[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