for affordable housing programs administered by the

[32:29] Department of Workforce Services. An entity that applies for affordable

[32:33] housing programs administered by the association of governments established

[32:37] by an interlocal agreement. Uh an entity that applies for services provided uh by

[32:44] a public housing authority to preserve and create moderate income housing or

[32:50] any other entity that applies for programs or services that promotes the

[32:54] construction or preservation of moderate income housing. That's the That's the

[33:00] the um that's the description. So, here's an

[33:05] idea. Um

[33:09] um Eileen's idea was that we could maybe go to another city that is building or

[33:19] implementing some kind of high density project and partner with them with some

[33:24] kind of financial obligation on behalf of the city.

[33:29] Um, I had a conversation with um, uh, one of the county's

[33:36] guys that works on all kinds of things affordable housing wise. And we have

[33:42] right now we have a grant program by which um we will grant up to $50,000

[33:51] for a new homeowner to buy an affordable housing unit somewhere in the county. So

[33:59] that's up to $50,000. It it could be less than that. It might be 25 35, but

[34:06] it's up to 50. I talked to him about this thing today and he said, "Yeah,

[34:13] we would be interested in having that conversation." Let's just say, for

[34:17] instance, that the city said, "We'll commit $100,000 a year for five years."

[34:24] That would pay for two grants

[34:29] for two homeowners to buy an affordable housing

[34:33] um uh home somewhere in the county. And it it could be anywhere in the

[34:39] county or each one of those homeowners is

[34:44] presently required to um put down a 25% of the cost of the home on on for for

[34:53] the project. The city's money could help offset their 25%. So, you could say,

[35:00] "Well, we'll give 10 people $10,000 to help offset their 25% down payment."

[35:08] There could be a myriad of options that you could do to stretch that money

[35:11] around. But the the the idea here is that you're promoting

[35:19] affordable housing efforts somewhere in this county. Not necessarily your city

[35:24] and probably not likely your city, but somewhere in this county. And

[35:30] I believe that that meets that requirement

[35:34] and I think that that is certainly worth an effort to try and go down that road

[35:41] in some form or fashion. Um

[35:45] that could be a fourth option. It could replace one of the other three options

[35:50] that we previously talked about. Um, so I I think there's I I I I think

[35:56] there's definitely some some validity in in that if that's if the city wants to

[36:02] make some kind of financial commitment. Um, I just use this as an example of

[36:08] this this this grant program that's, you know, out there right now. There there

[36:13] there may be other things and and other opportunities out there.

[36:18] The other four which is B, C, I, and M are all going to need some significant

[36:27] amount of steel research and work. I just want to read what they are. So B is

[36:35] um demonstrate investment in rehabilitation

[36:39] or expansion of infrastructure that facilitates the construction of moderate

[36:43] income housing. So, we're talking about water, sewer, storm drains, utilities,

[36:51] uh, road building,

[36:55] somehow tying an infrastructure project to leading it to the construction of

[37:01] modern income housing. That's going to be pretty difficult to That's going to

[37:05] be pretty difficult to to do it. It just I I mean we're going to build a road

[37:12] that only benefits moderate income housing people. That's going to be

[37:16] pretty hard to do in this city, but it's still one that we identified as one that

[37:21] we could look into further. I just think it's going to be hard to do it. Um

[37:29] C demonstrate investment in the rehabilitation of existing uninhabitable

[37:34] housing stock into moderate income housing. So, the idea here is you take

[37:39] old housing stock and you rehabilitate it and you bring it up to current

[37:45] standards and those units are selling for um moderate income housing. Again,

[37:52] one, I don't know how much of that housing we have in this city. Probably

[37:57] very little. I don't think we've got a lot of vacant houses. Number two,

[38:03] it's going to be difficult given the value of property in this city to make

[38:09] those houses into affordable. I mean, you're going to have to get the owner to

[38:13] agree to basically something worth well less than what it's the market value of

[38:21] that property really is. So again, that one is going to be difficult.

[38:28] What would it take to find out what our stock on homes like that?

[38:32] » Uh, I don't know. Darren, you got any thoughts about that? How How many vacant

[38:36] homes do we have that are like run down?

[38:43] » I I Yeah. I I mean, >> we could look into that a little bit. I

[38:48] mean, I just don't honestly just don't know. But I think the number is probably

[38:52] really low. >> Yeah, for sure.

[38:54] Whereas some other cities, you take Clearfield City for example, there's

[38:59] dozens of homes that are in that category.

[39:04] Um I, strategy I is amend land use regulations to allow for single room

[39:12] occupancy development. So this is renting out a single room in a home. Um

[39:18] again, that is a strategy. It's one that

[39:23] traditionally is not popular with neighbors and other people that live in

[39:28] the neighborhood. Um, it is would take a lot of thought and effort to to craft

[39:36] something that would be acceptable to the public. So, it's a possibility, but

[39:42] one that is going to need a lot more work than, you know, what we know about

[39:47] right now. Remember,

[39:51] you're you already have internal ADUs, so you can rent out your whole basement

[39:58] to somebody. Now, we're going to have external ADUs. You can rent out a

[40:03] detached dwelling in your backyard. Now, do you on top of that want to allow

[40:09] rented rooms in addition to those two things? That's a lot.

[40:14] » But is that is that the intent of this? To me, when I read that, it sounded more

[40:18] like like a um not a hotel, but for one of a better word, something like a hotel

[40:24] where like with seniors, for example, a boarding home or something like that

[40:28] where it's it has more density in it. There's 50 rooms in one building where

[40:32] seniors can rent a room, assisted living type situation. That's that's what I

[40:37] » You may be correct. I I don't have the the absolute definition of what that is,

[40:43] but I know what you're saying. And that is maybe another road we could go down

[40:49] where you say, "Okay, we're going to build

[40:53] » [clears throat] >> uh let's just call it an apartment

[40:55] complex for lack of a better word, and we're going to rent this to um elderly

[41:00] people." >> Um

[41:02] » yeah, >> because is this is the term, am I am I

[41:05] remembering right, the term for something like like what you're speaking

[41:07] about is an SRO, right? like a single resident there's a I can't remember what

[41:11] the acronym is but there's a shared kitchen and multiple people in

[41:15] residential spaces >> you share a kitchen you share uh

[41:20] restroom facilities but basically >> individual has their own room

[41:26] [clears throat] >> yeah okay

[41:29] » that by the way is currently not allowed in our city code we would have to amend

[41:34] our code to go down that road >> so that's just something to think about

[41:39] um and then the last one was M demonstrate creation of or participation

[41:46] in a community land trust program for moderate income housing. Um

[41:52] the commission discussed the concept of establishing the community land trust

[41:56] but agreed it would require willing land donations and was not a practical option

[42:02] for Fruit Height City at this time but we still left it on the list of

[42:06] possibilities. Um, again, that would take a lot of work and a lot of

[42:12] cooperation on not only the city's behalf, but private land owners behalfs

[42:17] and those kinds of things. So, those seem like distant things that need

[42:24] a lot of work to bring to fruition.

[42:29] Um, I think the top four are the obvious top four.

[42:36] And um, so what what questions do you have? What

[42:42] discussion do you want to have? Um, what do you want what what additional

[42:47] research would you like to see at this point? C

[42:50] » can I ask? So the the I believe the ask of the planning

[42:54] commission is to come up with a minimum of three strategies to recommend to the

[43:03] um city council for implementation between now and next July or this July.

[43:10] Is that correct? >> Well, we will have to report on these

[43:14] things by next July. So yeah, >> we need to be working on them between

[43:18] now and then. So I think the expectation of the city council is that we would

[43:23] bring something to them in September. >> Yeah. So basically it's a recommendation

[43:29] between to the to the city council what what do we want to work on between now

[43:33] and July? >> Yeah.

[43:34] » Is that correct? Okay. So just to clarify that couple couple questions I

[43:37] had um on the identify areas for potential reszone just to clarify was

[43:44] that >> this is strategy A right? No, this is

[43:47] the third one you presented. >> Okay, this is strategy F

[43:51] » F. >> Zone or reszone for higher density or

[43:54] moderate income housing. >> Okay.

[43:56] » Is that right? >> I that that's what I was clarifying.

[43:59] » That's that's the third one we talked about.

[44:01] » Okay. >> So, this is identifying the areas in the

[44:04] city that could be considered for >> pension. And as far as like compliance,

[44:10] um where what structure would that identification happen? Is that just

[44:16] because it's not going to be on the general plan.

[44:19] » Well, the idea is is that we would put that in the general plan and say we have

[44:25] identified that because the strategies are already in the

[44:29] general plan. So, if you're going to create as part of the strategy, you're

[44:35] going to create a map >> that shows higher density, you'd want to

[44:39] put that in the general plan. >> Yeah. Okay. And then just for

[44:46] clarification, if that were to happen on the general plan and a piece of property

[44:51] was um listed on this map as a higher

[44:56] density zone and a owner of that property were to come before the

[45:02] planning commission and request a different zone,

[45:07] would that go that's not what's listed in the general plan

[45:12] That wouldn't would that be would that follow kind of procedure?

[45:17] » Can you do that? You're asking could you do that?

[45:20] » Yes, >> absolutely.

[45:22] » We we've got to we've got to make one thing clear.

[45:25] » Yeah. >> Um general plans are not mandatory.

[45:29] You've heard in some recent public hearings differently. That's absolutely

[45:33] not true. General plans are discretionary. They are not mandatory.

[45:38] There are numerous examples in this city where property has been reszoned that

[45:42] was not identified at that as that zone in the general plan. So

[45:47] that's the beauty of it. That's the beauty of that um that strategy is that

[45:54] you're not held to any standard. You're not it's not a mandatory thing. You

[45:59] don't have to do this. it it's if all the pieces fall into place and if

[46:05] somebody some property owner or some developer comes along and says I want to

[46:10] do something different and the city and they can convince the city that this

[46:14] different thing is a better thing go for it.

[46:18] » Okay. >> The property right behind us right here

[46:20] was all zone commercial. >> It's now an R18 zone with homes with

[46:25] nice homes on it. So, so one more question I had um

[46:29] strategy I that was discussed um to amend land use regulations to allow for

[46:34] single room occupancy developments to Shel's comment about

[46:40] um senior care facilities >> if so I just pulled up the C1 zone and

[46:47] C1 currently doesn't discuss that at all but it has it has light manufacturing

[46:51] and restaurants and that sort of thing. If we were to update C1 zone to add in

[46:58] the possibility for a senior care, would that meet do we believe that would meet

[47:05] strategy I [sighs]

[47:08] » andor increase density really per acre? Right.

[47:11] » I I I I don't know. I I mean, it's it's hard to say that right now. It's it it

[47:17] it it it it it's like I said, that's going to take some

[47:21] » some research and some looking into and some vetting. I that that's a hard

[47:27] question to answer right now. >> Yeah, I think that's fair. I I wouldn't

[47:30] be opposed to that myself. I mean, if >> Yeah,

[47:34] » every care facility every senior care facility around is very nice right in in

[47:39] the area. And if you're going to put a >> light manufacturing next door to

[47:43] somebody or a senior care facility, you're going to have a little more

[47:46] you're going to have more traffic with a senior care facility. But

[47:49] I think that would go over easier in the city than potentially something else.

[47:55] » So,

[47:58] okay. >> Well, I think we've said this before.

[48:02] There's a lot of talk about bringing young families in for first-time home

[48:05] buying, but what about all of the housing stock that is held up for people

[48:09] who want to retire and sell and move into a senior or or smaller units?

[48:13] » There's nowhere for them to go >> within the city. Yeah. So, there's

[48:15] nowhere for them to go and this might be a possible

[48:18] » solution to that. >> I I agree.

[48:25] Justin, to answer your question about commercial zones, C2, you could probably

[48:30] um put the that kind of building in um because it's a multifamily

[48:37] or multi-family unit or or whatever. So, you could probably do that in a C2 zone.

[48:42] » Okay. >> Um where C1 is more of your

[48:45] manufacturing and those kind of things. >> Okay.

[48:50] » Um just one more comment about that, Justin.

[48:53] um in my mind I mean it's better to get zoning matched up with the proper land

[49:01] uses. So rather than put it rather than do that in a commercial zone, I'd say

[49:07] you take like your R3 zone and amend that to allow that kind of thing there.

[49:12] So you're matching uses. The zoning is matched up with the land use.

[49:17] But that that's that that that's just a you know I mean that's just maybe that's

[49:22] something that you do later. >> Okay. If that if that was something that

[49:28] the city said that's important to us to create some senior living

[49:34] » area then you go to work and say okay how can we make that happen

[49:40] » and I would be interested in in what type of density what is the

[49:46] definition of density in that situation because I'm unsure right is they're not

[49:51] really condos they're not um owned by the individual

[49:55] » well they Maybe they maybe they could be,

[49:57] » but you know, housing units per acre, >> what does that mean for for something

[50:02] like that? >> Yeah. And and that's I mean, you lay out

[50:06] all those details. >> Yeah.

[50:08] » Um I I mean, there's a

[50:13] senior housing building right down here in Farmington, right next to

[50:17] Chick-fil-A. It's a big building. >> Yeah.

[50:20] » I don't know how many units are in there. And I don't know what the I I I

[50:24] don't know what they are, whether they're apartments or condos.

[50:28] Um but um I mean that's probably an example of what you're talking about on

[50:35] a much larger scale. >> We'd have a hard time fitting something

[50:38] like that even in the city. >> Yeah.

[50:41] » Yeah. And not even that, right? But you've got right here on Main Street in

[50:44] Cisville, you've got Whisper Cove, >> much smaller.

[50:48] » Yes. Like >> that's something on a much smaller

[50:50] scale. >> Yeah. I mean it looks it looks like it

[50:52] fits in with the neighborhood. >> Yes. I I know the one you're talking

[50:56] about. >> Yeah.

[50:57] » Yeah. So >> I think did we do we discuss strategy V

[51:03] where it's create or allow for and reduce regulations related to multif

[51:07] family residential dwellings compat compatible in scale and form with detach

[51:12] single family residential dwellings and located in walkable communities within

[51:16] residential or mixed zones. Seems as though that might be something

[51:21] that's pretty achievable here because of the residential or mixed use zone

[51:28] language. >> Sorry. B

[51:31] » V. >> Oh, V is in Victor.

[51:32] » It's in Virginia. >> Yeah, you're good.

[51:36] » I mean, yeah. I I mean, we could we could put that one on the list. I mean,

[51:40] I could see how that could be achievable. Um

[51:45] um it's >> create

[51:49] » uh I mean it's very similar to >> a

[51:56] » in the terms of what it accomplishes, >> right? So, you could probably say you

[52:00] could do that or you can do a um but [clears throat] yeah, that is

[52:08] probably something that you would, you know, amend and incorporate into one of

[52:13] your zones. >> But certainly that that I mean that's

[52:17] one we could add. >> Is that just allowing like a duplex on a

[52:21] lot that currently has a single family residence on it?

[52:24] » Possibly. That's what it seems like. >> That's what it seems like.

[52:27] » I mean, possibly. We already have. >> Yeah.

[52:33] » Yeah, that seems easy.

[52:39] » Which strategy was that one? >> The what you can't do

[52:43] » the is in Virginia. >> What you can't do is

[52:50] » use

[52:53] two different strategies. You can't knock out two birds with one

[52:57] stone. >> You You can't say that

[53:01] You can't say that we're re we're reszoning

[53:06] property for higher density and say these two strategies are both that same

[53:13] thing. That counts as two. That's what you does that make sense?

[53:17] » Yeah. Yeah. We're going to have to have three

[53:21] separate strategies with three distinct um programs related to them.

[53:29] And a lot of these strategies are very similar and parallel in nature.

[53:37] It's just another way of saying the same thing.

[53:44] I I I know we talked about be the infrastructure. Um, I know Kevin's

[53:48] comment before was >> like, "Let the state tell us no,

[53:52] » right?" >> Yeah.

[53:53] » Just try it. >> Yeah.

[53:54] » Um, I know we've talked about sewer being an

[53:57] issue, you know, in the city. Um, I think there's some I I believe there was

[54:02] some discussion about upgrading some areas. Maybe I'm wrong. Um, but I don't

[54:08] know. I'd rather than I'd rather try it and have them tell us no, right? and

[54:12] then not try it. Especially because there's no additional cost at this

[54:17] point. It's just to me it's a worthwhile venture.

[54:21] » Yeah. Um yeah, that idea let the state tell us no. Yeah. Okay. Um but remember,

[54:31] we only need three. We don't need six. >> Well, that's I guess I'd rather do that

[54:36] than O. >> To me, O I think is gonna I

[54:41] Um, I was going to there's a cost to this.

[54:43] » Well, there's a there's certainly a cost associated to it.

[54:46] » Yeah. And there's a potential multi-year commitment and basically to me that's

[54:52] like we're we're taking Fruit Heights tax dollars and giving it to a different

[54:57] city. >> I just don't know, Justin. Let's say

[55:01] that you're going to replace a sewer line in just Mountain Road for instance.

[55:06] How many how many sewer connections go into that? How many of those people are

[55:12] living in a moderate income housing home? None. I just don't know how we're

[55:18] going to get to I just don't know how we're going to make the numbers match.

[55:22] Is any Can I ask is any just looking at the Fruit Heights um zone map, it looks

[55:28] like the property, right? So, if if it's Mountain Road, are we upgrading sewer on

[55:32] Mountain Road? >> Well, I don't know. I don't think I

[55:35] don't know where specifically. So, the sewer systems owned by Central Davis and

[55:40] and they have their plans of where they would start upgrading. Um, and the city

[55:44] itself is not. >> Is it? Okay. So, we couldn't claim any

[55:48] of that because it's not the city doing it. It's the water district.

[55:52] » Anything that we do has to lead to does it lead to moderate income housing?

[55:57] » Yeah. >> Ownership.

[56:00] Um, so I just think that infrastructure

[56:05] thing is going to be very difficult to I mean it's going to be very difficult to

[56:09] prove. They're going to say, "Well, prove it.

[56:13] What' you do?"

[56:18] I mean, and to me, just looking at it, I mean, the create the EADU ordinance,

[56:22] that's a no-brainer to me. We have to do that. And I really like the idea of just

[56:27] adding senior care center somewhere into one of the ordinances. To me, those are

[56:33] two very simple check the box and then we got to find a third.

[56:38] » Can I ask another question? I feel like I've peppered you with a lot of

[56:41] questions. I got a lot to learn. So, I apologize. But regarding F, I want

[56:46] clarity on all that we're required to do is identify

[56:50] a higher density area or do we have to actually reszone for a higher density? I

[56:56] want to understand clearly is it just identify? I know it says but

[57:00] » zone or resone. >> Okay, so it is zone or resone. It's not

[57:03] as simple as just identifying it. Well, um, the commitment that we made was that

[57:10] we would identify, but it says zone or reszone here. Here's the here's the

[57:15] difficult part of your question. We don't know what they're going to accept

[57:19] or not accept. We make our best attempt to put the put our best foot forward and

[57:26] they will tell us they're what I can tell you is that we are in compliance

[57:33] right now. And the three things that we picked was

[57:37] A, E, and F. If we know that we were in compliance with those three things to

[57:43] start with, it's easier to stay in compliance with those three things. And

[57:48] the thing that we haven't the only part of F that we haven't complied with is is

[57:53] finishing this map and identifying these areas. So, we're more likely to be in

[57:58] compliance with that than starting fresh with something else. and we won't know

[58:03] until you get a letter in the mail saying no, denied. And that happened. We

[58:08] we had to massage these things for months to get our get the city in

[58:16] compliance on some of the things that we did.

[58:19] It's not what have you done in the past, it's

[58:23] what have you done lately. So, it's it's nearly impossible to ask

[58:28] that question. What are the what is 1 2 3 4 the requirements? We don't know.

[58:36] This is what we got. What you're reading here, that's the Now, you can get on the

[58:39] phone with these guys and say, "Would we be okay if we do this?" And they'll

[58:43] generally give you some some ideas. They'll guarantee you nothing.

[58:50] And listen, there's plenty of rumor out there that

[58:55] this is likely this whole deck's likely to get shuffled in the next legislative

[59:01] in the next legislative session. So, we should take that into consideration

[59:05] knowing that we have very little time to react after the legislative session is

[59:11] ended in February and we've got a report in July. We should be doing now what we

[59:17] think we is just an absolute slam dunk. What's going to be the slam the three

[59:21] things that we can just boom, we're done. We did it. C

[59:26] » can I ask may I follow up to Ken's question earlier? Do we do we know of

[59:29] any cities that um the legislature has said are not in compliance currently and

[59:36] what have been the repercussions? like what what if we come into the three

[59:40] easiest things and then we get a letter from the state. This

[59:44] » Justin I answer that. Right now all the cities are in compliance. Um there's not

[59:49] a city that isn't in compliance. They've worked uh really well um with the cities

[59:56] of on their reporting. Uh like I said, the first report that Jeff and I did, uh

[1:00:01] I think we had three or four submitts. Um, and they worked with us that whole

[1:00:07] time till our report passed. Um, >> so there was back and forth with

[1:00:12] » there was Yeah, there was back and forth after we sent it in. There was

[1:00:16] » they worked with us. Yeah. >> So, and right now um

[1:00:22] that is still what they say they're willing to do is is work with cities to

[1:00:27] help them be compliant. But part of the process is you got to be showing an

[1:00:32] action and you have to be doing something.

[1:00:36] » So I think for for one right a we've we've had two we've had recently we've

[1:00:41] had two pieces of property come up for reszone that like you said Jeeoff that's

[1:00:46] a slam dunk. Two is e create an eu e au ordinance which we have to do. Um, and

[1:00:56] then I we our general plan currently says that we're going to do F anyways.

[1:01:01] » So, I think that does seem easy. Um, I I'm sure

[1:01:07] there will be um a lot of push back on that um within the city, but current

[1:01:15] currently our general plan says we're going to do that. I'm confident F can be

[1:01:20] massaged to to be a compatible a compatible use.

[1:01:26] I'm sure that it probably can. >> Okay.

[1:01:29] » And that that they'll work with us. Listen, they're they're already saying

[1:01:33] that we've met the requirement. So now it's a matter of what are you doing to

[1:01:40] implement it? >> So could we just present those like

[1:01:44] those three? >> Yeah.

[1:01:47] I I I I have concerns with O. I guess it just doesn't feel right to me.

[1:01:53] » Well, it's going to cost the city money. >> Yeah, that's my concern.

[1:01:57] » Um um it seems like it's would be easy

[1:02:02] enough to meet the requirement, but it's going to cost the city money.

[1:02:08] » Yeah, it's easy to write a check, but I don't think it's I don't think it's the

[1:02:12] right thing to do. >> Okay. So Justin, just a just a reminder,

[1:02:18] the council um did ask the planning to commission to come up with probably um

[1:02:25] five to six uh strategies that they >> and they're going to narrow it down.

[1:02:29] » And then they've already kind of been supposed to be researching as a council

[1:02:35] member which ones they think that could possibly be. And once they receive the

[1:02:41] recommendation from the planning commission on which ones they believe

[1:02:45] that we can work forward and accomplish, uh, then the council will start that

[1:02:49] next process of saying, "All right, yes, we think we can hit this one." Well,

[1:02:54] yeah, we're willing to donate money to it or we're not willing to donate money.

[1:02:58] Um, we have to remember, we can recommend, yeah, there there could be a

[1:03:03] financial cost to the city, but that's all legislative. So that

[1:03:08] » yeah, >> they could turn around and say, "No, we

[1:03:10] don't want to do that one." Or they could say, "Well, why didn't they give

[1:03:12] us one with financial?" >> Um,

[1:03:15] » so I I think >> my recommendation to the planning

[1:03:18] commission >> is um pick seven of them that you could

[1:03:24] feel comfortable with. We will send those. Um, I mean, I have comments

[1:03:30] written down. We've recorded comments from the last meetings. Um we'll per

[1:03:36] recommend here's the recommendation these strategies and then we let the

[1:03:40] council take the next step on that of saying

[1:03:44] which ones they think that they can also work with.

[1:03:52] If the two projects fail, we'll need to

[1:03:57] shift direction into something else.

[1:04:01] » Unless the legislature changes Yeah. >> direction.

[1:04:05] » Yeah. >> Well, they could always make it more

[1:04:07] strict, too. >> They could, but then they give us time.

[1:04:09] » Yeah. >> That's probably my thought, too, Justin.

[1:04:14] If they change direction significantly, my guess is they'll give cities more

[1:04:20] time to deal with it and

[1:04:25] something's going to happen. We just don't know what direction it's going to

[1:04:28] go. Some somebody's going to do something.

[1:04:32] This is a this is on the tip of their tongue, they're saying.

[1:04:36] » So So maybe just in in looking at time, right? It's 8 o'clock now. Does anybody

[1:04:41] have any concerns with the first the the four that were presented uh AEF and O to

[1:04:48] to present uh or to recommend to city council and then

[1:04:53] » I >> to Darren's point will pick three more.

[1:04:57] Are we good with those first four? >> Yeah.

[1:05:00] » I share your concerns with O. >> Yeah.

[1:05:02] » But

[1:05:05] » yeah. Yeah. >> I think like like was mentioned, right?

[1:05:08] They're looking for seven. and they're going to pair it down.

[1:05:10] » Yeah. >> And ultimately that's a legislative um

[1:05:13] decision that's not held in our we don't control the

[1:05:17] » the purse. So >> the other one that was mentioned was

[1:05:22] » V. Yeah. >> So I was going to maybe if we can narrow

[1:05:25] down are we good with those four and then we can talk about three more

[1:05:29] » and I what about I that might be an easy one.

[1:05:32] » Yeah. Foren those four first. >> Yeah absolutely.

[1:05:35] » Is everyone okay? So now we need three more. And yeah my notes were IV and then

[1:05:41] I I picked Q. So I was um Shel's comment about multi- about uh senior care

[1:05:49] centers potentially updating. >> You'd like that twist that it that it be

[1:05:53] it be um directed at senior some kind of senior living.

[1:05:59] » Yeah. >> I do. Yeah. That's our interpretation of

[1:06:02] that strategy. And then V, which was also Shel's comment, was um

[1:06:10] create or allow for and reduce regulations related to multifamily

[1:06:15] residential dwellings uh compatible in scale and form with

[1:06:19] detached single family residential dwellings and located in walkable

[1:06:24] communities within residential or mixed use zones. to me that just my

[1:06:28] interpretation is something that looks like a single family residence but is

[1:06:33] multifamily in a single family neighborhood.

[1:06:36] » Yeah, >> there's an example of that if you on

[1:06:38] Second North on the Quasil side where they're redoing there. There's under

[1:06:41] construction there is a duplex there amongst single family and across the

[1:06:45] street they've had some duplexes there but that is pretty much a mixeduse area

[1:06:50] right there. >> Yeah.

[1:06:52] » Yeah. Right down here on Main Street in Farmington before you what is it? Get to

[1:06:58] like Smith, there's a duplex on the right hand side. Looks like a single

[1:07:01] family dwelling. Like I drove by it for years before I realized it was a duplex.

[1:07:06] » Where's that at? >> By Smith.

[1:07:08] » On Main Street. >> Main Street.

[1:07:12] » Yeah. >> It looks like a big home. There's a

[1:07:15] single drive. It's like a double driveway in the center. And there's

[1:07:17] » Oh, that's a duplex. >> Yeah. [laughter]

[1:07:20] » Yeah. >> Right. Hey, it [clears throat] looks

[1:07:22] like a nice place. >> It looks like a single family dwelling.

[1:07:24] Yeah. >> Yeah.

[1:07:28] » Yeah. >> Okay. So, I and V and then the other one

[1:07:32] I marked was Q. Um >> Q.

[1:07:38] » So, this was and this is something that we had discussed before is just impact

[1:07:42] fees. U basically eliminate impact fees with accessory dwelling units. Uh the

[1:07:46] comment on here was that uh we're not currently collecting any revenue from

[1:07:50] ADUs. So maybe it's a moratorum of a year, 18 months, something like that.

[1:07:56] Basically just inviting those that are that currently have um internal ADUs

[1:08:01] that have not permitted them with [clears throat] the city to come out of

[1:08:06] the woodwork, get their permits done. >> It checks the box fairly low cost to the

[1:08:12] city >> and gets us in good standing.

[1:08:15] » Yeah. I like that idea of having a moratorum

[1:08:18] on the fees >> to get people to want to get them

[1:08:22] registered with the city. >> Yeah, because I think we have less than

[1:08:25] 10 currently registered >> and I'm

[1:08:30] » okay. So that's seven. You got A, E, F, and and O and then I V and Q.

[1:08:39] » Yeah, that was recommendation was seven. >> There's seven. Are we good?

[1:08:45] » We need we need a motion. >> Can I ask a quick question? Can you will

[1:08:49] you can you can you define exactly so and I say this having worked on an area

[1:08:54] station plan but what what is the de definition of a station area plan? What

[1:08:58] has to be inclusive in that? >> What strategy is that

[1:09:01] » you? >> Well, first of all, it has to be a major

[1:09:06] transit stop and that's been defined as one of the stops on front runner. So,

[1:09:11] it's not possible here. We don't have a frontr runner stop.

[1:09:14] » We don't, but we have a major travel corridor and um develop and adopt a

[1:09:20] station area plan. >> It doesn't say anything about building

[1:09:23] it, but could that be included in our master plan

[1:09:27] » if we think we're going to get FrontRunner up here at some point? But

[1:09:31] I'm pretty sure they have defined the stationary plans have to be centered

[1:09:35] around a Front Runner stop. So that's everything along front runner.

[1:09:41] But but it just says develop. Oh, well I guess what one is that?

[1:09:45] » You. >> That's you. Let me

[1:09:47] » develop and adopt. >> Let me get over there.

[1:09:49] » Develop and adopt doesn't mean build. Develop and adopt means in my mind

[1:09:56] connection, right? Create a plan, design.

[1:09:58] » It says in accordance with section 1021 203. I could go back and read that and

[1:10:04] see if that's something that's even remotely possible. But

[1:10:07] » I read that a long time ago. I know what it says. I know that I have been told

[1:10:12] before that station area plans are directly related to frontr runner

[1:10:17] stations. >> Okay.

[1:10:21] » Like Farmington did a stationary plan, >> right?

[1:10:26] » Down here at the at you know by the Front Runner stop

[1:10:31] » they completed a stationary plan. and the idea that, you know, there there is

[1:10:36] one that talks about collaborating with another, you know, entity that has, you

[1:10:41] know, some of the same interests that we have. And so I I know it doesn't have

[1:10:46] this language in there, but to propose, hey, we're going to connect with, you

[1:10:52] know, Farmington >> maybe,

[1:10:54] » right? I don't know, maybe as a backup. I don't know.

[1:10:57] » Um, >> it seems as though it would be kind of a

[1:10:59] low. >> These secondary strategies are going to

[1:11:02] take some work. Yeah. to figure out how to make them work.

[1:11:06] » I guess if we if there's >> there's there's lower fruit to be

[1:11:09] picked. >> If there's going to be work done on the

[1:11:11] master plan, then this might be something.

[1:11:14] » I mean, we could certain we can look into think about.

[1:11:17] » Yeah. >> Yeah. Just I this is just an a this is

[1:11:22] AI's version of of what that section states basically is that we have to it's

[1:11:27] a plan that addresses specific goals including increased housing, transit

[1:11:31] writership, and economic development. specifically within a half mile radius

[1:11:34] of the station. >> So I think it would it'd be a lot it'd

[1:11:38] be effort like it's a >> it'd be an effort to put that together.

[1:11:41] Not saying that >> but maybe more of the the math the the

[1:11:46] general plan outlook. >> Yeah.

[1:11:48] » Okay. >> Any any other discussion on um med uh

[1:11:53] MIH strategies?

[1:11:58] » Not um we'd be looking for a motion. correct

[1:12:02] to to um recommend the strategies.

[1:12:09] » Do we have a a motion?

[1:12:14] » A motion to recommend the strategies to the city council.

[1:12:19] » Yeah. Is that sufficient? Do we need to call them out? We're good.

[1:12:26] » Probably had to call them out. >> Yeah. Just to be

[1:12:31] » O. >> Yep.

[1:12:34] » B is in Virginia. [laughter] >> Yes.

[1:12:38] » Okay. Do I have a second? >> Second it.

[1:12:41] » Uh, all in favor, please say yes. >> Yes.

[1:12:43] » Yes. >> Yes.

[1:12:44] » Any >> nos? No.

[1:12:47] » Okay. Thank you everybody. Uh, we'll move on to the next section. Uh, section

[1:12:53] 6.3, R3 zone. R3 zone discussion.

[1:13:02] » Uh Scott,

[1:13:14] so um in council meeting it was brought up um that back in March we were talking

[1:13:19] about an R13 zone. Um, and I'm not sure if that was a rewrite for the R3 zone or

[1:13:27] just creating an R13 zone. Um, I went through the minutes, read a little bit

[1:13:32] about what was happening. Um, in the minutes we talked about, uh, taking in

[1:13:38] the in that zone, um, it was 8,000 foot lot for individual homes. Um, the

[1:13:46] discussion was moving that to a 4,000 foot lot. Uh it also talked about um

[1:13:54] number of units um possible on that same area which would put it closer to seven

[1:14:01] to with the maybe going to nine units. Um

[1:14:07] there there's a couple concerns that were coming up um that we did you did

[1:14:11] talk a little bit about uh current um multif family units having up to 25

[1:14:16] units per acre. Um there was uh discussion about parking. Um there was a

[1:14:21] little bit of discussion discussion sorry uh making it less units

[1:14:27] uh maybe comparable to the the ivory over at the bottom of Nicholls Road

[1:14:32] which is currently um I looked it up today according to their map and all the

[1:14:37] open space that they tied to it was um about 15 units per acre. I'm just it was

[1:14:44] just three or something like that. units per acre. Uh there also was talk um and

[1:14:52] concern um about if you took an acre and put 25 apartments on it, what kind of

[1:14:58] open space was available and should there be a percentage more than what we

[1:15:03] have in the current ordinance? And um

[1:15:11] the discussion was also talked about um where uh higher denses density would be

[1:15:18] appropriate in the city. Uh there was a discussion of that and there was a

[1:15:22] couple areas pointed out for that. Um and then also the current infrastructure

[1:15:28] um in those areas could it handle um the increased housing.

[1:15:34] I think the last um there was one other one um that um actually I think it was

[1:15:42] Shel that density density isn't just about the unit count it's

[1:15:48] about form scale and livability high-rise apartments with no green space

[1:15:53] very unpopular um was one of her comments um a better layout with open

[1:15:58] space is a lot more acceptable was kind of a comment and We talked and um like I

[1:16:06] said, I don't know if this is a rewrite to the R3 zone or if it was to create an

[1:16:13] R1 zone to um R13 zone. >> I think a rewrite of the R3.

[1:16:20] » So, but that was the discussion. Um council uh asked me to bring that back

[1:16:27] and continue with that council. Um

[1:16:32] and um the last of it is that um we could look at it. I know we just created

[1:16:38] the R16 zone um which has a 6,000 foot lot for each individual. We're up to

[1:16:45] eight units. Uh so I think there was some discussion also with that making

[1:16:50] sure we're we're providing an area where we can have higher density but we're

[1:16:55] also um being mindful of what's around is the is

[1:17:00] the how I took the minutes as I read through them. So, um I did look up both

[1:17:08] ordinances um like the R3 went through the R3 uh and just kind of compared to

[1:17:14] what was talked about in in size wise. But, um other than that, that was the

[1:17:19] discussion. And so I guess that's a discussion that we probably should

[1:17:24] continue um to look at u an R13 zone and setbacks it um different different items

[1:17:34] through that. I I think u that could hit a different couple different things. So,

[1:17:41] I don't know if you create a R3 zone and do it for multifamily dwelling units and

[1:17:47] then do an R13 for your town homes and your uh little bit different, you know,

[1:17:54] single family dwelling homes on a smaller lot um or how you want to do

[1:17:59] that. But, uh that's direction also that the planning commission needs

[1:18:04] to talk about and so we can continue to work on that process.

[1:18:09] So here, let me just give you my two cents about this.

[1:18:13] » I'm the one that suggested that we go from go like a 7 to nine unit per acre

[1:18:19] density >> based on what we know today and new

[1:18:23] information we've got. That'll that that that won't create any affordable

[1:18:28] anything. Um it's not realistic. Let's not create another zone that can't be

[1:18:34] used by anybody. The R16 zone has been used by no one. It's been tried a couple

[1:18:40] of times. Couldn't make it pencil. Doesn't mean it couldn't be used. It

[1:18:45] hasn't been used. I honestly believe that if you're going

[1:18:51] to redo this zone, you think very methodically about this before you take

[1:18:55] any action. And that is if this city is seriously interested in doing higher

[1:19:01] density, you've got to match the what the market is able to build. So

[1:19:10] 7 8 9 10 units of the acre, it's not going to cut it. You're not going to

[1:19:16] create any affordable anything. So you're going to have to look at

[1:19:20] something more than that. I don't know if the city can

[1:19:24] has the pallet can swallow it. Um, that has to be vetted before you even talk

[1:19:31] about what you're going to do with a zone because basically just give give me

[1:19:36] a dense a density per acre and we'll create the rest of it around it. That's

[1:19:42] that's what we need to know. We'll create all the we'll put all the details

[1:19:46] to it and make it look pretty and and all that, but we need to know what

[1:19:52] density do you want this thing to look at. Right now, that R3 is allowed up to

[1:19:59] 25 units per acre. You got two projects on the table. They both proposed at 25

[1:20:05] units per acre. Now, that didn't seem to be palatable to

[1:20:12] at least a bunch of neighbors. So, I don't know. I don't I don't know where

[1:20:16] you want to go with that, but don't just charge into it unless you've got some

[1:20:22] market analysis to back it up. Can Can Yeah. Is there any um

[1:20:29] clarification from the city council as far as why they wanted us to look at it

[1:20:36] again? >> I don't know. I wasn't there.

[1:20:38] » It was just brought up that >> I'm sorry. It was brought up that the

[1:20:42] planning commission had looked at it um last year um and it it had not moved

[1:20:49] forward that so um I said I would bring it back

[1:20:54] up to the planning commission.

[1:21:00] » I guess I don't understand I don't understand the value or to to Jeff's

[1:21:05] point. I mean the the only opportunity that I I think

[1:21:10] I would see potentially and it's not going to make I I assume right I'm not a

[1:21:15] developer I don't work in developing I assume it's not going to everything

[1:21:18] we've heard though from developers is that it it doesn't make sense right they

[1:21:22] need they need more than um seven to nine units per acre to make it work the

[1:21:27] only opportunity that I would see that this potentially would be used is if

[1:21:32] it's not a developer right it's grandma and grandpa's property

[1:21:36] they pass away and you have cousins, siblings, whatever that decide we want

[1:21:41] to build four units and live on it together, right? Um when it's not

[1:21:47] financially motivated. Um but we also already have the R16 that

[1:21:53] was brought up earlier as well. Um so I maybe I'm wrong here. I just I don't

[1:22:01] know what the value of the R13 would be. it potentially. It's right. We already

[1:22:06] have a minimum of 6,000 square. It's it's smaller lots. You could do a 4,000.

[1:22:14] You could minimum of a 4,000 foot lot. You said the the units um the ivory

[1:22:20] development on Nicholls are those what what's the average lot size there?

[1:22:25] » When you said 15 per acre, did you include the entire development or just

[1:22:30] the apartment piece? Did you >> I included all the open space.

[1:22:35] » Did you include all of the units? Even the single family units?

[1:22:38] » No. None of those. >> So just the 80.

[1:22:40] » Just the 80 apartments in what I figured the boundary was around it. Yeah. And

[1:22:47] it's just just under four acres. >> Okay. But part of that development down

[1:22:51] there incorporated all the single family for the open space because you can buy

[1:22:55] in and pay your HOA fees and have access to the pools. So that open space was not

[1:23:00] just created for those those apartments that were supposed to convert to condos

[1:23:04] at some point. Um it includes all the the smaller lot single families to be

[1:23:10] able to use those amenities. So that's why you're down to approximately 15

[1:23:14] units per acre on that. On the R3 zone that we were talking about, the piece on

[1:23:19] Lloyd Road that was proposed there uh were the town homes and I think if I

[1:23:25] remember right, there were 19. He said 20, but um

[1:23:28] » he proposed 20. >> He proposed 20. I counted 19 on his

[1:23:31] plat. >> That's right.

[1:23:32] » Yeah. But um uh that's the kind of density that

[1:23:38] works. On the other piece that Mr. Ivy has there on Main Street. Uh his was

[1:23:43] doing apartments and I think the opposition to the R3 zone on there was

[1:23:47] the height restriction up to 45 ft if I remember that correctly that for some

[1:23:52] reason down to three stories was a little bit more palatable or whatever

[1:23:56] was going to be and less units in there. Now since then, you know, I know that

[1:24:00] developers also talked and said he's open to whatever we come up with. He's

[1:24:04] he's not married to that that hypothetical development. And I think a

[1:24:08] lot of people misunderstood on both of those. This is what this is final

[1:24:13] decision made. This is what I'm proposing. This is what I'm trying to

[1:24:15] get. Okay. Which wasn't the case on either development.

[1:24:18] » Y. >> So I think the onus is on us to come up

[1:24:21] with a density. Just like you said, what are we willing to do here? Doesn't mean

[1:24:26] we're going to approve 25 units. It just means it has the capacity to do

[1:24:32] that. >> 6,000 square foot lots are not going to

[1:24:36] get you the density. No,

[1:24:38] » just not going to. >> No.

[1:24:42] » Um, it's also worth mentioning there is no vacant property in the city zoned R3

[1:24:47] right now that isn't already fully developed. So,

[1:24:52] you've got the two projects that have been proposed as R3. Um, what what I'm

[1:24:58] saying is you got time to figure this out. I mean, um, you know, let's figure

[1:25:05] out what's going to work the best. Um, um,

[1:25:12] this this doesn't need to be this doesn't need to be you don't need to

[1:25:15] rush into this. That's what I'm saying. >> So, we don't have to make a decision.

[1:25:19] You're at this point. It's just a discussion. We're not we're not moving

[1:25:24] on it tonight. >> Okay.

[1:25:27] Well, and that's another point I would like to make to the general public is

[1:25:31] the the attitude and the position that the planning commission has taken as

[1:25:36] long as I've been on it is very methodical and we've taken our time and

[1:25:39] these have been in on the works and being talked about since last March when

[1:25:43] I was put in. So, it's it's not an overnight thing. Um, we do try to put a

[1:25:49] lot of thought and get input on here. We're not going to make everybody happy

[1:25:52] all the time. It's that's an impossible task. So, our decisions are going to be

[1:25:57] based on the best information we can get and what makes sense in the in the

[1:26:02] overall plan. As Jeff says, a general plan is simply a guideline. It's not

[1:26:08] law. It's not cast in stone. It can be revised. And it sounds like our current

[1:26:14] general plan is in the works of being revised again. And you were saying the

[1:26:17] legisl the legislature on this MIH plan that may mix it all up again. So, we're

[1:26:25] trying to make decisions on things that are probably going to change on us

[1:26:30] » con constantly. >> Constantly.

[1:26:34] » Yeah. >> Okay. Any questions? Any further

[1:26:39] discussion on R3? Um I I guess at this point

[1:26:46] we're we're good to have discussion. Do um is there any request I guess of the

[1:26:51] city? Where would we like to go for from here on this?

[1:26:55] » What do you want to do, Darren? >> Like I said, I was asked to bring it

[1:27:00] back and uh for the planning commission to look at or maybe it's just something

[1:27:04] we start to um talk about for the next couple council meetings as we we go

[1:27:10] through the process. I think one important thing that we need to realize

[1:27:14] is that we're going to have the um external or the detached um dwelling

[1:27:20] units. Um we we need to have that ordinance and I I think there's more

[1:27:25] discussion over the next few weeks that we need to have on that as far as

[1:27:29] » do that first. >> Yeah.

[1:27:30] » Yeah. As far as setbacks, uh how do you where we where do we think we should be

[1:27:36] on setbacks for those? >> Agreed.

[1:27:38] » We need to focus on are we going to allow it in every zone?

[1:27:41] » Are we or is it just a certain size lot? There are some things that we need to

[1:27:46] talk about because we can't just throw an ordinance together and without

[1:27:53] at least some direction from the planning commission of you know we could

[1:27:56] put every zone we could put everything we start putting that out and then we

[1:28:00] end up changing the whole thing. Um, so tonight the reason I put the that on

[1:28:05] there is so we could start that discussion probably looking at do we

[1:28:09] want it available in every zone? Um, or is there just a certain size lot that we

[1:28:14] want to allow it to? Um, do we want to um allow it to have its own sewer

[1:28:21] connection and its own water connection or are we going to say it's required to

[1:28:27] have that or is it going to be required to hook into the current homes? um sewer

[1:28:32] system. Those are things that I think we need to start talking about. Um yes,

[1:28:37] this is due the 1st of October, but it's also a work in progress. Um and it's not

[1:28:44] going to be done the 1st of September. I promise you, it's going to be closer to

[1:28:49] the end of November by the time we we have an ordinance. It's gone through and

[1:28:53] it's gone through the planning commission. After that, it's still got

[1:28:57] to go to the city council and go through their process. Um, and so this is

[1:29:03] something that we'll have done probably closer to the end of the year

[1:29:06] » and it will fit within the general plan that we're doing and that that's part of

[1:29:11] my goal is we do all these steps to get to that point and it's so but we need to

[1:29:19] start somewhere and somewhere is do we put it in every zone? That's up to the

[1:29:25] planning commission to recommend. We start there. Do we have different

[1:29:29] setbacks? Do we do it same as a shed or do we say it's needs to be a little bit

[1:29:35] harder than three feet from the property line? Those are things that's up to the

[1:29:40] planning commission to talk about tonight and in our next meeting. But

[1:29:44] that helps us start putting a draft together that we can start presenting a

[1:29:48] draft and saying, "Okay, here's what we talked about. Here's what we're moving.

[1:29:53] What do we need to change?" Um, and so that's why that's on discussion for

[1:29:57] tonight. So, the October deadline is movable. It sounds like

[1:30:02] » we're supposed to have it adopted by October.

[1:30:06] » Um, but there's a lot of cities that are still working on this same process

[1:30:11] trying to go through and meet the requirements for both the

[1:30:15] infrastructure, all the different items. Um, so we're not the only one in this

[1:30:19] ballpark. Um, but it's something that we need to show we're working on. um and

[1:30:25] and going through the process. >> So, I know that there's other cities,

[1:30:29] Salt Lake City, I believe they already have EADU ordinances in place to allow

[1:30:34] how could we get consensus and get some uh data on other cities that have have

[1:30:41] put this in place and what they have done with these very things, setback,

[1:30:44] sewer, parking spaces, that whole thing. >> We need that we need that research.

[1:30:48] » So, I think we need that. H have we just to clarify I we kind of went from R3 to

[1:30:53] EADU I think >> are we are we good to kind of table R3

[1:30:58] » let me let me just make a recommendation on the R3. Yeah, I

[1:31:01] » if you would consider this between this planning commission and the city

[1:31:06] council, give the staff a range of densities that

[1:31:12] is palatable to the city and let us go back and do some economic analysis on it

[1:31:18] and come back to you with some recommendations on why that may or may

[1:31:23] not, you know, what what what is that what is 15 units to the acre going to

[1:31:30] result in home cost. What's 25 units of the acre going to,

[1:31:37] you know, um give us some parameters and let us put together some information

[1:31:43] that you can analyze. Um that's what I think you do there. But as Darren

[1:31:50] mentioned, we have got to get on this 8U thing now. We the the the R3 can come

[1:31:56] later. it comes after the we need to get this done now that that the clock's

[1:32:01] ticking on that. So that that's got to come first.

[1:32:05] » So right now we have R3 which is 25 units per acre. We have R16 which is

[1:32:10] eight units per acre. >> Well, it's really only six

[1:32:15] » six R1 excuse me >> R16 is only six units per acre

[1:32:21] » and that's we go from six to 25. Well, I want to I want to clarify that there

[1:32:27] there was two different paths. One would go up to 10 units per acre, one up to 25

[1:32:34] units per acre. >> That's the area A or the area B, which

[1:32:38] we don't have. >> And those areas don't even exist

[1:32:40] anymore, right? Those are long gone. >> Yeah.

[1:32:43] » So, there is no such thing as areas. >> Yeah.

[1:32:47] That's what we've talked about doing as part of strategy F is redefining areas

[1:32:53] that could be considered for these kinds of things.

[1:32:59] » Okay. So, >> if you wanted to look at 25 and I don't

[1:33:02] know, do we just stair step it 25? >> I don't know. Pick a number two two

[1:33:08] numbers between 25 and six. >> Well, do we just pick a number or do we

[1:33:12] is it we figure out what the city council wants us to look at? What do

[1:33:16] they what's going to be palatable? What can they sell?

[1:33:19] » I I think that's what >> Well, I think you I think you guys can

[1:33:23] come up with a number and say, "This is our our number. What do you guys want us

[1:33:26] to do or what do you want to do?" Um, you've got developers telling you it's

[1:33:32] the absolute minimum. >> They can't do it for less than 25 units

[1:33:37] per acre. >> Well, isn't that what the city council

[1:33:40] wants as a planning and zoning commission? They want us to give a

[1:33:42] number to suggest for them to consider. So, it's our job to come up with a

[1:33:46] number. So, >> probably

[1:33:49] » and let them mulle it over and see what their thoughts are. So, I would say the

[1:33:55] 25 is going to be what numbers pencil out having been in that business know it

[1:34:00] there. We're not going to no matter what we do, if it doesn't pencil out for

[1:34:04] somebody, it doesn't do any good. >> Yeah. They they just won't use it. It

[1:34:07] just won't happen. >> Why don't Why don't you just let us kind

[1:34:11] of work on a range? let's say maybe between 15 and 25 and just see what I I

[1:34:18] I think we could put something together that gives some some good analysis on

[1:34:24] what that means given you know land values in this city and stuff and and

[1:34:29] then you you can adjust it. You can say we're never going down that road. It

[1:34:34] needs to be 10. Or you might come back and say if we're going to do anything

[1:34:39] it's got to be 30. I don't know.

[1:34:45] » Yeah. So, so it sounds like there's some desire on the city council to have

[1:34:52] something in between R3 and R16 and it's just trying to figure out what that is.

[1:34:57] » Is that fair? >> I I think so. I I suspect

[1:35:04] that based on our comments earlier this year when we were talking about knocking

[1:35:09] the R3 down to 7 to nine units per acre that they're like, "Well, yeah, let's do

[1:35:15] that." Um, I suspect that that's the the I don't I

[1:35:20] mean, nobody's told me, but I suspect that's the idea behind it is let's get

[1:35:24] less density. Let's getting it less density into this ordinance. um that

[1:35:29] will just probably likely end in an ordinance that does nothing.

[1:35:35] » I think Jeff along with that too though, but if you look at the the ordinance R3,

[1:35:40] it's a 6,000 square foot lot is for an individual

[1:35:46] dwelling. Um a multifamily dwelling can take more space

[1:35:51] and so so it's two different things you're looking at there. We're not

[1:35:54] looking at an individual dwelling. um for maybe that number. We're looking

[1:35:59] at a multif family dwelling. What's the amount for that multifamily dwelling? So

[1:36:04] like you know is it 20 apartments? That's that's the max we want to look

[1:36:10] at. Or is it 20 condos? Is that the max we want to look at? That's your multif

[1:36:13] family dwelling because that's your building and their separation. Um

[1:36:17] individual lot size as far as the you know it had 8,000. We talked about going

[1:36:22] down to four is for an individual dwelling on that. on a single lot

[1:36:27] » on that on that lot. Yes. >> Yeah.

[1:36:30] » So that's I mean I think that's two ways to look at it.

[1:36:34] » Yes. >> Is it a single family dwelling and we

[1:36:37] could go up to nine um so we have nine different units on there or is it a

[1:36:44] multifamily dwelling which is your condo or whatever. Watch your units on that. I

[1:36:50] that's how we need to look at that. I think on that saying units per lot and

[1:36:54] not units per acre. >> It still comes out units per acre, but a

[1:37:00] multifamily building is different than an individual building.

[1:37:04] » Sure. And and so you can you could zone a R3 right now and in a have what four

[1:37:16] possibly five homes on 8,000 square foot lots in that

[1:37:21] because it's 43,000 square ft. So you're you're right in that ballpark by by the

[1:37:27] time you do driveways and all that kind of stuff. um

[1:37:31] » might all it might >> but a multifamily unit you could have 25

[1:37:36] because you have apartment building that has 25 units or town homes

[1:37:40] » or town home. >> You just tell us what you can stomach on

[1:37:45] a density per acre and we'll create an ordinance that makes that does that.

[1:37:49] » But at the same time, why are we going to make an ordinance for that's a waste

[1:37:52] of all of our time, >> right? That's my point.

[1:37:54] » Yeah. So the eight eight, you know, six to nine units per acre just doesn't meet

[1:37:59] any goal. >> Yeah.

[1:38:00] » It doesn't appear that financially that that's

[1:38:03] » it doesn't make any sense. >> That that that makes any sense.

[1:38:06] » It's got to be 25. >> It's got to be 25. I I know it's

[1:38:09] » Yeah, >> that's the hard part.

[1:38:11] » This could all become irrelevant >> where when the legislature for the last

[1:38:17] two years has threatened to create 4,000 square foot lots as approved lots

[1:38:26] anywhere in the state of Utah and

[1:38:31] that I'm told it will be back on their agenda again this year. It was defeated

[1:38:37] last year by a much narrower margin than people were comfortable with. Um,

[1:38:45] at some point in the future, you're probably going to have the state of Utah

[1:38:49] telling you what you can and can't do. >> That's probably coming in the next five

[1:38:54] years. >> How big was that piece on Lloyd Road?

[1:38:57] Was that 8/10 of an acre? What was that, Darren?

[1:39:00] » It was 810 of an acre. >> Yeah, that's what I'm remembering. And

[1:39:02] they were going to do 19ish >> Yeah. units on that.

[1:39:06] » That works out to just about 24 25 units per acre.

[1:39:12] » And that is typical what a town home development is going to look like there,

[1:39:16] you know, minus some open space. He had some open space on there, but you're you

[1:39:19] have two roads that he was fronting on. So,

[1:39:24] and he told me in a discussion I had with him on the phone the other day that

[1:39:30] if it's less than that, he's walking. Oh, yeah.

[1:39:35] » But it sounds >> I can't I I can't pencil.

[1:39:37] » But it sounds like we need to have the city council look at two options. One of

[1:39:41] them is it 15 to 20 and 120 to 25 and see

[1:39:45] » and see where they go with it. >> Correct.

[1:39:48] » Yeah. And and certainly it's only going to pencil out at 25 and then it's up to

[1:39:54] is that palatable. >> I mean

[1:39:56] » we already have that, right? >> I mean

[1:39:58] » but that's thing is right. This stuff's being built all around us. Yeah,

[1:40:04] » every city in this county is building high

[1:40:07] we can all get on a bus and travel around and and and [snorts] look at

[1:40:12] these things. I mean, we don't have to go far.

[1:40:15] » It's it's being done all around us. So, >> what do you do? You want that? Do you

[1:40:20] not want that? >> It's where everything is going. So, we

[1:40:25] just have to decide whether we want it here

[1:40:27] » and where >> and where

[1:40:28] » and where do you want it? I mean that that's what the general

[1:40:33] plans for. >> Yeah.

[1:40:36] Okay. um

[1:40:39] on the DEA on the external ADU. Um let's commit to come back to our next

[1:40:46] planning commission meeting with um let let's say just a rough draft with

[1:40:53] some ideas about the key points of what needs to be in a DAU ordinance and then

[1:41:03] start massaging it from there. Can we ask?

[1:41:06] » And I will look at what other cities around us and what other people that

[1:41:11] have already done it and try and glean the best and brightest.

[1:41:16] » That's just what I was going to ask if we can have that information.

[1:41:19] » Agreed. >> I we when we talked about this before,

[1:41:21] it seemed almost like a moot point because Darren was saying that the

[1:41:24] capacity for sewage and water and all of that infrastructure that is required for

[1:41:30] this ordinance to be successful wasn't there.

[1:41:34] Yeah, that's right. That's >> that that is that is one of the concerns

[1:41:38] of of having them. Um and that's where I think it comes to where we're putting

[1:41:44] them. Um are we just tying into the original sewer? Because if we're tying

[1:41:49] into the original sewer, it should be planned for. But if we're going to

[1:41:54] require them to have uh their own sewer connection and their own water

[1:41:59] connection, you're creating more than what that subdivision or what

[1:42:05] that area was designed for. Um I mean, we're we go through right now we're

[1:42:10] upsizing water lines and all that different thing just to meet state

[1:42:13] requirements or they're getting old and it's time to do that. So we're we we do

[1:42:18] that anyway as a city, >> but it may put things on a faster track.

[1:42:23] um if they're if they're undersized through that area. That that's the

[1:42:28] concern. So, I think that's part of it. Some cities will say in this area um

[1:42:33] yeah, they have to have their own service and their own sewer connection.

[1:42:37] Um the other parts, nope, they they have to tie into the house sewer and the

[1:42:42] house water, >> but it was about it was about capacity.

[1:42:46] So, uh, great, they have their own water line and their own sewer, but that

[1:42:51] capacity is not there to carry it away and bring it in. Right.

[1:42:53] » Well, yeah. And that's why if you're looking at it and you're going to tie

[1:42:57] everybody into that current connection, >> is it there or is it a not you're not

[1:43:03] adding another connection. >> You're just adding more volume. What

[1:43:08] what Shelley is is is alluding to is that several years ago, Central Davis

[1:43:13] Sewer said, >> right,

[1:43:15] » told Kisville and Fruit Heights, >> you cannot exceed three units per acre

[1:43:21] on our sewer system because it can't handle it. Okay, since that time, I

[1:43:27] can't tell you how many projects have been built in Cisville that exceed that

[1:43:31] by 10 times. And there are projects in this city that

[1:43:36] even exceed that. And guess what? >> Central Davis Sewer has to sign off on

[1:43:42] every single subdivision we approve. So they can start denying these things.

[1:43:47] » The fact that they're approving them tells me that well maybe they're not so

[1:43:52] concerned about it as they made out because they have the right on any

[1:43:56] project [clears throat] to say we're not signing off

[1:43:59] » and they've yet to do that on one single project. Yeah. So that's what Darren and

[1:44:04] I have been told and we're like, "Okay, is this a thing or isn't it a thing?"

[1:44:09] What I'm told is that there is a a a a major choke point with the sewer system

[1:44:16] going underneath I-15 and down to the sewer plant. And it's going to cost

[1:44:21] millions of dollars to fix that and nobody have wants to spend the money on

[1:44:26] it. And two, there's going to be some other things I think next planning and

[1:44:31] zoning will be good to discuss that that to take in consideration for these

[1:44:34] units. For instance, um how the sewer district, my brother was the boss there,

[1:44:40] um they're going to consider how many uh total units, bedrooms, bathrooms are

[1:44:46] in those units and that's how they're going to base a lot of their decision.

[1:44:49] And also at these this EADU is being built on one tax ID number versus

[1:44:53] another. How do you separate that in util utility billing service all those

[1:44:58] kinds of things? So there's many things we need to address and that's why

[1:45:01] information from these other cities was going to help us do that.

[1:45:05] » I'll note too that we we have seen a decline in in population size. So even

[1:45:09] though right over the last six years since the census was done, so we do have

[1:45:14] fewer number of people living in the city than we did six years ago. So,

[1:45:21] but okay. Anything else on EAD use? Uh, any tabled items?

[1:45:31] Uh, any reports? Okay. Now, looks like our next meeting

[1:45:36] is September 22nd. Um, we get a motion to close the

[1:45:42] meeting. >> Uh, motion to close the meeting. I will

[1:45:46] second

Planning Commission Meeting 8.25.26

Transcript