[0:01] end of May.
[0:03] >> All right. So, like to welcome everybody
[0:05] to our work meeting. Thank you for being
[0:07] here.
[0:09] >> Get it.
[0:09] >> Good times. I appreciate you guys. So,
[0:12] uh let's start with um a couple of
[0:14] things. Um any volunteers for the
[0:16] pledge.
[0:18] >> You got that?
[0:19] >> Sure.
[0:19] >> Okay.
[0:21] I appreciate that.
[0:22] >> What can I get for you?
[0:24] >> All right. Uh any volunteer for the
[0:26] reverence?
[0:27] >> I can do that.
[0:28] >> Look at you, Nate.
[0:31] You're that close.
[0:32] >> All right, that's easy enough. Um, let's
[0:35] just start going through. It doesn't
[0:37] look like we have any consent items. So,
[0:39] >> um, action items. So, um, let's talk
[0:42] about the first one for a second with
[0:43] Bridger Smith.
[0:46] >> So, this is the property on 4600
[0:49] uh, that he wants to redevelop into
[0:52] that.
[0:53] So, I and I'm glad Nick's here because I
[0:55] did want to ask Nick a question. So,
[0:58] is not the land owner
[1:00] >> and we don't have written consent from
[1:02] the land owner to apply.
[1:04] >> So we we've seen it previously where
[1:07] landowner will apply they'll send
[1:09] somebody in theirstead to speak about it
[1:10] but my concern is it's not the land
[1:12] owner on that application.
[1:15] >> Yeah that's a great concern. So what we
[1:16] should do is probably if if you're open
[1:18] to it uh you could approve it
[1:20] conditional upon him supplying recommend
[1:23] approval
[1:25] >> if we choose
[1:27] the the
[1:29] It is a connected landowner, but
[1:32] >> you're right. We should
[1:33] >> That's a good though.
[1:35] >> Yeah.
[1:35] >> Um, so what what do you guys think about
[1:38] that?
[1:39] >> So, the only concern that I have is it's
[1:41] currently zoned for R1 one acre.
[1:44] >> It future land use map is 75,
[1:48] >> right?
[1:49] >> It's a half an acre. The only argument
[1:51] that is in pro of that is the literally
[1:53] the house right next to it is 36. The
[1:55] 5271. No, no, that's not 5271. That's
[1:58] like 51.91 or something like that.
[2:00] >> No, you got
[2:01] >> 52.95. So maybe
[2:05] he just wants to line them up
[2:07] >> is that second house.
[2:08] >> Yeah, he wants this is his house he's
[2:10] carving off.
[2:11] >> And that corner house is owned by the
[2:13] same landowner that other 5271.
[2:15] >> Yes.
[2:17] >> The only concern that I have is like
[2:19] that's the only one that is an out
[2:23] >> is outside of the rest of the zoning.
[2:25] every other lot in the surrounding area
[2:27] is 0.9ish and bigger.
[2:30] >> So, are we going to set some precedents
[2:32] that'll carry because now we have two in
[2:34] there, are we just being convinced to do
[2:36] a halfacre because the neighbor is a
[2:37] half an acre?
[2:38] >> Well, my concern is if we carve that off
[2:40] and that's what the next step is when we
[2:42] come back and want to carve the whole
[2:43] thing in half acre.
[2:44] >> That's my concern.
[2:44] >> Yeah, that's going to set a precedence.
[2:46] [clears throat]
[2:46] >> You can't we can't just reszone that
[2:48] little tiny corner, right? We we'd be
[2:50] reszoning the whole parcel.
[2:51] >> No, we're going to resone. He gave a
[2:53] description.
[2:55] identify. He gave a pretty decent
[2:58] description and he's identifying and he
[3:00] says either a half might even say a 3/4
[3:03] package.
[3:04] >> It said existing land was 13.95
[3:08] and it would result in a 13.45
[3:12] >> part. That's what
[3:14] >> that's what it says.
[3:15] >> Yeah. So wants to apply the zone to then
[3:18] this one's a little weird because it's
[3:19] just like you're typically seeking the
[3:20] zoning necessary to actually subdivide
[3:23] still. I know that sounds weird, but
[3:26] that could eventually carve this off.
[3:27] They'll need to subdivide still, too.
[3:29] >> Yeah.
[3:30] >> So, he'll come back in for a
[3:31] subdivision.
[3:33] >> He will. Even though the house is
[3:34] already there,
[3:35] >> he will. They have to subdivide it off
[3:37] of the main partial. And that'll help us
[3:39] further solidify, you know, but the
[3:42] design just needs to be overlaid
[3:43] appropriately before he goes through the
[3:45] subdivision process.
[3:46] >> I guess I don't have a problem with the
[3:48] three if he went 3/4. That's where my
[3:51] kind of fit.
[3:52] >> We got sewer, right? We got sewer there.
[3:54] >> Correct.
[3:55] >> So, Weaver Morgan Health's not an issue
[3:58] with the septic. I just
[4:01] >> I mean, you guys probably seen the email
[4:03] from
[4:04] >> Yeah.
[4:05] >> But it's
[4:07] >> all of them.
[4:10] >> Um,
[4:12] >> so everything down 5375 is one acres,
[4:16] too.
[4:17] >> 0.9 or 0.92. I looked at like everyone
[4:20] around there today.
[4:21] >> Some some of them are big obviously.
[4:23] >> What's on the north side of 46? They're
[4:25] all one acres.
[4:26] >> They're all one or bigger. 5248 I think
[4:29] is 0.91. The other one's like seven cuz
[4:31] it has the it's like a U-shaped
[4:33] horseshoe around it.
[4:35] >> Most of them are like 0.9ish.
[4:37] >> But over there on 5050 West, scroll to
[4:41] your left or pull to your left. Your
[4:44] other left.
[4:46] >> Your other left.
[4:48] So like in that culde-sac them are
[4:50] halves aren't they?
[4:51] >> Those are those are technically Roy or
[4:54] right is that outside?
[4:56] No, that's
[4:59] >> 51 5100 is
[5:01] >> where 4825
[5:04] is going to be our new we got some half
[5:07] acres for
[5:10] Happy Valley, right?
[5:16] » We do have half acres
[5:17] >> here in Happy Valley. Yeah.
[5:21] » When did they get
[5:24] >> They're all built out. There's the
[5:28] He's Yeah, he's right in here.
[5:34] » I would feel more comfortable if he
[5:35] would be willing to go 75.
[5:37] >> Me, too.
[5:38] >> Because then it hits our future land use
[5:40] map. It doesn't set precedents on the
[5:41] rest of the 13. I mean, I know you can
[5:44] protect us as you go through develop or
[5:46] subdivision, but
[5:49] >> if it's a reason to
[5:52] >> Yeah, we can come. [clears throat]
[5:55] » I think it'll be it'll be open to the
[5:57] conversation.
[5:58] >> Can we approve it conditionally based on
[6:00] a letter and a 75 adjustment in the
[6:02] boundaries instead of a 0.5 or does it
[6:03] we need to see the adjustment prior to
[6:05] approval?
[6:05] >> No, you can you can approve it
[6:07] conditionally as long as he's
[6:10] >> his application is for halfacre. So, If
[6:13] he's amenable to saying, "Yeah, I'll do 75." Cool. You can condition it.
[6:19] >> Tucker, what's your thoughts?
[6:20] >> No, I like that idea. I think it's a
[6:22] good idea. I just want to make sure it's
[6:26] only that piece though. It's not the
[6:27] whole parcel.
[6:28] >> Yeah, just that.
[6:31] >> Well, while we're on that real quick, I
[6:33] your packet does he not
[6:35] >> I was trying to read through. I don't
[6:37] >> He has it highlighted in yellow.
[6:39] >> He has it highlighted.
[6:41] >> Did he give a description? had him type
[6:43] out a a written description. There's a
[6:45] legal description, but I don't know if
[6:46] it means the whole thing or if it just
[6:47] means the [clears throat]
[6:54] simp
[7:14] Okay.
[7:17] >> Okay. Yeah. So, he does. There's Yeah.
[7:18] How do I go down far enough? There's
[7:19] another sheet that talks.
[7:20] >> It's just a one paragraph description of
[7:23] trying to You mean it's not quite
[7:24] illegal, but it's his best stab at, you
[7:26] know, squaring the lot up. And
[7:28] >> that might have to be modified if you
[7:30] guys right,
[7:31] >> meaning he probably calls out a depth,
[7:33] right? You might have to do some quick
[7:35] discussion with him and modify his, you
[7:37] know,
[7:38] >> have him modify it in the 3/4 in
[7:41] that'sed up.
[7:43] Okay. Maybe just make sure those
[7:44] >> Yeah, it's not really a good
[7:46] description.
[7:47] >> So, he he resubmit or alter his
[7:50] application.
[7:52] >> He wouldn't have to resubmit. He'd have
[7:53] to just alter his application.
[7:56] >> He could alter it here and say,
[8:03] » "All right, we good on that one?"
[8:05] >> Yeah.
[8:06] >> I'm just trying to move forward.
[8:10] >> No, I just was looking up Okay.
[8:12] >> Get why he wants to do half because it
[8:14] would line up with everything else. Mine
[8:16] would be crisper, but
[8:17] >> I don't want to open a can.
[8:20] >> He can go wider.
[8:23] >> Um, reszone request two for Tanaguch.
[8:29] » Right off the top of your head, what's
[8:31] your thought?
[8:33] >> Well, I I think I I don't think there's
[8:35] any benefit to the city for doing it,
[8:37] which is one of the main questions. of
[8:42] us amending
[8:44] zoning. How does it benefit the city?
[8:46] >> Well, it's going to add another 25 roofs
[8:50] in there.
[8:51] >> How many does she want to do?
[8:53] >> She wants to go to half acres
[8:54] >> on the whole thing.
[8:56] >> The whole thing that parcel. Can you
[8:58] pull that parcel? 24 acres.
[9:01] >> So, but her sister has already has a
[9:05] regional lift station.
[9:08] So Rosson Ranch is technically four
[9:11] phases right here.
[9:13] >> Let's see if this will boundaries.
[9:15] >> So there's the part two for Rosson
[9:17] Ranch. [clears throat]
[9:18] >> Yeah. So Rosson Ranch built out a lift
[9:20] station
[9:22] that services the tor daily piece.
[9:25] >> Yeah. They told me told us it could
[9:28] handle 700 connections.
[9:31] >> Um
[9:33] the BRS runs been built out a half acre.
[9:36] You can see phase 2 is in now. How does
[9:38] the sewer run to that lift station off
[9:40] 5100 or would they have is there an
[9:42] easement between the lots on Rosson that
[9:44] bring it over from you?
[9:45] >> It's a good question.
[9:49] » If only someone
[9:51] >> Where did you say lift station was?
[9:53] >> I can pull up the sewer map.
[9:56] >> We're not
[9:59] pun.
[10:02] » Yeah, that's funny. Good job, Nick.
[10:05] >> He's got good dad jokes
[10:06] >> quick. I mean, I know that doesn't
[10:08] really change why we're trying to do it.
[10:10] >> Just curious. Just
[10:12] >> she obviously wants to out, which makes
[10:14] sense, but I don't know how that
[10:16] benefits.
[10:17] >> Well, if you listen to her as you walk
[10:20] out last time, she just wants to do the
[10:24] frontage so that when Utah brings the
[10:26] road in, it's worth more money. It's
[10:27] half.
[10:29] >> Yeah. Her application, she didn't say
[10:30] she doesn't have any intentions of
[10:32] changing what her using what she's using
[10:34] the land for now. But
[10:35] >> this gets me
[10:36] >> once it's zone. She can do whatever she
[10:37] wants.
[10:37] >> This gets beyond the scope a little bit,
[10:39] but just to make sure we're all on the
[10:41] same page. The impact study that was
[10:43] done as part of that lift station
[10:46] anticipated well didn't anticipate the
[10:49] study done off of 116 lots that included her piece all of Rosson
[10:57] Ranch and the Tory piece and then one
[10:59] other parcel I'm not familiar with LRS
[11:01] and the properties 9.1 acres either way
[11:03] all centralized there was 116 I had our
[11:07] engineer look at it 116 lots is solely
[11:09] what the impact study was based off
[11:11] actual capacity was is more I don't know
[11:15] the exact but half acres would probably
[11:18] function for the entire land use for all
[11:22] the land that goes there could
[11:23] potentially do that. So to tie into
[11:25] that, would that be something where
[11:26] she'd end up having to pay through like
[11:28] a pioneering agreement to
[11:30] >> There's a pioneering agreement set up.
[11:31] Yeah. Through Rosson Ranch. So that
[11:33] would be something that when she
[11:34] actually went through the subdivision
[11:35] process, we'd reevaluate. And I also
[11:37] think at that point once subdivision, we
[11:39] might have to reassess the impact fee
[11:40] because it was done at a bigger density.
[11:42] But that's a little over my I don't
[11:45] know. We get with everyone. But that
[11:48] being said, I I do think there's
[11:49] capacity at the lift station of any
[11:51] significance.
[11:53] >> Yeah. Did the city front any of that or
[11:55] was pioneering the Rosson paid for it
[11:57] and so the Rosson would reimburse
[11:59] >> so it doesn't benefit the city at all?
[12:02] >> No, I just I know what she said in that
[12:10] change tomorrow.
[12:10] >> Yeah.
[12:12] >> And right now it's
[12:14] >> Yeah. R1 R1
[12:16] >> and then in the future
[12:18] that agricultural protection area
[12:21] >> I guess to get technical maybe
[12:23] It was the impact was 116 homes
[12:26] [clears throat]
[12:27] and that would have been a oneacre loss.
[12:30] He's telling us this lift station could
[12:32] do 204 ohms as opposed to the 116 in
[12:37] terms of capacity
[12:41] is
[12:42] >> I just so a couple thoughts around this.
[12:45] So when we talk about what her
[12:46] intentions are and what she really do
[12:48] with it to they're talking about doing a
[12:50] general plan review anyway.
[12:53] So it would be nice to get some input
[12:56] from people about what they want to see
[12:57] because if we're going to open that up
[12:58] for this it should bring something to
[13:01] the city and it doesn't.
[13:03] >> I just we did get application I don't
[13:06] say sorry. We got an application for the
[13:08] toy piece and I haven't quite filled it
[13:11] all the way but it was for half day as
[13:12] well I think
[13:14] just recently I mean I mean just maybe
[13:16] yesterday
[13:17] >> we were we were looking at doing that
[13:20] allowing that instead of drug alcohol
[13:24] >> which has a better
[13:27] >> but yeah so I I wouldn't be surprised if
[13:29] this piece is just this portion of it
[13:31] it's not the whole thing but this
[13:33] portion of it just made application.
[13:36] >> Yes.
[13:37] >> To tie into Rosson on that 53.
[13:40] >> Yeah, they want halfacre asking request
[13:43] half acres as well.
[13:46] facts and [clears throat] backgrounds.
[13:48] >> I thought you know if they open the
[13:51] general plan becomes open then I think
[13:54] we evaluate
[13:57] our based on our when we first as I look
[14:01] at that continue to look at that we did
[14:04] it in blocks basically from 59 west it's
[14:08] one from 59 to here it's
[14:10] >> I think it needs to be a little more if
[14:12] there's sewer maybe you have an
[14:16] opportunity. I don't know.
[14:17] >> Well, and I So, I had I had about an
[14:19] hourong conversation with Tony George.
[14:21] Do you know who Tony is? So, she lives
[14:23] east of me, right there across from
[14:26] Rocky Mountain.
[14:27] >> Okay.
[14:27] >> And she does um title work for a living.
[14:31] And we had a great conversation. She
[14:32] talked about some of that stuff. She's
[14:34] like, "Yeah, where the city has planned
[14:35] out like halfacre lots.
[14:37] >> It's already either developed or you
[14:40] can't develop it because the way the
[14:42] acres are set up, you can't behind it.
[14:44] So yeah, I think there's some
[14:45] opportunity when they open up the plan
[14:47] to do that. But for the purpose of
[14:49] conver or the you know for the
[14:51] conversation tonight, I don't know if I'm comfortable with
[14:56] that. I don't see
[14:59] the benefit to the city.
[15:01] >> Yeah, it it would be more of a drain.
[15:04] It's more roads, more connections, more
[15:07] everything.
[15:08] >> Do we service Rosson Ranch with plowing
[15:12] and we own all that?
[15:14] They don't have a homec.
[15:24] » When you say open the general plan,
[15:26] you're saying that meeting with JB.
[15:30] >> Well, they're going to that's the whole
[15:32] purpose of that group that they put
[15:33] together revisit redirect.
[15:37] >> Yeah, I agree. I wonder if that's when
[15:39] we address
[15:41] something like that.
[15:42] >> Well, so that would be my question. If
[15:43] we deny this tonight, they can't apply
[15:45] again for 12 months, right?
[15:46] >> That's how they are. Yeah.
[15:48] >> Even if we change, you
[15:51] >> table it and then they can't
[15:56] read
[15:57] on,
[15:59] but I would imagine if there's a general
[16:01] plan amendment that might create a
[16:04] restart.
[16:05] >> Yeah. That might say, well, you know, we
[16:07] denied it on the fact that we were
[16:09] working off an old general plan.
[16:14] Usually there has to be some kind of
[16:15] material change.
[16:16] >> Yeah, that's how our code reads is one
[16:19] material change and you could reapply
[16:20] [clears throat] otherwise. Yeah, it
[16:21] calls out the petition is denied by the
[16:24] city council. Line owner may again apply
[16:26] for 12 months for the original
[16:29] because of the other
[16:32] items that we
[16:34] >> but they're you know they're distinctly
[16:36] different, right?
[16:40] to do the next one. We have to
[16:43] >> Well, that's an just for a case by case
[16:45] basis though.
[16:46] >> You don't I don't think you have to open
[16:48] the whole plan if that makes any sense.
[16:51] >> You know, I think the conversation have
[16:53] another piece where it's tied with the
[16:54] commercial that is a benefit.
[16:57] >> I think that kind of would shut down
[16:59] that conversation. It's a great point. I
[17:01] mean, I didn't I don't know if it opens
[17:05] the whole thing or you just section.
[17:08] >> I don't think either way could open it
[17:09] at any time as well.
[17:10] >> I don't think that there's a I'm just
[17:13] trying to think out of the box. I don't
[17:14] think there's a development behind this
[17:15] uh reason request, at least not a
[17:17] pending one. So, I don't know if a
[17:20] similar discussion what you just had on
[17:22] the last one. Do you want to maybe see
[17:23] if it align with the future land use
[17:25] map? I don't know if that's of interest.
[17:27] >> I am a little confused with the future
[17:28] land use map because it says the
[17:30] agricultural protection area and I
[17:32] looked that up online.
[17:33] >> That would have been self selected. We
[17:35] just recognize it, meaning she's done
[17:38] something with the state for that. She
[17:40] can convert her at any point.
[17:41] >> So, so if it if it is developed though,
[17:44] the way I read it online is you have to
[17:47] have every adjacent land owner has to
[17:49] have a written letter to the city
[17:50] allowing us to develop the land or
[17:52] resone the land
[17:53] >> to take it out of that agriculture
[17:55] protection or is it that
[17:57] >> it's agriculture protection? Is that one where like my father-in-law's
[18:01] is on
[18:03] some agricultural designation and that's
[18:06] just so
[18:07] >> agricultural protection area.
[18:10] >> It really protects them against multiple
[18:12] things if it is a truly gets put in an
[18:15] APA. It protects them from a little bit
[18:18] of potential imminent domain.
[18:20] >> I wish that showed our future but it
[18:22] doesn't.
[18:23] >> I have the future actually. Oh yeah.
[18:26] >> So you're saying that you got that
[18:28] information
[18:30] >> from either land owner from some type of
[18:32] protection
[18:34] >> on the parcel.
[18:37] >> Is it off the future land use map that
[18:39] you're seeing in his
[18:41] current land use shows the desire one?
[18:44] >> Yeah. Pull the future land use.
[18:45] >> Correct.
[18:46] >> It won't pull up.
[18:47] >> We'll just go to the school website
[18:51] >> because that's where I'm like why would
[18:53] we If it is our future land use map does
[18:56] call for agriculture protection area,
[18:57] why would we go to halfacre?
[18:59] >> And if it is agriculture protection
[19:01] area, does that allow for any
[19:02] development at all? Like is that
[19:04] considered halfacre lots, 3/4 acre lots,
[19:06] 1acre lots? Like what does that mean?
[19:08] >> I'm pretty sure it was self-imposed. I
[19:10] don't think we went through and placed
[19:12] agriculture protection on people's
[19:13] parcels. I think they had filed
[19:15] something with the state to receive
[19:17] agriculture protection and then we're
[19:19] recognizing it in our future land use
[19:20] map. I don't I would have to look at the
[19:22] process They're changing, but let me
[19:24] pull up a few things while you guys keep
[19:26] talking.
[19:26] >> Yeah. So, I just don't really understand
[19:28] that that well, even with my research.
[19:30] >> That's a fair point.
[19:36] » So, I think that's just a protection
[19:38] overlay.
[19:39] >> So, it's still considered R1, but it's
[19:41] just overlaid with the protection.
[19:43] That's kind of what I
[19:44] >> assumed.
[19:46] >> Go north.
[19:47] >> Yeah. that big piece green.
[19:53] [clears throat]
[19:55] So it has an underbuilt open
[20:23] » basically it just means that it can
[20:24] minimize nuisance complaints for people
[20:27] that live nearby that are complaining
[20:29] about livestock and whatever else.
[20:32] >> It is an overlay zone. It's like
[20:35] >> So it's an overlay.
[20:36] >> So it's still R1.
[20:39] Yeah. This protects them from just
[20:44] » your neighbor. So it's still
[20:46] >> That's what I assume, but I want to make
[20:48] sure.
[20:48] >> Yeah, it's good heads up.
[20:54] What does it say on the right? What's
[20:56] the AI stuff? It's on the right there.
[20:58] Yeah. What's that?
[21:00] Or not?
[21:15] » Yeah.
[21:18] So, Travis mentioned like what's the to
[21:21] the city. But if you look at all of
[21:23] them, like what's the benefit to any any
[21:24] halfacre lot community that we've
[21:26] approved?
[21:27] >> I mean, this is I wasn't a part of any
[21:30] of those approvals. Ranch Ranch did put
[21:33] the Miller station, which does benefit
[21:34] the city for future development.
[21:36] >> I think that Rosson Ranch was approved a
[21:39] couple of commissions and council ago.
[21:41] It's been
[21:42] >> it's been a while and it may have fit
[21:45] and I know part of that had to do with
[21:47] the lift station. provided the lift
[21:49] station
[21:50] >> which is benefit the city
[21:51] >> which was a tradeoff for density.
[21:54] >> Yeah. Basically, you're going to provide
[21:55] some regional lift regional
[21:57] >> growth opportunity.
[21:58] >> That was definitely what I told the
[22:00] discussion was for us, which makes sense
[22:02] to me. I just wanted to make sure I
[22:04] could wrap my head around why like what
[22:06] is [clears throat]
[22:09] so
[22:15] I either table it or We'll discuss this
[22:18] when we open up the plan.
[22:20] >> Well, if we if we deny it, then either
[22:22] way, yeah, if they change the plan, they
[22:24] can reapply. Otherwise, it's
[22:27] >> Yeah.
[22:32] » I don't know.
[22:34] >> Yeah.
[22:40] » I don't think we have to. Please. That's
[22:42] in our code.
[22:46] But hold on a second. I don't think that
[22:49] opens
[22:51] the future land.
[22:53] >> Does the future land use? I don't think
[22:54] it does.
[22:57] That's right. Sorry.
[23:02] » It still doesn't fit future land use at
[23:05] all. It's our
[23:09] » Have we heard a timeline on that general
[23:11] plan?
[23:13] Yeah, we have uh I'd have to pull it up.
[23:16] I think it's December or January.
[23:17] should have the general plan
[23:20] process.
[23:22] >> So, we don't pretty quick.
[23:24] >> I'll pull it up. But yeah, I think that
[23:26] was the last time they gave us. So,
[23:27] >> that's the reason I asked that is I
[23:29] don't want to like bind them to a
[23:31] one-year denial. If if it was going to
[23:34] be a year till that's done anyway, then
[23:35] doesn't really matter. But,
[23:36] >> but if we change it, they have to apply
[23:38] anyways.
[23:38] >> True.
[23:39] >> Yeah.
[23:43] changes it to that
[23:55] discussion.
[23:57] >> That's where I'm at. Just wait.
[23:59] Especially if we're going to be starting
[24:01] to really discuss it first of year.
[24:05] >> And it's kind of a futuristic thing
[24:07] anyway. It's not like they're pending
[24:09] like they got tractors on the ground
[24:10] trying to dig. All
[24:13] right. I think we wait till December.
[24:15] >> Perfect. Okay. Let's move on to the main
[24:17] event.
[24:18] >> We can discuss it more.
[24:20] >> So item C, resone request general plan
[24:22] amendment uh for the terrorist property.
[24:29] » Start.
[24:32] >> So So this has changed all the time. So
[24:35] I attend I try and come to all the
[24:36] council meetings and the first one we received was a reason
[24:43] or a discussion to open the general
[24:46] plan. The second one was a reasonzone
[24:49] request and then it didn't have anything
[24:52] on there about the master development
[24:53] agreement. So I asked Darren at the time
[24:56] is that included and he didn't think so.
[24:58] I think him and Nick communicated
[25:00] about that. So that's why D showed up on
[25:04] here.
[25:04] >> Correct.
[25:05] >> So, um,
[25:07] >> we should have a public hearing on D. It
[25:09] might be
[25:12] >> Yeah, it might be just repetitive on C,
[25:14] but as part of that, we should open it
[25:16] up for public.
[25:18] >> Okay.
[25:20] >> I think seven months on the general
[25:21] plan, we're two months in. So, what they
[25:24] told us to do.
[25:25] >> Um,
[25:27] okay. Put that capital public hearing.
[25:30] So because I obviously three very
[25:33] different topics there, right?
[25:35] >> Yes.
[25:36] >> So
[25:38] >> I mean I So on the very on the first
[25:41] part in my opinion
[25:45] » I I'm not
[25:47] I'm I'm not opposed to opening the
[25:50] general plan. We're five years into it.
[25:52] We're halfway through its lifespan if
[25:54] you want to call that.
[25:57] But then you know that moves to topic
[25:59] two which would be a reason request. So
[26:01] I are you guys open to what are
[26:05] [clears throat] your thoughts? Just the
[26:07] first question are we open to
[26:10] >> I'm open to that because there's benefit
[26:13] for the city and there's opportunity
[26:15] here to build something that could if
[26:18] done correctly could be beneficial.
[26:21] I think so too because it's I mean the
[26:24] front part of that property is already
[26:25] future language for commercial anyways.
[26:27] >> Correct.
[26:29] >> I think the biggest hiccup is the
[26:32] zoning.
[26:33] >> Yeah.
[26:35] >> The type of zoning.
[26:36] >> So here's a question real quick. Would
[26:38] this be this would this be the last time
[26:40] we see
[26:42] >> the reszone application
[26:44] or Okay.
[26:47] >> Yeah.
[26:48] >> And the and the DA. Cor
[26:55] » and then we wouldn't touch it again
[26:56] because then it would go to TRC.
[26:59] >> Well, after the council were to make any
[27:01] motion for their res and after a reason
[27:04] they'll have their zoning and to be able
[27:07] support um obviously the development as
[27:10] you guys are aware and then from there
[27:12] we would start with infrastructure plat
[27:14] preliminary plat final plat just as our
[27:17] typical subdivision processes.
[27:18] >> Yeah. So like
[27:19] >> so you guys would see in a preliminary
[27:21] plan, but it would be for an approval
[27:23] based off of infrastructure that we
[27:25] worked through.
[27:25] >> So yeah, what we're looking at here is I
[27:28] correct me if I'm wrong. This is a
[27:30] mockup. This isn't a final platform.
[27:33] It's as final as we might get for we're
[27:35] trying to get it pretty close. Yeah, it
[27:37] is a mockup,
[27:38] >> but they Yeah, they want it in the DA
[27:39] trying to get it. We're trying this in
[27:41] the DA. Yeah, the applicants tried to
[27:43] build in some flexibility that's
[27:44] reasonable but isn't as uh broad as what
[27:48] we were doing in the past. For instance,
[27:50] you could you guys in the past there was
[27:52] always commotion. Well, how many units
[27:53] are we talking? Well, we know how many
[27:55] units, right? The units are here. We can identify the units and there are
[27:58] certain things that'll stay, but the DA
[28:00] seems to contemplate. We know it's
[28:02] potential road movement and realignment
[28:03] as infrastructure and things go in, but
[28:06] the units, the usage, those are the big
[28:08] things at the VA that we want to make
[28:10] sure we nail down.
[28:14] Um, we'll talk about the DA.
[28:20] » Yeah. So, so my thoughts, my opinion,
[28:25] I'm not comfortable with the flex zone
[28:27] at all. So, my thoughts, my thoughts
[28:30] around that would be stick with current
[28:32] zoning. And I know when Mr. Adams was
[28:35] here, he was talking about, well, we
[28:36] don't know if we can get commercial and
[28:37] we want to just be able to shift to
[28:39] housing. My thought would be something
[28:41] conditional in there that look if we're
[28:43] going to make it commercial and if after
[28:45] a certain amount of time you're not able
[28:47] to attract that then you can reapply to
[28:49] have that res.
[28:50] >> Yeah.
[28:51] >> So on their on the applicants resone
[28:55] map. So that'd be that green area.
[28:57] >> Yeah.
[28:57] >> That little green square that's that
[28:59] mixed use that they want
[29:00] >> down there on the
[29:02] >> Yeah. kind of that lower left next to
[29:04] the retention pond.
[29:05] >> Yeah. basically the retention pond, the
[29:06] hardware store, and a portion of that up
[29:09] to the parking lot of the houses. And
[29:11] they lose four lots of MFDRs.
[29:13] >> I think it's important to note that
[29:15] space is 28 units
[29:18] >> that's there right now.
[29:19] >> Yeah. 2390 to 115 units is what's being
[29:23] proposed here. If
[29:25] >> it be an additional
[29:25] >> this were to convert to sits because the mix got the mixed use got worked in
[29:31] about halfway through the discussion. So
[29:33] it was originally going to be
[29:34] residential. So but if the residential
[29:36] went whatever it would be 28 more units.
[29:39] >> So that's that's a 20% I guess 23.
[29:45] >> Yeah. I was able to speak to Mayor
[29:47] Vanderwood of West Haven about mixed use
[29:49] and how that's affected West Haven and
[29:51] all because I know that they've approved
[29:53] quite a few of them.
[29:54] >> Yeah. and he was very
[29:58] negative about the idea as well. And his
[30:00] main complaint was
[30:03] I mean it's it's our it's our job to
[30:06] look at best case scenario and probably
[30:07] worst case scenario. We [clears throat]
[30:09] don't know a lot about Teras. We assume
[30:11] that they have our best interest in mind
[30:12] along with their own as far as the
[30:14] community goes. But he said that they've
[30:16] had problems with developers that come
[30:18] in with mixed use and they they push it
[30:21] back and they end up making decisions or
[30:23] they off that piece alone and it ends up
[30:26] being forgotten and either turned into a
[30:29] disaster or turned into a mess and it's
[30:31] an afterthought of the the main portion
[30:33] of development because it has the most
[30:35] flexibility. So develop other developers
[30:37] will be able to buy that piece. So he
[30:39] was pretty negative on the idea. I
[30:41] talked to someone on the city council in
[30:44] Leighton City as well and they're pretty
[30:46] promix use. Um
[30:50] but that's a totally different situation
[30:51] because Leighton is nowhere near what
[30:53] wherever we'll be.
[30:55] >> So, would you say you'd want to use a
[30:57] straight commercial across or would you
[30:58] want to see more of a patio home type
[31:02] right there?
[31:03] >> No, I I think you're pushing it. In my
[31:06] opinion, you're pushing it if you
[31:07] >> The number of units you're saying
[31:08] >> the number of units [clears throat] is a
[31:10] lot.
[31:11] I mean, I I still have questions on the
[31:14] 115 because I'm not a fan of the
[31:18] six
[31:21] >> Yeah. I mean, you you drive through
[31:24] Syracuse right now or even West Point,
[31:28] the five foot backyard and the three
[31:31] foot front yard, you know what I mean? I
[31:34] just because there's not enough green
[31:37] space. I know they're talking
[31:40] about well we give you all this
[31:42] commercial well kids can't play on
[31:44] asphalt you know what I'm saying so
[31:48] they can but that's probably not
[31:50] conducive to
[31:52] health
[31:54] >> because wears
[31:55] >> we just joined in to some health
[31:58] initiative right
[32:03] » didn't we
[32:04] >> sorry
[32:05] >> healthy hooker healthy hooker or
[32:07] something
[32:08] >> we don't give enough green for the kids
[32:10] to be able to get out of them
[32:13] little houses and have a place to play.
[32:17] >> So, what Malcolm, off the top of your
[32:19] head, I'm sorry, I'm going to test you
[32:20] here.
[32:22] When this conversation first started,
[32:24] that was third acres on the west side,
[32:28] half acres on the north side. What's the
[32:31] difference in count? Like, I'm asking
[32:34] you I'm asking you to do fractions. So
[32:36] if you look at that as third acres now
[32:38] and that went back to half, how many
[32:40] properties are you losing?
[32:43] >> Two, maybe three.
[32:44] >> Yeah.
[32:45] >> The road has to come down. The depth of
[32:47] the lots on the north would increase.
[32:49] >> Would increase a little bit?
[32:51] >> Go more depth than you do than with
[32:54] Okay.
[32:54] >> And then you I think the halves were
[32:57] more like 100 foot fronts. So there
[32:58] would probably be one or two.
[33:04] So, in our current zoning, we already
[33:07] have a code that will allow a up to a
[33:09] fiveplex up to five. I've had a few
[33:12] minutes, I think, in our PD
[33:18] » because that the things that concern me
[33:20] about this, we're creating and I
[33:23] creating new zones.
[33:24] >> We're creating zones and I get look,
[33:25] this is something we've never looked at
[33:27] We're changing the frontage because we
[33:29] require 100 and they want to go to 85.
[33:31] >> Well, and and we're looking at we're
[33:33] looking at codes even existing codes
[33:36] we've never used before.
[33:38] >> So, they're going to be fallible or they
[33:39] could be
[33:42] that was I had a had a back and forth
[33:45] with Jason about that conversation about
[33:46] that too is
[33:48] >> you know we've never used it so we don't
[33:50] know how well it's going to work or not
[33:51] going to work either.
[34:01] four units attached.
[34:08] » I think I think we do I would prefer
[34:11] four.
[34:16] I mean, you look at the you look at the
[34:18] newest town homes over there by
[34:23] Schneider's Bluff,
[34:25] which I guess I'm
[34:28] kind of one-sided because that's my
[34:29] son-in-law's dad, but he wouldn't go
[34:32] over four just based on
[34:36] the
[34:38] amount of green space he had to give to
[34:40] West Point. And two, if you go to a I
[34:45] don't know how West Point is, but if you
[34:47] go to a sixplex
[34:49] and let's say an investor wants to come
[34:50] in and buy that sixplex,
[34:53] he has to go through it as a business
[34:55] loan, not as a mortgage loan. If you
[34:57] stay at four,
[35:00] then
[35:03] » there are quite a few codes that end up
[35:05] hurting
[35:06] the investor on a sixlex, too, because I
[35:09] know
[35:09] >> Oh, yeah.
[35:10] >> like Leighton and Cisville City both
[35:11] have codes that if you have a sixlex
[35:13] now, you have to a sprinkler system
[35:15] because it's a multi-dwelling unit
[35:17] that's larger than five whereas a four
[35:19] you don't. I mean that's not really our
[35:21] problem. We don't have to deal with
[35:22] that. But there it does make it stickier
[35:25] [clears throat] building six plexes
[35:26] versus fours
[35:28] >> outside of a me I want to I wouldn't I'm
[35:32] fine with a Smith. It's just the high
[35:36] density
[35:38] housing.
[35:41] I just
[35:45] I think we need more open space. We need
[35:47] the obviously we talked last time about
[35:52] walkways and different ways for those
[35:56] people, let's say on the north and on
[35:59] the west to be able to use the common
[36:01] area, if you will. Does it run along the
[36:04] property line or how does it tie?
[36:08] >> I just think the more you pack in there,
[36:09] you're not going to get
[36:12] the families [clears throat]
[36:13] or the kids moving to the green space to
[36:19] I mean, look at that row of houses right
[36:21] there
[36:23] on the west of the green space right
[36:25] now. That's just
[36:27] >> those cluster homes.
[36:28] >> Well, and the way the cluster homes
[36:30] work, there's a lot of green around the
[36:32] way they sit.
[36:34] >> Yeah.
[36:34] >> But
[36:35] >> you know,
[36:37] >> is it worth me explaining what's
[36:38] different on this bill?
[36:39] >> Well,
[36:40] >> is it I don't want to take your time.
[36:42] >> No, go ahead. Absolutely. Thank you.
[36:44] >> So, the way this has been modified due
[36:46] to the comments that we received last
[36:48] time,
[36:49] >> these homes would face up to the road
[36:51] and they would have a common driveway in
[36:53] the back and then these homes would face
[36:56] onto the green space. And to do that,
[36:59] there needs to be some separation like
[37:01] get to the front door. So, this 20 foot
[37:04] width was added in here so that there
[37:07] could be like a common sidewalk and then
[37:09] it's been extended all the way through.
[37:11] So, these will front to the common
[37:13] sidewalk. These would front to the
[37:15] common sidewalk and the green space and
[37:17] then the driveways were shifted to be
[37:19] able to accommodate that. So, these
[37:21] folks could go from the sidewalk and
[37:22] walk to the green space. You have to
[37:24] walk all the way around.
[37:28] » So, there'd be sidewalks in between all
[37:29] that.
[37:30] >> There would be That was one of my other
[37:32] questions too, looking at this, like so
[37:34] if this gets built out in five years,
[37:36] what prevents somebody that owns cottage
[37:39] 14 from just fencing off their property?
[37:43] >> These what we didn't have time to make
[37:46] changes that
[37:47] >> these lots or the driveways are well
[37:51] these open areas, they're also deed to
[37:53] the HOA.
[37:54] >> Okay.
[37:54] >> But the common driveways are also deed
[37:56] to the HOA. So they wouldn't even have
[37:58] the property right
[37:59] >> in the actual lot. Yeah. It comes out to
[38:01] the front and it stops what they own
[38:04] stops at the driveway so that this guy
[38:06] can't come out and block off that piece
[38:08] of property so he can't get to his home.
[38:11] >> What does What does Weaver County Fire
[38:12] think about a 20 foot access point to
[38:15] that cottage at the end of that cutoff
[38:16] road?
[38:17] >> We because this is so premature. We're
[38:20] not even to that level of detail.
[38:22] >> It's less than 150 foot length. They
[38:24] don't care. But one thing I can
[38:26] guarantee you is if they say we don't
[38:28] allow that,
[38:29] >> we'll draw it in different.
[38:30] >> You don't even have to worry about what
[38:31] your code requires.
[38:32] >> Yeah, 100%.
[38:33] >> Yeah. [laughter]
[38:34] >> I just was trying to wrap up how the
[38:35] whole
[38:36] >> They're doing pretty hard stance to 26
[38:38] foot of drivable surface, but that's if
[38:41] the distance is more than 150 ft.
[38:44] >> Yeah, Weaver County, my my driveway was
[38:46] originally 20 ft wide, and they made me
[38:48] do 30 ft. That's what they required for
[38:51] me to get approval from the fire
[38:52] department because my driveway was 350
[38:54] ft long.
[38:55] >> I just my some of my bigger concerns
[38:57] like even if we stuck with our current
[38:58] PUB code, they want to reduce green
[39:01] space from 40% which I don't know if
[39:03] 40%'s the right number either.
[39:05] >> Yeah.
[39:05] >> But I think that needs to be defined
[39:07] better what green space is. So green
[39:10] space to me is not a big lawn in the
[39:12] middle of a bunch of houses. Nobody's
[39:14] going to use it. It's, you know, we
[39:16] we've got one of those in my
[39:17] neighborhood and nobody uses it.
[39:19] >> In the drawing, they did have something
[39:21] that showed like two pavilions and a
[39:23] >> little playground or something.
[39:25] >> Mine's got that, too. And no, granted,
[39:27] it's smaller. That's almost an acre.
[39:29] >> Yeah.
[39:30] >> But that's also something that the
[39:31] city's going to have to maintain,
[39:33] >> right? Well, the city or the HOA
[39:35] maintain that?
[39:36] >> They're not. I don't think they're going
[39:37] to have it be there's going to be an
[39:39] HOA. Well, there would have to be
[39:41] because the [clears throat] alleyways
[39:43] would be
[39:44] >> says it
[39:45] >> everything would have to have an
[39:46] >> Yeah, I but I don't think I don't think
[39:48] they were planning if I remember
[39:49] correctly from Mr. Adams, they're not
[39:51] planning on mowing law.
[39:54] >> Yeah.
[39:55] they are.
[39:55] >> Are they?
[39:56] >> Yeah.
[39:56] >> Unless Unless the city says we'll take
[39:58] the green space and own it and maintain
[40:01] it.
[40:01] >> But that's that's already been made
[40:04] clear that
[40:05] >> Yeah, I thought that was already
[40:06] mentioned in in here. There's more
[40:08] mention of the HOA in here than If
[40:10] there's if there's some
[40:13] element that's a bigger than just this
[40:15] community, I think that's where the city
[40:16] [clears throat] come in. But
[40:18] >> it would be either way. It's kind of up
[40:20] to what do you want? But because of the
[40:23] common drives, there would have to be an
[40:25] HOA.
[40:26] >> I think it's important. So with ours,
[40:28] we'd have to dive into it a little more,
[40:30] but we have 40% right. And it's open
[40:32] space and total acreage excluding
[40:33] roadways, buildings, and infrastructure.
[40:36] I'm not sure that excludes yards and I
[40:40] don't think you included that in your
[40:41] calculation. That being said,
[40:42] regardless, whatever you guys are
[40:44] comfortable with is what's important and
[40:46] the actual conceptual. And then we we
[40:48] really can use pegging it and the VA uh
[40:51] talks about like, hey, we're we're doing
[40:53] density and we have commercial. So, the
[40:54] open space will differ from later. I saw
[40:58] in your calculations you had a 10% open
[41:00] space. Um, whatever that figure is is
[41:03] that's the kind of stuff that'll be
[41:04] helpful to if that was a condition we
[41:05] want open space, you know, at least 10
[41:08] or whatever it is so that we can that
[41:10] can be enforceable moving forward.
[41:12] >> And so I just want to be clear on how
[41:14] open space is calculated. Do I take can
[41:17] I deduct the area of the roads out of
[41:20] the
[41:22] quotient that I'm math I'm doing there
[41:24] or because like
[41:26] >> the overall acres
[41:27] >> so there's 23.8 acres. Can I deduct the
[41:30] roads out and then calculate open space
[41:32] or do I have to keep the roads in?
[41:36] >> Excluding roadways, buildings and other
[41:38] infrastructure.
[41:40] So take the road the roads when it count
[41:43] as open space.
[41:44] >> Okay. So that 10% would actually be
[41:46] greater because right now that area
[41:49] that's being divided is just the total
[41:51] area of the residential divided into the
[41:53] areas that are shown as green. So what we proposed [clears throat]
[41:58] and I don't The idea was to try to do
[42:01] front yards and and really just trying
[42:03] to get creative. So these front areas,
[42:06] this detention basin for the commercial,
[42:08] we tried to look at areas along the
[42:10] roadways, this landscape up here. We we
[42:14] haven't talked about how wide it should
[42:15] be or how tall the fence should be, but
[42:18] we just tried to look at some of the
[42:19] other uh areas and try to identify
[42:23] >> the fence will be six foot, right? at
[42:25] least but there was a question about I
[42:27] don't know if six foot's tall enough and
[42:30] so that was really never resolved but we
[42:32] just tried to come up with where are
[42:34] some other open areas these are like 10
[42:37] foot setbacks in the front yard these
[42:38] are 20 those are some of the variances
[42:40] we're asking for or deviations but if it
[42:44] was we just like to follow our code then
[42:46] I think these would have like a 35 and
[42:49] that would be more green space if we're
[42:51] allowed to count the front yard as green
[42:57] I don't see where code is prohibiting
[42:59] [clears throat] the front areas green
[43:00] space. It just prohibits county
[43:02] roadways, buildings or infrastructure.
[43:05] We could look at what it just says right
[43:08] here. Amenities which are available for
[43:09] common use such as community center may
[43:12] be included in Oh yeah, that's buildings
[43:14] including parks.
[43:19] » Where you at?
[43:20] >> I was just reading
[43:22] in 10 F2. Okay. But I think that just
[43:26] means more of like a building like that
[43:28] a building to be counted as open space
[43:29] if it was common use.
[43:32] >> So it didn't it didn't say anything
[43:33] about
[43:34] >> and I know that's a pretty popular idea
[43:35] too center.
[43:37] >> Yeah.
[43:41] Tell people about the area.
[43:46] That's the hard part on this. I don't
[43:47] think this lot's big enough for
[43:49] something like that. Well, it's an acre,
[43:52] but with that and parking, that's all
[43:54] that would be on there.
[43:55] >> Yeah.
[43:58] >> Um,
[43:59] >> so take out more houses
[44:02] >> or clusters,
[44:04] [clears throat]
[44:04] >> you know. I know. So, you know,
[44:07] listening to feedback from people, I I
[44:10] know nobody likes the looks of high
[44:12] density housing, right? They also don't
[44:14] want a bunch of rentals. So, that would
[44:16] be something want to talk about.
[44:19] more like
[44:20] >> it's mentioned in the NBA.
[44:21] >> Yeah.
[44:21] >> Both
[44:23] very strong.
[44:24] >> Agreed.
[44:24] >> But you know, one thing I think about
[44:27] this too is where this development's
[44:29] going, most people aren't going to see
[44:33] 90% of it. It's very behind the Smith.
[44:37] Um, but I the way it's clustered, I
[44:40] mean, I know in council meetings and in
[44:43] some of our meetings, we talk about like
[44:45] that JDH ranch and some of the others,
[44:48] but they're not clustered up like this
[44:50] where all your town homes are together.
[44:52] They're they're mixed. So, you'll have a
[44:54] cluster home, a single family dwelling,
[44:57] couple of town homes. So, the way all
[45:00] that's clustered together kind of
[45:02] concerns me, too.
[45:06] » And that's something that the planning
[45:08] commission could recommend. Previous
[45:09] discussions, it's that said there's not
[45:12] enough patio homes,
[45:14] >> right?
[45:14] >> We just haven't got a a clear direction
[45:18] or a vote that that has said we think it
[45:20] should be this and and so we're if
[45:24] you're open to spreading it out, I think
[45:27] that could be accomplished. It's just
[45:31] this is just an idea. I I do love the
[45:34] buffer idea where they have the
[45:37] >> existing neighborhoods with a buffer of
[45:40] a larger family single family homes
[45:42] buffering and then it in the middle. But
[45:44] I don't mind the
[45:46] >> a potential higher density in the middle
[45:49] more integrated together.
[45:51] >> Well, and then when you're talking about
[45:52] the neighboring neighborhoods,
[45:54] >> that that's also a concern, too. I I I
[45:56] like the buffer like you do, but the
[45:58] folks that live in that neighborhood on
[45:59] the outside of that road
[46:02] >> were increasing
[46:04] traffic
[46:04] >> big time
[46:05] >> because that that takes you straight out
[46:07] to 51.
[46:09] >> Well, the half of that road's going to
[46:10] half of that neighborhood's going to be
[46:11] killing.
[46:12] >> Yeah, true. Sure.
[46:13] >> Which might actually make it worse.
[46:15] >> Revisiting the revisiting the mix space
[46:19] or the mixed use, excuse me,
[46:21] >> when you make a motion or whatever you
[46:22] decide, will you address the buffer
[46:24] because that mixed use extended
[46:27] >> to the residential the buffer was being
[46:29] absorbed. You might want to just
[46:32] if the buffer stage or not the
[46:33] residential buffer even if this went
[46:35] commercial right see commercial be this
[46:39] is commercial
[46:41] >> or just this part and this stays home by
[46:46] >> yeah if the mix we want to make it one
[46:48] way or the other
[46:50] >> you want if you make the mix commercial
[46:52] like you were talking about does the
[46:54] commercial go all the way to the
[46:55] subdivision boundary line end up in
[46:56] these homes or we maintain a residential
[46:58] buffer for them and just keep the
[46:59] commercial in here where that develop.
[47:06] » You guys look at it for us.
[47:08] >> Could you zoom to the south of us?
[47:13] » Yeah.
[47:16] >> So, there are already a couple of homes
[47:17] that don't have a buffer there towards
[47:19] the end of 5500,000.
[47:20] >> Yeah, because there'll be like a
[47:21] retention pond that
[47:24] >> Yeah, that home will eventually be a
[47:26] potential fast food hardware store
[47:29] retention pond. sold out
[47:34] >> if it'll load. But anyway,
[47:37] >> so they're probably the first three or
[47:38] four houses there already don't have a
[47:40] buffer. So we're talking about the other
[47:42] three or four on that street. Do we want
[47:44] a buffer or do we not want a buffer?
[47:47] >> What's the density? So you guys are
[47:49] proposing four and a half units to
[47:51] anchor, right?
[47:54] >> 4.5.
[47:56] >> What's the I can't find for some reason
[47:57] the PUD. That's the
[47:59] >> max six
[48:00] >> units per
[48:01] >> with our current
[48:02] >> with the current beauty
[48:03] >> and the 4.56 is only based on the 115
[48:07] units.
[48:07] >> So if the flex were to go residential
[48:10] then it would
[48:11] >> go up. Yeah,
[48:12] >> but it's less than the six. What our
[48:15] [snorts]
[48:15] says
[48:16] >> I'll confirm. I'm pretty sure six is the
[48:18] maximum density we [clears throat] will
[48:20] ever we would permit the patios on. in
[48:23] both six
[48:26] » and our when we originally approached
[48:29] this it was to lay something out
[48:31] feasible and trying to get to six. We
[48:35] just don't see that
[48:37] >> especially when we're asking for open
[48:38] space.
[48:39] >> Yeah. I mean we're Yeah. In that case
[48:41] we'd be
[48:43] >> shall not exceed six.
[48:46] >> That's that's a P and patio. You said
[48:48] >> P.
[48:51] We do need to recalculate the open space
[48:54] because I had the roads involved.
[49:05] » So as we're done talking about sub I
[49:07] think the three options tonight for
[49:10] y'all is to obviously vote to deny to
[49:14] recommend denial recommend straight
[49:17] approval or recommend approval with some
[49:20] conditions that
[49:22] And I think in in Malcolm and I's
[49:25] conversation with the developer, they're
[49:26] open to that kind of direction
[49:28] >> and if you want to impose some
[49:30] conditions and give some the council
[49:32] some, you know, we're not for
[49:35] [clears throat] the use or something
[49:36] like along that or we'd like the town
[49:38] homes to be four units. I think that's
[49:41] something that developers
[49:43] >> very open to. I don't I'm not going to
[49:45] commit him to anything obviously, but um
[49:49] if that I don't think that's a reason to
[49:52] not take action on it.
[49:53] >> Okay.
[49:54] >> And my understanding is [clears throat]
[49:56] you like some action taken.
[49:57] >> Yes.
[49:58] >> Either approval, denial, or approval
[50:00] not.
[50:01] >> Yeah. Preferred not table.
[50:03] >> Not
[50:04] >> one one other just to throw out a couple
[50:05] of more things.
[50:07] >> The code requires an an entry sign to
[50:10] the development
[50:12] >> rather
[50:14] for the resident some type of or
[50:17] something. Okay.
[50:17] >> Our our interest would be to ask for
[50:20] that to be one of the deviations and
[50:24] then whatever that entry feature might
[50:27] cost. Let's say it's I don't know $5,000
[50:29] to put a block something that says
[50:31] Hooker Cross. If that could go towards
[50:34] the open space amenities, that kind of
[50:36] thing, that would be our interest. So in
[50:38] lie of an open or a residential entrance
[50:42] feature to take the cost of the
[50:44] residential in entrance feature and
[50:47] apply it to the open space amenities.
[50:50] That's that's just it's a greater it's a
[50:53] greater
[50:55] >> yeah than just having a
[50:57] >> there you probably also have a sign plan
[50:59] hopefully pretty sign there'll be a lot
[51:00] there's signs for the commercial that
[51:02] will identify the development but if you
[51:04] want a residential one we discuss it
[51:07] there will be signs for absolutely
[51:10] >> big fancy ones uh which real quick go
[51:13] ahead
[51:13] >> I was going to say you asked about if we
[51:16] got rid of the flex basement commercial
[51:17] I think my thought would be commercial
[51:19] all the way but I would say maybe do
[51:20] some type of separation in the trail,
[51:22] whatever. Something that looks nice that
[51:25] separates the homes from the commercial.
[51:27] That's what I would recommend.
[51:29] >> Okay. Something along the fence lines.
[51:31] >> Yeah.
[51:31] >> So, when after we listen to everybody
[51:33] too, we can we can talk about that what
[51:35] we want to put in a motion for that.
[51:37] >> Yeah.
[51:37] >> Just a few things as you guys consider
[51:39] most some of these. And I appreciate the
[51:40] position that the developers in. We are
[51:43] doing it. You know, we're trying to get
[51:44] as much as we can to approve it, but at
[51:46] the same time realizing that we zoning
[51:49] yet approved the zoning. So, it's a
[51:51] little bit cart before the horse, but
[51:53] we're working it out. Just a couple
[51:54] thoughts on the drivethroughs. It's
[51:57] probably not a big deal. I'll work with
[51:58] the developer, but we do I want to call
[52:00] out stacking requirements. That's
[52:02] something I want to see with that. I
[52:03] think one condition that would be
[52:05] important. I haven't seen a circulation
[52:06] study. So, that's something we could
[52:08] reasonably do. I want to see how this
[52:09] operates with the trailer through it,
[52:11] right? I want to see him model or, you
[52:14] know, model it so that our engineer has
[52:15] a time to review it. This would be all
[52:17] stuff in the developer agreement.
[52:18] >> These will be supporting documents the
[52:20] developer agreement. But there are
[52:21] things that maybe you could
[52:22] conditionally say, you know, we're okay
[52:24] with the developer agreement, but we
[52:25] want a circulation study or attorney
[52:26] template either way circulation or
[52:28] turning template so that I can so that I
[52:30] can have our engineer look at the
[52:32] traffic flow, how the deliveries are
[52:33] going to take place, how they're going
[52:34] to leave. And then uh the sign plan, if
[52:39] you guys had any comments on that, I
[52:40] think that [clears throat] main one out
[52:42] front was tall in my opinion. Um, I
[52:44] think the one on the side might be a
[52:45] little tall. Might want to look at that.
[52:47] Um, I think our code is very our code's
[52:50] super complicated and honestly I don't
[52:51] think was anticipating any type of
[52:53] development like this initially. I
[52:56] shouldn't use that. I don't know. Our
[52:57] code's old so it's not great to be
[52:59] honest, but I think it's 25 foot in our
[53:01] code is the max height. Um, I don't I'm
[53:04] not saying that has to be, but um, that
[53:06] being said, I think we'll look at the
[53:07] signs a little maybe is some of our
[53:10] discussion. And then we're looking at
[53:12] relocating the station
[53:15] per working with them with our sewer
[53:16] manager and our public works. Maybe that
[53:18] could be a part of it. We want the lift
[53:19] station closer to the road, not
[53:21] centralized. It's not a big deal, but
[53:23] something that could be addition then
[53:26] was really Oh, one more thing. Outdoor
[53:29] display plant.
[53:31] I'd like to see the outdoor display
[53:33] plant. And then we've been told there
[53:34] will be garages on all the units. I'd
[53:37] like that. I didn't quite find that in
[53:39] the VA, but I want to make sure we have
[53:40] garages on the units. So, There will be
[53:43] a garage on every unity in the town
[53:44] houses.
[53:45] >> Yes.
[53:46] >> Which because that's one of my major
[53:48] concerns is parking.
[53:49] >> Yeah. Me too. Make sure garages and then
[53:51] not shared there. But yeah, so if you
[53:52] could clarify, those are some thoughts
[53:54] I've had. But and I this is pretty fluid
[53:56] and I I don't think that being said, you
[53:58] guys give us recommendations. I I'll
[54:00] make sure those things are anything you
[54:01] feel strongly about, we'll make sure it
[54:03] gets worked on before it goes to city
[54:04] council. But wherever you guys are at,
[54:06] just let me know if there you guys want
[54:08] us to work on specifically. It'll be
[54:09] really helpful to hear you guys'
[54:11] perspective on it. So, talking about
[54:12] those heights, right now our code says
[54:14] 25. If I remember right, the tall sign
[54:16] was 30.
[54:17] >> Tall says 50.
[54:18] >> 50.
[54:20] >> And
[54:21] maybe he's best to answer the question.
[54:24] I know that this layout of the potential
[54:26] anchor is a shorter than standard Smiths
[54:30] would be because of the different
[54:31] design. What's the normal height of a
[54:33] Smith versus the lowered? Because this
[54:35] one is
[54:37] >> or are they similar? You have the
[54:39] building elevation. The the little popup
[54:42] pieces are the part that I'm not sure
[54:44] how tall they are. The main building is
[54:46] 26 feet.
[54:47] >> Yeah,
[54:48] >> cuz I know this like barn style like you
[54:52] did in Grantsville.
[54:54] >> Uh, Eagle Mountain.
[54:55] >> Eagle Mountain.
[54:56] >> Yeah, there's one in
[54:57] >> they're a little shorter than the other
[54:59] standard ones if I remember right.
[55:01] >> The main the little flat parts, that's
[55:04] 26. The little bump up the popup parts,
[55:06] that's the part I just don't have time.
[55:08] But it's it's in the I don't have
[55:15] Can I ask you ask a question? like with
[55:17] the development
[55:19] the zoning request I I think we're
[55:21] prepared to talk about I think what
[55:23] zones we're interested in that developer
[55:26] I'm I'm still pleased that's a big
[55:28] document and like I'm smart enough to
[55:31] know I'm not smart and there's a lot of
[55:34] stuff in there that all want more
[55:37] >> in all fairness I agree and I think you
[55:39] would even agree there's been some disontity throughout
[55:42] it that needs to be ironed out so are we
[55:45] are be okay to table that piece with
[55:48] recommendations like we want like some of the stuff he's talked about with
[55:51] sites and
[55:53] uh turning models and things like that
[55:56] like I don't want to deny it with the DA
[55:59] >> it also goes back to the zoning like if
[56:01] we do want to go with the zoning that
[56:04] they're talking about we want to be more
[56:06] specific as far as open or open space or
[56:09] >> or things like that there's a lot of
[56:10] stuff in here that really goes back to
[56:12] the reszone too
[56:14] >> that I guess backs up the reason
[56:16] >> we we've come in these discussions quite
[56:19] a long ways and we've really tried to
[56:21] get as close to your current code as we
[56:23] can.
[56:23] >> Yeah.
[56:24] >> Like not having an entrance sign the
[56:27] sixplex versus a forplex. But if you
[56:29] want a forplex then say we think it
[56:30] should be a forplex.
[56:32] >> Uh if 40% open space is a little bit
[56:35] reaching at least 15% at least 20%
[56:38] whatever that number is make that
[56:40] recommendation.
[56:41] Um,
[56:43] those are kind of the things that we're
[56:45] looking for. If there's anything in
[56:46] there that's really problematic for you,
[56:49] maybe just make a recommendation that it
[56:51] should at least be this. One thing I
[56:53] would throw out is R3, the 13,000 foot
[56:57] lot is what we've asked for with a
[56:59] deviation from the 100 foot front to an
[57:01] 85. It might be better to say we
[57:05] recommend the zoning BR4. Now, that's a
[57:08] 10,000 square foot lot. The But what it
[57:11] is is it already has an 85 foot front.
[57:14] So the way it lays out, they would
[57:18] probably be more than 85 foot fronts or
[57:20] a little bit more than 85. But if if
[57:22] that's an exchange to get something
[57:25] that's a little closer to the code, then
[57:27] maybe it's better to say the minimum
[57:29] would be an R4. But that doesn't mean we
[57:32] couldn't do a larger lot. It just means
[57:33] we wouldn't be able for the single
[57:35] family on the outside to be smaller. So
[57:37] those are just some things that maybe
[57:39] it's just a
[57:42] Let's go R4. The problem with making an
[57:44] R4 specifically is R R4 has a lower
[57:49] value. So, one of the concerns that we
[57:53] it was discussed is well, if the zoning
[57:56] were R4, then you could potentially pick
[57:59] up 3,000 square feet for a lot, which
[58:01] would yield about an acre and a half,
[58:03] and would you consider putting that into
[58:05] open space? Well, the problem is that
[58:08] has a lower which then makes that value
[58:11] of that land a lot higher. It might be
[58:14] better now that we've just clarified
[58:16] that we can count the yard space as open
[58:18] space to leave the lots a little bigger,
[58:21] have more space between the homes,
[58:23] giving a more open feel. So, there's
[58:24] kind of just a tradeoff. Maybe maybe
[58:27] it's keeping the 100 foot front, not the
[58:29] 85, you know, that kind of stuff because
[58:32] then there's just more distance between
[58:33] the homes.
[58:35] Anyway, just to give you that
[58:37] flexibility,
[58:39] >> I think the commission wants to keep the
[58:41] res and the development agreement
[58:42] together. So, you could have a motion to
[58:45] approve the resone, deny the deny the
[58:48] development agreement, or
[58:49] >> table the agreement.
[58:51] >> I don't think I don't think you want to
[58:52] table it. We want to make a
[58:54] recommendation because we want to keep
[58:55] those two things together,
[58:57] >> which is fair. But here, I'll tell you
[59:00] like my hesitation. So when you go
[59:01] through that, there's a lot of things in
[59:02] there about phasing reviews and the
[59:06] things that I don't
[59:10] we need more information on what all
[59:12] that means, what great recommendations
[59:14] are. You know, there's a lot of stuff in
[59:16] there about the financing piece, which I
[59:18] if I understand the latest one, that
[59:20] would be a separate
[59:22] >> conversation later. So we're not even
[59:24] going to discuss that.
[59:27] >> But that's that's my kind of hesitation
[59:29] with the DA. There's a lot of stuff in
[59:31] there that if we have proven even if we
[59:33] add a bunch of conditions in there,
[59:34] there's a lot of stuff in there that
[59:36] >> Well, this is what our third time seeing
[59:38] this
[59:39] >> early second because last time we didn't
[59:41] really
[59:42] >> talk about it. I just feel like that's a
[59:43] lot to do.
[59:44] >> Seen it for quite a while.
[59:45] >> Well, that's true. But it's changed a
[59:47] lot, right?
[59:48] >> I guess that's my thing is it's it's a
[59:50] lot to do.
[59:50] >> So, I guess we'll continue.
[1:00:08] I need to talk.
[1:01:11] Sorry.
[1:01:42] recording in progress.
[1:01:46] » All right. Good evening. We'd like to
[1:01:47] welcome everybody out to our planning
[1:01:49] commission meeting for August 27th,
[1:01:52] 2026. Uh we'd like to excuse
[1:01:55] Commissioner McCormick and uh
[1:01:57] Commissioner Whiten who had other
[1:01:59] engagements and were not able to make
[1:02:01] the meeting tonight. So, and welcome
[1:02:03] Commissioner Denny up to the big stage.
[1:02:05] So, um all right, to begin um
[1:02:12] We'd like to go through our opening
[1:02:13] ceremony. So, our pledge will be led by
[1:02:16] Commissioner again. Um,
[1:02:21] » turn it off. Turn back on.
[1:02:24] Commissioner Seing will lead us through
[1:02:25] our pledge and uh Commissioner Denning
[1:02:27] will lead us through our
[1:02:37] flag of the United States of America and
[1:02:41] to the republic for which it stands. One
[1:02:44] nation under God, indivisible with
[1:02:48] liberty and justice for all.
[1:02:57] Dear heavenly father, we are so grateful
[1:02:59] for this day that we have to be together
[1:03:01] today as a city and as a community to
[1:03:04] discuss the the future and of Hooper and
[1:03:06] what it looks like for us here. We're so
[1:03:08] grateful for the opportunity that we
[1:03:09] have and for the people that attend
[1:03:11] these meetings to be able to contribute
[1:03:12] to uh the the city and the world around
[1:03:15] them. We're grateful for the opportunity
[1:03:17] that we have to
[1:03:20] discuss these topics tonight. We ask you
[1:03:21] to to bless us, to lead us, and guide us
[1:03:23] to make decisions that will be
[1:03:24] beneficial. We say in name Jesus Christ.
[1:03:27] Amen.
[1:03:29] >> Thank you, gentlemen. All right, moving
[1:03:31] on to our uh there are no consent items
[1:03:34] this evening, so we will move into the
[1:03:36] action items. First action item is a
[1:03:38] resone request for Mr. Bridger Smith
[1:03:41] located at 5271 West, 4600 South. Uh the
[1:03:45] reason is to create a halfacre lot with
[1:03:47] a previous existing home on it.
[1:03:51] staff, you want to take us through?
[1:03:53] >> Yeah, we just, as you've stated,
[1:03:55] received requests. Um, this is the
[1:03:57] existing home here right on 4600 South.
[1:03:59] Um,
[1:04:01] the current land use is R1. The future
[1:04:04] land use map is R75.
[1:04:07] This just references our code that the
[1:04:09] resone process allows for the planning
[1:04:10] construction to amend the future land
[1:04:12] use portion of the general plan as part
[1:04:14] of the resone process. Um, after a
[1:04:17] reason, this property will subdivided.
[1:04:19] Just wanted to make that clear. It's a
[1:04:21] little we have an existing home that
[1:04:23] hasn't processed off this subdivide it.
[1:04:27] But prior to that, we wanted to make
[1:04:28] sure we had the proper zoning. So any
[1:04:31] questions?
[1:04:36] Perfect. Is the applicant here?
[1:04:44] Okay.
[1:04:46] Any questions for the applicant that's
[1:04:48] not here? Let's go into a discussion.
[1:04:49] Any discussion about it?
[1:04:53] » I think like we talked in the work
[1:04:56] meeting
[1:04:58] where the future land use is R75. I'd be
[1:05:01] more comfortable approving this if he go
[1:05:03] 3/4 acre instead of half acre.
[1:05:09] » Perfect. Okay. Um, at this time you're
[1:05:12] going to enter a public hearing or I'll
[1:05:14] entertain a motion to enter a public
[1:05:15] hearing to receive public input on the
[1:05:17] request.
[1:05:19] >> That motion public hearing second.
[1:05:22] >> All right. Motion was made by
[1:05:23] Commissioner Wait and seconded by
[1:05:25] Commissioner Sy. If there's anybody from
[1:05:28] the public that would like to speak on
[1:05:29] this topic, uh, please come up front.
[1:05:31] You have three minutes. Uh, Morgan will
[1:05:34] be our timekeeper. Please state your
[1:05:36] name and if you're a resident of Per
[1:05:37] City, please. Real quick, sorry. Do we
[1:05:39] need a vote on that to go into public
[1:05:41] hearing?
[1:05:44] » Okay.
[1:05:45] >> Hey, you're doing great.
[1:05:49] » We're going to have to do this again.
[1:05:51] >> Uh, all in favor?
[1:05:54] >> I.
[1:05:54] >> Any opposed? Thank you.
[1:05:56] >> Okay. Thanks for your patience.
[1:05:58] >> Sure.
[1:05:58] >> Um, Amy Kristofferson. I'm live in
[1:06:01] Hooper on 5900 South. Um, I did send an
[1:06:04] email to y'all today. Sorry you heard
[1:06:06] from me so much, but um just wanted to
[1:06:08] formally log my strong opposition to the
[1:06:10] proposed reszone request for the
[1:06:13] property located at 5271 West 4600
[1:06:16] South, which seeks to create a halfacre
[1:06:18] lot to separate an existing home from
[1:06:20] the surrounding agricultural land. This
[1:06:22] application contains a fundamental flaw
[1:06:25] regarding legal ownership and
[1:06:26] transparency, and it represents a
[1:06:28] dangerous precedent for the future of
[1:06:31] Hooper's general plan. I urge the
[1:06:33] planning commission and the city council
[1:06:34] to deny the request based on the
[1:06:37] following critical points. Uh failure to
[1:06:39] meet valid application and ownership
[1:06:41] requirements. Um Hooper city code
[1:06:44] requires that a reszone application be
[1:06:46] submitted by the legal property owner or
[1:06:48] an officially authorized representative
[1:06:50] of the owner. Public records indicate
[1:06:52] that the applicant Bridger Smith is not
[1:06:54] the legal owner of this property.
[1:06:57] Instead, the property is owned by Utah
[1:06:59] State House represent uh speaker Mike
[1:07:02] Schultz. Because this true owner did not
[1:07:04] submit this application, there is no
[1:07:06] transparent documentation
[1:07:08] establishing Bridgetger Smith as a
[1:07:10] legally authorized agent. The
[1:07:12] application fails to meet basic
[1:07:13] procedure requirements and should be
[1:07:15] rejected immediately. Um number two, a
[1:07:18] lack of political transparency and
[1:07:20] public accountability. The choice to
[1:07:22] hide the true ownership of this land
[1:07:23] behind another individual's name appears
[1:07:26] to be a deliberate attempt to
[1:07:27] representative by representative Schulz
[1:07:29] to avoid public scrutiny. This evasion
[1:07:33] is especially concerning given the
[1:07:34] current negative community attention
[1:07:36] surrounding state senate president
[1:07:38] Steuart Adams and his own controversial
[1:07:40] attempts to alter the city's general
[1:07:43] plan. High ranking state politicians
[1:07:45] should not be permitted to use frontmen
[1:07:47] to bypass the public transparency that
[1:07:50] everyday hooker citizens are subjected
[1:07:52] to. The city must not show undue
[1:07:54] difference to career politicians using
[1:07:57] their influence for personal or
[1:07:58] financial benefit.
[1:08:01] Um incremental development schemes and
[1:08:03] protection of 1acre zoning. While this
[1:08:05] application claims only to separate a
[1:08:07] pre-existing home from agricultural
[1:08:09] land, the broader implications are
[1:08:11] clear. Carving out a halfacre lot sets a
[1:08:14] zoning precedent on this parcel. If
[1:08:16] approved, it creates a justification to
[1:08:18] bypass Booker's traditional 1acre
[1:08:21] minimums when Representative Schultz
[1:08:23] inevitably moves to develop the
[1:08:25] remaining 13.45
[1:08:27] acres of agricultural land. Granting
[1:08:30] this reszone is the first step in a
[1:08:31] peacem erosion of our community's rural
[1:08:33] character.
[1:08:34] city must uphold its ordinances equally
[1:08:37] regardless of an applicant's political
[1:08:39] stature or state level power. Because
[1:08:41] this application violates filing
[1:08:43] requirements, lacks proper transparency,
[1:08:46] and threatens the integrity of our
[1:08:47] agricultural zoning, I respectfully
[1:08:50] request the planning commission and city
[1:08:51] council deny this reason. Thank you.
[1:08:56] >> Thank you.
[1:08:58] Anyone else?
[1:09:03] Okay, this time I'll entertain a motion
[1:09:05] to close the public hearing. So motion
[1:09:10] >> second.
[1:09:12] >> Motion was made by Commissioner Denny,
[1:09:13] seconded by Commissioner Wait. We can
[1:09:16] open this back up for conversation.
[1:09:18] >> I I
[1:09:21] thank you.
[1:09:27] to talk about what we talked in the work
[1:09:29] meeting as far as
[1:09:32] the ownership. We had questions on the
[1:09:34] ownership portion as well. I mean, we
[1:09:36] know it's Mike's son-in-law,
[1:09:39] but he should be the one requesting it
[1:09:43] and then his son-in-law can come in and
[1:09:47] present it. We've allowed that before.
[1:09:49] You know what I mean?
[1:09:51] But it wasn't I guess it wasn't brought
[1:09:55] forth as hey Mike Schultz wants to
[1:09:59] subdivide or not subdivide but wants to
[1:10:02] reszone this and his son-in-laws acting
[1:10:05] in his behalf.
[1:10:09] » Yeah, we confirmed with you that we
[1:10:11] could if we were to make a motion to
[1:10:13] approve we could make it a condition
[1:10:15] that they would essentially reapply with
[1:10:19] either M
[1:10:21] or the
[1:10:23] >> authorizing Mr. Smith to have to apply
[1:10:26] for his behalf.
[1:10:30] >> The other thing we talked about is like
[1:10:32] Malcolm mentioned the future lines map
[1:10:34] for this area is 75 and so when our work
[1:10:38] we kind of discussed that maybe that's the better option. Um so I think
[1:10:44] we got to also make a
[1:10:46] motion to approve also a condition that
[1:10:49] it would go to 75 in place of that or
[1:10:52] would they need to agree?
[1:10:54] >> Uh yeah probably the preferred way is if
[1:10:56] you wanted to go 75 is to table it
[1:10:59] tonight and um Mr. Jenkins could reach
[1:11:03] out to the applicant and have the
[1:11:05] applicant either resubmit an application
[1:11:07] or modified application with those two
[1:11:10] things or appear next time and speak to
[1:11:13] what he wants to do with it. Okay. If we
[1:11:15] were to say, would we have another
[1:11:17] public hearing or this this is
[1:11:19] sufficient?
[1:11:21] >> The two items to be clear are
[1:11:24] acknowledgement from the land owner. We
[1:11:26] have on the other ones for the
[1:11:28] authorization, you know, represent. And
[1:11:31] then um the final piece you mentioned
[1:11:33] was just acknowledgement that he would
[1:11:35] be open or verbally come and talk about
[1:11:37] any variation in the the zoning 3/4.
[1:11:41] >> Yeah, I think he could I think if he
[1:11:44] could submit that he was open half acre
[1:11:47] off for a 3/4 acre lot. Um you could do
[1:11:51] that through writing to you. You should
[1:11:53] probably have the landowner uh
[1:11:56] authorization speak first and then that
[1:11:58] item or speak to itself.
[1:12:04] » Yeah, I kind of all on the same page
[1:12:06] with everything. We need to have the
[1:12:08] ownership established or the right to to
[1:12:10] represent or needs to be closer to 3/4.
[1:12:15] Okay. Anybody want to make a motion?
[1:12:17] I'll make a motion to table it with
[1:12:19] those two items. The one the ownership
[1:12:22] and then I think we tell that we're
[1:12:25] going 4.75 instead of going half acre.
[1:12:28] >> Second. Second.
[1:12:30] >> Motion is made to table with conditions
[1:12:33] uh by Commissioner Wait, seconded by
[1:12:36] Commissioner Denny. All in favor?
[1:12:38] >> I
[1:12:39] Any opposed?
[1:12:42] Thank you. All right, moving.
[1:12:45] I forgot one thing if we can go back. I
[1:12:48] want to make sure also that it's just
[1:12:50] the house area. It's not the area for
[1:12:54] the whole 13.95, right? It's just where
[1:12:56] the house is. So they need to clarify in
[1:12:59] a better legal description of where the
[1:13:01] reason actually is. So do I make another
[1:13:04] motion or can we include that?
[1:13:06] >> Yeah, I think I think you would make a
[1:13:09] motion to reconsider the prior motion.
[1:13:11] >> Okay.
[1:13:12] >> With with that addition.
[1:13:13] >> I'll make a motion to reconsider the
[1:13:15] prior motion with that condition
[1:13:17] including the the more a better legal
[1:13:21] description for just the area, not the
[1:13:22] whole 13.95.
[1:13:24] >> Second.
[1:13:25] >> I'll second.
[1:13:26] >> All right.
[1:13:28] Motion to reconsider was made by
[1:13:30] Commissioner Wait, seconded by
[1:13:32] Commissioner
[1:13:34] Se. All in favor?
[1:13:37] >> Sorry, forgot about that one.
[1:13:42] » No, I'm good now.
[1:13:45] >> Perfect. Okay, let's move on to uh item
[1:13:48] B and we'll get the order correct on
[1:13:50] this one. So, this is a reszone request
[1:13:52] for Tanaguch located at 3051 South, 5100
[1:13:56] West. on request is to go from an R1 to
[1:13:58] an R2 uh at the stated parcels. Um
[1:14:03] is a representative from
[1:14:06] for this here?
[1:14:08] >> Yeah.
[1:14:09] >> Would you like to come up and speak?
[1:14:10] Could please state your name and if
[1:14:11] you're a resident of H upper
[1:14:13] >> Touch
[1:14:15] been here 62 years. So um I'm requesting
[1:14:19] to have it reszone from the 1 acre to
[1:14:22] half acres. Um, I made application in
[1:14:25] February 5th of 2020.
[1:14:28] Um, I wrote a check, they cashed it. I
[1:14:31] wanted to reszone it and I was told that
[1:14:33] because Cammy reszone next to me and we
[1:14:36] boarded and she put in a great big pump
[1:14:38] house for like 250 houses that I would
[1:14:42] be able to get half acres. Um, I made
[1:14:45] application, nothing ever came of it. I
[1:14:48] put in another request on April 26 of
[1:14:51] 2021, asked where we were. It was kind
[1:14:54] of tabled and nothing happened. So, I'm
[1:14:56] bringing it up again. I have no
[1:14:58] intention of ever selling or ever
[1:15:01] subdividing. I've been there my whole
[1:15:03] life, but you never know what's going to
[1:15:05] happen and what's going to come through,
[1:15:06] and I want to be prepared.
[1:15:09] That's all I got.
[1:15:12] >> Oh, do you have questions for me?
[1:15:14] >> When was the when was the when did you
[1:15:16] write your check? When was the first?
[1:15:18] >> Um, I wrote my check February 5th, 2020
[1:15:21] for $471.90
[1:15:24] and it was cashed.
[1:15:27] >> And then on April 26, 2021, I put in a
[1:15:31] follow-up letter asking where we were
[1:15:34] and it nothing. Yeah, I think co
[1:15:38] something happened.
[1:15:44] » Any other questions?
[1:15:48] Thank you.
[1:15:49] >> You're welcome.
[1:15:51] >> Malcolm, do you have any You want to do
[1:15:53] a presentation or anything?
[1:15:55] >> Sorry.
[1:15:59] Just add some context. Here's the
[1:16:01] proposed property for the benefit of
[1:16:04] anyone watching.
[1:16:05] Two partials. It is located now ranch
[1:16:10] subdivision. Four different phases in
[1:16:12] there. current zone R1 R1 similar
[1:16:17] require
[1:16:44] Sorry.
[1:16:55] » So, did you did you take more money for
[1:16:59] was there a new application or was this
[1:17:00] just the same application from 2020?
[1:17:03] >> We request for an application.
[1:17:06] >> So, you knew Okay. That's not news.
[1:17:11] » Do you guys know
[1:17:14] anyway?
[1:17:34] » Okay. I know the meeting it was supposed
[1:17:36] to be on there was a cancell
[1:18:12] Okay. At this time, we'd like to enter a
[1:18:14] public hearing. If we would uh entertain
[1:18:16] a motion,
[1:18:21] second
[1:18:23] motion to enter a public hearing was
[1:18:25] made by Commissioner Denny, seconded by
[1:18:27] Commissioner Wake. All in favor?
[1:18:29] >> I I There we go.
[1:18:32] All right. Uh, [clears throat] if
[1:18:33] anybody from the public would like to
[1:18:35] make a comment about this particular
[1:18:37] item, again, you have three minutes.
[1:18:39] Please come up, state your name, if
[1:18:41] you're a resident of city, please
[1:18:50] res. Um, I just kind of had a question
[1:18:52] on this one and I maybe I'm not
[1:18:54] remembering how the process works, but
[1:18:57] for this and the previous applicant,
[1:18:59] it's my understanding you would still to
[1:19:01] amendment to the general plan to future
[1:19:02] man. It's not currently what we have in
[1:19:04] the zoning. And so I'm just wondering if
[1:19:08] they actually submitted an application
[1:19:10] to open the general plan and why it
[1:19:12] wasn't noticed that way on the agenda
[1:19:15] that went out like it was on item C for
[1:19:18] the terrace property.
[1:19:26] » Would you like to answer?
[1:19:29] >> So different cities differently and like
[1:19:32] I'm fairly new here at Cooper, but a
[1:19:34] general plan is a general plan. So, um,
[1:19:38] anytime there's a reason that isn't in
[1:19:41] line with a general plan, that's a
[1:19:43] reason that you could the city could use
[1:19:46] to deny that. Um, but [clears throat]
[1:19:48] it's a general plan. So,
[1:19:51] emphasis on the word general. Um, if
[1:19:54] something if an application comes
[1:19:56] forward that the city likes that is not
[1:19:58] in line with the general plan, the
[1:20:00] general plan doesn't prohibit them
[1:20:02] prohibit the city from reszoning it.
[1:20:04] Some cities will every time you get a
[1:20:07] reszone, they will then amend their
[1:20:09] general plan so that it's in line with
[1:20:11] the res. But that's not required by
[1:20:14] state law because state law kind of
[1:20:16] contemplates that a general plan will be
[1:20:20] a very policy level high level guiding
[1:20:22] document. So that's that's one reason
[1:20:24] why it wasn'ticed
[1:20:26] that way.
[1:20:32] Any other public comment?
[1:20:36] » Okay. At this time take a motion to
[1:20:38] bring it back.
[1:20:41] Motion to end the public comment.
[1:20:43] >> Second.
[1:20:45] >> Perfect. Motion was made by Commissioner
[1:20:47] Denny, second by Commissioner Se. Any
[1:20:50] more conversation around this? All in
[1:20:53] favor?
[1:20:56] >> Any more comment about this?
[1:21:04] So I know in our work session we kind of
[1:21:06] talk about how the city is in
[1:21:09] discussions with um looking at the
[1:21:12] general plan right open and we kind of
[1:21:14] talk about time frame um and where this
[1:21:17] the future the so the current maybe you
[1:21:21] didn't mention this what's the current
[1:21:23] uh land use
[1:21:24] >> R1 and then what's the future
[1:21:26] >> R1 and there's this weird agricultural
[1:21:30] protection overlay whatever Um
[1:21:34] so I think in our discussion we kind of
[1:21:36] mentioned maybe we wait until we we open
[1:21:38] a general plan as a whole and and look
[1:21:40] at this area in specific and other
[1:21:42] areas. Um if it it lines better with
[1:21:45] halfacre or 3/4 whatever it is. Um that
[1:21:48] was something we talked about. I don't
[1:21:49] know if you had any other comments
[1:21:52] regarding we we talked about that and we
[1:21:54] talked about the benefit to the city
[1:21:56] versus the nonbenefit I guess.
[1:22:04] Yeah, that's the thing that probably
[1:22:05] trips me up a little bit is the benefit.
[1:22:07] Um, you know, if you're going to make a
[1:22:09] sacrifice for density, usually there's
[1:22:11] something that is is considered. Rosson
[1:22:13] Ranch gave us a regional sub or lift
[1:22:16] station to help provide future
[1:22:18] development. Um,
[1:22:22] so that's where I'm probably hung up is
[1:22:26] how does how does this help the
[1:22:28] community overall and how benefit kind
[1:22:30] of the direction that we're trying to
[1:22:32] push over.
[1:22:36] » Also in the work meeting, one of the
[1:22:37] discussion topics we made was if this
[1:22:40] does get denied and there is a change to
[1:22:43] the general plan, the applicant can
[1:22:45] reapply. They don't have to wait that 12
[1:22:47] month period.
[1:22:49] So that was also a part of that
[1:22:51] discussion.
[1:22:57] Any more discussion?
[1:23:00] Entertain a motion.
[1:23:11] I I didn't realize that they had made
[1:23:13] application in 2020. So, I wish we got
[1:23:15] an answer a lot long time ago for him.
[1:23:17] So, I I do feel bad about that, but I
[1:23:19] still kind of feel the same as if um I
[1:23:22] think we I think I'll make the motion to
[1:23:24] deny the application and wait for the
[1:23:27] general plan update that will be
[1:23:29] happening soon or we can look at this in
[1:23:32] other areas a little more in detail.
[1:23:38] Motion is made by Commissioner Wait. Do
[1:23:42] I have a second?
[1:23:46] I'll second that.
[1:23:48] All right. Second was made by
[1:23:50] Commissioner Denny. All in favor of the
[1:23:52] motion.
[1:23:54] I I
[1:23:58] Okay. Thank you. All right. Moving on to
[1:24:02] topic C.
[1:24:04] Uh action item C. This is a reszone
[1:24:06] request and general plan amendment uh
[1:24:09] approximately 4700 west, 5,500 south for
[1:24:12] Terra Strada. Uh the the proposed
[1:24:15] request is from R1 zoning uh to C2, PUB,
[1:24:21] R2 and R3 zone.
[1:24:24] Um
[1:24:27] Malcolm, do you want to just give it for
[1:24:28] the folks that may have showed up late
[1:24:30] or showed up on time for the actual
[1:24:32] meeting, give them just a quick overview
[1:24:34] of what's being requested?
[1:24:39] Sure.
[1:24:41] Here's
[1:24:48] the property. I have five different
[1:24:51] parcels that are well five technically
[1:24:54] six right here. This little sliver is
[1:24:56] being requested for a reason.
[1:25:00] 5500 south 4700 west. It's for a
[1:25:04] commercial development with residential
[1:25:06] on the back. pull up a plan at some
[1:25:09] point any further discussion. But maybe
[1:25:12] just to emphasize the current zone is
[1:25:15] R1. The future land use map is C1 5500
[1:25:21] as opposed to C2 and R75 in the rear. I
[1:25:25] think a clarification just to maybe
[1:25:31] help understand the process.
[1:25:34] The prior the prior requests were not in
[1:25:37] line with the future land use but the
[1:25:39] zones were in use and they were part of
[1:25:41] the general plan. So the amendment was
[1:25:44] the reason covers the
[1:25:47] future land use amendment strictly
[1:25:51] clearly in our rescone.
[1:26:01] The difference here is the zones being
[1:26:05] requested are explicit in our general
[1:26:07] plan either not in use. So for instance
[1:26:10] or they call out for instance right here
[1:26:14] to no additional property in the city
[1:26:16] using this unless the general plan is
[1:26:18] amended and additional
[1:26:22] that's what we' be doing. be placing
[1:26:26] here in the general plan under page 25
[1:26:29] placing
[1:26:31] PUB sorry oh we put the base zone
[1:26:34] residential PUB and community C2 zone in
[1:26:37] use so those zones that are currently
[1:26:40] not use plan
[1:26:43] for further use
[1:26:45] the general plan to cont
[1:26:51] these applications
[1:26:53] And if you want to see a project, you
[1:26:56] want to just maybe pull up the project.
[1:27:34] So, it's a commercial development out
[1:27:36] front with a primary anchor
[1:27:39] retail pad surrounding it with a gas
[1:27:42] station here,
[1:27:44] a residential component in the back, PUB
[1:27:48] with a mixture of town homes, clustered
[1:27:50] cottages and cottages
[1:27:54] within R3 buffer around the
[1:28:00] perimeter.
[1:28:07] Total of
[1:28:11] 15 units
[1:28:13] plus 28 additional units. If This
[1:28:17] section is residential
[1:28:21] as opposed to commercial
[1:28:25] explanation of what we're working on.
[1:28:28] That was excellent. Thank you. Thank
[1:28:31] you.
[1:28:32] Representative from Teras want to come
[1:28:34] up and speak on your project,
[1:28:36] please. And thank you. State your name
[1:28:38] and resurf.
[1:28:44] What was the second part address? Are
[1:28:46] you a resident of Hooker?
[1:28:47] >> I am not a resident of Hooker.
[1:28:50] >> Great city.
[1:28:51] >> Malcolm, would you be kind enough to go
[1:28:54] back to the zoning map? I think that's
[1:28:56] an older rendition than our more recent
[1:28:59] updated application and that it just
[1:29:01] doesn't show the residential home in the
[1:29:03] corner also being reszoned. I just want
[1:29:06] to make sure the record was clear on
[1:29:07] what the request was.
[1:29:15] I think there's been enough discussion
[1:29:17] about the reason for the general plan
[1:29:18] and the most important uh general plan
[1:29:20] amendment. I think the most important
[1:29:22] part is that code requires it for this
[1:29:25] use and zoning that's being requested.
[1:29:28] We've talked about other reasons for
[1:29:30] that in the past and uh that's as
[1:29:33] Malcolm's already stated that's probably
[1:29:34] the most important reason. The uh next
[1:29:37] one is the reszone and asking for a
[1:29:40] little bit of a change in density.
[1:29:41] Typically in commercial centers there is
[1:29:44] a more dense zoning that is established
[1:29:47] around the commercial center to
[1:29:48] transition back to the remainder of the
[1:29:51] community and oftent times commercial
[1:29:54] zones are used as a transition buffer.
[1:29:56] In this case that's what's being
[1:29:58] requested. If with the reszone being
[1:30:01] discussed extensively as well as the
[1:30:03] general plan amendment what I might try
[1:30:05] to if I could is just focus on the
[1:30:07] master development agreement that's
[1:30:08] proposed and be able to speak to a
[1:30:11] couple of items. Page one lists several
[1:30:14] recital which are eventually uh brought
[1:30:17] into the agreement uh by a statement but
[1:30:20] these recitalles need to be updated as
[1:30:24] different.
[1:30:26] We desire this to be or the
[1:30:28] recommendations that are come out of
[1:30:29] tonight maybe some of the areas change
[1:30:31] that are represented here. Just wanted
[1:30:33] to be clear that those will all be
[1:30:35] updated based on the record in the house
[1:30:37] reported this evening. And if there's
[1:30:39] time to get that in the council package
[1:30:41] we'll to do that. Turning a couple of
[1:30:44] pages, the descriptions that have
[1:30:46] already been provided about the
[1:30:47] reasoning behind the general plan
[1:30:49] amendment on page three are referenced
[1:30:51] there and then highlighted in what's
[1:30:52] been provided in your packet. The
[1:30:55] requested zoning with the R3, the patio
[1:30:58] homes as well as the PUD for the town
[1:31:00] home portion is referenced there. With
[1:31:03] all the discussion, there has been a lot
[1:31:05] of concern about following the current
[1:31:07] code within the city and the first
[1:31:11] portion here on page four, section 2.4,
[1:31:14] where it lists commercial uses. When we
[1:31:16] were when we said the uses that are in
[1:31:19] that table are fine with us. They
[1:31:21] provide all the uses that we desire.
[1:31:23] There was some concern expressed by some
[1:31:25] of the uses being auto, truck,
[1:31:28] recreational vehicles. It's a permitted
[1:31:30] use in the zone, but didn't want that to
[1:31:32] be in this development. And this was a
[1:31:34] request of the city, so it's
[1:31:35] incorporated here. Uh only having one
[1:31:38] gas station in the shopping center, not
[1:31:41] more than one. Those that's the language
[1:31:43] that's been provided there.
[1:31:46] A concern has been expressed about
[1:31:47] screening and that would be screening
[1:31:50] the commercial from the residential.
[1:31:52] There are two types of fencing provided
[1:31:53] in the development agreement. Just to be
[1:31:55] clear, the current code of the city
[1:31:58] doesn't specify a height of the
[1:32:00] screening. It's offered to be six feet
[1:32:02] here and that could be a masonry screen
[1:32:05] wall. Typically, it's a concrete masonry
[1:32:07] unit wall or a decorative fence which is
[1:32:10] typically a pre-cast post and panel
[1:32:11] wall. Those that are familiar with the
[1:32:14] Cisville Shopping Center, at the back of
[1:32:16] the Cisville Shopping Center is a six
[1:32:18] foot post and panel wall to give you an
[1:32:20] example of what one might look like. The
[1:32:22] next section 2.6 talks about the
[1:32:25] landscape buffer that would be adjacent
[1:32:27] to that 6ft stream wall. A 10-ft
[1:32:30] landscape buffer consisting of trees,
[1:32:32] pedestrian [clears throat] connections,
[1:32:33] and other plantings are proposed.
[1:32:37] The uh lighting is the next section
[1:32:39] 2.6.5.
[1:32:41] It is proposed or has been discussed.
[1:32:43] It's not written in here but can be
[1:32:44] easily added that the height of the
[1:32:47] fixture in the parking areas of the
[1:32:50] commercial will be 25 ft high. The
[1:32:53] building the uh grosser anchor building
[1:32:57] the the lowest portion of that building
[1:32:59] is 26 ft. And the idea was the building
[1:33:03] would provide some screening. There will
[1:33:05] be ballpack lights on the building
[1:33:07] itself. Those are at a 15 foot height
[1:33:11] and uh can be you know we'll we'll
[1:33:14] provide a full forward metric plan once
[1:33:15] it's determined and and again establish
[1:33:19] what the height of that should be but I
[1:33:20] think it through the discussions and so
[1:33:22] forth there seems to be some interest in
[1:33:24] holding the 25 as we move into the R3
[1:33:28] zoning there is one request which is
[1:33:30] different from the code and that is to
[1:33:32] have the frontages be 85 ft that is
[1:33:36] still capable of providing a modern home
[1:33:39] having a threecar garage and uh so the
[1:33:43] code only requires a twocar garage but
[1:33:45] there's still interest in providing that
[1:33:46] on some of these wider lots the current
[1:33:49] code requires 100 foot frontage and so
[1:33:51] that is a deviation that's being
[1:33:53] requested
[1:33:55] the uh we looked at open space which I
[1:33:58] think the rest of these items can be
[1:34:00] summed up in the code requires 40% open
[1:34:03] space we learned tonight as a
[1:34:04] clarification that roads can be deducted
[1:34:07] out of that my calculation showing 10%
[1:34:10] and some of the front yards that were
[1:34:12] calculated yards to area. I had the
[1:34:15] streets in there. We also looked at some
[1:34:18] zoning. I don't know if you're able to
[1:34:19] show that picture, but there was a we
[1:34:21] tried to look at some of the open space
[1:34:23] in the commercial areas, plantings along
[1:34:24] the roadways and so forth, not the
[1:34:26] internal plantings. And that was in the
[1:34:28] range of about 10% as well. Uh we need
[1:34:31] to recalculate that open space number
[1:34:34] because we The setbacks are a little bit
[1:34:38] greater shown here. If we stay with the
[1:34:40] code of the 35 foot setback to the front
[1:34:42] of the home for the R3 and some of the
[1:34:45] other setbacks that are listed here. If
[1:34:47] you go to the
[1:34:50] appendix where it lists where the and
[1:34:52] you don't have to jump there, Malcolm, I
[1:34:53] just want them to know the appendix
[1:34:56] shows a design standard that has shorter
[1:35:00] setbacks than the current code. But if
[1:35:03] the interest is to get a higher open
[1:35:05] space number for the development to be
[1:35:07] closer to the code, we need to honor the
[1:35:10] setbacks that are currently in the code.
[1:35:12] So I just wanted to clarify that
[1:35:13] willingness. We talked a little bit
[1:35:15] earlier on the cottage lots how the
[1:35:17] common driveways will have 10 ft of each
[1:35:21] of those lots taken up by a driveway as
[1:35:25] well as a connecting sidewalk. That
[1:35:27] would be 10 ft as well. We're just
[1:35:29] asking that the 6,500
[1:35:32] shown in here be reduced to the 6250 to
[1:35:35] be able to accommodate that loss of
[1:35:36] area. Um there's been some discussion
[1:35:40] about the request on the town homes to
[1:35:42] have six plexes. Uh the code currently
[1:35:45] shows four and so that's a request
[1:35:47] that's being made. We hope to receive at
[1:35:50] least a recommendation on that being
[1:35:52] forwarded to the city council.
[1:35:54] The other interest was to not have a
[1:35:57] residential monument entry sign that is
[1:36:00] required by the code and be able to have
[1:36:02] that be put towards some amenities
[1:36:04] within the residential area or some
[1:36:07] amenities within the open space that's
[1:36:09] proposed rather than having that
[1:36:11] monument feature is required. So that's
[1:36:13] another deviation that's being
[1:36:14] requested. The rest of the items again
[1:36:17] pretty much follow what's in the code
[1:36:19] and uh don't really bear much additional
[1:36:23] discussion. There was some concern about
[1:36:25] phasing that has been expressed in the
[1:36:28] project and really that was an attempt
[1:36:29] to
[1:36:31] appease some concerns about oh you'll
[1:36:33] just build the residential and get that
[1:36:35] density in there and then you won't
[1:36:36] build the commercial. There is a market
[1:36:39] that drives these projects and currently
[1:36:43] the Wester corridor is what's really
[1:36:45] driving the value for the commercial and
[1:36:48] there may be some delay in the
[1:36:49] construction of the commercial
[1:36:51] associated with the construction of that
[1:36:53] roadway. I would like the timing to be
[1:36:55] consistent. You'll notice in the signage
[1:36:57] request that there's a tall sign
[1:36:59] requested on 5500. That's in interest of
[1:37:03] being able to have some visibility to
[1:37:04] the shopping center from the roadway
[1:37:06] that is planned within 5 to 1500 ft to
[1:37:10] the west of this location. UD do was a
[1:37:13] little bit vague in our pre-application
[1:37:15] meeting with them.
[1:37:17] uh material changes are outlined and I
[1:37:20] think the remaining comment that there
[1:37:22] was a lot of concern expressed about was
[1:37:25] uh what was originally mentioned as the
[1:37:27] city's participation in the construction
[1:37:28] of the lift station and other
[1:37:30] improvements that has been removed from
[1:37:32] the agreement and language has been
[1:37:34] provided by the city to say that if the
[1:37:37] city is going to participate say in the
[1:37:39] lift station that will be done by a
[1:37:40] separate agreement and not part of the
[1:37:43] master development agreement and that
[1:37:45] any impact that this shopping center may
[1:37:49] have on that list station would be
[1:37:50] proportionally borne by the shopping
[1:37:52] center and just wanted to be able to
[1:37:54] cover that additional language that was
[1:37:55] provided there as well. If there's any
[1:37:57] questions I'd be happy to entertain them
[1:37:59] really just wanted to focus on on the
[1:38:01] development agreement portion is there's
[1:38:03] been a lot of discussion on zoning and
[1:38:05] general plan.
[1:38:06] >> Okay, just I want to get one piece of
[1:38:08] clarification from Nick. So, something
[1:38:10] we talked about in the work meeting, we
[1:38:12] have the reszone request and general
[1:38:13] plan amendment first and then the
[1:38:16] recommendation of the master development
[1:38:18] agreement that we want to have public
[1:38:19] hearings on both of those items.
[1:38:21] Correct.
[1:38:21] >> That's correct.
[1:38:22] >> So, we we probably don't want to ask a
[1:38:24] lot of questions about the developer
[1:38:25] agreement right now and stick with the
[1:38:27] reszone or what are your thoughts around
[1:38:29] that?
[1:38:29] >> Yeah, I mean they're they're obviously
[1:38:31] very interconnected. Um, so I think just
[1:38:35] the citizenry should have the
[1:38:36] opportunity to speak to their opin both
[1:38:39] items. Some might have strong feelings
[1:38:42] on one and the other. So,
[1:38:44] >> um but but I think it's somewhat of a
[1:38:47] distinction without a difference and I
[1:38:49] think you can ask whatever questions you
[1:38:51] want whenever you want.
[1:38:52] >> Okay.
[1:38:54] >> I apologize for not being familiar with
[1:38:56] the formalities of the first city. It is
[1:38:59] often the case where the public hearing
[1:39:02] is held. I take notes as to what the
[1:39:04] questions are and then I'm invited back
[1:39:06] up to respond to those questions. If
[1:39:08] that's a format that you're okay with, I
[1:39:10] just wanted you to know I'd be willing
[1:39:12] to do that.
[1:39:12] >> That's I appreciate that. And obviously
[1:39:15] I'm not familiar with it either. I've
[1:39:16] had a couple scrubs tonight. So that
[1:39:18] that's great.
[1:39:19] >> Okay. Thank you.
[1:39:21] >> All right. Uh so at this time we will uh
[1:39:25] move into an or entertain a motion to
[1:39:28] enter into a public hearing
[1:39:30] [clears throat] uh to receive input on
[1:39:32] the reszone record excuse me the uh the
[1:39:36] reszone request and the general plan
[1:39:39] amendment.
[1:39:41] Uh can I I'll make a motion to enter
[1:39:44] into a public hearing for the reason
[1:39:46] request and general plan amendment uh
[1:39:48] for terra policy. Second.
[1:39:51] >> Second.
[1:39:52] >> Perfect. Uh motion was made by
[1:39:55] Commissioner Wait, seconded by
[1:39:57] Commissioner Seing. All in favor?
[1:39:59] >> I.
[1:40:01] >> Perfect. At this time, we'd invite uh
[1:40:03] anybody from the public that would like
[1:40:05] to speak on this. Again, as a reminder,
[1:40:07] uh you have three minutes that will be
[1:40:09] timed by Miss Morgan over here. Uh
[1:40:12] please state your name and if you are a
[1:40:14] resident of Hooper City.
[1:40:25] I'm Prince City res. Uh I know many of
[1:40:28] you are aware of my views and concerns
[1:40:30] about this project. Uh 3 minutes is not
[1:40:32] a lot of time, so I'll briefly summarize
[1:40:34] some main points. I want to begin by
[1:40:36] clarifying that I'm not opposed to some
[1:40:37] commercial development in Hooper. I'm
[1:40:39] asking the planning commission and city
[1:40:41] council to consider whether we are
[1:40:42] getting the right development for Hooper
[1:40:44] and whether we need to give away things
[1:40:46] that we don't need to give away in order
[1:40:47] to get it. I am strongly opposed to the
[1:40:49] highdensity residential component of
[1:40:51] this proposal, particularly the town
[1:40:53] homes and other highdensity housing.
[1:40:55] There is one type of highdensity
[1:40:56] residential development I would support,
[1:40:58] a senior living community consisting of
[1:41:00] onele single family residences. This
[1:41:03] could provide a valuable housing option
[1:41:04] for aging residents who want to remain
[1:41:07] in the community they call home while
[1:41:09] putting them within a short drive or
[1:41:10] potentially even walking distance of a
[1:41:12] grocery store, restaurants, and other
[1:41:14] services. Our current code for patio
[1:41:16] zones allows for senior living
[1:41:17] community. In fact, it says that one of
[1:41:19] the reasons it was created was to allow
[1:41:21] a developer to more closely tailor a
[1:41:23] development project to a specific user
[1:41:25] group such as retired persons.
[1:41:28] Um, the town homes and highdensity
[1:41:30] housing proposed here are very type of
[1:41:32] development. We also need to remember
[1:41:34] what Hooker residents have already told
[1:41:36] us. During the previous general plan
[1:41:38] process, residents were given an
[1:41:39] opportunity to provide input about the
[1:41:41] future of our community. The majority of
[1:41:43] citizens who participated expressed that
[1:41:45] they did not want town homes or
[1:41:46] highdensity housing in Huffer. I
[1:41:48] understand that the that the city is
[1:41:50] preparing to reopen and substantially
[1:41:51] revise the general plan and that a
[1:41:53] committee has already been formed for
[1:41:55] that purpose. That is exactly why I
[1:41:57] believe we should not make a major
[1:41:58] change to highdensity residential zoning
[1:42:00] on this property before that process
[1:42:02] occurs and before the public has had an
[1:42:04] opportunity to participate. If the
[1:42:06] community's vision for Hover is
[1:42:07] changing, then let's have that
[1:42:09] conversation openly and comprehensively
[1:42:10] through the general plan process, not
[1:42:12] make that decision one development at a
[1:42:14] time. I also have serious concerns about
[1:42:17] the city's participation in tax
[1:42:18] increment financing, CRAAS, PIDs, or
[1:42:20] other forms of public financing for this
[1:42:22] development. The revised development
[1:42:24] agreement references several mechanisms
[1:42:26] that could involve public financing, tax
[1:42:28] increment, PI bonds, PID, property tax
[1:42:31] revenues, fees, assessments, and other
[1:42:33] public revenues. I believe the developer
[1:42:35] should be responsible for the
[1:42:36] infrastructure connected to his
[1:42:38] development. If there are regional
[1:42:39] infrastructure improvements that benefit
[1:42:41] future development, let's look at fair,
[1:42:43] legally authorized reimbursement
[1:42:45] mechanisms, such as pioneering
[1:42:47] agreements where future users pay their
[1:42:49] appropriate share of the infrastructure
[1:42:50] they benefit from. I do not city needs
[1:42:53] to participate in a CRA or P to make
[1:42:56] this development happen. This is prime
[1:42:58] real estate. The new highway is coming
[1:43:00] that dramatically increases the value
[1:43:01] and development potential of this
[1:43:03] property. We are not in a we are not in
[1:43:05] a position where has to settle for
[1:43:07] whatever development is offered to us.
[1:43:09] We have an opportunity to be selective.
[1:43:11] We can ask for the commercial
[1:43:12] development we want, the infrastructure
[1:43:14] we need, and the development standards
[1:43:16] that protect the character of our
[1:43:17] community. And we need to think beyond
[1:43:19] this one project. Whatever we approve
[1:43:21] here set a precedent for future
[1:43:23] developers who come to Huffer. If we
[1:43:25] establish that highdensity housing,
[1:43:27] exceptions to development standards or
[1:43:29] public financing are necessary
[1:43:30] concentions. Is that it?
[1:43:33] >> All right. Thank you. Sorry, I was
[1:43:34] trying.
[1:43:38] » Anyone else?
[1:43:41] >> Can you go back to that map,
[1:43:44] >> please?
[1:43:44] >> Oh, ma'am.
[1:43:45] >> Oh, yes.
[1:43:47] >> Please state your name if you're a
[1:43:48] resident of Hook. My name is Tracy Word
[1:43:50] and yes, I am a resident.
[1:43:52] >> Thank you very much.
[1:43:53] >> Okay. Can you go back to that other map?
[1:43:56] Not this one.
[1:44:02] » Okay. Question.
[1:44:04] >> Ma'am, hang on. I need you to please
[1:44:06] come to the microphone so that we can
[1:44:08] record it and folks that are
[1:44:09] participating online can hear your
[1:44:11] comments as well.
[1:44:12] >> Not a problem. Okay. In the bottom uh
[1:44:15] left hand corner, it says multi-tenant
[1:44:19] And there's 50 parking spaces,
[1:44:22] apartments.
[1:44:24] After the meeting two weeks ago, I spoke
[1:44:26] to the two gentlemen um that are doing
[1:44:29] the development and I was talking to
[1:44:31] them about it and they said, "Can you go
[1:44:35] out?"
[1:44:37] Okay. where
[1:44:40] [snorts] on this side the flex
[1:44:44] that they could and a proposal that
[1:44:46] they're looking at is making that
[1:44:50] commercial apartments.
[1:44:53] Okay. So, you got that. So, after after
[1:44:55] I spoke to them, I spoke to Sher and I love Sher. I think the world of
[1:44:59] her. Okay. And I was talking to Sher
[1:45:01] about it and she said, "Oh, no, no, no.
[1:45:04] We want a community center, a pavilion,
[1:45:08] and an assisted building.
[1:45:11] At the last meeting, I said, "Let's be
[1:45:13] transparent. Show me what you're going
[1:45:15] to go."
[1:45:16] And Blake, you pulled up this map. Not
[1:45:19] you personally, but you pulled up this
[1:45:21] map. And I thought, "Okay, no problem."
[1:45:23] Well, then after speaking to people
[1:45:24] after the meeting, I'm like, "This is
[1:45:26] not the map." So, all I'm asking as a
[1:45:29] city planner is let's find out exactly
[1:45:32] what is going there. Sure is doing this,
[1:45:34] right? He's a builder. He knows all the
[1:45:37] builders in the state of Utah by the f
[1:45:40] state of Utah by their first names. He
[1:45:43] knows what's going to go there. Let us
[1:45:46] know what's going to go there so that we
[1:45:48] can say, "Yeah, no problem. No problem.
[1:45:50] My house is going to be right back." And
[1:45:53] if they build apartments, we've got
[1:45:55] fivetory apartments in my backyard. I
[1:45:57] didn't move to Hopper for apartments. We
[1:46:00] keep saying not apartments, not
[1:46:01] apartments.
[1:46:02] That's going to be apartments. Thank
[1:46:04] you.
[1:46:09] » Now, do you want to give a small piece
[1:46:11] of clarification on that? I know we
[1:46:13] normally don't respond back, but I think
[1:46:15] there's might be a small misconception
[1:46:17] there.
[1:46:18] >> Um, zoning change will permit for
[1:46:21] allowed uses within that zone.
[1:46:25] This mixed use zone as defined in the
[1:46:27] development agreement either is
[1:46:28] contemplating
[1:46:30] additional Herbert Crossing plan
[1:46:32] residential which would be similar PUD
[1:46:35] and patio zone combination with trainer
[1:46:37] zones so density of six units maximum as
[1:46:41] displayed here would be town homes. Um
[1:46:43] there's discussion uh in our work
[1:46:46] meeting of potentially looking at
[1:46:48] commercial uh primarily if it's
[1:46:51] commercial it would be included as part
[1:46:52] of our C2 zone. Our C2 zone is for uh
[1:46:57] you know commercial development with
[1:47:00] retail emphasis to provide amenities and
[1:47:03] things like that. So we have some type
[1:47:04] of similar usage within our allowed
[1:47:08] usage in that zone whether it's retail
[1:47:10] shopping
[1:47:12] of that are allowed in a C2 zone.
[1:47:16] >> Does C does C2 zone allow for like
[1:47:19] commercial and bottom end living?
[1:47:23] >> So that's kind of the clarification I
[1:47:25] wanted.
[1:47:25] >> No.
[1:47:26] >> So there's not any in the C2 zone.
[1:47:28] There's not any clarification for
[1:47:30] apartments options. Let me double check,
[1:47:32] but not that I I don't believe so.
[1:47:40] » Any other residents?
[1:47:46] I'm a resident
[1:47:48] moved here to get out of the city.
[1:47:51] >> Can I grab your name?
[1:47:52] >> My name is Andrew.
[1:47:54] >> Thank you.
[1:47:55] and I moved to get out of the city and I
[1:47:59] want to be move live move live move live move live moved around all the towns and
[1:48:02] the apartments and all the high traffic
[1:48:04] and drugs and stuff that I came from
[1:48:08] and I'm raising my family here and now
[1:48:11] we got a lot of traffic on the street
[1:48:13] and a lot of school kids around a lot of
[1:48:16] schools around where I live and I don't
[1:48:18] think the roadway can handle all this
[1:48:20] stuff you're here going on
[1:48:24] And I don't like how the taxes are going
[1:48:26] to be used for the the sewer system you
[1:48:29] want to put in.
[1:48:33] And
[1:48:34] [clears throat]
[1:48:36] I just don't want all the high-rise
[1:48:38] buildings put in the backyard,
[1:48:41] you know, cuz you can't look at the
[1:48:43] sunsets and all that the mornings. Like
[1:48:46] my brother lives in Roy. His backyard is
[1:48:49] nothing but a six
[1:48:52] He looks up and he sees a sixlex.
[1:48:54] Can't see anything around him. All
[1:48:56] walls, you know. It's terrible.
[1:49:01] Thanks for time. Thank you.
[1:49:07] Anyone else?
[1:49:16] My name is Holly Johnson and I'm a
[1:49:17] resident of Clipper. We also moved here
[1:49:21] for the purpose of getting out of the
[1:49:23] city. We have horse property and
[1:49:27] this is not what we expected to be in.
[1:49:30] If we'd have wanted something like this,
[1:49:31] we have stayed where we were. And so to
[1:49:34] me, it's also going to bring down the
[1:49:36] value of our homes. If we decided to
[1:49:40] move, we're not going to get anything
[1:49:42] out of our houses compared to this.
[1:49:44] What's in the modified high density
[1:49:46] residential area? What's planning on
[1:49:49] being in the area.
[1:49:53] » So during these we we don't generally do
[1:49:56] a back and forth. So
[1:49:58] >> Okay. Well, I just don't know what I
[1:49:59] can't understand what that high modified
[1:50:02] highdensity residential is, but
[1:50:04] >> Sure. We'll we'll have Malcolm clarify
[1:50:05] that when you're done.
[1:50:06] >> Okay. Anyhow, this is not not what we
[1:50:09] moved here for and and the idea of being
[1:50:12] able to ride our horses like we have
[1:50:13] done is not going to be possible
[1:50:17] anymore.
[1:50:19] Thank you.
[1:50:21] >> Thank you. Malcolm, will you clarify
[1:50:23] that just real quick on the modified in
[1:50:26] the blue?
[1:50:27] >> Yeah, it looks like proposed modified
[1:50:30] high density residential.
[1:50:33] So the blue specifically consists of 23
[1:50:36] lots that'll be 13,000 square foot
[1:50:39] maximum.
[1:50:41] The crossing plan of residential will
[1:50:46] encompass our PUB
[1:50:48] zone and will consist of 92 lots should
[1:50:54] 92 lots that are uh 92 buildings, excuse
[1:50:57] me, consist of town homes and patio
[1:51:02] homes and they're calling them clustered
[1:51:04] cottages. So you can kind of see better
[1:51:11] what type of structures those are
[1:51:19] the types of product that you see within
[1:51:21] it. I think it's clear probably
[1:51:23] important to point out where we would be
[1:51:27] blocking in the number of units the
[1:51:29] developer even does specify some
[1:51:31] flexibility potentially for the type of
[1:51:35] product you use to be modified within
[1:51:37] the products that are displayed but
[1:51:40] number of units would be
[1:51:42] what we're approving.
[1:51:47] And just to be clear, these 28 units
[1:51:52] are part of this section of the
[1:51:54] development here. And this section of
[1:51:57] the development
[1:51:59] is being proposed as flex space.
[1:52:02] That flight space could be commercial,
[1:52:04] but it were not commercial and it ended
[1:52:07] up being part of the
[1:52:09] would be 28
[1:52:14] represented here.
[1:52:18] » Excellent. Thank you.
[1:52:22] » Anyone else?
[1:52:26] [clears throat]
[1:52:28] >> I'm Amy Kristofferson, Her. Um, again, I
[1:52:32] just want to formally register my
[1:52:34] continuing steadfast opposition
[1:52:37] um to the proposed general amendment and
[1:52:39] reszone request um as well as the
[1:52:42] associated recommendation of the master
[1:52:44] development agreement for Hoper Crossing
[1:52:47] commercial center. However, I want to
[1:52:49] clearly state um that my opposition and
[1:52:52] that of many of our fellow um Hooper
[1:52:54] residents is not an opposition to growth
[1:52:57] itself. We recognize that Hooper City
[1:52:59] must find effective ways to expand,
[1:53:01] evolve, and meet the needs of the future
[1:53:03] while maintaining our unique heritage
[1:53:05] and culture. What we firmly reject are
[1:53:07] politician developers who exploit their
[1:53:10] position and influence to shift the
[1:53:12] immense financial burdens and
[1:53:13] infrastructure risks of private
[1:53:15] developments directly onto everyday
[1:53:17] citizens. While these developers reap
[1:53:20] maximum profits, Hooper residents are
[1:53:21] left holding the bill for the long-term
[1:53:23] debt and strains placed on our local
[1:53:26] utilities, roads, and public services.
[1:53:28] We do not want Hooper to become yet
[1:53:31] another cautionary tale. We have a stark
[1:53:33] tragic example of this exact dynamic
[1:53:36] playing out in Eagle Mountain, Utah.
[1:53:38] Years of massive tax breaks and
[1:53:40] short-sighted developer incentives
[1:53:42] ultimately forced the city council to
[1:53:44] pass a staggering
[1:53:46] 183% property tax rate hike in August
[1:53:49] 2026 to make up for infrastructure and
[1:53:52] public safety strains. This crushed
[1:53:54] local homeowners and sparked a furious,
[1:53:56] desperate resident referendum to block
[1:53:58] the financial fallout. Upper taxpayers
[1:54:01] deserve better than false promises that
[1:54:03] raps rapid subsidized growth will
[1:54:06] magically generate municipal re revenue
[1:54:09] if honest a-olitical developers come to
[1:54:12] Hooper with a willingness to pay their
[1:54:13] own way directly funding and
[1:54:15] contributing to the necessary
[1:54:17] infrastructure upfront. Our community
[1:54:19] would gladly welcome them. Development
[1:54:21] should be a partnership that protects
[1:54:23] residents from future tax burdens and
[1:54:25] respects our city's long-term financial
[1:54:27] health. The solution to The Hooker's
[1:54:30] growth is definitely not to be found in
[1:54:32] predatory development schemes or
[1:54:34] corporate tax setups associated with
[1:54:36] Terara Strada, Steuart Adams and his
[1:54:39] associates. I urge you to stand up for
[1:54:42] your constituents to protect our
[1:54:43] pocketbooks and deny the reszone and
[1:54:46] master development agreement for the
[1:54:48] Hooper Crossing Commercial Center. And I
[1:54:50] also uh we also moved here for a way of
[1:54:54] life and it is the last. You want to see
[1:54:57] how they've ruined Cisville and you want
[1:54:59] to see how they've ruined Eagle
[1:55:00] Mountain, go drive around there for 10
[1:55:03] minutes, drive on the roads and just see
[1:55:05] the crowd and all of that. We're here
[1:55:08] for the sunsets, too. And Tana, I was
[1:55:12] going to oppose your your thing because
[1:55:15] my husband and I drive by your by your
[1:55:18] place and we coveret it all the time.
[1:55:20] And we don't we don't want to see those
[1:55:22] beautiful things go away. It's a gift to
[1:55:24] all of us and there's got to be a way to do things what Amanda Prince said.
[1:55:30] >> Sorry, didn't mean to cut out.
[1:55:32] >> I wasn't paying attention. Thank you.
[1:55:36] » Any other citizen comment?
[1:55:43] » Suzanne Sterland, resident of
[1:55:46] um I've emailed you guys before and a
[1:55:48] lot of you email me back. So, my opinion
[1:55:51] has been said a lot and it reflects what
[1:55:53] all these people have been saying,
[1:55:54] especially Amanda. So, I'm not going to
[1:55:56] hit on everything just because a lot of
[1:55:58] people have said stuff. Um, I'll just
[1:56:00] quickly say I'm against the AUP and the
[1:56:03] TID because I feel like it doesn't
[1:56:05] benefit our city and puts money onto us.
[1:56:07] I'm against the high density. Um, if you
[1:56:10] just zoom out of that map and see what's
[1:56:12] around and what's just barely north,
[1:56:15] there is so many acre plus lots that are
[1:56:18] around. And we moved on to 4700 knowing
[1:56:21] that there would be commercial. So, I'm
[1:56:23] not against the commercial. And knowing
[1:56:25] what the general plan was developed out
[1:56:28] and it was very clear in the general
[1:56:30] plan that the citizens of Hooker were
[1:56:32] against highdensity housing and that's
[1:56:34] what made me say, you know what, it
[1:56:36] would be cool to have a grocery store.
[1:56:37] And I'm glad that they don't want the
[1:56:38] high density housing. And so it it will
[1:56:41] affect us residents and we've we've
[1:56:43] moved here for a reason. And I actually
[1:56:45] happen lived in Hooker for a long time
[1:56:48] in my life, but we literally decided to
[1:56:50] stay here and be close to this to what
[1:56:52] the general plan was. And so to open the
[1:56:54] general plan just for um a developer who
[1:56:58] is coming in and asking for it, I don't
[1:57:00] think that that's the right thing to do.
[1:57:02] I also want to focus on the sewer as
[1:57:03] well. Um, I feel like we really need to
[1:57:06] figure something out with the sewer and
[1:57:08] Hopper. Um, I know for instance the
[1:57:11] Quail Meadows um neighborhood has backed
[1:57:13] up many many times um in this summer.
[1:57:17] Um, we've had a resident that's backed
[1:57:19] up three times and I'm very very worried
[1:57:22] because I'm on septic right now and I
[1:57:24] feel great with my what I have and I
[1:57:27] don't want my really really nice house
[1:57:29] to be backed up with sewer and when
[1:57:31] we're seeing the coil coil meadows is
[1:57:33] brand new. um that shouldn't be
[1:57:36] happening. And so it worries me that um
[1:57:39] we're gonna it's been stated before and
[1:57:41] I don't know if it's the truth that was
[1:57:43] it was said in a meeting that um we
[1:57:45] would be forced to hook into sewer. So
[1:57:47] please also know if Stuart Adams is not
[1:57:50] willing to pay for sewer then why did
[1:57:52] the residents have to pay for because
[1:57:54] we're going to we're going to have to
[1:57:55] shoulder a lot of costs the people who
[1:57:57] aren't on sewer. And so realize that
[1:57:59] like I feel like the developer has
[1:58:01] plenty of money and we're gonna it's
[1:58:03] gonna be on the shoulders of Hope City.
[1:58:06] So realize that and I would like to see
[1:58:07] him pay some of the cost too. Not my
[1:58:09] personal cost but what they're doing. I
[1:58:11] don't think he should be off scotchfree
[1:58:13] and I also don't want the steward to
[1:58:14] back on us. So please look into that
[1:58:16] issue as well. Thank you.
[1:58:19] >> Thank you.
[1:58:22] >> Any other comments?
[1:58:24] >> I don't know if I can get twice in the
[1:58:26] same thing. No ma'am.
[1:58:27] >> Okay.
[1:58:28] >> Thank you though.
[1:58:32] » Okay.
[1:58:36] » Tony Zick, resident of Upper. This has
[1:58:40] been going on for a long time and the
[1:58:43] first
[1:58:45] site plan lot map. They brought us
[1:58:48] showed a bigger store
[1:58:51] and the development and everything. We
[1:58:54] shot it down because they didn't meet
[1:58:56] our criteria. We put some guidelines
[1:59:00] towards them to redesign their plan and
[1:59:04] come back to meet zoning and other laws
[1:59:10] of Huffer. And this time under a new
[1:59:17] I guess plan, they came back and shrunk
[1:59:20] the store, added more houses,
[1:59:24] and I don't think it's right. If Smith
[1:59:27] wants to build, let Smith build on the
[1:59:29] corner. Let them foot the bill. Huffer
[1:59:32] can't afford to foot the bill. will be
[1:59:34] the next one that sees a humongous
[1:59:38] property tax because our infrastructure
[1:59:40] can't handle this. Thanks.
[1:59:44] >> Thank you.
[1:59:47] >> Other system comments.
[1:59:58] » Okay. At this time, I'll entertain a
[2:00:00] motion to bring it back.
[2:00:04] A motion to close public comment.
[2:00:07] >> Second.
[2:00:09] >> I'll second.
[2:00:10] >> All right. Motion to close public
[2:00:12] comment uh was made by Commissioner
[2:00:14] Denny, seconded by Commissioner Seven.
[2:00:16] All in favor?
[2:00:18] >> I
[2:00:21] um before we'll
[2:00:25] bring Troy back up in just a second. So
[2:00:28] um
[2:00:30] we will another public hearing later to
[2:00:35] talk more about the developer agreement.
[2:00:37] Right. So, I know that's a little messy,
[2:00:38] but I want to make sure everybody that
[2:00:41] wants to talk about this gets to talk
[2:00:43] about this. So, um
[2:00:47] Troy, do you want to come back up and
[2:00:50] talk about a couple of those items
[2:00:52] before we start a big conversation? If
[2:00:54] there's anything you not necessarily a
[2:00:56] rebuttal, but if there was anything in
[2:00:57] there that you want to address.
[2:01:01] Yeah, and much of the I think the big
[2:01:04] inst items were really related to the
[2:01:06] MDA, so I'll just wait on those. Um the
[2:01:11] there was some concerns about high
[2:01:12] density patio zones preferred. Uh just
[2:01:15] wanted to speak to that one. We're
[2:01:17] looking for direction and that's this is
[2:01:20] the process. And so if the planning
[2:01:22] commission feels and there have been
[2:01:24] some who have said, you know, I'm not
[2:01:26] patio homes. So, in the interest of
[2:01:29] that, I drew what a patio home would
[2:01:31] look like and pattern adapters, some
[2:01:33] other p some patio homes that were
[2:01:34] referenced. We didn't take the time to
[2:01:36] go through the whole thing because
[2:01:38] again, if the zone wasn't going to be
[2:01:40] changed to patio homes, it wasn't worth
[2:01:42] taking the time and the expense to do
[2:01:44] that. And if the planning commission
[2:01:46] would like to forward a recommendation
[2:01:47] for the patio homes and the senior
[2:01:49] housing, that kind of a thing to the
[2:01:51] city council, we we'd be willing to
[2:01:53] entertain that. I think the interest is
[2:01:56] to move this forward to the city
[2:01:58] council. Um, wanted to clarify the
[2:02:00] multi-tenant
[2:02:02] reference. Many of you, I'm sure, have
[2:02:04] been to a shopping center where you see
[2:02:06] that oftent times a building, many times
[2:02:10] referred to as a shell, is divided up
[2:02:13] into multiple tenants. And that's what
[2:02:16] that multi-tenant space is. It's a strip
[2:02:18] space, not an apartment building. Will
[2:02:22] not function as an apartment building.
[2:02:24] Would not be resial. It's a commercial
[2:02:27] use in that location. Just wanted to
[2:02:28] clarify that one. I think there was some
[2:02:30] confusion by the word in reference to
[2:02:33] multi-tenant. That would be a
[2:02:34] multi-tenant commercial building and
[2:02:37] nothing related to apartments or
[2:02:39] high-rise. There are no what would be
[2:02:41] referred to as apartments in this
[2:02:44] development proposed. And I think that
[2:02:46] was clarified. I just wanted to restate
[2:02:48] it. Uh moving down a little bit, uh the
[2:02:52] in the R3 zone, the blue that was on the
[2:02:55] outside. Just a clarification, it could
[2:02:57] be easily done. It was said that it was
[2:03:00] 13,000 maximum square foot on the lot.
[2:03:02] It's a minimum square footage on the
[2:03:04] lot. Just wanted to clarify that for the
[2:03:06] folks in attendance.
[2:03:08] And again, the others were density,
[2:03:10] participation in the station, those kind
[2:03:12] of things. I think the rest of those
[2:03:13] were associated with the MBA.
[2:03:17] >> Any questions for Troy before he gets
[2:03:19] comfortable?
[2:03:21] >> Yeah, Troy. So on those multi-tenants,
[2:03:24] just to clarify, we talked a lot in our
[2:03:26] work session about the commercial the anchor and the height and size of
[2:03:30] the anchor. Do you have handy? I'm sure
[2:03:33] it's in my packet, but there's a lot in
[2:03:35] there, so I haven't gotten through it
[2:03:36] all. Is there what's the height of those
[2:03:38] multi-tenants size? Is there any kind of
[2:03:41] clarifications on those in there?
[2:03:42] >> They're in the same range. The current
[2:03:45] commercial the C2 zone within the city
[2:03:47] has a 50 foot maximum height. None of
[2:03:50] the buildings proposed were 50 feet
[2:03:52] tall. I would dare say
[2:03:56] I don't want to overcommit, but less
[2:03:58] than 45 I'm certain of. Some buildings
[2:04:02] have a little bit of a popup portion
[2:04:03] over the main entry, things like that.
[2:04:05] So, I don't want to overcommit, but the
[2:04:07] majority of the buildings look at more
[2:04:08] than 30 ft. If you looked at just the
[2:04:10] flat planes of the roof, if there's some
[2:04:12] popups to create some architectural
[2:04:14] featuring, that might be a little
[2:04:16] different. Uh, I think we looked at the
[2:04:18] Smith building excuse me, I should say a
[2:04:21] ger anchor. They have not closed on the
[2:04:24] property. There really isn't anything in
[2:04:26] writing that says they're coming. They
[2:04:28] all they do they do have some interest
[2:04:30] in the property. Zoning would be a
[2:04:32] critical part in that. Um but anyway,
[2:04:35] just to clarify, the heights here shown
[2:04:39] do not exceed that height in the zone.
[2:04:41] So hopefully there wouldn't be any
[2:04:43] blockage of for those who live on the
[2:04:46] west side sunrises and for those who
[2:04:48] live on the east side sunsets.
[2:04:50] >> Then but the proposed housing that's in
[2:04:52] there and Malcolm you might know this
[2:04:53] one as well. Any of the proposed housing
[2:04:56] whether it be the cottages or
[2:05:00] the single family or the town homes.
[2:05:02] None of those would exceed height of
[2:05:04] current limits. Correct. That we have in
[2:05:07] the city.
[2:05:07] >> Correct. We're not asking for any
[2:05:08] deviations. I believe the height there
[2:05:10] is
[2:05:14] what
[2:05:15] >> for the
[2:05:15] >> for residential
[2:05:16] >> maximum height
[2:05:20] » I have it on another piece of paper I
[2:05:22] can speak to that very
[2:05:28] max
[2:05:33] » there is a max in there I don't know off
[2:05:35] the top of my head but
[2:05:38] I'd like to remember
[2:05:38] >> I'll be glad to look it up and speak to
[2:05:40] Thank you.
[2:05:44] » Can you pull that page back up, Malcolm?
[2:05:46] Does that have the heights on it? My
[2:05:48] eyes aren't good enough to even if
[2:05:49] someone could narrate that to me or help
[2:05:52] me out here
[2:06:02] 2210. And if I remember correctly, the
[2:06:04] grocery anchor was 28 at the at the base
[2:06:07] level and the peaks were 3
[2:06:11] similar to
[2:06:20] I think one thing we should probably
[2:06:22] talk about I'm sorry I make go back and
[2:06:24] forth this is fun uh can you go back to
[2:06:26] the zoning uh page
[2:06:32] so what we kind of talk about is the
[2:06:34] mixed use area so the kind of light
[2:06:37] green shade is the way it's written in
[2:06:40] the development here is it's kind of an
[2:06:41] open book. They can they can do a lot of
[2:06:43] things and it's kind of
[2:06:46] what they want which is
[2:06:48] it makes sense what they're asking for
[2:06:50] because you kind of want the the market
[2:06:52] to drive. Um but I think we in our work
[2:06:56] session kind of talk about more of
[2:06:59] maybe let's let's have it clarified and
[2:07:01] say no it's it's either this or that.
[2:07:03] And I think we're going to lead to more
[2:07:05] maybe more commercial which is kind of
[2:07:07] what I'm maybe picking up from from
[2:07:09] residences, they don't necessarily want
[2:07:10] more density. They they're okay with
[2:07:13] commercial as long as it's kind of done
[2:07:14] in a in a good way, I think, as opposed
[2:07:17] to a ton of density housing. Um, one
[2:07:22] thing that I we kind of I mentioned is
[2:07:24] if that ends up being commercial, so
[2:07:26] along that whole west side, it would be
[2:07:28] commercial next to those existing homes,
[2:07:30] I would I want to see some type of an
[2:07:33] even bigger buffer than that's what than
[2:07:35] what is written in the development
[2:07:36] agreement. Um, as far, you know, set
[2:07:39] backways, maybe have some trees, a
[2:07:41] pathway, a nice fence, buffering the
[2:07:45] homes to the commercial, not an
[2:07:47] alleyway, but just something like that.
[2:07:50] as opposed to just giving them a blank
[2:07:52] check for the next use.
[2:07:55] >> Is that buffer zone? Is that an NDA
[2:07:57] discussion or is that a zoning request
[2:07:59] question?
[2:07:59] >> Maybe a little bit of both.
[2:08:02] >> That's what I'm wondering.
[2:08:03] >> Yeah, I think more that's more of a
[2:08:04] development here, I think. Yes,
[2:08:10] » I I'll speak to the mixed use as well. I was able to speak to
[2:08:16] I think four different um one mayor and
[2:08:20] three city council members of of cities
[2:08:22] in the area in Davis and Weaver County
[2:08:25] and three of the four of them were
[2:08:28] pretty against mixed use because of the
[2:08:30] open book nature of it and how it could
[2:08:33] potentially
[2:08:35] um not allow the city the flexibility to
[2:08:38] control their future um which is I think
[2:08:40] something that we don't want to give
[2:08:41] away.
[2:08:44] Um, the one that was a proponent of the
[2:08:46] one city that was a proponent of mixed
[2:08:48] use I think is a different uh layout
[2:08:52] setup compared to us. It was I mean I'll
[2:08:54] be frank it was Leighton City. I think
[2:08:56] that Leighton City is obviously quite a
[2:08:57] bit different than Hooper City and I
[2:08:59] don't think we want Hooper to turn into
[2:09:00] Leighton. Um, so I probably am also
[2:09:04] leaning towards more of a commercial
[2:09:06] element in there. And if the market
[2:09:09] isn't driving that and they want to come
[2:09:12] back later and try to readjust, then
[2:09:14] that that that's their that's their
[2:09:16] prerogative to try to do that at a later
[2:09:18] date. But I like the ability to have
[2:09:21] more control of what our future looks
[2:09:23] like instead of having an open book that
[2:09:24] allows them the flexibility. I would
[2:09:26] rather retain the flexibility with
[2:09:28] ourselves.
[2:09:37] Um, also at our work meeting, one of the
[2:09:39] things that I brought up that I'm just
[2:09:40] I'm not comfortable creating new zoning
[2:09:44] areas when I think that
[2:09:48] a project like this could fit in our
[2:09:51] current zoning areas. There would be
[2:09:53] some modification obviously when we were
[2:09:55] talking about specifically our our code
[2:09:58] right now allows for a certain amount of
[2:10:01] units mixed together which I think you
[2:10:03] stated was four
[2:10:06] instead of like six. So in our PUB zone
[2:10:10] the permits for four attached units at
[2:10:12] the maximum in a PUB zone.
[2:10:16] And something else we discussed about
[2:10:17] that and this is probably for
[2:10:19] everybody's benefit is the PUB zone was
[2:10:22] created but we've never used it in
[2:10:23] Hopper ever. So it's it's never been
[2:10:26] applied to anything. So um this would be
[2:10:29] if that were to go through this would be
[2:10:31] the first development to use that
[2:10:35] existing zone.
[2:10:39] What are you guys' thoughts around that
[2:10:42] piece? Adding different zoning
[2:10:46] I think in reality when this first
[2:10:49] started the north
[2:10:51] section of that light blue was halfacre
[2:10:54] lots.
[2:10:56] It sounds like over the course of two
[2:11:00] years we've kind of caved to third acre
[2:11:04] lots.
[2:11:08] I don't think we need to give away our
[2:11:10] frontage requirement of 100 ft down to
[2:11:14] 85.
[2:11:15] I'm not comfortable with the high
[2:11:18] density being six plus. I think four is
[2:11:22] max.
[2:11:24] I just
[2:11:26] if we're going to fit this into city and
[2:11:29] what city wants.
[2:11:32] I'm all for the commercial, but I think
[2:11:34] we need to be very the way it's written
[2:11:37] now. I can't get behind the current
[2:11:40] zoning request of
[2:11:44] 15,000 square ft 85 foot frontage
[2:11:48] instead of our 100 or the cottage lots
[2:11:52] of 6500. You know what I mean? There's
[2:11:55] just no
[2:11:57] I think this could
[2:12:00] Let's be honest. He's going to sell the
[2:12:03] residential portion of this to somebody
[2:12:06] else and he's more worried about the
[2:12:09] commercial. So, let's bring in the
[2:12:11] commercial but um keep our current
[2:12:15] zoning, if you will,
[2:12:18] on the residential.
[2:12:20] That's just my thought.
[2:12:22] >> So, you're saying like R1 or
[2:12:25] >> No, I'm okay with going the I'm okay
[2:12:28] with going the R3 on the north and the
[2:12:30] west. Give them that much, but I just
[2:12:33] have a lot of heartache with
[2:12:36] this the six plex or the six unit. I
[2:12:41] think we could get 50 or four. Yeah,
[2:12:44] that's going to take some that's going
[2:12:46] to take some houses away. But I've never
[2:12:48] heard I've always heard on developers
[2:12:51] when they do these big projects, it's
[2:12:54] like, okay, so how many doors do you
[2:12:56] need to fill to make this break even?
[2:12:59] You know, and it's usually 65 70%. Well,
[2:13:03] this is a ton more. I think we can scale
[2:13:06] back the residential
[2:13:08] and not sell away the resial. I don't
[2:13:12] agree with the little bit of open space
[2:13:15] and trying to incorporate the
[2:13:18] landscaping and the frontage of the
[2:13:20] commercial and different things like
[2:13:22] that. I think we're selling ourselves
[2:13:24] short if we give up some open space.
[2:13:29] >> So when we talk about the open space
[2:13:30] piece currently in our code for the PUB
[2:13:32] area it would be 40% open. What's the
[2:13:36] right number to consider?
[2:13:39] >> 40%
[2:13:41] Okay.
[2:13:41] >> In my opinion,
[2:13:43] but
[2:13:44] >> I'm only one
[2:13:45] >> and that includes landscaping and
[2:13:47] everything in that 40%. The code is
[2:13:50] written right now.
[2:13:53] >> 40% what
[2:13:55] >> the landscaping areas, the pathway, all
[2:13:58] that is included in open space
[2:13:59] consideration. The 40%
[2:14:00] >> front front yards, backyards, like I
[2:14:03] guess that's already I would like to
[2:14:04] clarify the 40% because it's quite a bit
[2:14:08] and but
[2:14:09] Is it only does it 40% have to be just
[2:14:12] one big park or yes every single front
[2:14:14] yard
[2:14:15] >> all the code states that exclude the
[2:14:17] roadways and infrastructure
[2:14:19] housing and the house itself structures
[2:14:22] so I assume it includes everything we
[2:14:24] only ever apply 40% open space to one
[2:14:27] development
[2:14:28] 55 plus community
[2:14:32] you know we'd have to grab our engineer
[2:14:33] and have them look it over the country
[2:14:35] view as 40% open space without yards
[2:14:38] included in that ratio. They have a
[2:14:42] pickle ball court and playground in the
[2:14:44] corner. I don't have to pay 40% out
[2:14:48] including their their front and rear
[2:14:50] yards in that ratio, but I can't be sure
[2:14:53] that we have
[2:14:56] like where you guys real
[2:15:00] available to us. You can define it for
[2:15:02] this instance
[2:15:04] 40% what the code recommends and that's
[2:15:06] up for a little bit. That's how I
[2:15:08] interpret it and I think that's how it
[2:15:09] was applied in the past was that it
[2:15:11] excluded road structures but I think it
[2:15:13] included grass you know home landscape.
[2:15:17] >> I think I think there was also something
[2:15:19] in that MDA that talked about wanting to
[2:15:23] take out the impervious surface down
[2:15:26] from our 65% to was it like 30. They're
[2:15:32] taking surface from 65% to 70%.
[2:15:36] increasing the so 5% more concrete as
[2:15:41] well.
[2:15:41] >> No, I think you're right. Let me double
[2:15:43] check that.
[2:15:44] >> While he's looking at that piece, I one
[2:15:46] thing that I we brought up in the work
[2:15:49] meeting as well and that I was concerned
[2:15:51] with is that, you know, if we set the
[2:15:54] standards for a percentage of open
[2:15:56] space, what would prevent them after the
[2:15:58] homes are built and homeowners are in
[2:16:00] there from fencing off their individual
[2:16:01] properties? that was addressed the HOA
[2:16:03] and CCRs
[2:16:05] would prevent that. So it would always
[2:16:07] be open space and then not fenced
[2:16:10] between the properties. Obviously behind
[2:16:12] the properties and stuff like that they
[2:16:13] could fence but not in between any of
[2:16:16] the individual properties.
[2:16:22] One of the things I would mention is
[2:16:25] so I agree uh that we should probably
[2:16:29] try to use the existing
[2:16:32] zones that we have in the in our general
[2:16:34] plan and in our right now. Um, so I like
[2:16:38] to keep Yeah. do the commercial with the
[2:16:39] C2 up front. Um, and then do the PUB
[2:16:43] about after you answer the question
[2:16:44] you're about to answer. Could you remind
[2:16:47] everyone or let everyone know what the
[2:16:48] density is for our PV, what the max
[2:16:52] density is for PV?
[2:16:53] >> Yes. So the way this MBA reads is he
[2:16:55] states we have to pull our code
[2:16:57] confidence. It says 65% maximum surface
[2:17:01] the maximum surface being recommended
[2:17:04] here shall not exceed 70%. So it would
[2:17:07] increase the amount of surface that can
[2:17:08] be by 5%.
[2:17:12] The max the highest level density per
[2:17:17] zone is six units to the acre and that
[2:17:20] zone specifically that we
[2:17:22] >> so six to the acre and then what did we
[2:17:24] say that they were if it was to
[2:17:26] [clears throat] follow this map what
[2:17:28] would be the density for the crossing
[2:17:31] plan or the yellow space
[2:17:33] >> 4.2
[2:17:35] 4.56
[2:17:39] » the whole res that's without including
[2:17:41] the 28 units that
[2:17:44] >> that's all the the top half essentially.
[2:17:48] So really the code can go for more six
[2:17:51] units to the acre as what he's calling
[2:17:54] now. It's less than that.
[2:17:58] >> But obviously that could change if we
[2:17:59] were to say no you need to get closer to
[2:18:01] 40% open space because right now we're
[2:18:03] saying it's only about 11 maybe more
[2:18:06] with taking out roads.
[2:18:08] So that number could even go down more.
[2:18:11] [clears throat]
[2:18:14] One thing with the zoning, Nick or Troy,
[2:18:17] feel to try and feel free to clarify,
[2:18:20] but I development as I read through the
[2:18:23] development agreement
[2:18:25] A and look through the development
[2:18:27] agreement does feel complicated, but I
[2:18:30] think the developers attempt here was to
[2:18:32] create categories as they're listed
[2:18:35] there on that zoning map that house
[2:18:37] zones that we have. So when you zone it,
[2:18:39] you could zone it to our zones that are
[2:18:42] underlining that with supportifications
[2:18:45] to the zones. So I see I understand that
[2:18:48] there's a crossing plan residential or
[2:18:51] that's a zone with modifications in the
[2:18:55] right
[2:18:58] or the modified high density res. That's
[2:19:01] an R3 zone with an 85
[2:19:04] right
[2:19:07] with
[2:19:09] because modifying the zones to
[2:19:12] accommodation. So the commercial C2 with
[2:19:15] any modifications that are affecting our
[2:19:18] C2 zone. So
[2:19:22] that's how I understand it.
[2:19:23] >> Yeah, that's a good good summary of how
[2:19:26] I read it as well.
[2:19:28] >> So I I just because I am a simple
[2:19:31] creature, I just I want to make this
[2:19:33] 100% clear that we're We're we are
[2:19:38] discussing first a reszoning request and
[2:19:42] general plan amendment.
[2:19:44] If that goes through at that point we
[2:19:46] would be doing a recommendation on the
[2:19:48] FDA. Correct.
[2:19:51] >> Yeah. I think what the developer would
[2:19:53] like is to have a decision tonight. Uh
[2:19:56] we've tabled this and I don't think
[2:19:58] there's any animosity on either side,
[2:20:00] but we've tabled this several times to
[2:20:03] consider it more. And I think uh my
[2:20:06] understanding put words in the dollar's
[2:20:08] mouth, but they've kind of explored this
[2:20:10] and they'd like to know generally what's
[2:20:12] going to happen. So, if we approve or
[2:20:15] deny the resell request, then I think we
[2:20:18] should take similar action and it could
[2:20:20] be the different action. You could
[2:20:21] approve one, deny one, deny one, approve
[2:20:23] the other, whatever. But, uh, I don't
[2:20:26] think we want to table one of the items
[2:20:28] tonight. I think in speaking to the
[2:20:31] developer, they would prefer to have
[2:20:33] candidly both items denied. And I'll let
[2:20:36] speak to that if you'd like, but that
[2:20:38] allows him that them the chance to
[2:20:42] evaluate what they want to do and they
[2:20:44] can still take it to council with the
[2:20:46] recommendation of denial or they could
[2:20:48] go back to the drawing board. But that's
[2:20:50] what I think they'd like to do.
[2:20:52] >> Okay. Because I Yeah, again, that
[2:20:54] developer agreement, it's big and it's
[2:20:56] there's a lot of stuff in there that we
[2:20:58] haven't even discussed. So for us to
[2:21:01] just summarily
[2:21:06] approve, I mean obviously we could just
[2:21:08] be making recommendations and then the
[2:21:10] council would have to look at that as
[2:21:11] well. But I'm I'm not prepared to
[2:21:14] approve every single line item in that
[2:21:19] is a a lot of that. I don't want to say
[2:21:21] it's above my pay grade, but it's above.
[2:21:23] I I know nothing about commercial
[2:21:24] lighting. I don't you know I don't think
[2:21:26] it's fair to just thumbs up everything
[2:21:28] that's in there.
[2:21:31] Yeah, I mean that's a a valid concern.
[2:21:33] Um I think that uh that's one of the
[2:21:37] reasons that we have Malcolm on staff is
[2:21:39] to look at those things and I think he
[2:21:41] can address those and I mean I'm happy
[2:21:43] to to address those as well. But um
[2:21:47] I mean if if you're not comfortable with
[2:21:49] it then I think what the developer is
[2:21:51] asking for tonight is if you're not
[2:21:53] comfortable then
[2:21:55] recommend a denial. Um I think that
[2:21:58] would be preferable. I I think the
[2:22:01] developer obviously wants it to be a
[2:22:02] recommendation of approval, but I think
[2:22:05] that's where
[2:22:07] >> that's as we recommend or deny it and
[2:22:10] we're allowed to put conditions on it
[2:22:11] obviously.
[2:22:13] >> Yeah. Hey, can one of those conditions
[2:22:15] be that like could we recommend a
[2:22:17] condition of having a joint city council
[2:22:19] planning commission work session that
[2:22:21] allows us to more deeply go into our
[2:22:24] concerns about the MDA or the zoning
[2:22:26] together as a larger group to then talk
[2:22:29] through some of the intricacies that we
[2:22:31] don't fully understand or is that not
[2:22:34] >> Yeah, I want to be clear on how I answer
[2:22:36] that because I don't want to mislead
[2:22:38] you. You could recommend whatever you'd
[2:22:40] like. Um, I'm not I'm not trying to be
[2:22:43] flippant with that comment. You can
[2:22:45] recommend to the council whatever you'd
[2:22:47] like and then it becomes the council's
[2:22:48] decision um as as the chief legislative
[2:22:51] body in the city. Uh they now I'm not
[2:22:54] the council is very receptive and then
[2:22:56] they might very well want to do that but
[2:22:58] I don't want to say yeah you can do that
[2:23:00] and then everybody here thinks there's
[2:23:03] going to be a joint meeting and for sure
[2:23:05] we're going to do this. I want to be
[2:23:07] very clear. Of course, of course the
[2:23:09] council takes what your recommendations
[2:23:10] are very seriously and considers them
[2:23:13] very seriously, but but they're not
[2:23:15] required to follow that.
[2:23:18] So I think at least for this first
[2:23:20] portion on the reszone and the general
[2:23:22] plan amendment
[2:23:25] I I would feel comfortable make the
[2:23:28] motion to to maybe um
[2:23:31] give a recreational approval with the
[2:23:33] kind of changes we talked about as far
[2:23:35] as get rid of the mixed use.
[2:23:38] um maybe just really come close to
[2:23:41] following what our existing ordinances
[2:23:42] say. Um I hope we're doing that and then
[2:23:46] you know send that portion to the city
[2:23:48] council and then I I kind of agree uh
[2:23:51] with Travis here about the NDA that's
[2:23:54] that'll be a different thing but I I
[2:23:56] feel comfortable making recommendation
[2:23:58] approval for the reszone and general
[2:24:01] plan amendment with kind of those
[2:24:03] things.
[2:24:05] >> Yeah.
[2:24:06] Commission just so that I think I
[2:24:09] followed the conversation but just so we
[2:24:10] have clear minutes and clear direction.
[2:24:13] So I think the motion is to it's a
[2:24:16] motion to
[2:24:17] >> I don't know if it was a motion yet.
[2:24:18] >> Okay.
[2:24:19] >> Yeah. I said I'd be comfortable doing
[2:24:21] that putting his toes in the water.
[2:24:24] >> Can I uh can I add a little bit of
[2:24:26] context just quickly? I wanted to wrap
[2:24:29] up the public comment. I believe we have
[2:24:30] one public comment that you maybe fully
[2:24:32] addressed and uh I didn't give a great
[2:24:35] the allowed uses. You guys have asked
[2:24:38] for that. I don't see any allowed uses
[2:24:40] contemplated
[2:24:42] related to that. I just wanted to pull
[2:24:43] it up, put it out in front of you guys,
[2:24:46] but you kind of
[2:24:48] >> This is for commercial for C2.
[2:24:50] >> This is for us commercial base. C1 and
[2:24:54] C2. P is a permitted use. A is an
[2:24:57] accessory use. And C would be a
[2:24:58] conditional use. But anyway, you kind of
[2:25:01] see the types of uses. You guys have
[2:25:03] seen this before. I don't want to take
[2:25:04] too much time. I did prior to the
[2:25:06] meeting there there are some in the NBA
[2:25:08] that are called out as not being
[2:25:10] permitted. I wanted to register by the
[2:25:12] planning commission that additionally
[2:25:13] sparked the thought in my mind I don't
[2:25:16] want to uh you know unintentionally have
[2:25:20] permitted use that you don't want in
[2:25:22] zone. So a couple of those that stuck
[2:25:24] out to me beyond what's listed because
[2:25:26] they did that the developer also add
[2:25:28] some they don't want and we know that
[2:25:30] for their development they don't want
[2:25:31] these. Um, but that being said, a couple
[2:25:33] in ours that are conditional and or
[2:25:35] permitted are a bar, group, or
[2:25:38] nightclub. It would be kind of a
[2:25:40] discussion for those can be added to the
[2:25:41] NBA. There are some added already. Not
[2:25:43] allowed, but we have bar nightclub.
[2:25:46] Contractor yard or shop is a conditional
[2:25:48] use. I don't feel that really applicable
[2:25:50] for this development. A cremator is a
[2:25:52] conditional use. Hotel or motel, not
[2:25:55] sure about that one. Channel commercial,
[2:25:58] I don't know. Um, off street parking
[2:26:00] facility. We had an inconsequential one
[2:26:02] of those in town that I don't think we
[2:26:04] want here per say storage facility self
[2:26:07] service that was important to identify
[2:26:09] as a use that we may want to put a bit
[2:26:12] in the zone as part of an NBA and a
[2:26:14] tower or antenna structure. Those are
[2:26:16] some of the ones that stood out to me as
[2:26:19] potential uses that might not fit in
[2:26:21] that area as it relates to this
[2:26:23] development agreement. want to include
[2:26:24] those in the law that's already
[2:26:27] provided,
[2:26:27] >> but that would be after we decide how
[2:26:30] we're going to do the zoning.
[2:26:31] >> Yeah. I just want to make sure we allow
[2:26:32] us
[2:26:34] permitted in the zone to wrap up inquiry
[2:26:37] of any I don't see anything in here
[2:26:45] or not. But again, that's
[2:26:51] good thought.
[2:26:55] One one point of clarification too
[2:26:56] because uh several of the citizens have
[2:26:59] mentioned it and then obviously we've
[2:27:00] heard through other means as well is a
[2:27:03] discussion around the sewer. That's big. Um in the developer
[2:27:08] agreement they changed the language in
[2:27:09] there now. So the original language was
[2:27:13] that it was going to pretty much fall on
[2:27:16] the city to secure financing go there.
[2:27:19] They changed the language since in the
[2:27:21] developer agreement. Now that what how
[2:27:24] does it read now?
[2:27:26] >> We consulted with the city council had
[2:27:29] created an economic policy right as it
[2:27:31] relates to taxment financing. We
[2:27:33] consulted with those consultants and
[2:27:34] they revised the language and you'd have
[2:27:37] to read through it specifically and it
[2:27:39] is complex. I don't act like but the way
[2:27:41] I understand it and the way that you
[2:27:42] know we've deferred to these consultants
[2:27:44] helps that it
[2:27:46] defers you know it requires the
[2:27:48] developer to responsible for their
[2:27:49] portion. It does explicitly contemplate
[2:27:52] system improvements versus development
[2:27:54] um specific improvements. Those system
[2:27:56] improvements could be eligible for
[2:27:59] different financing mechanisms as
[2:28:00] mentioned in a public comment and one of
[2:28:02] those specifically is spelled out as a
[2:28:04] list station or regional list station.
[2:28:06] Um but it that will be done in a
[2:28:09] separate agreement as part of city
[2:28:11] council approvals.
[2:28:13] >> So that's a completely separate issue at
[2:28:14] this point.
[2:28:15] >> It would become a separate issue. Yeah.
[2:28:18] as long as that's how Nick understands
[2:28:20] it as well has been provided from the
[2:28:22] from Cody and his partner Rob.
[2:28:26] >> Yeah, just that's my understanding as
[2:28:28] well that be contemplating a separate
[2:28:32] >> um one of the other pieces that we
[2:28:33] talked about too
[2:28:36] whether this would go into the developer
[2:28:38] agreement portion of the conversation of
[2:28:40] the reszone was max number of houses in
[2:28:42] the development. So I know what's
[2:28:44] currently listed on that sheet, but if
[2:28:46] we want to recommend a maximum number,
[2:28:50] so that because obviously that's not
[2:28:52] 100% set in stone. They're going to make
[2:28:54] some changes to it. Is that something
[2:28:56] that we probably want as a
[2:28:58] recommendation in the developer
[2:28:59] agreement?
[2:29:00] >> Yes.
[2:29:01] >> Not the zoning.
[2:29:04] >> Yeah. The the uh I think to be clear,
[2:29:07] the way this came to you guys might not
[2:29:08] have been totally fair and it probably
[2:29:09] just came to be palatable. This all
[2:29:12] these will be zipping into a DA at some
[2:29:14] point. It's just when you you know it's
[2:29:16] summer landscape center. So all the all
[2:29:20] these will be part so that will be part
[2:29:21] of right. So the number of units you
[2:29:25] want to be explicitly clear that the
[2:29:27] number of units or whatever density is
[2:29:29] getting
[2:29:31] illustrated and the picture is
[2:29:32] appropriate because even if it's not
[2:29:35] explicitly called out in the development
[2:29:36] agreement is here at an exhibit that
[2:29:39] does spell out the number of units.
[2:29:40] right now as it stands the number of
[2:29:42] units that we talked about,
[2:29:44] >> but that's also that could also change
[2:29:46] and probably go down a little bit based
[2:29:48] on our discussions about not changing
[2:29:50] some of the
[2:29:53] use codes, right? So, if we stuck with
[2:29:54] RPU code and didn't allow for a change
[2:29:57] to that, that would take any of those
[2:29:59] six unit pieces down to four. It would
[2:30:02] and then it would be kind of back to the
[2:30:04] drawing table for the AWA team. And if
[2:30:07] they, you know, you given them this
[2:30:09] number squeeze back as it relates to
[2:30:14] I don't know that's a good question.
[2:30:23] So I'm trying to build notes here. So
[2:30:25] the first thing we talk about a possible
[2:30:28] motion would be to eliminate the mixed
[2:30:30] use
[2:30:33] follow our ordinances as they stand with
[2:30:37] the
[2:30:38] C2
[2:30:40] R2 and R3 zones
[2:30:43] respect the frontage
[2:30:45] that we currently have. Is that what you
[2:30:48] brought up?
[2:30:50] >> That
[2:30:52] portion would be in the though,
[2:30:56] >> right? At least the project portion
[2:30:58] >> would be in the
[2:31:11] And if you wanted to reduce the number
[2:31:12] of units, I would probably try to do I
[2:31:14] understand where your logic might want
[2:31:16] to be section be explicitly clear this
[2:31:20] number of units as opposed to hoping
[2:31:23] that the front will try
[2:31:28] this number of units acceptable to then
[2:31:30] make that tie to the front. But I'm not
[2:31:33] sure that the I don't know.
[2:31:36] the furniture. It seems to reduce the
[2:31:38] number of units.
[2:31:45] » I mean, this look, this is a really big
[2:31:47] project for Hook. I was I was looking
[2:31:50] this up to just kind of scale this. So,
[2:31:53] Hooker City is about 26 square miles,
[2:31:57] which is about almost 17,000 acres in
[2:32:02] Hooker.
[2:32:05] We're talking about 35
[2:32:07] right in that neighborhood.
[2:32:09] >> I know it's overall relative.
[2:32:13] >> Yeah. Plus the with the commercial.
[2:32:16] >> Um
[2:32:19] what else we want to talk about with the
[2:32:21] ordinances
[2:32:24] with the zoning?
[2:32:26] >> Yeah, I think if we're going to stick to
[2:32:28] our zoning as currently permitted, then
[2:32:31] the green space is a big part of that.
[2:32:33] There's open space.
[2:32:48] » Malcolm, the the development here, the
[2:32:51] 55 and whatever it is and older, that's
[2:32:54] a that's patio. That's known as patio,
[2:32:56] not PV. Correct.
[2:32:57] >> Yeah, it's part of a patio, I believe.
[2:33:01] What's the what's the density for that?
[2:33:04] >> It's also 6 to the acre. It has some MHD
[2:33:08] moderate housing MH housing income
[2:33:11] component to it where they actually go.
[2:33:14] I don't know if that's practical, but
[2:33:16] there
[2:33:19] I'm not sure what they did there. I
[2:33:20] wasn't around, but they're dense. Homes
[2:33:23] are they're very similar. cluster,
[2:33:28] not the ones on private strips, but they
[2:33:30] look similar.
[2:33:31] >> That's what I ask you. What's is
[2:33:34] maybe don't know. What's the main
[2:33:35] difference between the patio zone and
[2:33:37] the PU zone?
[2:33:40] >> Good question. They're quite similar in
[2:33:43] the standards and the zoning, the
[2:33:46] density. I think it's the intent of the
[2:33:48] uh what you're trying to attract, right?
[2:33:51] patios. I think they both kind of spell
[2:33:53] out to be frank. They don't really
[2:33:57] have to kind of scan through.
[2:34:00] >> Is there a potential that the patio zone
[2:34:03] limits heights at a crater? Like are
[2:34:06] they are they not as high potentially? I
[2:34:08] don't believe so.
[2:34:18] That's kind of one of the things that
[2:34:19] like if we're going to just debate
[2:34:21] between a patio home versus a townhouse,
[2:34:24] you know, generally I would think that
[2:34:25] the height would be smaller. I mean,
[2:34:27] just maybe that's a misconception of
[2:34:29] mine, but I agree that some of my
[2:34:33] concerns are heights and taking away
[2:34:36] visibility from roadways, from current
[2:34:39] residents, from new residents.
[2:34:42] So that would be some of my concerns and
[2:34:43] that's you I mean everyone's kind of
[2:34:45] heard me focus on heights quite a bit
[2:34:46] because I think that changes the
[2:34:48] landscape of an area great at a at a
[2:34:50] faster rate than even density might like
[2:34:53] density is important also but I think
[2:34:55] how the overall height layout can really
[2:34:57] contribute to like how how a general
[2:35:01] development is is pictured from the
[2:35:03] outside in and from the inside out
[2:35:11] think A great question.
[2:35:14] If I could pull it up in the general
[2:35:15] plan here,
[2:35:20] you know, it's small. Here you go.
[2:35:31] We're patio zone. As you can see, we
[2:35:34] have 10 patio zone in use. I'm guessing
[2:35:37] that's country view. and
[2:35:50] so it's in use but according to that we
[2:35:52] it's not in our code anymore
[2:35:54] >> according to this okay
[2:36:04] » it's the same 40% broken space and
[2:36:21] » I want to say they can be attached to up
[2:36:23] to four.
[2:36:30] » I think I think one of the major
[2:36:31] differences is you know the product and
[2:36:33] the
[2:36:35] end user value you're probably trying to
[2:36:39] communities and something of that nature
[2:36:41] where the more concept homes
[2:36:47] that might attract you know other maybe
[2:36:52] more younger families etc.
[2:36:54] >> So very similar in essence but maybe
[2:36:56] like CCNR restrictions or other things
[2:36:58] in the development agreement might
[2:36:59] change depending on the zones because of
[2:37:01] who you're attracting.
[2:37:06] So in our plan
[2:37:10] with patio zone [sighs]
[2:37:12] within reasonable exception
[2:37:15] a minimum of 10 acres and a maximum of
[2:37:18] 20 acres is required
[2:37:21] with a patio zone with a minimum of 40%
[2:37:24] of the acreage open space. So that's the
[2:37:27] same
[2:37:30] setbacks will be 25 ft and 30 ft on all
[2:37:34] collector or arterial streets.
[2:37:39] There should be an attached garage for
[2:37:41] parking.
[2:37:43] Same thing with road standards.
[2:37:50] So I don't think there's 10 acres in
[2:37:52] there to fit that for a patio zone.
[2:38:00] » Sounds like it doesn't matter anymore
[2:38:01] cuz they're so similar. It's just really
[2:38:03] about who you
[2:38:06] that was the point I was trying to make
[2:38:08] is
[2:38:09] um some some comments I got were saying,
[2:38:13] well let's do patio and maybe it just
[2:38:16] attracts different
[2:38:18] people and they're guess box, but
[2:38:21] they're very similar as far as number of
[2:38:23] dwelling units, the type of homes,
[2:38:26] um,
[2:38:27] things like that.
[2:38:32] So, as far as zoning goes, I I think I'm starting to come around to the same
[2:38:36] ideas as Tucker where I think that we
[2:38:39] would feel comfortable recommending it
[2:38:41] with some conditions to keep things
[2:38:43] similarly to how Hooker's already been
[2:38:45] designed and laid out.
[2:38:52] like how you
[2:38:59] » I just I think we I know we talk about
[2:39:05] this and all these conditional uses, but
[2:39:07] I think they get lost in translation and
[2:39:11] they get lost every time we put a bunch
[2:39:14] of conditions on something without
[2:39:16] having it
[2:39:22] I'm having a hard time with the density
[2:39:25] personally.
[2:39:27] I mean, if you were to call for a vote
[2:39:29] right now, when would be known? So,
[2:39:31] >> with our current way,
[2:39:33] >> well, the the motion to approve this
[2:39:37] reszone and general plan amendment
[2:39:40] >> that's currently
[2:39:42] >> Yeah. is currently submitted to us. We
[2:39:45] have to make a decision tonight.
[2:39:47] or just like Nick said, I'm unknown, but
[2:39:52] >> we felt for a vote.
[2:39:53] >> Does that change if we say it's R2, R3
[2:39:56] on the edges and patio or PE in the
[2:39:58] middle?
[2:39:59] And that's a question for him, too. Can
[2:40:01] we modify from what they've requested
[2:40:04] >> or do we have to vote strictly on what
[2:40:06] they requested?
[2:40:08] >> So, and I'll I'll let uh Troy speak to
[2:40:12] this, but my understanding is that uh
[2:40:15] obviously approval, right? But absent
[2:40:19] that, he's open to you impos not
[2:40:21] imposing but recommending some
[2:40:23] conditions and then he would evaluate
[2:40:25] those. So, you know, with with the one
[2:40:28] we discussed earlier of 75 versus a
[2:40:32] halfacre lot for Mr. uh Mr. Smith, he
[2:40:36] wasn't able to speak to that, but Mr. uh
[2:40:39] apologize Mr. Wbertton
[2:40:41] Mr. Wolverton has indicated that he is
[2:40:44] open to those conditions and if he if
[2:40:47] you impose recommended something that he
[2:40:50] was not open to um he would he would
[2:40:53] make the city council aware of that and
[2:40:56] they could decide whether they wanted to
[2:40:58] accept your conditions or not.
[2:41:00] >> So yeah, you can do that.
[2:41:02] >> That's my problem. We can recommend all
[2:41:05] we want, but
[2:41:07] >> they can still do whatever they want.
[2:41:09] So,
[2:41:09] >> but that's the same as if we if we deny
[2:41:11] it, they can still take it to city
[2:41:13] council even if it's a unanimous denial
[2:41:15] >> and they can still do whatever they
[2:41:16] want. Ours is just a recommendation by
[2:41:18] our
[2:41:19] >> That's fine. But I can sleep at night
[2:41:21] knowing that I'm voting my conscience.
[2:41:24] So,
[2:41:26] >> however you want to do it.
[2:41:27] >> Yeah. I I think it's important whether
[2:41:29] we go for approval or not. just making this the public aware of how we
[2:41:36] think and I I respect your opinion. I
[2:41:39] think that's that's good. But um
[2:41:43] that's where we go. We should make a
[2:41:44] motion and see what happens.
[2:41:46] >> Well, I So I I kind of want to flesh out
[2:41:48] what Blake's talking about, too. So I'm
[2:41:49] in the same ballpark as Blake that if if
[2:41:54] we're voting to approve or deny based on
[2:41:57] what they submitted,
[2:42:00] I'm leaning towards
[2:42:02] >> [snorts]
[2:42:02] >> a deny as well. So I guess that's do we
[2:42:06] want to make the motion
[2:42:09] to modify and approve or
[2:42:14] >> I mean I guess kind of what's written
[2:42:16] >> kind of I guess our opinions are that we
[2:42:19] are all of us I think are opposed to the
[2:42:22] current submitt.
[2:42:23] >> So we're all kind of denying that.
[2:42:25] >> So I think I think we do that. I think
[2:42:26] we just deny how it is and the reason
[2:42:28] we're denying is because we don't want
[2:42:29] that much density. We don't have the
[2:42:31] mixed use. If if we wouldn't have
[2:42:33] approved it if they had made these
[2:42:34] changes.
[2:42:35] >> That's exactly what I was going to say.
[2:42:36] It's like we're all kind of agreeing.
[2:42:38] >> So, let's make the motion to deny it.
[2:42:40] >> And the reasoning like explain I guess
[2:42:42] we just explain why, but that's the
[2:42:44] reason why
[2:42:44] >> someone's going to have to spell it out.
[2:42:46] >> I think you need to explain. You don't
[2:42:47] need to explain.
[2:42:49] >> One clarification from Nick on that.
[2:42:51] Does that move us to the next phase? So,
[2:42:54] if we deny this, we still want to talk
[2:42:55] about the developer agreement.
[2:42:56] >> Correct.
[2:42:58] >> Yeah.
[2:42:58] >> Okay.
[2:42:59] >> Yeah. You want to make a motion on both
[2:43:01] of them tonight?
[2:43:04] >> I mean, if you deny the reason, it makes
[2:43:06] it the theoretically, you can talk about
[2:43:08] as long as you want, but it
[2:43:09] theoretically makes the next discussion
[2:43:10] very brief.
[2:43:13] >> The question I have, I guess, so if we
[2:43:15] just deny it straight away and we don't
[2:43:18] I mean the reason I would deny and the
[2:43:20] reason everything this way is the
[2:43:23] density. So we look at that the mixed
[2:43:25] use um
[2:43:28] >> open Would it would this information be
[2:43:31] carried to the city council or is it
[2:43:33] just strictly they said no or would they
[2:43:35] say no it was no because of this and this? So hopefully they take
[2:43:39] into account the things we've said.
[2:43:42] >> Yeah, I think that Mr. Jenkins would
[2:43:44] take the minutes from this meeting um
[2:43:47] and Mr. Wolverton would make a decision
[2:43:51] on whether he wanted to move to this
[2:43:53] council with the uh commission's
[2:43:57] recommendation.
[2:43:58] Sometimes developers do, sometimes they
[2:44:00] don't. But that gives him the ball then
[2:44:03] falls in Mr. Wson's court. He can then
[2:44:05] say, "Look, please city council listen
[2:44:08] to the minutes,
[2:44:10] you know, there was some, you know, I'm
[2:44:12] not trying to put words in your mouth,
[2:44:13] but there was some value to this
[2:44:15] project. Please reconsider." And then the council does whatever they
[2:44:19] want with it.
[2:44:21] >> Mr. Chair, I apologize. This is out of
[2:44:25] order. Could I make one clarification?
[2:44:34] I apologize. The public hearing is
[2:44:36] closed. My opportunity to speak is done.
[2:44:39] I just wanted to make one clarification.
[2:44:41] >> It's it's appreciated. This is
[2:44:42] important.
[2:44:43] >> The motion or the consideration
[2:44:45] currently general plan amendment and
[2:44:48] reszones to your current code. The MDA
[2:44:54] expresses deviations from that code. I
[2:44:57] just just wanted to be clear on what you
[2:44:59] are currently voting on. It's a general
[2:45:02] plan amendment and a reason request to
[2:45:05] R3
[2:45:07] patio and PUB all your current codes.
[2:45:11] There's no deviation in that at all.
[2:45:14] Then when you consider the MDA, that's
[2:45:18] the deviations.
[2:45:19] Just wanted to make that clear.
[2:45:21] >> Okay.
[2:45:26] » Does that make more sense to you.
[2:45:33] » I thought I thought our PU was no longer
[2:45:36] in use.
[2:45:37] >> No, it's the patio
[2:45:40] in
[2:45:42] >> Yeah, we have to put them in
[2:45:46] reactivating
[2:45:52] » if you want to do the case.
[2:46:02] So I think what he's saying is that what
[2:46:05] we're voting on tonight is what we
[2:46:07] currently have available to us.
[2:46:10] So that's not reflective of what was on
[2:46:12] the map. That would come in conditions
[2:46:15] on the developer agreement.
[2:46:17] >> Yeah, the zoning will stay with our
[2:46:19] standards.
[2:46:22] We're just allowing the res to happen,
[2:46:24] but the deviations from the standards
[2:46:27] are part of the agreement post zoning.
[2:46:37] Somebody want to make a motion
[2:46:44] more conversation.
[2:47:08] Which one would it have said that?
[2:47:17] I I feel like I'm it's a tough situation
[2:47:20] but I feel like the commercial I think
[2:47:21] is a very good aspect of it. We have
[2:47:24] existing commercial. Does the commercial
[2:47:27] aspect not work without the additional
[2:47:31] density in the housing? Is that
[2:47:33] obviously that's probably what they're
[2:47:34] asking for. Um,
[2:47:40] but does do we also need does Herbert
[2:47:42] need more housing that can be hopefully
[2:47:45] affordable and you know families can
[2:47:48] come and and enjoy this place how it is
[2:47:50] too
[2:48:03] an important element to the discussion
[2:48:05] is just our our moderate income housing
[2:48:07] plan. I think that's what you're kind of
[2:48:08] referencing.
[2:48:10] I I researched our current moderate
[2:48:12] income housing plan and and kind of our
[2:48:15] goals that we've set to help with the
[2:48:17] state of Utah's compliance. And one of
[2:48:20] those goals was the ADU portion of it,
[2:48:22] which we've already amended some of
[2:48:23] those regulations to try to be compliant
[2:48:25] to allow for that. And the other one is
[2:48:27] to increase densities. And that's why
[2:48:29] some of our future land use maps have 75
[2:48:32] acre allowances and the R the R2 to R3
[2:48:35] and R4 allowances.
[2:48:38] So I think that yes, we do need more
[2:48:42] consideration for density in the future,
[2:48:45] especially to to meet our moderate
[2:48:47] income housing plan that's required.
[2:48:50] But I think that we're on track with
[2:48:51] that with our current goals with or
[2:48:53] without this subdivision. So this
[2:48:55] development I don't think contributes to
[2:48:56] that moderate income housing plan. The
[2:48:58] way I read it. I could be wrong, but the
[2:49:00] way that I read it, I think that we are
[2:49:02] compliant with our plan and our goals
[2:49:04] that we were that we set without this
[2:49:08] density. Hopefully that doesn't muddy
[2:49:10] the water even deeper
[2:49:17] cuz honestly like that was one of my
[2:49:19] major concerns is that we want to try to
[2:49:21] get ahead of our our in our moderate
[2:49:23] income housing plan before the state
[2:49:26] regulates us to to do it. And that was
[2:49:29] one of the concerns that I had is I had
[2:49:30] discussions with many residents over the
[2:49:34] last two weeks and other city officials
[2:49:36] in other other municipalities. and the
[2:49:40] way that I understand the law and the
[2:49:41] regulation from the state and the way
[2:49:43] that I understand our plan, I don't
[2:49:45] think that we're in any kind of jeopardy
[2:49:47] to have the state push the issue further
[2:49:49] like what I mean it's on the news right
[2:49:51] now and other other municipalities in
[2:49:53] the state right now where the state's
[2:49:55] stepping in in some areas and putting
[2:49:56] pressure on developers and city
[2:49:58] agreements, but I don't think that
[2:50:00] Hooker's in that situation yet as
[2:50:02] currently outlined. I could be wrong.
[2:50:05] >> No, I I agree with you, but I also think
[2:50:07] we we need to Are we are we looking at
[2:50:10] moderate income housing plan to check a
[2:50:12] box with the state or do we really want
[2:50:14] to create moderate income housing
[2:50:16] because I think they're separate
[2:50:18] discussions right
[2:50:19] >> 100% yeah you're right
[2:50:21] >> all right um
[2:50:24] anybody want to make a motion
[2:50:30] » am I motion
[2:50:35] » I don't believe so I think that uh does
[2:50:38] not make motion.
[2:50:45] » I think I was say if you were to make a
[2:50:47] motion, what would the motion be?
[2:50:50] >> Um honestly,
[2:50:53] my motion would be to approve um and
[2:50:55] then forward our
[2:50:58] requests
[2:51:00] for conditions because all these codes
[2:51:02] are currently in our zoning
[2:51:07] and we can make the request to move on
[2:51:09] from there.
[2:51:14] That's what I have. And then one more
[2:51:18] clarification, I'm so glad you're here
[2:51:20] tonight.
[2:51:21] >> I'm happy to be here.
[2:51:22] >> In the case of a tie,
[2:51:24] where does that go?
[2:51:29] » My understanding, and I'd have to look
[2:51:31] by Mr. Ch, but I don't think you as the
[2:51:35] chair vote.
[2:51:45] That's typically how it works.
[2:51:48] >> Any more discussion while before we take
[2:51:50] a motion?
[2:51:55] » So, I'm looking at I'm looking at
[2:51:56] general plan right here. The goal, the
[2:51:58] very first one, foster a healthy
[2:51:59] community with opportunities to live,
[2:52:01] work, and recreate.
[2:52:05] So I that's kind of where I go is maybe
[2:52:06] at let's get housing here so other
[2:52:08] people can live and work and recreate
[2:52:12] and hopefully along with this general
[2:52:14] plan and reszone DA we can get a good
[2:52:17] park system and trails and other things
[2:52:19] like that
[2:52:26] or we could um deny it with the other
[2:52:31] one and say wait till we from general
[2:52:33] plan in a few months.
[2:52:36] I mean, it is to the the one the 351
[2:52:40] south 300 west. It's kind of I don't
[2:52:43] similar is different because there's
[2:52:45] commercial aspect already in our future
[2:52:47] lines for this area. That's why it's
[2:52:48] different and and you mentioned the
[2:52:50] community benefit I guess.
[2:52:52] >> Yeah,
[2:52:54] I agree. consideration there, but I
[2:52:56] think it's different because of already
[2:52:58] current and future land use maps that
[2:52:59] somewhat align and the benefit of the
[2:53:02] community.
[2:53:15] Um,
[2:53:17] I will make a motion to approve the
[2:53:22] general plan amendment and the zoning
[2:53:24] request using our current zoning areas
[2:53:29] with the condition of
[2:53:32] the mixed use portion being eliminated
[2:53:37] and added to the commercial element of
[2:53:40] the reszone.
[2:53:42] while also considering that the zoning
[2:53:47] for the PUD and the MHDR
[2:53:51] have our considerations from our
[2:53:53] discussion regarding the density
[2:53:56] uh forplex to sixplex and open space
[2:54:01] area being modified to more closely
[2:54:05] match our current zoning.
[2:54:11] Motion's been made by Commissioner D. Do
[2:54:14] I have a second?
[2:54:16] >> So, do we need to even add those
[2:54:18] conditions? Because really, they're
[2:54:20] asking for the C2P, the R2, and R3.
[2:54:24] They're not necessarily in this motion.
[2:54:26] It doesn't necessarily say this is where
[2:54:27] it's at.
[2:54:28] >> True.
[2:54:28] >> I think it's a little bit of belt and
[2:54:30] suspenders, but there's nothing wrong.
[2:54:31] >> Okay. Okay.
[2:54:33] >> I'll second that. Second has been made
[2:54:36] by Commissioner W. All in favor?
[2:54:40] >> Is there discussion on the motion?
[2:54:41] Sorry.
[2:54:42] >> Oh, any discussion on the motion?
[2:54:45] >> I just wanted to clarify um you want to
[2:54:48] the open space you want to go more
[2:54:51] closely
[2:54:55] that's going to go more into the next
[2:54:56] discussion developer
[2:55:00] and say eliminate
[2:55:02] >> eliminate the mix. absorb it into the
[2:55:05] commercial
[2:55:06] >> the C2.
[2:55:07] >> Yes, please.
[2:55:10] >> But that's a to really that map you're
[2:55:12] looking at isn't necessarily what it I
[2:55:15] mean that's what it could be. But this this
[2:55:18] uh recommendation isn't saying this is
[2:55:20] where it's going to be. Just saying
[2:55:21] let's open this up and look at the
[2:55:23] potential reason to these items. So,
[2:55:26] right. Okay.
[2:55:29] And then in the development agreement,
[2:55:31] that's where you really hashed out the
[2:55:32] locations and things like that. So, can
[2:55:35] we confirm? I can't motion, but can I
[2:55:38] vote?
[2:55:40] >> Yes.
[2:55:47] » I want
[2:55:50] you maybe if you don't take the can't
[2:55:51] vote out. I guess you're saying this
[2:55:53] because you want to have your voice
[2:55:54] heard, right?
[2:55:55] >> I I'm up here with you guys. I would say
[2:55:59] >> I say if your vote doesn't you can't
[2:56:01] count your vote we can say after the
[2:56:07] » okay so we've had a motion
[2:56:11] all in favor
[2:56:12] >> I
[2:56:16] motion passes
[2:56:20] okay um now we're going to move to U
[2:56:25] item D which is recommendation of a
[2:56:28] master development agreement for the
[2:56:30] Hooker Crossing commercial and we've
[2:56:32] discussed this in our work meeting as
[2:56:34] well. We appreciate everybody sticking
[2:56:36] around for this and we would like I
[2:56:38] would like to entertain a motion to
[2:56:40] enter a public hearing around uh item D
[2:56:44] around the master development agreement.
[2:56:46] Anybody want to create a motion?
[2:56:47] >> I'll I'll make that motion. And really I
[2:56:49] feel bad that people are because I feel
[2:56:50] like this is the more important part of
[2:56:52] the whole reason and general map plan
[2:56:54] amendment is hopefully people stick
[2:56:56] around. So, I feel like this is where
[2:56:57] the we really get into this is what we
[2:57:00] want as a city and a planning commission
[2:57:02] and city council whereas before versus
[2:57:05] more saying let's let's have a look at
[2:57:06] it and see if it follows our what our
[2:57:08] future line is what we want to have. So,
[2:57:11] I'll make a motion to open the public
[2:57:13] hearing. Thank you. Motion's been made
[2:57:14] by Commissioner Wade. Do I have a
[2:57:16] second?
[2:57:16] >> Second.
[2:57:17] by Commissioner Denny. All in
[2:57:19] favor?
[2:57:20] >> I.
[2:57:22] >> At this time, we'd like to open it up
[2:57:23] for public comment. Uh again, you have
[2:57:26] three minutes. Uh timekeepers Morgan,
[2:57:29] please step to the microphone, state
[2:57:30] your name, and if you're a resident of
[2:57:32] Hooker City, and share your thoughts.
[2:57:47] » Whatever we approve, sorry, you heard
[2:57:50] me. I know we have but now friends
[2:57:52] Hooker resident whatever we approve here
[2:57:55] will set a precedent for future
[2:57:57] developers who come to Hooper if we
[2:57:58] establish that high density housing
[2:58:00] exceptions to development standards or
[2:58:02] public financing are necessary
[2:58:04] concessions to attract commercial
[2:58:05] development future development
[2:58:07] developers will reasonably expect the
[2:58:09] same treatment so tonight I'm asking you
[2:58:11] to separate these issues support a
[2:58:13] commercial opportunity that's in the
[2:58:15] best interest of the city but don't
[2:58:16] assume we have to accept [snorts]
[2:58:19] the wrong type of highdensity housing or
[2:58:22] public financing mechanisms to get it.
[2:58:25] Please protect Hooker taxpayers and our
[2:58:27] other taxing entities by not committing
[2:58:29] the city to CRAAS, PIDs or other tax
[2:58:31] increment financing for this project. We
[2:58:33] have an opportunity to do something
[2:58:34] meaningful here. Let's make sure we are
[2:58:37] developing on our terms consistent with
[2:58:39] the vision of residents that its
[2:58:41] residents have expressed and the
[2:58:42] ordinances that were put in place after
[2:58:44] careful discretion by the city council
[2:58:47] and planning commission. Not accepting
[2:58:49] the terms that the de the developer
[2:58:50] wants because we are afraid we might
[2:58:52] lose the commercial development.
[2:58:54] I appreciate the transparency that you
[2:58:56] discussed in the work meeting about not
[2:58:58] understanding all of the things in the
[2:58:59] development agreement. My understanding
[2:59:00] is you received this revised copy of
[2:59:02] this agreement two to three days ago. I
[2:59:04] recognize that the developer doesn't
[2:59:06] want this agreement tabled. Uh the
[2:59:08] project has been in place for some time,
[2:59:10] but the development agreement is new. I
[2:59:13] would encourage you to not be pushed
[2:59:14] into a decision that will have lasting
[2:59:16] consequences for our city. Mistakes when
[2:59:18] things are rushed. If you do decide to
[2:59:21] recommend an approval, please add
[2:59:23] conditions that will be in the best
[2:59:24] interest of Huffer. You can make
[2:59:26] recommendations to not participate in
[2:59:27] tax financing. You can recommend a
[2:59:30] pioneering agreement. You can recommend
[2:59:32] that the high density portion that you
[2:59:34] just pushed through is made for a
[2:59:38] retirement center for senior living. The
[2:59:40] people of Hooker deserve your careful
[2:59:42] scrutiny of this decision. Thank you.
[2:59:46] >> Thank you.
[2:59:49] Any other citizen comment?
[2:59:56] » Andrew,
[2:59:58] I just don't want city to take any more
[3:00:01] of my land for this project,
[3:00:04] but you're probably going to take
[3:00:05] another 6 ft of my front yard, which
[3:00:08] will put my front door right on the
[3:00:09] street.
[3:00:12] You know, there's probably other
[3:00:13] citizens that are going to experience
[3:00:14] the same plan loss.
[3:00:17] And then we're going to have to go into
[3:00:18] another tax problem because I'm losing
[3:00:22] land for that.
[3:00:26] >> Thank you.
[3:00:31] Any other citizen comments?
[3:00:38] » I would als I would like to recommend
[3:00:40] Oh, sorry. Susanna Sterland to resident.
[3:00:43] Um, I would like to recommend patio
[3:00:44] homes, but also throw a different idea
[3:00:46] out for patio homes. Um, I've seen in
[3:00:49] some other cities and we've actually
[3:00:51] lived in them early on as like a cheaper
[3:00:54] way to start a home and then moved on,
[3:00:57] right? It was a good starter home as a
[3:00:59] patio home. So, you could consider patio
[3:01:01] homes. I do like the retirement part of
[3:01:03] it because I don't feel like we have a
[3:01:05] ton of that still. Um, but if we were
[3:01:08] feeling like we also want to go for the
[3:01:11] newer families and help newer families
[3:01:13] or more affordable housing, I feel like
[3:01:15] patio homes fit better for what Hopper
[3:01:19] already the feel of Hooper already than
[3:01:21] a town home. I also would like you to
[3:01:24] consider, and I'm not as good with what
[3:01:26] each, you know,
[3:01:29] um, area can be maxed out on, but if you
[3:01:33] say yes, we can do patio homes, what can
[3:01:36] the developer come in and then change it
[3:01:38] to? Can it end up being like
[3:01:41] different ideas than what we've said
[3:01:43] because we have said, "Oh, yes, now it
[3:01:45] can be this zoning." Does that make
[3:01:47] sense? because I am afraid that we we go
[3:01:50] and we say, "Oh, well, we want it to be
[3:01:52] this and we okay it and then he goes in
[3:01:56] and maxes out whatever that use is when
[3:01:58] we were thinking, oh, it's a patio home,
[3:02:00] but he can build a sixlex on it or
[3:02:03] whatever." So, I would like you guys to
[3:02:04] look into the fact that like what is the
[3:02:06] max that they can do? Because in the
[3:02:08] end, they may say they're going to do
[3:02:09] one thing, but like it's already been
[3:02:11] stated, he probably will sell the land
[3:02:14] off and then somebody else is going to
[3:02:15] come in with their idea. So, it probably
[3:02:16] won't be exactly
[3:02:19] um what the vision is of what we've seen
[3:02:21] on the map so far. So, that's just my
[3:02:24] extra thoughts. Thank you so much.
[3:02:26] >> Thank you.
[3:02:28] >> Other citizen comment.
[3:02:32] » Um Amy Kristofferson, I'm just going to
[3:02:35] say that was really painful because I
[3:02:37] saw all four of you say that you would
[3:02:38] deny. It was like your your instinct to
[3:02:42] deny that and then it got approved. So,
[3:02:45] and every everybody that stood up and
[3:02:46] made a public comment asked you to deny
[3:02:49] and you approved it anyway. So that's a
[3:02:52] little ridiculous.
[3:02:55] » Thank you.
[3:02:57] >> Any other public comment
[3:03:07] res
[3:03:09] everything's been uh against everything.
[3:03:12] So, I will be that one person that
[3:03:14] stands up here and says, "Thanks for
[3:03:16] approving that so, uh, we can work on
[3:03:19] that as a city and move forward." And
[3:03:23] I'm glad that you finally brought up
[3:03:25] affordable housing right there at the
[3:03:27] end of your discussion because I think
[3:03:29] that's very important. Uh, you know, I
[3:03:32] know it's been made uh comments that uh
[3:03:36] we moved in here and now
[3:03:39] uh everybody's building around Well,
[3:03:41] I've been here for a long time and I've
[3:03:44] not once complained about people moving
[3:03:46] in and all, you know, everybody's moved
[3:03:50] out to Hooper. I've been fine with them
[3:03:52] that they're going to continue to move
[3:03:54] out here into Hooper and we need to make
[3:03:56] places affordable for them and go back
[3:03:59] to what Tucker read there about
[3:04:03] recreation and fun and that and that's
[3:04:04] what this city's about. And I think
[3:04:07] since this co uh it's messed up a lot of people and uh uh it's changed
[3:04:14] things and we need to get it back and uh
[3:04:18] we need to work on this uh plan and do
[3:04:21] whatever we can to uh you know work with
[3:04:24] these developers and and I get it that
[3:04:28] uh yeah there's other options but nobody
[3:04:31] else has came to us uh uh and a year,
[3:04:36] two, three years, whatever. I think it
[3:04:38] was three years ago that Terristrada
[3:04:40] came first to Mayor Bowers. Nobody else
[3:04:43] has came. So, let's see what we can do
[3:04:46] to work with this group that's here and
[3:04:49] appreciate your help and your time.
[3:04:51] Thanks.
[3:04:54] >> Thank you. [clears throat]
[3:04:56] >> Any other citizen comments,
[3:05:01] » Tony Zoo, Hooper, resident? I'm gonna call Larry out because he's all for this and affordable
[3:05:09] housing, but he was in a work meeting
[3:05:12] with Tara Estrada probably a month ago.
[3:05:16] And I think these small cottages
[3:05:19] came in at $450,000.
[3:05:23] How can that be affordable housing? This isn't affordable housing. This is
[3:05:29] affordable to bring this Smiths in
[3:05:32] because they're going to it off for as
[3:05:35] much as they can get and we're going to
[3:05:37] be stuck with all the notes on this and
[3:05:40] we're going to end up paying for it.
[3:05:42] Thanks.
[3:05:45] >> Thank you. Any other citizen comments?
[3:05:54] » Okay, at this time I'll entertain a
[3:05:55] motion to bring it back
[3:05:58] to the stand.
[3:06:00] >> Motion to close.
[3:06:02] Second.
[3:06:05] >> Motion was made by Commissioner Denny,
[3:06:07] seconded by Commissioner Sey. All in
[3:06:10] favor?
[3:06:11] >> I.
[3:06:12] Excellent. Um,
[3:06:17] so, not to directly respond to citizen
[3:06:22] comment, but Tony's got a great point,
[3:06:25] and I I mean, I I know we like to throw
[3:06:28] around the term affordable housing, and
[3:06:30] I can't wrap my either. Um,
[3:06:34] you know, I I remember my first home
[3:06:37] purchase and it was nowhere near that
[3:06:39] price and I know what my supposed value
[3:06:41] on my home is now. So, I I hate that I
[3:06:45] dislike the way we use the term
[3:06:47] affordable housing because there's not
[3:06:49] really much affordable about it. So, we
[3:06:51] can call it moderate. We can call it I
[3:06:54] don't I don't even know what you want to
[3:06:55] call entry level housing anymore.
[3:06:58] um unless we look at small starter
[3:07:00] homes, but that's that's a whole
[3:07:02] different conversation that builders
[3:07:05] don't want to build right now. There's
[3:07:09] no money in it for me. Um so I think at
[3:07:13] this point, uh Nick, you can tell me if
[3:07:15] I'm right or wrong. We're gonna kind of
[3:07:19] go through recommendations
[3:07:21] for the developer agreement, kind of our
[3:07:23] laundry list of things that we would
[3:07:25] like city council to also consider. Um,
[3:07:30] I don't know how messy the list will get
[3:07:31] and if it's something Morgan's going to
[3:07:34] straighten out, but I'm also taking
[3:07:36] notes as well and even kind of things
[3:07:38] around general
[3:07:40] ideas or requests, things around the
[3:07:43] commercial and things around the
[3:07:45] residential. So, um I don't even know if
[3:07:48] we need to have a discussion about CRA
[3:07:51] or sewer because that is a completely
[3:07:53] separate issue. Correct.
[3:07:54] >> That's my understanding. Yes, that's
[3:07:56] correct.
[3:07:57] >> That just gave us all two hours of our
[3:07:59] land.
[3:07:59] >> Well, hey, I think it's still important
[3:08:01] we could
[3:08:01] >> So, I guess real quick. So, we're either
[3:08:03] going to same thing as the reason deny
[3:08:06] approve table.
[3:08:08] >> If we approve, we have conditions.
[3:08:11] >> If we deny, just deny.
[3:08:13] >> Yeah, I think I think uh Mr.
[3:08:15] like to kind of know why you're doing it
[3:08:17] obviously, but yeah, same thing as that.
[3:08:20] >> Okay. So, I think in either way, even a
[3:08:23] good recommendation, I think it'd still
[3:08:26] be wise to mention stuff about funding
[3:08:29] and financing. Just make sure it's out
[3:08:31] of it. And even if it is out of it, I'd
[3:08:34] still send you to say the taxpayers
[3:08:38] should not be paying for any of it.
[3:08:41] That's fine. Well, I'll just I'll start
[3:08:43] the conversation pretty simply like I
[3:08:46] I'm not prepared to approve this because
[3:08:48] I don't understand everything that's in
[3:08:50] it. So, even if we add conditions to it,
[3:08:53] I don't think I can put a condition in
[3:08:55] there that hey, I'm approving what I
[3:08:57] pretend to understand.
[3:08:59] >> I I agree with that. Yeah. In my
[3:09:02] opinion, I think I would recommend this
[3:09:05] isn't a vote yet, but I would say to
[3:09:09] deny it and like we should probably say
[3:09:11] the reasons why.
[3:09:14] >> That's kind of where I'm at. So,
[3:09:15] >> yeah,
[3:09:15] >> if you could try and make the reasons
[3:09:17] why relate to the MDA, correct? You can.
[3:09:21] >> Yes, just to reiterate the MDA. So, we
[3:09:24] have zones that you guys have now, you
[3:09:26] know, recommended an approval to these
[3:09:28] zones.
[3:09:31] is fairly well written. I believe never
[3:09:35] been used. We just saw an additional R3
[3:09:38] zone is more robust. RT our C2 zone is
[3:09:43] still limited. So the whole purpose of
[3:09:45] the MBA was to provide
[3:09:49] requirements to facilitate the
[3:09:52] development right that maybe elaborated
[3:09:54] on our current C2 zone for instance so
[3:09:57] that we don't have
[3:10:00] just in code to protect it. We had a
[3:10:04] document to rely on these going to look
[3:10:08] like right for instance elevation
[3:10:10] architectural design buildings wanted to
[3:10:13] be able to make sure you know we're
[3:10:16] going to privacy too we don't want them
[3:10:18] to build whatever building they want we
[3:10:20] want to see what it looks like it feels
[3:10:22] like that's
[3:10:24] >> well and that's and that's fair but I I
[3:10:26] still want to make the point that
[3:10:28] there's a lot of stuff in there that
[3:10:30] talks about phasing of the projects
[3:10:32] there's a lot
[3:10:33] talking about um you know time frames.
[3:10:36] There's you know there there's things in
[3:10:38] there that honestly are just above our
[3:10:41] understanding that I don't feel
[3:10:43] comfortable saying hey we you know well
[3:10:46] first we're like we don't want to we
[3:10:48] don't want the flex shoes we were
[3:10:50] talking about R3 north and west side
[3:10:52] keeping the 40%. That's great that we
[3:10:54] can make all those recommendations. It's
[3:10:56] all the other stuff that's in there that
[3:10:59] I don't think any of us are well I'm not
[3:11:01] I can't speak for anybody else. I'm not
[3:11:03] prepared to approve because I don't know
[3:11:07] all or understand it. It's a big
[3:11:09] document, right? It's 85 pages of legal
[3:11:12] leads that
[3:11:19] I agree. I mean, I don't think that we
[3:11:23] have I don't think we understand it well
[3:11:24] enough to give it a full approval. Um,
[3:11:27] whether we can get to the point where we
[3:11:28] can approve it based on conditions or we
[3:11:30] deny it based on the discussion and they
[3:11:33] understand where what we're what's
[3:11:35] tripping us up. And I don't think we
[3:11:37] necessarily have to break down every
[3:11:39] element of the the DA to make a decision
[3:11:42] one way or the other. we can approve or
[3:11:43] deny it, but what I'd like to have is
[3:11:45] some discussion on things that you saw
[3:11:47] in there that you like and things that
[3:11:50] you saw in there that you don't like.
[3:11:52] That way, we can all kind of have a
[3:11:54] discussion together and decide, you
[3:11:56] know, what's the good, the bad, and the
[3:11:57] ugly to be able to put our stamp on or
[3:12:00] our denial on. And then we give those
[3:12:03] stipulations to them based on what we
[3:12:05] have concerns or or what we like.
[3:12:12] So, I I took notes on a couple of things
[3:12:14] that we've discussed already, and I'll
[3:12:15] just tell you what I've got in here, so
[3:12:16] we don't have to cover all that ground.
[3:12:18] Um,
[3:12:23] I don't multitask well.
[3:12:27] Um, so a couple of the items that we put
[3:12:30] in there, flexions denied, that is a C2
[3:12:33] area as a request. um the buffer between
[3:12:37] that area and the homes on the west
[3:12:38] side. We want to make sure that if that
[3:12:41] is a C2 area that there's still a a very
[3:12:44] strategic and good buffer between the
[3:12:47] homes on the west side. Um
[3:12:52] we want to recommend a meeting with the
[3:12:54] council and commission to discuss this
[3:12:57] fully. Whether they choose to have us in
[3:13:00] on that discussion or not, that's up to
[3:13:01] them. Um around the other things around
[3:13:04] residential uh we talked about the on
[3:13:07] the north and west side and the PUD area
[3:13:10] keeping open space at 40% keep frontage
[3:13:14] at 100%
[3:13:18] » or excuse me
[3:13:20] She's asking me to slow down just
[3:13:21] slightly.
[3:13:24] >> Sorry.
[3:13:29] Um
[3:13:31] so I
[3:13:33] if you guys are okay I'll share thoughts
[3:13:35] I've got specifically around the
[3:13:37] commercial.
[3:13:38] So um I do have a little bit of
[3:13:40] experience with with big box retail.
[3:13:43] Right. So, some things that I think we
[3:13:45] need to consider is noise and time
[3:13:48] consideration around, you know, if this
[3:13:50] development goes through, are we going
[3:13:52] to allow 24-hour trucks? Are we going to
[3:13:54] allow idling? Are we going to allow
[3:13:57] dumpster use after certain times to keep
[3:13:59] quiet? Um, obviously, there's a lighting
[3:14:02] discussion that's a little above
[3:14:05] my understanding. Um,
[3:14:09] one of the things that Malcolm had
[3:14:11] discussed with some of us earlier was
[3:14:13] the landscaping. So, you know, the I
[3:14:16] know there's differences in different
[3:14:18] cities. If you go to Clinton, for
[3:14:19] example, and look at what they require
[3:14:21] for landscaping, it's pretty it's pretty
[3:14:24] severe in a good way. It it looks
[3:14:27] amazing. They require a lot of
[3:14:29] landscaping. So, I think that's
[3:14:30] something that we need to discuss as
[3:14:31] well in the in the commercial. So, that
[3:14:36] exterior events and storage. When you
[3:14:39] think about big boxes, do we want to
[3:14:41] allow parking lot sales? Do we want to
[3:14:43] allow them to be able to put things in
[3:14:45] their parking lot year round or by
[3:14:47] permit only? So, when you think about
[3:14:49] fireworks,
[3:14:51] >> uh
[3:14:52] well, that's still through business
[3:14:54] licenses, but they can have their own
[3:14:55] like season.
[3:14:59] >> Yeah. Things like that if you want to
[3:15:00] allow that. So, I think those are
[3:15:02] discussions around like parking lotes.
[3:15:07] summarize that
[3:15:09] we need an outdoor display
[3:15:13] that some provide outdoor display. Okay.
[3:15:18] We also talked about the signage.
[3:15:30] » What else?
[3:15:34] Something about uh occupied owner. No, renting.
[3:15:37] >> Oh, the residential.
[3:15:39] >> Res
[3:15:40] title uh owner occupancy.
[3:15:44] >> Yeah.
[3:15:45] So deep reserving.
[3:15:47] >> That's that's one of the things that I
[3:15:49] had in there because they do mention
[3:15:50] some stuff in there about um no s no
[3:15:54] short-term rentals 30 days or less um
[3:15:57] that are restricted. And then the other
[3:15:58] one was investment owners could not own
[3:16:02] more than two units. And then the other
[3:16:04] piece was
[3:16:06] it it was pretty vague on the final
[3:16:08] piece of it that stated something along
[3:16:10] the lines of not allowing or or
[3:16:13] discouraging rental occupancy or
[3:16:16] something along those lines. But I I
[3:16:18] would like to know and maybe it's a Nick
[3:16:20] question. What's are are we allowed to
[3:16:24] put some kind of a time frame on that discussion? Like can
[3:16:30] we say it has to be owner occupied for x
[3:16:32] amount of years or is that are there
[3:16:34] other legalities that block that
[3:16:36] restriction?
[3:16:38] >> Yeah, those are those are interesting um
[3:16:41] for a couple reasons. One is um they
[3:16:44] sometimes run a foul of
[3:16:47] fair housing items there but also uh
[3:16:50] it's just matter of enforcement is
[3:16:52] really challenging for the city. If you want to give the council some
[3:16:57] direction whether you approve or deny
[3:16:59] like please beef this up to the extent
[3:17:01] you can uh Mr. Curtis Darren and I are
[3:17:04] happy to look at that and work with Mr.
[3:17:07] Jenkins get that as as robust as we can
[3:17:10] for sure. Would the compliance piece of
[3:17:13] that fall on the city or would it fall
[3:17:15] on the HOA or would it I mean it's kind
[3:17:17] of our headache at the end of the day
[3:17:18] whether the HOA
[3:17:20] handles it or not? But is that
[3:17:22] technically an HOA problem and then we
[3:17:24] would have to step in if they weren't
[3:17:26] enforcing it or vice versa?
[3:17:27] >> Yeah, I mean you could require that. You
[3:17:29] could draft that in a number of ways. At
[3:17:32] the end of the day, if it's something
[3:17:33] the city cares about, it's something the
[3:17:35] city's going to have to monitor.
[3:17:38] I mean you can certainly give a lot of
[3:17:39] that responsibility to the HOA but that
[3:17:42] will depend on how much the HOA actually
[3:17:44] cares about.
[3:17:47] >> So I was asking well are you done same
[3:17:50] topic or new topic? I was going to bring
[3:17:52] up a new topic too. Um definitely a
[3:17:55] piece of the agreement that I do not
[3:17:58] like is on page 19 it states third party
[3:18:01] inspector.
[3:18:02] I don't love that idea. that it I would
[3:18:05] rather have our inspectors that we know
[3:18:07] and trust and have our best interest in
[3:18:09] mind. Not that we think that we're going
[3:18:12] to have problems with the developer, but
[3:18:14] because we know what we want and we know
[3:18:16] we we've set standards in place and
[3:18:18] hired and trusted and trained someone to
[3:18:20] protect us.
[3:18:22] >> Prior language in earlier versions had
[3:18:24] that as our public works director. So, I
[3:18:26] had a similar question. I think we
[3:18:28] probably go back to that
[3:18:30] unless there's a different answer.
[3:18:32] >> Yeah, I don't I don't mind that. I just
[3:18:34] don't like the current language that
[3:18:36] states
[3:18:38] um the developer shall have the option
[3:18:40] at the developer's discretion to retain
[3:18:43] a third party um inspector. And and kind
[3:18:46] of my thoughts on that is, you know, in
[3:18:48] my professional career, I've had some
[3:18:50] time being a third party inspector for
[3:18:52] municipalities.
[3:18:54] And
[3:18:56] we always ran our business 100% honest
[3:18:58] and forth for forthright, but at the end
[3:19:00] of the day, you still answer the person
[3:19:01] that's paying your bills. Like you want
[3:19:04] to protect your integrity at all costs
[3:19:07] in everything that you do, but at the
[3:19:09] end of the day, you're going to you
[3:19:12] might phrase something in a way that
[3:19:14] protects the developer more than it
[3:19:15] protects the city, even if it's an
[3:19:17] honest statement, if that makes sense.
[3:19:20] So, I don't like that at all. I would I
[3:19:22] would vote I
[3:19:24] deny the whole third party inspection
[3:19:26] portion of it.
[3:19:32] Tucker, you had something else too.
[3:19:35] I think I
[3:19:37] um I'm just looking at the lot of uses
[3:19:40] in our PUB code. Um one is so dwelling
[3:19:44] multif family dwelling single family
[3:19:47] attached duplex
[3:19:50] dwelling single family attached twin
[3:19:51] home and
[3:19:53] All those are permitted. So I wonder
[3:19:56] can you define what a dwelling multif
[3:19:58] family is?
[3:20:00] That would be an apartment.
[3:20:05] » That mean well I guess yeah I guess if
[3:20:08] we were to say stuff in there I think
[3:20:10] the four if there is some type of four
[3:20:14] pack six pack four would be the max but
[3:20:16] I almost want to kind of say is like no
[3:20:17] I think just to try to figure out patio
[3:20:20] to make those work maybe have them over
[3:20:22] here they work great. Um so in my mind I
[3:20:26] think in this development agreement
[3:20:32] we would say you have to use that
[3:20:35] instead of
[3:20:37] which is right
[3:20:43] » it's a structure containing three or
[3:20:44] four single family dwelling units
[3:20:46] attached by common walls with a single
[3:20:49] structure with yard space on each side.
[3:20:51] So I think we're talking about basically
[3:20:52] town hall. Okay.
[3:20:56] Right. I mean,
[3:20:59] I think if we did, if this does end up
[3:21:01] going through, I think people don't want
[3:21:03] I don't people don't like the town homes
[3:21:06] cuz they can be taller. Like the patio
[3:21:08] homes are more they're they're smaller,
[3:21:10] they're flat. This development, I think,
[3:21:12] turned out really great. And in my mind,
[3:21:14] that's what would go really well there
[3:21:16] along with some um bigger lots. The R3
[3:21:21] or R2.
[3:21:22] >> R3. Yeah.
[3:21:25] So I if that if I only prove that was
[3:21:29] something in there. No no town hall, no
[3:21:31] apartments, no nothing like that.
[3:21:37] Um I've got a couple of requests too
[3:21:41] around kind of the phasing portion. It's
[3:21:44] not it's not as clear in there about how
[3:21:48] much of the commercial would need to be
[3:21:49] built out in relation to how much of the
[3:21:52] residential is built out. What we don't
[3:21:54] want is x amount of rooftops with no
[3:21:59] commercial. The commercial should be our
[3:22:01] priority. So I don't know they amended
[3:22:04] >> they did amend that in with this most
[3:22:06] recent recent release. Okay. The phasing
[3:22:08] says that the developer shall not be
[3:22:10] granted a certificate of occupancy for
[3:22:12] more than 30% of the residential
[3:22:14] property before 50% of the commercial
[3:22:17] property has received a certificate of
[3:22:20] occupancy. Okay.
[3:22:21] >> So there there is an element of that.
[3:22:22] But the one thing that I fear with that
[3:22:24] element of it and again this is above
[3:22:27] our pay grade. We're reading into this
[3:22:29] document and we're not lawyers. But I
[3:22:33] feel like there's a little bit of a
[3:22:34] loophole in it that is in section 4.1.4
[3:22:39] that says
[3:22:41] uh prior to the approval of the final
[3:22:43] subdivision plat more than
[3:22:46] building permits that would result in
[3:22:48] more than 70% of the total residential
[3:22:50] dwelling units with the project
[3:22:52] receiving building permits. If
[3:22:54] substantial vertical commercial
[3:22:56] construction is not convinced, the
[3:22:58] developer and the city shall meet with a
[3:23:00] good faith review and it lists a bunch
[3:23:02] of conditions there that are basically
[3:23:04] saying like, well, they've tried really
[3:23:06] hard, but they haven't been able to do
[3:23:08] the commercial piece. So, we're just
[3:23:09] going to let them do the residential
[3:23:11] anyway. And I don't love that that it
[3:23:13] provides a loophole to then just say,
[3:23:16] "Well, we tried. It didn't work. The
[3:23:18] market's not allowing it. The corridor
[3:23:19] is not coming yet. We're just going to
[3:23:21] build houses in the back and the front's
[3:23:22] just going to be an empty field. It's an
[3:23:24] eyesore for the next 10, 15, 20 years
[3:23:26] until the quarter makes its way here.
[3:23:28] Whether that's accelerated or
[3:23:29] decelerates the state's decision, but I
[3:23:31] don't love that there's a loophole that
[3:23:33] kind of allows for that piece not to
[3:23:35] matter. Okay,
[3:23:36] >> that's a really good catch. That was
[3:23:37] unintentional as we've gone through
[3:23:39] that. So, thank you.
[3:23:44] » Um I I I
[3:23:47] also get a general feeling in there
[3:23:50] that
[3:23:52] they don't want public city inspections.
[3:23:55] They don't want regular check-ins on how
[3:23:57] the development's going. And I think
[3:23:59] that's important. I think the city needs
[3:24:01] to be very involved with that. Talk
[3:24:04] about commercial occupancy, like
[3:24:06] residential occupancy,
[3:24:08] you know, how far along they are in each
[3:24:10] project. And I think there needs to be
[3:24:12] regular check-ins on that and and
[3:24:15] benchmarks that the city sets is
[3:24:18] reasonable. Obviously, You can't build
[3:24:20] out what doesn't sell. But
[3:24:28] » yeah, one thing I think I I don't mean
[3:24:32] like we should try to use our existing
[3:24:33] code as much we can. I know they change
[3:24:36] want to change a few things, but I mean
[3:24:38] I like the 100 foot frontage. I like
[3:24:41] maybe one thing I would maybe have a
[3:24:43] discussion about is maybe 40%'s not the
[3:24:45] right answer. Maybe we need to go down a
[3:24:46] little more. Whether or not I say I
[3:24:48] think we follow our existing
[3:24:51] zones that we have instead of
[3:24:54] making these other ones.
[3:24:56] >> Well, to that 40% piece, I mean, if if
[3:25:00] we passed with our existing codes that
[3:25:02] can some city council like, hey, we want
[3:25:04] to see the mockup.
[3:25:05] >> Yeah. What that looks like with our 40%.
[3:25:08] Yeah.
[3:25:09] >> And then they can
[3:25:10] >> they can change it from that point. So I
[3:25:13] think we start at 40 and see what that
[3:25:15] looks like and you know put that on the
[3:25:18] developer to take you know if if we
[3:25:20] don't like that then we can go the other
[3:25:23] direction.
[3:25:23] >> I agree with that. We're almost working
[3:25:25] backwards against our favor. Let's let's
[3:25:27] start where we can see what we would
[3:25:29] love to see like as our maximum
[3:25:31] potential and work. That's a great
[3:25:33] point.
[3:25:37] Um, I just think the city funding I
[3:25:40] think is very important mentioned this.
[3:25:43] Um, I don't I don't like the CRA, the
[3:25:46] TIFFs, the PIDs, the you name it,
[3:25:48] whatever it is. I just I feel like it
[3:25:51] sets sets the city up for
[3:25:55] just problems.
[3:25:57] >> Is that anything that's even going to
[3:25:58] come before us
[3:26:01] >> on that portion? I still want Yeah, I
[3:26:03] still want to I still want to express
[3:26:05] our opinion.
[3:26:06] >> Yeah, I want to express my opinion on
[3:26:07] it. I I just feel like developers coming
[3:26:09] in, they should pay for their
[3:26:11] infrastructure. I do, however, feel like
[3:26:13] I mean this this is a great spot for
[3:26:15] regional station. So, whatever's maybe
[3:26:18] above and beyond what the developer
[3:26:20] needs, then maybe the city can figure
[3:26:21] out some way to help fund it. Or we do
[3:26:24] hiring agreements so that the
[3:26:25] neighboring parcels they come in, they help pay that back to the
[3:26:29] developer. I just don't feel like it
[3:26:30] should fall in the city
[3:26:32] >> to help build that at all whether any
[3:26:34] roads, nothing.
[3:26:35] >> I would agree.
[3:26:36] >> Yep. I 100%. I'm I'm I personally am a
[3:26:38] big proponent of the pioneering
[3:26:40] agreement route.
[3:26:41] >> I think it services the opportunity for
[3:26:43] growth in other areas also. So it it not
[3:26:45] only stimulates this current
[3:26:46] development, but it'll stimulate the
[3:26:48] growth around them for people that want
[3:26:49] to use the lift station. It puts the the
[3:26:51] responsibility on and the risk on the
[3:26:55] developer. Like I don't think Hoofer is
[3:26:56] in a position to take risks to that
[3:26:59] nature or to that level to start
[3:27:02] throwing money and bonds and other
[3:27:03] things that ties us up for years and years.
[3:27:06] >> Yeah.
[3:27:06] >> I think that if we're going to recommend
[3:27:08] any kind of an agreement around funding,
[3:27:10] it needs to be more a pioneering
[3:27:11] agreement um that will allow it to
[3:27:14] happen and benefit us without the risk
[3:27:16] all falling on our shoulders.
[3:27:21] » We already mentioned getting rid of the
[3:27:22] flex space, right?
[3:27:24] I think we should get rid of it though.
[3:27:25] >> I think we should get rid of it.
[3:27:26] >> Yeah, it's Well, that's I I don't
[3:27:32] that doesn't fall within any of our
[3:27:33] zoning recommendations.
[3:27:35] >> Correct.
[3:27:38] >> Well, they can still Yeah, the council
[3:27:39] can change that if they wish.
[3:27:44] » Anything else you guys are seeing in
[3:27:46] there?
[3:27:47] So, I just feel like obviously it's a
[3:27:50] big long list and I think that's this
[3:27:51] would be a a good to give them reference
[3:27:54] for approval with this lost.
[3:27:57] Um just curious. So this would be
[3:27:59] whether there's three options, right?
[3:28:01] Approve, reject
[3:28:03] or table or deny. Sorry. If you if you
[3:28:08] do one of the first two, we don't see
[3:28:09] the this DA.
[3:28:12] >> Yeah. Under any of them, it's
[3:28:14] potentially
[3:28:15] >> even the table.
[3:28:16] >> Well, you can table it. Yeah. But I
[3:28:19] don't I'm not here
[3:28:22] He he would he's asked that we not do
[3:28:24] that.
[3:28:25] >> Um
[3:28:26] and I think without without advocating
[3:28:30] for him, the problem that puts him in is
[3:28:34] his his project can't move forward.
[3:28:36] >> He has to come back to us.
[3:28:37] >> Have to come back and and he's I think
[3:28:40] expressed that he's trying to be patient
[3:28:42] through this process. But it's it's now
[3:28:45] reached the point where they're either
[3:28:46] going to start putting in a lot more
[3:28:50] money
[3:28:52] leave the project
[3:28:53] >> there is it is important there is code
[3:28:55] right it
[3:28:58] code but at some point at table you
[3:29:00] would you would have to have action
[3:29:04] applications made funds have been you
[3:29:06] have to make a motion at some point
[3:29:08] >> yes
[3:29:10] same table we have all this big old long
[3:29:12] list like it'd be nice to see this again
[3:29:14] before it goes to the city council which
[3:29:16] I think brings up a good point it' be
[3:29:17] awesome to have a joint session
[3:29:20] to really talk about this.
[3:29:21] >> Yeah, that's kind of my opinion. I don't
[3:29:23] think that with our knowledge and skill
[3:29:25] level, I don't think we're going to ever
[3:29:26] fully understand this to that level.
[3:29:28] That's why we have the city council as a
[3:29:30] team with us. We have Nick and and staff
[3:29:33] to kind of support us in it to help us
[3:29:35] understand it fully. I think we either
[3:29:37] going to approve or deny knowing I mean
[3:29:40] to me what what the developer wants is
[3:29:43] not necessarily going to move my
[3:29:45] decision whether he wants us to table it
[3:29:47] or not. But I don't think there's value
[3:29:48] in tableing it from our perspective
[3:29:50] because whether we see it again, we're
[3:29:51] never going to fully understand it.
[3:29:53] We're going to understand what we
[3:29:54] understand, but let's have a bigger
[3:29:56] discussion that can then build something
[3:29:57] that either passes or fails at the city
[3:30:00] council level.
[3:30:05] » So if we if we deny you got all those
[3:30:08] comments and you would be with those
[3:30:10] that would be passed on to what you're
[3:30:12] here obviously, but to also the city
[3:30:14] council, they're here too. But Okay. So,
[3:30:17] I I I'll make the motion. Any more
[3:30:20] discussion?
[3:30:25] » I don't know if you guys wanted to talk
[3:30:27] about you talked about a lot of uses in
[3:30:28] PUB. Maybe any C2 just
[3:30:32] highlight.
[3:30:32] >> Yeah, I think those things you mentioned
[3:30:34] I think are are great.
[3:30:39] Do you want to remind us about self
[3:30:42] storage? There was all kinds of stuff.
[3:30:44] >> There's some uh
[3:30:48] self storage bars.
[3:30:51] >> Yeah. So in the agreement the develop
[3:30:53] the developer put forth in the agreement
[3:30:56] auto truck recreational vehicle
[3:30:57] equipment storage bar establishment size
[3:31:00] people get business equipment rental and
[3:31:02] supply commercial vehicle equipment. So
[3:31:05] those ones are ones that they'll be
[3:31:07] agreeable to. It's in their agreement.
[3:31:08] But the ones in our code that we might
[3:31:10] inadvertently not realize there's a
[3:31:14] bar
[3:31:16] or nightclub. That's one specific
[3:31:18] contract yard inventory hotel or motel k
[3:31:23] off street parking facility storage
[3:31:25] facility self tower antenna structure
[3:31:28] wasn't there one in there about a tattoo
[3:31:31] >> oh I just was curious I don't
[3:31:35] use ours but there's a lot of words
[3:31:37] around sexually business
[3:31:40] I didn't know what type of restrictions
[3:31:42] we place on that or
[3:31:51] So yeah, those are great. The other two
[3:31:53] I don't know if we mentioned I we talked
[3:31:54] about it in the other portion of the
[3:31:56] agenda, but the if so we don't want the
[3:31:59] mixed use for moving the commercial up.
[3:32:01] So I would say we want the city council
[3:32:05] strongly discuss having that nice
[3:32:07] corridor like pedestrian corridor
[3:32:10] between the commercial and the existing
[3:32:11] homes.
[3:32:13] Yeah, I think it's important even
[3:32:14] throughout the entire development, I
[3:32:15] guess, on that corridor to buffer the
[3:32:17] west side, but even the pedestrian
[3:32:19] connections in the entire development
[3:32:21] kind of like we've discussed before in
[3:32:23] other developments going in the area. I
[3:32:25] think we want those connections
[3:32:26] throughout the entire project.
[3:32:33] So, just to throw this out here.
[3:32:40] So, approve or we don't see this again.
[3:32:44] It moves with our list of
[3:32:46] recommendations or reasoning.
[3:32:48] >> If we table it,
[3:32:49] >> if we prove or deny, we never see it
[3:32:51] again. Where you go?
[3:32:54] >> Well, because because we we have to we
[3:32:56] have to take an action one direction or
[3:32:57] another, but we can also table and I
[3:33:00] know that's not what the developer
[3:33:02] prefers, but that's not it's not all
[3:33:04] about the developer. It's about us and
[3:33:07] Hooker as well. So, if we table it, we
[3:33:10] can take more time to review this on our
[3:33:13] own because I I I'll tell you right now,
[3:33:16] I wouldn't support I wouldn't support
[3:33:18] this right now because there is so much
[3:33:20] in there that I don't understand and and
[3:33:22] I I want to understand it. Like I I
[3:33:26] don't I don't necessarily want to deny
[3:33:28] it and send it to the city council for
[3:33:31] them to try and work through either.
[3:33:34] Ideally, I would like to work with the
[3:33:36] city council, with all of us, and create
[3:33:40] that list of what we want, what we don't
[3:33:42] want, what we do agree to, and what we
[3:33:44] don't agree to. And I know this kicks
[3:33:46] the can down the road a little bit more,
[3:33:48] but it and I know that's inconvenient
[3:33:51] for these folks,
[3:33:53] but it's it's something we could look
[3:33:56] at.
[3:34:00] » I like that idea. That way they could take all these big old
[3:34:04] laundry list of concerns that we had.
[3:34:06] They could try to adjust as a DA and we
[3:34:09] can also talk and hopefully have a
[3:34:11] meeting a joint meeting. I think that's a smart and wise decision
[3:34:16] and we I have two other people here on
[3:34:19] the planning commission hopefully too.
[3:34:21] Yeah, I would agree that I'm not ready
[3:34:23] to approve it by any means. There's far
[3:34:25] too many conditions to place on a
[3:34:26] conditional approval. So I mean to me
[3:34:29] it's definitely a denial at this point.
[3:34:32] >> Well and whether we approve or deny it
[3:34:34] doesn't matter.
[3:34:34] >> Agreed.
[3:34:35] >> It's whether we approve to die or table.
[3:34:37] That's the two differences because if we
[3:34:40] table we get to see it again and we can
[3:34:44] talk more about it.
[3:34:48] Don't you think even if we council's
[3:34:52] amable to including us in discretion? I think so. I really do.
[3:34:58] >> I do too.
[3:35:00] But I I don't I I feel like I almost
[3:35:04] feel like this gives us us approving or
[3:35:07] denying almost gives us the well, it's
[3:35:09] on the city council now and you know to
[3:35:12] do it. Yeah. I mean, they can choose to
[3:35:15] include us in that. I think they would,
[3:35:17] but I I don't know. It's just something
[3:35:19] to discuss.
[3:35:30] I I like that idea. I think I think it'd
[3:35:32] be good to clean it up a little bit
[3:35:33] before it gets here. That way we can if
[3:35:36] he cleans it up and cleans up and and
[3:35:38] addresses our concerns, maybe have a
[3:35:40] positive recommendation to the city
[3:35:42] council at that point and then
[3:35:45] it's going well. But I feel like it's
[3:35:48] way too far. I really like I mentioned
[3:35:49] in the work meeting, this is really the
[3:35:52] second We've talked about it. Maybe
[3:35:54] three if we count. I guess last time
[3:35:57] on Yeah. So, I I feel like it's gone
[3:36:00] pretty quick. So, I I would
[3:36:01] [clears throat]
[3:36:02] I guess I'll I'll make a motion to table
[3:36:04] it in hopes that they can address a lot
[3:36:07] of these comments and then we can have a
[3:36:08] meeting a joint meeting with the city
[3:36:10] council.
[3:36:13] » There's been a motion by Commissioner
[3:36:15] Wait to table. Is there a second?
[3:36:22] or discussion.
[3:36:27] » Yeah, I I probably I'd like to discuss.
[3:36:30] Um
[3:36:32] I guess my thoughts on on that aspect
[3:36:35] are I think it is probably the more
[3:36:38] responsible thing for us to do to table
[3:36:40] it.
[3:36:42] One thing that you said, you know, just
[3:36:44] kind of clicked in my brain that
[3:36:47] I I think that our roles require us to
[3:36:50] have some accountability. And part of
[3:36:52] that accountability is having a a
[3:36:54] document that we can fully support or
[3:36:56] deny. But if we were to deny it tonight,
[3:36:59] it's based off of some assumptions that
[3:37:01] it would change. And so I think as far
[3:37:05] as we're concerned and wanting to have
[3:37:07] accountability for our positions and
[3:37:09] like truly give this the the forethought
[3:37:12] that it requires, I I think tailing is
[3:37:15] the most responsible thing to do.
[3:37:19] >> Any thoughts?
[3:37:21] >> I agree with Nate.
[3:37:26] I mean that I'll second.
[3:37:30] >> So
[3:37:31] all right. So we have a motion set forth
[3:37:34] by Commissioner Wade, seconded by
[3:37:36] Commissioner Denny. All in favor?
[3:37:40] >> I.
[3:37:41] >> Motion carries. Um before we move to
[3:37:45] adjournment, um I just want to tell
[3:37:48] everybody thank you that's sitting out
[3:37:49] on those really hard uncomfortable
[3:37:51] chairs. I spent a lot of spend a lot of
[3:37:53] hours in those too. This is important
[3:37:56] and I hope we get this right. and we
[3:37:59] received a lot of letters uh in every
[3:38:02] direction. There was a lot of good
[3:38:03] feedback tonight. Please continue that.
[3:38:08] So, the more we hear, the more educated
[3:38:10] decisions we can try and make and help
[3:38:13] the city council with this stuff as
[3:38:15] well. So, um at this time, I am going to
[3:38:18] open it up. We have one more uh item on
[3:38:21] here for citizen comment. Uh it can be
[3:38:24] about anything you would like. Uh we
[3:38:26] cannot take on it this evening, but uh a
[3:38:30] motion to move into the citizen comment
[3:38:32] portion.
[3:38:35] » No motion. All right, let's just do it
[3:38:36] then. If somebody's got something they'd
[3:38:38] like to say, come on up.
[3:38:41] Sir, please state your name and you
[3:38:44] >> I am Dale Fard and I am a Hooker City
[3:38:46] resident.
[3:38:49] I'm commenting tonight as a concerned
[3:38:51] citizen. I received the following letter
[3:38:54] that I'd like to read into the record.
[3:38:57] This letter is referencing some property
[3:38:59] that I own in West Herper. I'm aware
[3:39:02] that I am not the only land owner in
[3:39:04] West Her that received this letter.
[3:39:09] So it reads to the owners of the 18
[3:39:11] acres in Hooper.
[3:39:13] I'm reaching out about your 18.2 acres
[3:39:17] at 4600 South in Hooker.
[3:39:20] has made planning changes that make your
[3:39:23] ground meaningfully more developable
[3:39:26] than it used to be. I work with a local
[3:39:29] bu uh home builder who has taken
[3:39:32] projects from rock ground to finished
[3:39:34] neighborhoods all over Utah. I noticed
[3:39:37] the change and wanted to make sure you
[3:39:40] knew and to see if you would like to
[3:39:43] hear what it could mean for you. I have
[3:39:46] included a snapshot of your property
[3:39:49] below so you can verify that this is the
[3:39:51] correct property and it is the correct
[3:39:53] property.
[3:39:56] My question is why is a developer from
[3:40:00] Saratoga Springs under the impression
[3:40:03] that Hoover City's general plan has been
[3:40:05] changed allowing for higher density
[3:40:08] development.
[3:40:10] I am aware that a committee has been
[3:40:12] formed to work on changing our general
[3:40:14] plan, but there have been no public
[3:40:17] meetings held. No changes have been
[3:40:19] made. Yet, for some reason, this
[3:40:22] developer seems to think the changes are
[3:40:25] a done deal.
[3:40:27] I would like to stress the planning
[3:40:29] commission, the city council, and the
[3:40:32] residents of Hooper City that any
[3:40:33] changes to our general p plan should be
[3:40:36] done as much with as much community
[3:40:40] involvement as possible.
[3:40:42] All changes should be carefully
[3:40:44] considered by the residents of Hooper
[3:40:47] as they are the ones who will be most
[3:40:49] affected. My hope is that the minds of
[3:40:53] those involved in this decision have not
[3:40:56] made up their mind. As members of the
[3:40:58] planning commission and city council, it
[3:41:01] is important that we never forget whose
[3:41:04] best interest we never forget those who
[3:41:07] our best interest is involved with,
[3:41:09] those we represent.
[3:41:12] Thank you.
[3:41:15] Any other citizen comment
[3:41:17] this evening?
[3:41:22] » Okay. At this time, I'll entertain a
[3:41:24] motion to adjurnn.
[3:41:26] I'll make a motion that we adjourn.
[3:41:28] >> Second.
[3:41:29] >> Motion to adjourn. All in favor?
[3:41:32] >> I thank you.
[3:41:35] >> Recording.