Okay, we'd like to welcome everyone to the uh planning commission meeting this
evening, August 25th, uh 2026. We'll go ahead and start with a pledge of
allegiance by myself and then a roll call uh by Haley.
» I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to theublic
for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all.
» Commissioner Shelley Baldley, >> present. Commissioner Scott Justinson
» present. >> Commissioner Heidi Murdoch excused. Uh
Chairman Justin Wright >> here.
» And Council Member Mark Cotrail >> here.
» Okay. Uh we'll [clears throat] open the floor up uh to any public comments that
anybody might have. They'd like to address the planning commission this
evening. >> I wasn't Here
you go.
» Frank 980 road. Uh I think the interest in the city right now is why this
position to be worried about the timeliness of aance.
Oh, sorry.
» [laughter]
[laughter] >> There you go.
» Business. Um I my understanding is the state actually passed the requirement
for us to have that ordinance in place by October 1st. Clear back before March
and we're now finally discussing it at this level. Uh, and if you look at the
timeline, that means there's going to be very little opportunity for any input
from the citizens of Fruit Heights, and I think that's a real concern on
everybody's part. I likewise would like to raise the question seriously about
the R3 zone, how that was presented to the planning commission clear back last
March to make modifications on that. There was actually a red line document
and nothing has ever been done. And now we're finding ourselves in another
situation like that. So, I just would raise both those questions with you
folks. Hopefully they'll get addressed tonight.
» Thank you.
» Any any others? Anybody [clears throat] else interested in uh making a public
comment?
Okay. Um, seeing nobody else, we will go ahead and move on to uh review and
approve the planning commission me uh minutes from the July 28, 2026 meeting.
» Justin, let's do the swearing in first. >> Okay.
» And then we can continue on and everybody can be
» okay. So, well, we'll go ahead and um so Ken,
everyone, this is Ken Bagley. Kellen's been um I don't know the right word.
He's a new planning commission member. Um, this is his first meeting. So, we're
excited to have him. And, uh, the city will do your swearing in.
» Okay. Where do you want me?
So I state >> I Ken Bagley
» swear that I will support the Constitution
» do solemnly swear that I will support defend and obey the Constitution
» of the United States of America >> of the United States of America
» and the Constitution of the State of Utah
» and that I will discharge the duties of my office
» and that I will discharge the the duties of my office with fidelity.
» Okay, >> you got it.
» Congratulations, Kellen. We're excited to have you uh on the commission to to
join us. So, >> thank you.
» Okay, we'll go ahead and move on to uh review and approve the planning
commission minutes uh from our July 28th, 2026 meeting.
There any any comments or any any red lines to those minutes?
Um I did give Haley a couple um this evening. They were just uh grammatical
uh and spelling in nature, but nothing that substantively changed anything.
Any
thoughts on the >> a lot of minutes?
» There was a I think that was the longest uh minutes we've had since I've been
» participating. Yeah. >> When I read through it, it it appeared
that that was accurate. >> Um the best that I could remember on
those. >> Yeah.
» Um we we'll need a a motion to uh approve the minutes. I'll make a motion
that we approve the minutes of planning commission meeting July 28, 2026.
» I guess second on that. >> I'll second.
» Second. And what what's the right terminology? Is it all
» in? >> All in favor? All in favor say yes.
» Yes. >> Yes.
» Okay. >> Any opposed? No. Okay.
Um we'll go ahead and move on to planning commission business then. Uh so
we've uh addressed uh 6.1 and so we'll move on to 6.2
uh reviewing MIH strategies.
[clears throat]
Okay. Um, welcome Mr. Bagley to the planning
commission. Thank you.
Um, so I think it was a couple of meetings
ago that we talked about the um, moderate income housing strategies and
I've been doing some work on that and wanted to bring that back for another
discussion. Remember, ultimately we're trying to send a recommendation to the
city council on um what the recommended strategies would be for the moderate
income housing plan. So, let's see. There's one, two, three,
four, five, six, seven, eight items. eight different items that the planning
commission identified it last time we talked about that could be a
possibility, things that we could um um that could be considered and and um
for for the city to uh look at. Um, I'm just going to start with um what I think
should be our top the top uh uh items to look at and the reasons why and then we
can go down the list from there. Um remember and this will be new
information you know for for you. We are required as a city to have at least
three um three of the strategies. We have to have
at least three strategies that are required by the state out of I think
there's like 25 different strategies we three of them we have to we we have to
man we have to identify in our general plan and we have to identify how we're
going to implement and work on these strategies
and I'll remind you also that in our current general plan the three
strategies that we have identified well they're in the general plan but in the
yearly report we're required to to file a yearly report July 1st of each year
saying how are you doing on the identified strategies so we the the
three strategies we have right now are A and F that's what we identified in our
last re re report which was due in July of
July of 26, we just simply had to file a report stating how many new residential
units we built in the city. So next July, what we're talking about
right now is what's going to happen between now and next July. So just keep
that in mind. Next July, we will have to report on whatever we've done.
So strategy A, which is reszone for densities necessary to facilitate
facilitate the production of moderate income housing. That's currently one of
the ones we've picked and also in my mind one of the ones that is going to be
the easiest to um um to uh to meet. Um
this was the discussion at our last meeting. The planning commission
discussed that the city's adoption of the R16 zoning and noted that approving
the future R16 or R3 developments would demonstrate continued progress toward
implementing the strategy. Staff noted that while a previous higher density
project did not move forward, the project failed due to private
development factors rather than city's actions.
So, if the city approved one or both of the
um proposed um the current proposed projects that were recently brought in
for reszone request, if if you approved one or both of those,
you have met this requirement. So, if the city ultimately decides to
approve one or both of those projects in in some kind of format,
um you would meet that strategy. That seems like a no-brainer to me right off
the bat is that you could do that and um that is showing that um that um you're
reasonzoning uh for higher density projects. So, in my mind, that one's one
that you keep it on the plan. If the the either or both of those plans
move forward, um you've met that requirement, it's easy to demonstrate
that. C >> can I ask?
» Yeah. So, [clears throat] just a question just to confirm. So even if the
units that are theoretically if it if resone gets approved and those units um
do not qualify at a sales price level to be medium income housing, this still
shows um that we're trying and basically the city gets credit. Is that correct?
» We're making an effort. Yeah. We will leave it up to the state to ultimately
say yay or nay on whether or not it meets their definition of the
requirement, but it shows that we're making the effort.
» Yeah. >> And I think that's the important piece.
» Okay. >> Excuse me. Is there any precedent on
what decisions the state has made in other areas regarding the cost of the
homes that are built under this, you know, reszoning where they've said,
"Okay, the cost of the homes is a little high, but we're going to give you the
credit." Um, that's a good question. I think the
answer to that to my knowledge is no. There is not a precedent saying that um
that um that that is the case. But I wanted to this is probably a good time
to talk about this. I I I wanted to to discuss what that threshold is just so
you understand it. I've made previous comments that it's
going to be uh [sighs] did I forget that paper
that it's going to be very difficult to meet those numbers? Um it's going to be
very difficult if not impossible. And I've had some recent discussions with
some developers about it. Um I still maintain that it's
I I mean at some level you could do it, but I I I'll tell you this is what you
have to do to meet the affordable housing criteria as it sits now. First
of all, it's based on the county's Davis County median income. The highest number
that I can find that that's comes from a legitimate source is $118,000.
many other there there are other legitimate sources that put it closer to
like 108 to 110. So the higher that number is obviously the higher the home
value that would qualify, right? So let's just take 118,000.
80% of that is 94,400.
That's the That's the That's the household income that a household
uh can make
and be able to afford an a home. So, I if if you're if you live in a
household that makes $94,000 and you can afford a home, you're considered to be
in an affordable housing unit. Let's break that down a little bit further.
Now, the state requires that a maximum of 30% of your income can be spent on
housing. So, if you take 30% of that, that's 20 $2,360
a month. That's the nut. That's the number. That's your that that that's
your that's your monthly expense on what you can um realistically spend on a home
and meet their guidelines. >> What was that number again? Sorry.
$2,360. Now, then now let's break that number
down. That includes principal and interest. It includes
uh insurance, taxes, and utilities. All of those things have to be factored into
it. When we were originally talking about
this, we were talking about this number somewhere, this home value somewhere in
the neighborhood of 400,000. No, it's way off when you calculate all those
other pieces into it. The the the um the insurance, the utilities, the the taxes,
and I've estimated those things to be on average $710 a month. Um broken down by
uh insurance is 150, taxes are 260, utilities are 300, and at a 6.6% 6%
interest rate. 2360 a month buys you a $260,000 home. Okay, that's the number.
That's the number right now. And that's countywide. Doesn't matter if you live
in Fruit Heights or you live in Clinton. That's the number that's considered an
affordable housing unit. There aren't anything there there there there's not
there there's barely anything out there for sale at that price. So, now
let's bring this back to this discussion about
um how do you get to affordable housing in in in the city? In talking to some
developers now, they're saying with the price of property, with the
price of ground in in in in fruit heights and construction costs, so on
and so forth, they said we're $250,000
per door to just build the structure. So just the cost of the materials to
build the building is nearly at the number we are trying to sell the
building at the whole thing. That doesn't include the price of the
property. That doesn't not include the utility installation and bringing
utilities and all that to the property and installing all those things. That's
just the cost of the construction of the unit. 250,000 a door. Can can you
provide some more details on what 250,000 buys you?
» How big is the house? How many bedrooms? How many bathrooms? Is that kind of an
average? >> That that would be an average of like a
twobedroom unit. Um let let um he said let um
1600 to 2200 square ft two-bedroom unit. Um,
so I asked the question, what
um what kind of density do you need? This is going to this is going to be
part of our R3 discussion. Now, what kind of density do you need to make to
be able to sell $260,000 units?
and he said well over 30 units per acre probably closer to 40 units per acre. So
our R3 currently the maximum that we do is the maximum we allow is 25.
» And this the the one of the project developers is saying that is the
absolutely bare minimum that I can swallow and make this thing
pencil is what it is at 20 proposed at 25 units
an acre. So if you're at 10 15, you're going backwards probably. Now
this is a small sample size, right? I mean, we've I I I've talked to two or
three different developers. Um you you could probably get a myriad of answers
on that. The bottom line is is that um if we have an intent as a city to do
some affordable housing or try and get homes that are in an affordable housing
range, we are going to have to keep that density number up there somewhere
somewhere. Just keep that in mind. Now, let's say this.
If you could use the city's median income,
which is 140,000, almost $141,000 instead of the county median income of
118. Now you've pushed that number to 300,000
a $300,000 unit. That that objective is reachable to these
developers that are proposing projects in our city. Now they're saying not all
of them, but we could get a few of them [clears throat]
close to that number. 260, no, 300 to 325ish
probably. So,
one of the things that I think we go back to the state with, and this is goes
back to uh your question, Justin, is that,
you know, if you look at this in terms of like I if you'll allow us to use the
city's median income, household income, we're
we can probably do some things with that. We can probably do some things
with that. That's currently not what the law says,
but um that's part of the argument that you make back to them is that well,
we're making an effort and we're probably in line with what value should
be in our city. Um so that that's just some commentary.
That's just some commentary. Um,
if strategy A, if we can figure out how to
make these projects work, that's that we've met that we've met
that requirement. Um, that that that that seems like something that we should
um we should keep on the table. Okay. Strategy E, which is
» Sorry, before we get on, can I ask one more question? Sure.
» Is the cost of the development based on what we've learned so far, is it so high
based primarily on land prices? >> Yes.
» Is it building costs or is it the the profit the developers want to make?
» Uh land and building are expensive. Okay.
Everybody knows that. But what I'm being told is that the extreme cost, the
extreme value of land in this city, >> thank you. It's very high. And so that
is dominating the affordability discussion.
You you can buy and and it's not just Fruit Heights. You can throw Cisville
and you can throw Farmington and portions of Leighton into that same
discussion. Bountiful, put them Bountiful and Centerville. Put them in
the same discussion. It's high everywhere. there you can get you start
to get a little more affordability when you get out on the west side of the
county. Syracuse, Clinton, West Point, and I'm saying a little bit cheaper, not
drastically. It's just high everywhere, but it's
particularly high in this city. and and that is stated as one of the reasons,
hey, I got to pay this guy X amount per acre for this property that
really affects my bottom line. >> That's probably a true statement. We've
heard that over and over and over >> and I think a number of you can attest
to that effect. >> Yeah, Jeeoff, if I may, also to back up
what you're saying to Ken is that is the number one cost in development. not only
the what you pay for raw land, it's the improvements to that land. And uh going
back to what you're saying, the criteria, they came up with this number
of 30,000 um
or 30% is what the ratio they've come up. They figure you is the maximum you
can put in for housing and expenses, a debt to income ratio for for a
mediumriced uh buyer in our area.
I'm wondering where that number came from because that's not the number the
the maximum number. If any buyer is out there getting an FHA or VA loan, you can
be at 36% which is realistic and conventionally can actually be up to
50%. So I'm wondering who's deciding to put that number so far down that it
makes it very difficult for the cities to come up with this kind of a plan. And
once again too to say what Jeff is saying on these two proposals projects
that we have in our city right now. We have I know one of the developers has
committed to put some of the units as far down as he can to see if it can
qualify for that amount. Um other one I don't know. So
the the the first answer to your question is that's a question we got to
ask the state legislature. They're the ones that set that that bar at 30% of
housing for um they set that number. That's the number that they have set.
» And I agree with you what you just said about uh and Justin brought this up.
It's it's vastly different from city to city what the medium income is. And so
it affects what housing costs in that area. So I think the argument is very
legitimate to go back and say our medium income here is 140 plus. we need to
raise that amount up to meet our demand here, not somewhere else.
» And other cities are saying the same thing. They're saying this doesn't make
any sense to to make high value areas, higher value areas use a counties a
county median income. Let us use the median income in our city. Um we'll have
a better shot. It it's more proportionate.
Um, so I I I mean, but we are where we're at
right now. This could all change in January and February of next year. We
don't know. That's just where we're at right now. Um, that that that's what
we're facing. Um, I know that I've in the people that
I've talked to, I said, "Can you hit that 260 number?" Not in this city. Not
in this city. No. maybe 300.
Um, so that's just that that that's some background. Anything else on that before
I move on? So, strategy E is uh create or allow for and reduce regulations
related to internal or detached accessory dwelling units in residential
zones. We're already mandated to uh create an external ADU ordinance. So
strategy should just automatically be forwarded. We we create the ordinance.
We have complied with that request for the year. So that that one's the easiest
one to we we have to do it anyway. So why not just keep that on the list of
things now? Now now you've met possibly two of the three that you're required
to. Um
number three is strategy F. Uh zone or reszone for
higher density or moderate income residential development in commercial or
mixeduse zones near major transit investment corridors, commercial centers
or employment centers. Now granted that we don't have number one mixeduse zones.
We have very little in the way of commercial. We have a little bit. We
don't have we we we have a major transit uh corridor on Highway 89. Um but we
don't have much in the way of employment centers. So I want to read what our
general plan says about strategy F and why that is probably still pretty valid.
Um,
so this is what we said in about strategy F in our in our last report.
Okay, so Fruit Heights has plans to zone or reszone for higher density or
moderate income residential development in commercial or mixeduse zones near
major transit investment corridors, commercial centers or employment
centers. Fruit Heights City's general plan, zoning map, and transportation
plan encourage development around transit corridors and commercial centers
access by Main Street, US 89, and I-15. The city, this is this is the this is
the important part. The city has identified a number of vacant parcels
that it will consider as locations um to implement a new zoning
classification that targets higher density housing. Incentives geared to
encourage higher density may include higher density deed restrictions and
waiver of impact fees. Um this was our implementation goal. We will work with
developers to modify infrastructure and lot size requirements. We will hold a
work session with the planning commission and city council to identify
densitive incentives for new development in the city and and create a toolkit and
resource guide for developers that included guidance based on work session
feedback. This is what we did. So far, there have been a number of work
sessions with the planning commission to identify areas in the city that would be
appropriate for higher density zoning. When the process is finished, the city
intends to modify the general plan and identify on a map areas that should be
considered for higher density zoning. Um, you remember when we had a number of
these discussions and we actually went in on a map and identified uh some areas
that collectively that we thought, you know, could be considered for this. And
we even broke some of those down into saying maybe this is R3 an R3 area,
maybe this is an R16 area. And and we did some of that work. In my mind, if we
finish that work, we have met that requirement. We have largely met that
requirement. And because we've already committed to do it and we're partway
down that road, it would seem to me to let's finish that. It doesn't mean that
you're going to develop any of those properties. It doesn't mean you're going
to reszone them. It says we've identified areas that could be high d
higher density areas in the city. That to me makes a lot of sense. So I would
recommend that that stay on the list and be one of the top priorities for
furthering that work and uh meeting that requirement. If we chose those three,
it's a matter of just implementing what we said we were going to do as we've
described here tonight. We don't have to change anything. Anything else that we
implement is going to have to be amended and included in the general plan. So the
fourth thing that out of this list of eight that I think is is worth taking a
serious look at is O. And let me read that to you.
This was essentially Eileen Moss's idea and I think it has some merit.
So, it says, "Apply for or partner with an entity that applies for state or
federal funds or tax incentives to promote the construction of modern
income housing. An entity that applies for programs offered by the Utah Housing
Corporation within the Utah Housing Corporation's funding capacity. An
entity that applies for affordable housing programs administered by the
Department of Workforce Services. An entity that applies for affordable
housing programs administered by the association of governments established
by an interlocal agreement. Uh an entity that applies for services provided uh by
a public housing authority to preserve and create moderate income housing or
any other entity that applies for programs or services that promotes the
construction or preservation of moderate income housing. That's the That's the
the um that's the description. So, here's an
idea. Um
um Eileen's idea was that we could maybe go to another city that is building or
implementing some kind of high density project and partner with them with some
kind of financial obligation on behalf of the city.
Um, I had a conversation with um, uh, one of the county's
guys that works on all kinds of things affordable housing wise. And we have
right now we have a grant program by which um we will grant up to $50,000
for a new homeowner to buy an affordable housing unit somewhere in the county. So
that's up to $50,000. It it could be less than that. It might be 25 35, but
it's up to 50. I talked to him about this thing today and he said, "Yeah,
we would be interested in having that conversation." Let's just say, for
instance, that the city said, "We'll commit $100,000 a year for five years."
That would pay for two grants
for two homeowners to buy an affordable housing
um uh home somewhere in the county. And it it could be anywhere in the
county or each one of those homeowners is
presently required to um put down a 25% of the cost of the home on on for for
the project. The city's money could help offset their 25%. So, you could say,
"Well, we'll give 10 people $10,000 to help offset their 25% down payment."
There could be a myriad of options that you could do to stretch that money
around. But the the the idea here is that you're promoting
affordable housing efforts somewhere in this county. Not necessarily your city
and probably not likely your city, but somewhere in this county. And
I believe that that meets that requirement
and I think that that is certainly worth an effort to try and go down that road
in some form or fashion. Um
that could be a fourth option. It could replace one of the other three options
that we previously talked about. Um, so I I think there's I I I I think
there's definitely some some validity in in that if that's if the city wants to
make some kind of financial commitment. Um, I just use this as an example of
this this this grant program that's, you know, out there right now. There there
there may be other things and and other opportunities out there.
The other four which is B, C, I, and M are all going to need some significant
amount of steel research and work. I just want to read what they are. So B is
um demonstrate investment in rehabilitation
or expansion of infrastructure that facilitates the construction of moderate
income housing. So, we're talking about water, sewer, storm drains, utilities,
uh, road building,
somehow tying an infrastructure project to leading it to the construction of
modern income housing. That's going to be pretty difficult to That's going to
be pretty difficult to to do it. It just I I mean we're going to build a road
that only benefits moderate income housing people. That's going to be
pretty hard to do in this city, but it's still one that we identified as one that
we could look into further. I just think it's going to be hard to do it. Um
C demonstrate investment in the rehabilitation of existing uninhabitable
housing stock into moderate income housing. So, the idea here is you take
old housing stock and you rehabilitate it and you bring it up to current
standards and those units are selling for um moderate income housing. Again,
one, I don't know how much of that housing we have in this city. Probably
very little. I don't think we've got a lot of vacant houses. Number two,
it's going to be difficult given the value of property in this city to make
those houses into affordable. I mean, you're going to have to get the owner to
agree to basically something worth well less than what it's the market value of
that property really is. So again, that one is going to be difficult.
What would it take to find out what our stock on homes like that?
» Uh, I don't know. Darren, you got any thoughts about that? How How many vacant
homes do we have that are like run down?
» I I Yeah. I I mean, >> we could look into that a little bit. I
mean, I just don't honestly just don't know. But I think the number is probably
really low. >> Yeah, for sure.
Whereas some other cities, you take Clearfield City for example, there's
dozens of homes that are in that category.
Um I, strategy I is amend land use regulations to allow for single room
occupancy development. So this is renting out a single room in a home. Um
again, that is a strategy. It's one that
traditionally is not popular with neighbors and other people that live in
the neighborhood. Um, it is would take a lot of thought and effort to to craft
something that would be acceptable to the public. So, it's a possibility, but
one that is going to need a lot more work than, you know, what we know about
right now. Remember,
you're you already have internal ADUs, so you can rent out your whole basement
to somebody. Now, we're going to have external ADUs. You can rent out a
detached dwelling in your backyard. Now, do you on top of that want to allow
rented rooms in addition to those two things? That's a lot.
» But is that is that the intent of this? To me, when I read that, it sounded more
like like a um not a hotel, but for one of a better word, something like a hotel
where like with seniors, for example, a boarding home or something like that
where it's it has more density in it. There's 50 rooms in one building where
seniors can rent a room, assisted living type situation. That's that's what I
» You may be correct. I I don't have the the absolute definition of what that is,
but I know what you're saying. And that is maybe another road we could go down
where you say, "Okay, we're going to build
» [clears throat] >> uh let's just call it an apartment
complex for lack of a better word, and we're going to rent this to um elderly
people." >> Um
» yeah, >> because is this is the term, am I am I
remembering right, the term for something like like what you're speaking
about is an SRO, right? like a single resident there's a I can't remember what
the acronym is but there's a shared kitchen and multiple people in
residential spaces >> you share a kitchen you share uh
restroom facilities but basically >> individual has their own room
[clears throat] >> yeah okay
» that by the way is currently not allowed in our city code we would have to amend
our code to go down that road >> so that's just something to think about
um and then the last one was M demonstrate creation of or participation
in a community land trust program for moderate income housing. Um
the commission discussed the concept of establishing the community land trust
but agreed it would require willing land donations and was not a practical option
for Fruit Height City at this time but we still left it on the list of
possibilities. Um, again, that would take a lot of work and a lot of
cooperation on not only the city's behalf, but private land owners behalfs
and those kinds of things. So, those seem like distant things that need
a lot of work to bring to fruition.
Um, I think the top four are the obvious top four.
And um, so what what questions do you have? What
discussion do you want to have? Um, what do you want what what additional
research would you like to see at this point? C
» can I ask? So the the I believe the ask of the planning
commission is to come up with a minimum of three strategies to recommend to the
um city council for implementation between now and next July or this July.
Is that correct? >> Well, we will have to report on these
things by next July. So yeah, >> we need to be working on them between
now and then. So I think the expectation of the city council is that we would
bring something to them in September. >> Yeah. So basically it's a recommendation
between to the to the city council what what do we want to work on between now
and July? >> Yeah.
» Is that correct? Okay. So just to clarify that couple couple questions I
had um on the identify areas for potential reszone just to clarify was
that >> this is strategy A right? No, this is
the third one you presented. >> Okay, this is strategy F
» F. >> Zone or reszone for higher density or
moderate income housing. >> Okay.
» Is that right? >> I that that's what I was clarifying.
» That's that's the third one we talked about.
» Okay. >> So, this is identifying the areas in the
city that could be considered for >> pension. And as far as like compliance,
um where what structure would that identification happen? Is that just
because it's not going to be on the general plan.
» Well, the idea is is that we would put that in the general plan and say we have
identified that because the strategies are already in the
general plan. So, if you're going to create as part of the strategy, you're
going to create a map >> that shows higher density, you'd want to
put that in the general plan. >> Yeah. Okay. And then just for
clarification, if that were to happen on the general plan and a piece of property
was um listed on this map as a higher
density zone and a owner of that property were to come before the
planning commission and request a different zone,
would that go that's not what's listed in the general plan
That wouldn't would that be would that follow kind of procedure?
» Can you do that? You're asking could you do that?
» Yes, >> absolutely.
» We we've got to we've got to make one thing clear.
» Yeah. >> Um general plans are not mandatory.
You've heard in some recent public hearings differently. That's absolutely
not true. General plans are discretionary. They are not mandatory.
There are numerous examples in this city where property has been reszoned that
was not identified at that as that zone in the general plan. So
that's the beauty of it. That's the beauty of that um that strategy is that
you're not held to any standard. You're not it's not a mandatory thing. You
don't have to do this. it it's if all the pieces fall into place and if
somebody some property owner or some developer comes along and says I want to
do something different and the city and they can convince the city that this
different thing is a better thing go for it.
» Okay. >> The property right behind us right here
was all zone commercial. >> It's now an R18 zone with homes with
nice homes on it. So, so one more question I had um
strategy I that was discussed um to amend land use regulations to allow for
single room occupancy developments to Shel's comment about
um senior care facilities >> if so I just pulled up the C1 zone and
C1 currently doesn't discuss that at all but it has it has light manufacturing
and restaurants and that sort of thing. If we were to update C1 zone to add in
the possibility for a senior care, would that meet do we believe that would meet
strategy I [sighs]
» andor increase density really per acre? Right.
» I I I I don't know. I I mean, it's it's hard to say that right now. It's it it
it it it it it's like I said, that's going to take some
» some research and some looking into and some vetting. I that that's a hard
question to answer right now. >> Yeah, I think that's fair. I I wouldn't
be opposed to that myself. I mean, if >> Yeah,
» every care facility every senior care facility around is very nice right in in
the area. And if you're going to put a >> light manufacturing next door to
somebody or a senior care facility, you're going to have a little more
you're going to have more traffic with a senior care facility. But
I think that would go over easier in the city than potentially something else.
» So,
okay. >> Well, I think we've said this before.
There's a lot of talk about bringing young families in for first-time home
buying, but what about all of the housing stock that is held up for people
who want to retire and sell and move into a senior or or smaller units?
» There's nowhere for them to go >> within the city. Yeah. So, there's
nowhere for them to go and this might be a possible
» solution to that. >> I I agree.
Justin, to answer your question about commercial zones, C2, you could probably
um put the that kind of building in um because it's a multifamily
or multi-family unit or or whatever. So, you could probably do that in a C2 zone.
» Okay. >> Um where C1 is more of your
manufacturing and those kind of things. >> Okay.
» Um just one more comment about that, Justin.
um in my mind I mean it's better to get zoning matched up with the proper land
uses. So rather than put it rather than do that in a commercial zone, I'd say
you take like your R3 zone and amend that to allow that kind of thing there.
So you're matching uses. The zoning is matched up with the land use.
But that that's that that that's just a you know I mean that's just maybe that's
something that you do later. >> Okay. If that if that was something that
the city said that's important to us to create some senior living
» area then you go to work and say okay how can we make that happen
» and I would be interested in in what type of density what is the
definition of density in that situation because I'm unsure right is they're not
really condos they're not um owned by the individual
» well they Maybe they maybe they could be,
» but you know, housing units per acre, >> what does that mean for for something
like that? >> Yeah. And and that's I mean, you lay out
all those details. >> Yeah.
» Um I I mean, there's a
senior housing building right down here in Farmington, right next to
Chick-fil-A. It's a big building. >> Yeah.
» I don't know how many units are in there. And I don't know what the I I I
don't know what they are, whether they're apartments or condos.
Um but um I mean that's probably an example of what you're talking about on
a much larger scale. >> We'd have a hard time fitting something
like that even in the city. >> Yeah.
» Yeah. And not even that, right? But you've got right here on Main Street in
Cisville, you've got Whisper Cove, >> much smaller.
» Yes. Like >> that's something on a much smaller
scale. >> Yeah. I mean it looks it looks like it
fits in with the neighborhood. >> Yes. I I know the one you're talking
about. >> Yeah.
» Yeah. So >> I think did we do we discuss strategy V
where it's create or allow for and reduce regulations related to multif
family residential dwellings compat compatible in scale and form with detach
single family residential dwellings and located in walkable communities within
residential or mixed zones. Seems as though that might be something
that's pretty achievable here because of the residential or mixed use zone
language. >> Sorry. B
» V. >> Oh, V is in Victor.
» It's in Virginia. >> Yeah, you're good.
» I mean, yeah. I I mean, we could we could put that one on the list. I mean,
I could see how that could be achievable. Um
um it's >> create
» uh I mean it's very similar to >> a
» in the terms of what it accomplishes, >> right? So, you could probably say you
could do that or you can do a um but [clears throat] yeah, that is
probably something that you would, you know, amend and incorporate into one of
your zones. >> But certainly that that I mean that's
one we could add. >> Is that just allowing like a duplex on a
lot that currently has a single family residence on it?
» Possibly. That's what it seems like. >> That's what it seems like.
» I mean, possibly. We already have. >> Yeah.
» Yeah, that seems easy.
» Which strategy was that one? >> The what you can't do
» the is in Virginia. >> What you can't do is
» use
two different strategies. You can't knock out two birds with one
stone. >> You You can't say that
You can't say that we're re we're reszoning
property for higher density and say these two strategies are both that same
thing. That counts as two. That's what you does that make sense?
» Yeah. Yeah. We're going to have to have three
separate strategies with three distinct um programs related to them.
And a lot of these strategies are very similar and parallel in nature.
It's just another way of saying the same thing.
I I I know we talked about be the infrastructure. Um, I know Kevin's
comment before was >> like, "Let the state tell us no,
» right?" >> Yeah.
» Just try it. >> Yeah.
» Um, I know we've talked about sewer being an
issue, you know, in the city. Um, I think there's some I I believe there was
some discussion about upgrading some areas. Maybe I'm wrong. Um, but I don't
know. I'd rather than I'd rather try it and have them tell us no, right? and
then not try it. Especially because there's no additional cost at this
point. It's just to me it's a worthwhile venture.
» Yeah. Um yeah, that idea let the state tell us no. Yeah. Okay. Um but remember,
we only need three. We don't need six. >> Well, that's I guess I'd rather do that
than O. >> To me, O I think is gonna I
Um, I was going to there's a cost to this.
» Well, there's a there's certainly a cost associated to it.
» Yeah. And there's a potential multi-year commitment and basically to me that's
like we're we're taking Fruit Heights tax dollars and giving it to a different
city. >> I just don't know, Justin. Let's say
that you're going to replace a sewer line in just Mountain Road for instance.
How many how many sewer connections go into that? How many of those people are
living in a moderate income housing home? None. I just don't know how we're
going to get to I just don't know how we're going to make the numbers match.
Is any Can I ask is any just looking at the Fruit Heights um zone map, it looks
like the property, right? So, if if it's Mountain Road, are we upgrading sewer on
Mountain Road? >> Well, I don't know. I don't think I
don't know where specifically. So, the sewer systems owned by Central Davis and
and they have their plans of where they would start upgrading. Um, and the city
itself is not. >> Is it? Okay. So, we couldn't claim any
of that because it's not the city doing it. It's the water district.
» Anything that we do has to lead to does it lead to moderate income housing?
» Yeah. >> Ownership.
Um, so I just think that infrastructure
thing is going to be very difficult to I mean it's going to be very difficult to
prove. They're going to say, "Well, prove it.
What' you do?"
I mean, and to me, just looking at it, I mean, the create the EADU ordinance,
that's a no-brainer to me. We have to do that. And I really like the idea of just
adding senior care center somewhere into one of the ordinances. To me, those are
two very simple check the box and then we got to find a third.
» Can I ask another question? I feel like I've peppered you with a lot of
questions. I got a lot to learn. So, I apologize. But regarding F, I want
clarity on all that we're required to do is identify
a higher density area or do we have to actually reszone for a higher density? I
want to understand clearly is it just identify? I know it says but
» zone or resone. >> Okay, so it is zone or resone. It's not
as simple as just identifying it. Well, um, the commitment that we made was that
we would identify, but it says zone or reszone here. Here's the here's the
difficult part of your question. We don't know what they're going to accept
or not accept. We make our best attempt to put the put our best foot forward and
they will tell us they're what I can tell you is that we are in compliance
right now. And the three things that we picked was
A, E, and F. If we know that we were in compliance with those three things to
start with, it's easier to stay in compliance with those three things. And
the thing that we haven't the only part of F that we haven't complied with is is
finishing this map and identifying these areas. So, we're more likely to be in
compliance with that than starting fresh with something else. and we won't know
until you get a letter in the mail saying no, denied. And that happened. We
we had to massage these things for months to get our get the city in
compliance on some of the things that we did.
It's not what have you done in the past, it's
what have you done lately. So, it's it's nearly impossible to ask
that question. What are the what is 1 2 3 4 the requirements? We don't know.
This is what we got. What you're reading here, that's the Now, you can get on the
phone with these guys and say, "Would we be okay if we do this?" And they'll
generally give you some some ideas. They'll guarantee you nothing.
And listen, there's plenty of rumor out there that
this is likely this whole deck's likely to get shuffled in the next legislative
in the next legislative session. So, we should take that into consideration
knowing that we have very little time to react after the legislative session is
ended in February and we've got a report in July. We should be doing now what we
think we is just an absolute slam dunk. What's going to be the slam the three
things that we can just boom, we're done. We did it. C
» can I ask may I follow up to Ken's question earlier? Do we do we know of
any cities that um the legislature has said are not in compliance currently and
what have been the repercussions? like what what if we come into the three
easiest things and then we get a letter from the state. This
» Justin I answer that. Right now all the cities are in compliance. Um there's not
a city that isn't in compliance. They've worked uh really well um with the cities
of on their reporting. Uh like I said, the first report that Jeff and I did, uh
I think we had three or four submitts. Um, and they worked with us that whole
time till our report passed. Um, >> so there was back and forth with
» there was Yeah, there was back and forth after we sent it in. There was
» they worked with us. Yeah. >> So, and right now um
that is still what they say they're willing to do is is work with cities to
help them be compliant. But part of the process is you got to be showing an
action and you have to be doing something.
» So I think for for one right a we've we've had two we've had recently we've
had two pieces of property come up for reszone that like you said Jeeoff that's
a slam dunk. Two is e create an eu e au ordinance which we have to do. Um, and
then I we our general plan currently says that we're going to do F anyways.
» So, I think that does seem easy. Um, I I'm sure
there will be um a lot of push back on that um within the city, but current
currently our general plan says we're going to do that. I'm confident F can be
massaged to to be a compatible a compatible use.
I'm sure that it probably can. >> Okay.
» And that that they'll work with us. Listen, they're they're already saying
that we've met the requirement. So now it's a matter of what are you doing to
implement it? >> So could we just present those like
those three? >> Yeah.
I I I I have concerns with O. I guess it just doesn't feel right to me.
» Well, it's going to cost the city money. >> Yeah, that's my concern.
» Um um it seems like it's would be easy
enough to meet the requirement, but it's going to cost the city money.
» Yeah, it's easy to write a check, but I don't think it's I don't think it's the
right thing to do. >> Okay. So Justin, just a just a reminder,
the council um did ask the planning to commission to come up with probably um
five to six uh strategies that they >> and they're going to narrow it down.
» And then they've already kind of been supposed to be researching as a council
member which ones they think that could possibly be. And once they receive the
recommendation from the planning commission on which ones they believe
that we can work forward and accomplish, uh, then the council will start that
next process of saying, "All right, yes, we think we can hit this one." Well,
yeah, we're willing to donate money to it or we're not willing to donate money.
Um, we have to remember, we can recommend, yeah, there there could be a
financial cost to the city, but that's all legislative. So that
» yeah, >> they could turn around and say, "No, we
don't want to do that one." Or they could say, "Well, why didn't they give
us one with financial?" >> Um,
» so I I think >> my recommendation to the planning
commission >> is um pick seven of them that you could
feel comfortable with. We will send those. Um, I mean, I have comments
written down. We've recorded comments from the last meetings. Um we'll per
recommend here's the recommendation these strategies and then we let the
council take the next step on that of saying
which ones they think that they can also work with.
If the two projects fail, we'll need to
shift direction into something else.
» Unless the legislature changes Yeah. >> direction.
» Yeah. >> Well, they could always make it more
strict, too. >> They could, but then they give us time.
» Yeah. >> That's probably my thought, too, Justin.
If they change direction significantly, my guess is they'll give cities more
time to deal with it and
something's going to happen. We just don't know what direction it's going to
go. Some somebody's going to do something.
This is a this is on the tip of their tongue, they're saying.
» So So maybe just in in looking at time, right? It's 8 o'clock now. Does anybody
have any concerns with the first the the four that were presented uh AEF and O to
to present uh or to recommend to city council and then
» I >> to Darren's point will pick three more.
Are we good with those first four? >> Yeah.
» I share your concerns with O. >> Yeah.
» But
» yeah. Yeah. >> I think like like was mentioned, right?
They're looking for seven. and they're going to pair it down.
» Yeah. >> And ultimately that's a legislative um
decision that's not held in our we don't control the
» the purse. So >> the other one that was mentioned was
» V. Yeah. >> So I was going to maybe if we can narrow
down are we good with those four and then we can talk about three more
» and I what about I that might be an easy one.
» Yeah. Foren those four first. >> Yeah absolutely.
» Is everyone okay? So now we need three more. And yeah my notes were IV and then
I I picked Q. So I was um Shel's comment about multi- about uh senior care
centers potentially updating. >> You'd like that twist that it that it be
it be um directed at senior some kind of senior living.
» Yeah. >> I do. Yeah. That's our interpretation of
that strategy. And then V, which was also Shel's comment, was um
create or allow for and reduce regulations related to multifamily
residential dwellings uh compatible in scale and form with
detached single family residential dwellings and located in walkable
communities within residential or mixed use zones. to me that just my
interpretation is something that looks like a single family residence but is
multifamily in a single family neighborhood.
» Yeah, >> there's an example of that if you on
Second North on the Quasil side where they're redoing there. There's under
construction there is a duplex there amongst single family and across the
street they've had some duplexes there but that is pretty much a mixeduse area
right there. >> Yeah.
» Yeah. Right down here on Main Street in Farmington before you what is it? Get to
like Smith, there's a duplex on the right hand side. Looks like a single
family dwelling. Like I drove by it for years before I realized it was a duplex.
» Where's that at? >> By Smith.
» On Main Street. >> Main Street.
» Yeah. >> It looks like a big home. There's a
single drive. It's like a double driveway in the center. And there's
» Oh, that's a duplex. >> Yeah. [laughter]
» Yeah. >> Right. Hey, it [clears throat] looks
like a nice place. >> It looks like a single family dwelling.
Yeah. >> Yeah.
» Yeah. >> Okay. So, I and V and then the other one
I marked was Q. Um >> Q.
» So, this was and this is something that we had discussed before is just impact
fees. U basically eliminate impact fees with accessory dwelling units. Uh the
comment on here was that uh we're not currently collecting any revenue from
ADUs. So maybe it's a moratorum of a year, 18 months, something like that.
Basically just inviting those that are that currently have um internal ADUs
that have not permitted them with [clears throat] the city to come out of
the woodwork, get their permits done. >> It checks the box fairly low cost to the
city >> and gets us in good standing.
» Yeah. I like that idea of having a moratorum
on the fees >> to get people to want to get them
registered with the city. >> Yeah, because I think we have less than
10 currently registered >> and I'm
» okay. So that's seven. You got A, E, F, and and O and then I V and Q.
» Yeah, that was recommendation was seven. >> There's seven. Are we good?
» We need we need a motion. >> Can I ask a quick question? Can you will
you can you can you define exactly so and I say this having worked on an area
station plan but what what is the de definition of a station area plan? What
has to be inclusive in that? >> What strategy is that
» you? >> Well, first of all, it has to be a major
transit stop and that's been defined as one of the stops on front runner. So,
it's not possible here. We don't have a frontr runner stop.
» We don't, but we have a major travel corridor and um develop and adopt a
station area plan. >> It doesn't say anything about building
it, but could that be included in our master plan
» if we think we're going to get FrontRunner up here at some point? But
I'm pretty sure they have defined the stationary plans have to be centered
around a Front Runner stop. So that's everything along front runner.
But but it just says develop. Oh, well I guess what one is that?
» You. >> That's you. Let me
» develop and adopt. >> Let me get over there.
» Develop and adopt doesn't mean build. Develop and adopt means in my mind
connection, right? Create a plan, design.
» It says in accordance with section 1021 203. I could go back and read that and
see if that's something that's even remotely possible. But
» I read that a long time ago. I know what it says. I know that I have been told
before that station area plans are directly related to frontr runner
stations. >> Okay.
» Like Farmington did a stationary plan, >> right?
» Down here at the at you know by the Front Runner stop
» they completed a stationary plan. and the idea that, you know, there there is
one that talks about collaborating with another, you know, entity that has, you
know, some of the same interests that we have. And so I I know it doesn't have
this language in there, but to propose, hey, we're going to connect with, you
know, Farmington >> maybe,
» right? I don't know, maybe as a backup. I don't know.
» Um, >> it seems as though it would be kind of a
low. >> These secondary strategies are going to
take some work. Yeah. to figure out how to make them work.
» I guess if we if there's >> there's there's lower fruit to be
picked. >> If there's going to be work done on the
master plan, then this might be something.
» I mean, we could certain we can look into think about.
» Yeah. >> Yeah. Just I this is just an a this is
AI's version of of what that section states basically is that we have to it's
a plan that addresses specific goals including increased housing, transit
writership, and economic development. specifically within a half mile radius
of the station. >> So I think it would it'd be a lot it'd
be effort like it's a >> it'd be an effort to put that together.
Not saying that >> but maybe more of the the math the the
general plan outlook. >> Yeah.
» Okay. >> Any any other discussion on um med uh
MIH strategies?
» Not um we'd be looking for a motion. correct
to to um recommend the strategies.
» Do we have a a motion?
» A motion to recommend the strategies to the city council.
» Yeah. Is that sufficient? Do we need to call them out? We're good.
» Probably had to call them out. >> Yeah. Just to be
» O. >> Yep.
» B is in Virginia. [laughter] >> Yes.
» Okay. Do I have a second? >> Second it.
» Uh, all in favor, please say yes. >> Yes.
» Yes. >> Yes.
» Any >> nos? No.
» Okay. Thank you everybody. Uh, we'll move on to the next section. Uh, section
6.3, R3 zone. R3 zone discussion.
» Uh Scott,
so um in council meeting it was brought up um that back in March we were talking
about an R13 zone. Um, and I'm not sure if that was a rewrite for the R3 zone or
just creating an R13 zone. Um, I went through the minutes, read a little bit
about what was happening. Um, in the minutes we talked about, uh, taking in
the in that zone, um, it was 8,000 foot lot for individual homes. Um, the
discussion was moving that to a 4,000 foot lot. Uh it also talked about um
number of units um possible on that same area which would put it closer to seven
to with the maybe going to nine units. Um
there there's a couple concerns that were coming up um that we did you did
talk a little bit about uh current um multif family units having up to 25
units per acre. Um there was uh discussion about parking. Um there was a
little bit of discussion discussion sorry uh making it less units
uh maybe comparable to the the ivory over at the bottom of Nicholls Road
which is currently um I looked it up today according to their map and all the
open space that they tied to it was um about 15 units per acre. I'm just it was
just three or something like that. units per acre. Uh there also was talk um and
concern um about if you took an acre and put 25 apartments on it, what kind of
open space was available and should there be a percentage more than what we
have in the current ordinance? And um
the discussion was also talked about um where uh higher denses density would be
appropriate in the city. Uh there was a discussion of that and there was a
couple areas pointed out for that. Um and then also the current infrastructure
um in those areas could it handle um the increased housing.
I think the last um there was one other one um that um actually I think it was
Shel that density density isn't just about the unit count it's
about form scale and livability high-rise apartments with no green space
very unpopular um was one of her comments um a better layout with open
space is a lot more acceptable was kind of a comment and We talked and um like I
said, I don't know if this is a rewrite to the R3 zone or if it was to create an
R1 zone to um R13 zone. >> I think a rewrite of the R3.
» So, but that was the discussion. Um council uh asked me to bring that back
and continue with that council. Um
and um the last of it is that um we could look at it. I know we just created
the R16 zone um which has a 6,000 foot lot for each individual. We're up to
eight units. Uh so I think there was some discussion also with that making
sure we're we're providing an area where we can have higher density but we're
also um being mindful of what's around is the is
the how I took the minutes as I read through them. So, um I did look up both
ordinances um like the R3 went through the R3 uh and just kind of compared to
what was talked about in in size wise. But, um other than that, that was the
discussion. And so I guess that's a discussion that we probably should
continue um to look at u an R13 zone and setbacks it um different different items
through that. I I think u that could hit a different couple different things. So,
I don't know if you create a R3 zone and do it for multifamily dwelling units and
then do an R13 for your town homes and your uh little bit different, you know,
single family dwelling homes on a smaller lot um or how you want to do
that. But, uh that's direction also that the planning commission needs
to talk about and so we can continue to work on that process.
So here, let me just give you my two cents about this.
» I'm the one that suggested that we go from go like a 7 to nine unit per acre
density >> based on what we know today and new
information we've got. That'll that that that won't create any affordable
anything. Um it's not realistic. Let's not create another zone that can't be
used by anybody. The R16 zone has been used by no one. It's been tried a couple
of times. Couldn't make it pencil. Doesn't mean it couldn't be used. It
hasn't been used. I honestly believe that if you're going
to redo this zone, you think very methodically about this before you take
any action. And that is if this city is seriously interested in doing higher
density, you've got to match the what the market is able to build. So
7 8 9 10 units of the acre, it's not going to cut it. You're not going to
create any affordable anything. So you're going to have to look at
something more than that. I don't know if the city can
has the pallet can swallow it. Um, that has to be vetted before you even talk
about what you're going to do with a zone because basically just give give me
a dense a density per acre and we'll create the rest of it around it. That's
that's what we need to know. We'll create all the we'll put all the details
to it and make it look pretty and and all that, but we need to know what
density do you want this thing to look at. Right now, that R3 is allowed up to
25 units per acre. You got two projects on the table. They both proposed at 25
units per acre. Now, that didn't seem to be palatable to
at least a bunch of neighbors. So, I don't know. I don't I don't know where
you want to go with that, but don't just charge into it unless you've got some
market analysis to back it up. Can Can Yeah. Is there any um
clarification from the city council as far as why they wanted us to look at it
again? >> I don't know. I wasn't there.
» It was just brought up that >> I'm sorry. It was brought up that the
planning commission had looked at it um last year um and it it had not moved
forward that so um I said I would bring it back
up to the planning commission.
» I guess I don't understand I don't understand the value or to to Jeff's
point. I mean the the only opportunity that I I think
I would see potentially and it's not going to make I I assume right I'm not a
developer I don't work in developing I assume it's not going to everything
we've heard though from developers is that it it doesn't make sense right they
need they need more than um seven to nine units per acre to make it work the
only opportunity that I would see that this potentially would be used is if
it's not a developer right it's grandma and grandpa's property
they pass away and you have cousins, siblings, whatever that decide we want
to build four units and live on it together, right? Um when it's not
financially motivated. Um but we also already have the R16 that
was brought up earlier as well. Um so I maybe I'm wrong here. I just I don't
know what the value of the R13 would be. it potentially. It's right. We already
have a minimum of 6,000 square. It's it's smaller lots. You could do a 4,000.
You could minimum of a 4,000 foot lot. You said the the units um the ivory
development on Nicholls are those what what's the average lot size there?
» When you said 15 per acre, did you include the entire development or just
the apartment piece? Did you >> I included all the open space.
» Did you include all of the units? Even the single family units?
» No. None of those. >> So just the 80.
» Just the 80 apartments in what I figured the boundary was around it. Yeah. And
it's just just under four acres. >> Okay. But part of that development down
there incorporated all the single family for the open space because you can buy
in and pay your HOA fees and have access to the pools. So that open space was not
just created for those those apartments that were supposed to convert to condos
at some point. Um it includes all the the smaller lot single families to be
able to use those amenities. So that's why you're down to approximately 15
units per acre on that. On the R3 zone that we were talking about, the piece on
Lloyd Road that was proposed there uh were the town homes and I think if I
remember right, there were 19. He said 20, but um
» he proposed 20. >> He proposed 20. I counted 19 on his
plat. >> That's right.
» Yeah. But um uh that's the kind of density that
works. On the other piece that Mr. Ivy has there on Main Street. Uh his was
doing apartments and I think the opposition to the R3 zone on there was
the height restriction up to 45 ft if I remember that correctly that for some
reason down to three stories was a little bit more palatable or whatever
was going to be and less units in there. Now since then, you know, I know that
developers also talked and said he's open to whatever we come up with. He's
he's not married to that that hypothetical development. And I think a
lot of people misunderstood on both of those. This is what this is final
decision made. This is what I'm proposing. This is what I'm trying to
get. Okay. Which wasn't the case on either development.
» Y. >> So I think the onus is on us to come up
with a density. Just like you said, what are we willing to do here? Doesn't mean
we're going to approve 25 units. It just means it has the capacity to do
that. >> 6,000 square foot lots are not going to
get you the density. No,
» just not going to. >> No.
» Um, it's also worth mentioning there is no vacant property in the city zoned R3
right now that isn't already fully developed. So,
you've got the two projects that have been proposed as R3. Um, what what I'm
saying is you got time to figure this out. I mean, um, you know, let's figure
out what's going to work the best. Um, um,
this this doesn't need to be this doesn't need to be you don't need to
rush into this. That's what I'm saying. >> So, we don't have to make a decision.
You're at this point. It's just a discussion. We're not we're not moving
on it tonight. >> Okay.
Well, and that's another point I would like to make to the general public is
the the attitude and the position that the planning commission has taken as
long as I've been on it is very methodical and we've taken our time and
these have been in on the works and being talked about since last March when
I was put in. So, it's it's not an overnight thing. Um, we do try to put a
lot of thought and get input on here. We're not going to make everybody happy
all the time. It's that's an impossible task. So, our decisions are going to be
based on the best information we can get and what makes sense in the in the
overall plan. As Jeff says, a general plan is simply a guideline. It's not
law. It's not cast in stone. It can be revised. And it sounds like our current
general plan is in the works of being revised again. And you were saying the
legisl the legislature on this MIH plan that may mix it all up again. So, we're
trying to make decisions on things that are probably going to change on us
» con constantly. >> Constantly.
» Yeah. >> Okay. Any questions? Any further
discussion on R3? Um I I guess at this point
we're we're good to have discussion. Do um is there any request I guess of the
city? Where would we like to go for from here on this?
» What do you want to do, Darren? >> Like I said, I was asked to bring it
back and uh for the planning commission to look at or maybe it's just something
we start to um talk about for the next couple council meetings as we we go
through the process. I think one important thing that we need to realize
is that we're going to have the um external or the detached um dwelling
units. Um we we need to have that ordinance and I I think there's more
discussion over the next few weeks that we need to have on that as far as
» do that first. >> Yeah.
» Yeah. As far as setbacks, uh how do you where we where do we think we should be
on setbacks for those? >> Agreed.
» We need to focus on are we going to allow it in every zone?
» Are we or is it just a certain size lot? There are some things that we need to
talk about because we can't just throw an ordinance together and without
at least some direction from the planning commission of you know we could
put every zone we could put everything we start putting that out and then we
end up changing the whole thing. Um, so tonight the reason I put the that on
there is so we could start that discussion probably looking at do we
want it available in every zone? Um, or is there just a certain size lot that we
want to allow it to? Um, do we want to um allow it to have its own sewer
connection and its own water connection or are we going to say it's required to
have that or is it going to be required to hook into the current homes? um sewer
system. Those are things that I think we need to start talking about. Um yes,
this is due the 1st of October, but it's also a work in progress. Um and it's not
going to be done the 1st of September. I promise you, it's going to be closer to
the end of November by the time we we have an ordinance. It's gone through and
it's gone through the planning commission. After that, it's still got
to go to the city council and go through their process. Um, and so this is
something that we'll have done probably closer to the end of the year
» and it will fit within the general plan that we're doing and that that's part of
my goal is we do all these steps to get to that point and it's so but we need to
start somewhere and somewhere is do we put it in every zone? That's up to the
planning commission to recommend. We start there. Do we have different
setbacks? Do we do it same as a shed or do we say it's needs to be a little bit
harder than three feet from the property line? Those are things that's up to the
planning commission to talk about tonight and in our next meeting. But
that helps us start putting a draft together that we can start presenting a
draft and saying, "Okay, here's what we talked about. Here's what we're moving.
What do we need to change?" Um, and so that's why that's on discussion for
tonight. So, the October deadline is movable. It sounds like
» we're supposed to have it adopted by October.
» Um, but there's a lot of cities that are still working on this same process
trying to go through and meet the requirements for both the
infrastructure, all the different items. Um, so we're not the only one in this
ballpark. Um, but it's something that we need to show we're working on. um and
and going through the process. >> So, I know that there's other cities,
Salt Lake City, I believe they already have EADU ordinances in place to allow
how could we get consensus and get some uh data on other cities that have have
put this in place and what they have done with these very things, setback,
sewer, parking spaces, that whole thing. >> We need that we need that research.
» So, I think we need that. H have we just to clarify I we kind of went from R3 to
EADU I think >> are we are we good to kind of table R3
» let me let me just make a recommendation on the R3. Yeah, I
» if you would consider this between this planning commission and the city
council, give the staff a range of densities that
is palatable to the city and let us go back and do some economic analysis on it
and come back to you with some recommendations on why that may or may
not, you know, what what what is that what is 15 units to the acre going to
result in home cost. What's 25 units of the acre going to,
you know, um give us some parameters and let us put together some information
that you can analyze. Um that's what I think you do there. But as Darren
mentioned, we have got to get on this 8U thing now. We the the the R3 can come
later. it comes after the we need to get this done now that that the clock's
ticking on that. So that that's got to come first.
» So right now we have R3 which is 25 units per acre. We have R16 which is
eight units per acre. >> Well, it's really only six
» six R1 excuse me >> R16 is only six units per acre
» and that's we go from six to 25. Well, I want to I want to clarify that there
there was two different paths. One would go up to 10 units per acre, one up to 25
units per acre. >> That's the area A or the area B, which
we don't have. >> And those areas don't even exist
anymore, right? Those are long gone. >> Yeah.
» So, there is no such thing as areas. >> Yeah.
That's what we've talked about doing as part of strategy F is redefining areas
that could be considered for these kinds of things.
» Okay. So, >> if you wanted to look at 25 and I don't
know, do we just stair step it 25? >> I don't know. Pick a number two two
numbers between 25 and six. >> Well, do we just pick a number or do we
is it we figure out what the city council wants us to look at? What do
they what's going to be palatable? What can they sell?
» I I think that's what >> Well, I think you I think you guys can
come up with a number and say, "This is our our number. What do you guys want us
to do or what do you want to do?" Um, you've got developers telling you it's
the absolute minimum. >> They can't do it for less than 25 units
per acre. >> Well, isn't that what the city council
wants as a planning and zoning commission? They want us to give a
number to suggest for them to consider. So, it's our job to come up with a
number. So, >> probably
» and let them mulle it over and see what their thoughts are. So, I would say the
25 is going to be what numbers pencil out having been in that business know it
there. We're not going to no matter what we do, if it doesn't pencil out for
somebody, it doesn't do any good. >> Yeah. They they just won't use it. It
just won't happen. >> Why don't Why don't you just let us kind
of work on a range? let's say maybe between 15 and 25 and just see what I I
I think we could put something together that gives some some good analysis on
what that means given you know land values in this city and stuff and and
then you you can adjust it. You can say we're never going down that road. It
needs to be 10. Or you might come back and say if we're going to do anything
it's got to be 30. I don't know.
» Yeah. So, so it sounds like there's some desire on the city council to have
something in between R3 and R16 and it's just trying to figure out what that is.
» Is that fair? >> I I think so. I I suspect
that based on our comments earlier this year when we were talking about knocking
the R3 down to 7 to nine units per acre that they're like, "Well, yeah, let's do
that." Um, I suspect that that's the the I don't I
mean, nobody's told me, but I suspect that's the idea behind it is let's get
less density. Let's getting it less density into this ordinance. um that
will just probably likely end in an ordinance that does nothing.
» I think Jeff along with that too though, but if you look at the the ordinance R3,
it's a 6,000 square foot lot is for an individual
dwelling. Um a multifamily dwelling can take more space
and so so it's two different things you're looking at there. We're not
looking at an individual dwelling. um for maybe that number. We're looking
at a multif family dwelling. What's the amount for that multifamily dwelling? So
like you know is it 20 apartments? That's that's the max we want to look
at. Or is it 20 condos? Is that the max we want to look at? That's your multif
family dwelling because that's your building and their separation. Um
individual lot size as far as the you know it had 8,000. We talked about going
down to four is for an individual dwelling on that. on a single lot
» on that on that lot. Yes. >> Yeah.
» So that's I mean I think that's two ways to look at it.
» Yes. >> Is it a single family dwelling and we
could go up to nine um so we have nine different units on there or is it a
multifamily dwelling which is your condo or whatever. Watch your units on that. I
that's how we need to look at that. I think on that saying units per lot and
not units per acre. >> It still comes out units per acre, but a
multifamily building is different than an individual building.
» Sure. And and so you can you could zone a R3 right now and in a have what four
possibly five homes on 8,000 square foot lots in that
because it's 43,000 square ft. So you're you're right in that ballpark by by the
time you do driveways and all that kind of stuff. um
» might all it might >> but a multifamily unit you could have 25
because you have apartment building that has 25 units or town homes
» or town home. >> You just tell us what you can stomach on
a density per acre and we'll create an ordinance that makes that does that.
» But at the same time, why are we going to make an ordinance for that's a waste
of all of our time, >> right? That's my point.
» Yeah. So the eight eight, you know, six to nine units per acre just doesn't meet
any goal. >> Yeah.
» It doesn't appear that financially that that's
» it doesn't make any sense. >> That that that makes any sense.
» It's got to be 25. >> It's got to be 25. I I know it's
» Yeah, >> that's the hard part.
» This could all become irrelevant >> where when the legislature for the last
two years has threatened to create 4,000 square foot lots as approved lots
anywhere in the state of Utah and
that I'm told it will be back on their agenda again this year. It was defeated
last year by a much narrower margin than people were comfortable with. Um,
at some point in the future, you're probably going to have the state of Utah
telling you what you can and can't do. >> That's probably coming in the next five
years. >> How big was that piece on Lloyd Road?
Was that 8/10 of an acre? What was that, Darren?
» It was 810 of an acre. >> Yeah, that's what I'm remembering. And
they were going to do 19ish >> Yeah. units on that.
» That works out to just about 24 25 units per acre.
» And that is typical what a town home development is going to look like there,
you know, minus some open space. He had some open space on there, but you're you
have two roads that he was fronting on. So,
and he told me in a discussion I had with him on the phone the other day that
if it's less than that, he's walking. Oh, yeah.
» But it sounds >> I can't I I can't pencil.
» But it sounds like we need to have the city council look at two options. One of
them is it 15 to 20 and 120 to 25 and see
» and see where they go with it. >> Correct.
» Yeah. And and certainly it's only going to pencil out at 25 and then it's up to
is that palatable. >> I mean
» we already have that, right? >> I mean
» but that's thing is right. This stuff's being built all around us. Yeah,
» every city in this county is building high
we can all get on a bus and travel around and and and [snorts] look at
these things. I mean, we don't have to go far.
» It's it's being done all around us. So, >> what do you do? You want that? Do you
not want that? >> It's where everything is going. So, we
just have to decide whether we want it here
» and where >> and where
» and where do you want it? I mean that that's what the general
plans for. >> Yeah.
Okay. um
on the DEA on the external ADU. Um let's commit to come back to our next
planning commission meeting with um let let's say just a rough draft with
some ideas about the key points of what needs to be in a DAU ordinance and then
start massaging it from there. Can we ask?
» And I will look at what other cities around us and what other people that
have already done it and try and glean the best and brightest.
» That's just what I was going to ask if we can have that information.
» Agreed. >> I we when we talked about this before,
it seemed almost like a moot point because Darren was saying that the
capacity for sewage and water and all of that infrastructure that is required for
this ordinance to be successful wasn't there.
Yeah, that's right. That's >> that that is that is one of the concerns
of of having them. Um and that's where I think it comes to where we're putting
them. Um are we just tying into the original sewer? Because if we're tying
into the original sewer, it should be planned for. But if we're going to
require them to have uh their own sewer connection and their own water
connection, you're creating more than what that subdivision or what
that area was designed for. Um I mean, we're we go through right now we're
upsizing water lines and all that different thing just to meet state
requirements or they're getting old and it's time to do that. So we're we we do
that anyway as a city, >> but it may put things on a faster track.
um if they're if they're undersized through that area. That that's the
concern. So, I think that's part of it. Some cities will say in this area um
yeah, they have to have their own service and their own sewer connection.
Um the other parts, nope, they they have to tie into the house sewer and the
house water, >> but it was about it was about capacity.
So, uh, great, they have their own water line and their own sewer, but that
capacity is not there to carry it away and bring it in. Right.
» Well, yeah. And that's why if you're looking at it and you're going to tie
everybody into that current connection, >> is it there or is it a not you're not
adding another connection. >> You're just adding more volume. What
what Shelley is is is alluding to is that several years ago, Central Davis
Sewer said, >> right,
» told Kisville and Fruit Heights, >> you cannot exceed three units per acre
on our sewer system because it can't handle it. Okay, since that time, I
can't tell you how many projects have been built in Cisville that exceed that
by 10 times. And there are projects in this city that
even exceed that. And guess what? >> Central Davis Sewer has to sign off on
every single subdivision we approve. So they can start denying these things.
» The fact that they're approving them tells me that well maybe they're not so
concerned about it as they made out because they have the right on any
project [clears throat] to say we're not signing off
» and they've yet to do that on one single project. Yeah. So that's what Darren and
I have been told and we're like, "Okay, is this a thing or isn't it a thing?"
What I'm told is that there is a a a a major choke point with the sewer system
going underneath I-15 and down to the sewer plant. And it's going to cost
millions of dollars to fix that and nobody have wants to spend the money on
it. And two, there's going to be some other things I think next planning and
zoning will be good to discuss that that to take in consideration for these
units. For instance, um how the sewer district, my brother was the boss there,
um they're going to consider how many uh total units, bedrooms, bathrooms are
in those units and that's how they're going to base a lot of their decision.
And also at these this EADU is being built on one tax ID number versus
another. How do you separate that in util utility billing service all those
kinds of things? So there's many things we need to address and that's why
information from these other cities was going to help us do that.
» I'll note too that we we have seen a decline in in population size. So even
though right over the last six years since the census was done, so we do have
fewer number of people living in the city than we did six years ago. So,
but okay. Anything else on EAD use? Uh, any tabled items?
Uh, any reports? Okay. Now, looks like our next meeting
is September 22nd. Um, we get a motion to close the
meeting. >> Uh, motion to close the meeting. I will
second