Are you ready?
Yeah.
OK.
Kurt, we're up.
Okay.
Hello, everyone.
The time is 5:03 p.m..
Appreciate it.
Is August 24 2026.
We are here for the Mill Creek City Council work session
Present are council members.
We be Caton desire it and handy and I'm Sherry Jackson.
I'm the mayor and our first item on the agenda
is a discussion for the missing middle housing and neighborhoods
with Francis Lilly.
Our assistance city manager.
Tom, I know you've been very involved in this,
so there's things You want to chime in on.
Good evening Council.
Thank you for your time So this follows up on a discussion
that you had with Mike at our last meeting
and this follows up with the discussion
I had with the Planning Commission
on Wednesday last Wednesday.
So we're Mike, focused on the incentive side of increasing
of Utah's supply of affordable housing
in Mill Creek I'm going to be walking you through the planning
and zoning tools, both the tools we've implemented so far,
and some ideas for the future.
It's so happens that we are, thanks to you
your present decision to set aside some money in our general
in our budget, we are working on a general plan update
and the timing is right to work this
into certain elements of the general plan
and in a systematic way so that essentially be what
our recommendation is tonight.
But I wanted to start with reviewing where reviewing where
Mike started his presentation a couple of weeks ago,
and that is we do anticipate a fairly significant housing
shortage by 2030.
And this was data It's a few years old at this point,
but this is data of supplied by Zions Bank public Finance
to mill Creek for the millcreek housing report in 2024.
However, the housing shortage is a little bit more nuanced
when you look at the affordability thresholds that
are identified in the report and act as kind
of a baseline for housing affordability in the county
at or below 30%.
AMI So 100%.
Ami for a family of two is about 70,000.
OK So at, at or below 30%, AMI, there's
going to be a housing shortage of, of 3401 units by 2030.
Now that there's probably nothing
that planning regulations set back rules, height rules
and the like can do to solve that problem We could help,
but we probably won't be able to solve that problem.
That requires a level of significant government
intervention.
It really is that that 80 to 100%
am I where maybe planning and zoning can make
a significant difference Francis Let me ask a question
So you have a jump between It shows
that there's units for 50%.
Am I then there's a deficit for 80% and then there's we're
in the black again, 400%.
How does that work?
Because couldn't people who are in the 80%,
am I i mean, how does that calculate Right.
So what that talks about is that if you're if your income.
So if you're if you are 50% Ami, what that means
is that you can spend x dollars on mortgage or rent.
And utilities right at 30% of your income
is the category at that level There is anticipated
to be a small surplus or 659 units
of housing That's probably our 80 use.
That's probably you know, some of the class c,
you know, existing housing stock that's that's for rent out there
That's probably what that is.
But but each of those thresholds assumes a certain maximum income
that you can allocate to rent but wouldn't then
the people who are at 80% AMI I just rent those units?
They could They could, but it kind of maybe
squishes them, right and a little bit more right.
That's a good point Frances, One question about that
is that if all things remain the same or is
that anticipating some growth in our housing stock.
So that that does anticipate that was basically a snapshot.
It did anticipate that the projects that we had approved
would come online within the 2030 time horizon
up to that point So everything that's been approved
are entitled assuming it got built would be would be
reflective of this Now the truth is every few years,
we probably ought to revisit these numbers right
And we might be at a point where we want to revisit
these numbers, because it is just a point in time count
and then, you know, it needs to be reevaluated What I do know is
that, you know, mortgage interest rates are still high
rent has rent rates have softened just a little bit,
but not much.
And so I don't anticipate these numbers being dramatically
different now But they might be in some cases
a little bit worse.
And in some cases a little bit better.
Can I ask, just to clarify and question on the AMA I
so for people who are watching, am I for us is roughly what,
78,000, more or less ?
Yeah, for a family of two.
So a change is right.
So thousand 80% of that that works its way down.
Correct.
OK.
Thank you So another way to look at the housing challenge
is the median home value in Millcreek.
And this is from Zillow As of today, it changes quite a bit,
but according to Zillow, the median home value is 640,335
bucks, which means that half of the homes
in the market are worth less Half the homes
in the market are worth more.
And understand to be affordable at 100%.
Am I based on what we expect mortgage
interest rates to be right now?
An affordable house is 400, about about $451,000.
OK.
So most of our housing stock is priced well above affordability,
but interestingly enough, the most interesting
this is this graph that I found right.
And you can see what's happened between 2019 and 2022.
This wasn't always the story in Millcreek right Millcreek
has always been known for an abundance of real high end
housing But there was also housing
opportunity down the line.
And within the last within the last five years or so,
that has changed pretty dramatically in our community.
As it has elsewhere along the Wasatch Front
So this next phase of this presentation
really will go into a progress report on what we've done so
far for affordable housing We pulled from our general plan
to do this, to do this quick presentation for you next week I
should have actually a full progress report on the entirety
of our general plan where we look at every general plan goal
and list out what we've what we've done so far.
But for now, I want to just talk about housing.
So both the general plan and state mandates
required compelled us or encouraged
us to to work on some station area
plans to accommodate affordable housing in our Meadowbrook area.
You know, ironically we had a lot of zoning
in place that would support affordable housing,
but we didn't have plans So this council approved the meadowbrook
and Mill Creek Master plan and the Murray North Master Plan,
both of which are stationed here.
Plans and within the station areas or between them to we
have approved since 2018 390 affordable housing units that
are built or under construction in in in the in the Murray North
and Meadowbrook Station area stationary plans the project
to you right which is Howick is 140
units of deeply affordable housing
from I believe 35 to 65%.
Am I It's a big project.
It's a big deal for the community We've done progress.
We've also approved through development agreement
We've worked on affordability targets and we've and we that
have yielded 30 new affordable housing units that are entitled
six of which are built. That's the Capri homes at about 3,500
south northeast Those are both deed
restricted for affordability and owner occupancy.
We did that without any sort of incentive.
We just did it because it was the right thing to do.
And and the developer was willing to do it.
The project on the left is m.S. 2923
In a condo project, the city council
approved just about a month and a half ago.
And that project, if you remember also
involves participation with some of the incentives
that Mike discussed at the meeting last week
or last Two weeks ago Since 2024, we have
reason for additional density.
OK.
We've done this all over the place,
but I wanted to call out three particular units that
were on corridors or near corridor
or near areas of transit but also these are projects.
This list of five projects are ones that the council,
in its deliberation and almost treated either affordability
or owner occupancy or both as a sort of tiebreaker
because the future land use map calls for certain thresholds
on densities.
And in some of these cases, the council
has exceeded those thresholds because it met other targets
in the general plan, including the provision
of some sort of affordability target and/or owner occupancy.
The project on the left on Garden Drive, our six CPLEX,
right.
And you remember we went through the process of working with them
on designing these these units to look
a resemble single family homes and
they're under construction now.
On the right is is the project at 4317
south 700 east if you recall that's kind
of a blended density that's that's a blended density
and mixed affordable project.
It's all market driven.
So we don't have a subsidy in, in in either of these projects
But I'm confident that the 14 units in the front,
which are indicated by this elevation on the right,
are going to be affordable just by virtue of their size
and the way they're configured in the building.
And this is a pretty good looking
building from the street.
So how big are these units Oh, gosh, about
8 or 900ft² or one bedroom?
Yeah.
Our studio the one bedroom, 1 or 1
bedroom, maybe 2, and some of them same with the Six CPLEX.
The six CPLEX is a little bit bigger so they're probably
two bed each of those Okay We have also reduced
or you have reduced setbacks.
Just an envelope requirements and
increased lot coverage and smaller residential zones.
These are relatively recent changes
that we haven't seen a whole lot of action in the space,
but we looked at the modest by design, if not because Two homes
in daybreak to be a model for how we might make
our one for our one, three, and our own five zones
work a little bit better and we have we've
made these adjustments to actually make
it a little bit more easier for a home like this
to be built in Mill Creek.
I am anecdotal Ali, seeing a lot more interest in additions now
I'm not seeing a lot of people beating
down the door to build a house like this, though, right?
What what people want to build is
something far more, far more significant,
even if it's on a small lot.
But we have that there Oh, I'm sorry.
That was from the previous slide Anyway,
the the other project I want to talk about
is this is interesting This will be the first time
you've seen this.
And this will probably be the last time you've seen this.
And let me explain why.
In 2025, as we did our zoning and subdivision code update,
one of the things that the council decided
was that affordable housing would be a permitted use,
not a conditional use not a development agreement.
It permitted use of the Planning Commission
is not really going to see this project
either Are solid County Housing authority which is now known
as Housing Connect owns the owns the historic trailer
park on Park Hill way between Second and third East.
And they've owned it for a number
of years They bought the trailers in fairly bad shape
and maintain them.
And eventually is working on a plan to rehouse the residents
in these trailers.
Most of them are aging out of the they're aging in place
and substandard situation I was relieved that the county housing
authority bought this project because I knew that it would
take care of the clients there.
Right.
And in fact, they have a whole continuum
of housing that would fit very well
for what these folks needed.
They never owned or they may have owned the trailers,
but they never owned the land So it
was always communally owned Well,
here's what they want to do.
They want to do 70 units of deeply affordable housing 35%.
Am I?
It's precisely at that target that we really
can't do much by zoning But what we can do
is we can make it easier for them to permit the project right
and time equals money, especially
for affordable housing projects where
they're pursuing low income housing
tax credits and the like.
Right So they're actually pursuing a low income housing
tax credit as a permitted project,
not as a conditional use, not as a development agreement using
the design standards that we have in our code
And that's the type of building that it produces.
We're pretty proud of this.
We've just worked with them as staff to kind of come up
with this project and 70 units of deeply affordable
housing on the East side.
I'm sorry, on the west side of this, they will be rentals.
Yep Owned and managed by housing connect, which is the Salt
Lake County Housing Authority.
So this project is made possible by the permitted use provision
and the density bonuses that are available in our code
for affordable housing This is what the site
plan is going to look like.
So it will have covered parking a large garden on
and you're looking at the West half of the site, right?
If you look at the East, half of this bow tie shaped piece
they want to subdivide that for affordable owner
occupied housing, some sort of townhome
or row home development.
Again, it will be permitted use it'll be a straightforward
subdivision and this wouldn't be possible right without
or wouldn't be possible in this format.
And at the speed without the changes that we made in the code
we've let the state in permitting
detached accessory dwelling units,
we've approved at least 87 of them
so far We also made it easier to expand a home
or build a home on a small lot.
Francis i'm sorry, I have a question
on the last the park hill.
Yeah.
Was that was were any of those units
going to be geared to seniors citizens at some point Yes.
Most most.
If not all of those units will be senior housing OK.
And functionally, it's permanent supportive housing for seniors.
It's independent living Right.
So it's not permanent supportive housing in the sense
that switch point is permanent supportive housing.
But it really is kind of like the last stop
to prevent these veteran, these folks
from becoming homeless Right.
I'm sorry.
And did you say that housing Connect is helping to relocate
some of the existing residents or they already did that,
or they're in process They're in process.
Now.
Are any of is there any plans to bring
those people into this housing?
Yes We have led the state in permitting 80 years.
We have approved at least 87.
So far.
This is the number that we reported to the housing
to the Department of Workforce Services this year.
And we've also made it easier to expand
home or build on a small lot.
And we did that by adjusting building envelopes
and by you know, clarifying lot coverage and the like.
This is important This is kind of a sleeper issue.
This doesn't necessarily show up theoretically,
as an affordable housing issue.
But what that's what this does is it allows someone
to reinvest in their property to update it, thereby relieving
pressure on the market, you know,
because they would otherwise move somewhere else.
Yeah And so I think these little also the cheapest of the most
readily available affording affordable housing stock,
you have is the one that you have right
It's in our neighborhoods now And so the extent to which we
can allow people to build on their equity,
make it easier to live, make it easier to maybe
to rent a portion of their home also
helps the affordability target by,
you know, just providing more opportunities.
Right We have reason to accommodate housing and centers.
These two examples.
One is the homes on the corner of Villa Vista in Richmond
and the other on the right are the new residences at olympus
Cove Now, these are interesting because neither these
could conceivably be classified as affordable housing.
But again, if you're thinking about,
you know, a strategy that is universal in its scope
there is a place for simply expanding housing supply.
Right and allowing allowing people to move
upmarket when they need to move or when they desire to move up
market, which again relieves pressure downstream in the class
B, Class C space for rentals and and existing homes
for mortgages We also embrace supportive housing.
OK.
This is a special this is a special one for me, right?
Because it's not really a planning regulatory posture
that we've taken but it is direction.
I've taken from the city council to work proactively
with the service providers to make sure that it's
a good benefit to the community and most importantly,
a good benefit to the residents there.
And you know, Mayor Jackson, Councilmember handy,
you've been very helpful, too, in engaging switch
point in in this project.
But we don't do it with just switch point right ?
I work.
I mean i meet quarterly with the valley Oaks for example,
and we have engaged proactively to, as PD requests with Odyssey
house with Turning Point with Oasis,
it's important to build relationships with them.
It's important to build at least enough camarade agree with them.
Between us and the operator and the resident that it really
does make a difference when when,
when a challenge occurs Right?
So here's an example.
This is the most effective example
that we have And it's also also credit promise
for helping set this up, too.
But at the first anniversary of Switch point,
you showed up and and delivered ice cream.
And there's a photo of that.
So we do embrace support of permanent supportive housing,
but we don't do it in a way that's hands off.
Right.
We know that's that supportive housing comes
with some some trade, some and potentially some risks
if that relationship isn't handled well.
And we are really proud amongst city staff
and in this department and with update and promise
for you know working proactively with these service providers
though thanks to everybody in earshot for helping that That's
what we've done so far right They don't want us to feel bad
But the question is, how have we moved the dial enough?
Maybe not.
Maybe there's more we can do.
And here are some policy options that we discussed
with the housing subcommittee on the Planning Commission
with the full plenary planning Commission,
and now are discussing with you.
One option is to subdivide or allow for 80 years
to be subdivided.
We already allow them in most cases
But right now that ownership has to be
tethered to the same owner, right?
So the 80 you cannot be sold or lease or conveyed separately,
but some cities are thinking of creating that option subject
to a deed restriction, ensuring owner occupancy for both
lots So the one advantage to this
is that the uses already there.
So the real question is, what does the ownership
mean The other advantages on a dollar for dollar basis, right?
A modest 88 800ft² is going to be
much more affordable than, you know,
the 3,000 square foot home.
That's it's next time.
So it provides a relatively inexpensive market driven
solution for affordable home ownership and other cities
have tried this, right?
It doesn't necessarily change the built character
of a single family neighborhood because those 80
use are already there.
However, it might make it a little bit more likely
that someone will do an 80 year if they know that they
can sell it in the future.
But it also challenges the notion
of what a single household zone and a lot.
So with a certain lot size minimum
means and that that may require a little bit
of soul searching with our neighborhoods
right the next steps.
The next steps on that in the subsequent
slides, we'll get to in just a minute The other question is
and we've wrestled with this in this body just a few weeks ago,
should we require and for affordable city
component for reasons requesting more density.
So Farmington actually requires this.
So in other words, if you come in and ask
for a reason for greater density beyond a certain scope
Farmington Code will require you to do a certain component
of that project as affordable Specifically,
the general plan calls us out as an option There are trade here,
too.
It may not be effective unless it's done at scale.
So like stone Brook, which is about 160 units,
I'm not sure that it makes sense for a small project
because imagine you're doing rezoning for units, right?
And you say, well, 25% of those for units or one unit
needs to be affordable What what's really happening,
then is the developer is just subsidizing
the cost of that affordable unit and amortizing
out across the other three.
I'm not sure that that makes that big of a difference,
but it might be, but it might make a difference at scale.
However, I also know that land is really, really really,
really, really expensive And if we had this requirement,
it might just stop development in certain areas.
Right?
Do you know Farmington has had any like qualms about developers
coming in and saying like, well, we
don't want to participate Like, do they have has it slowed
their development in any way?
I don't I don't think so.
Farmington is mostly infill now.
I mean, around Station Park, they've
done a lot of affordable stuff already
for like tax credit, whatnot.
But interestingly enough, Silvia is the the developers
are tying this affordability component
to that adu subdivision idea.
So you'll actually have a developer come in
and say, I want to do single family homes,
but I'm going to subdivide these these, these Adu lots.
And that's the bank.
And that might make sense for Farmington
because they have what they, what they have most of
and that's not a lot is just infill single family right
another option.
And councilmember desire has suggested this is something
to consider should we consider up zoning for higher densities
near public schools Now I approached this question
to the Planning Commission.
And they had some interesting ideas to One idea.
And Tom, correct me if I'm wrong or feel free to step in,
but a well-designed overlay zone or alternative development
standard could secure affordable ownership opportunities.
Areas closest to schools that face declining enrollment.
The goal here is to create the type of housing that
is attractive to those types of families that would go
to the schools and would essentially, you know,
prevent these schools from from closing.
And in the concept could be duplexes.
Triplexes fourplex is in areas within a quarter
or half a mile of a public school.
Of course, there are some considerations in order to make
it family friendly right?
You would need to have a relatively high number
of minimum, a number of bedrooms to make it work,
which means you would need to work on parking, which also
means that you would need to somehow work out
some sort of plan for deed restrictions
to ensure affordability or occupancy The Planning
Commission was intrigued by this idea, To be honest
and in fact, a couple of them said,
should we consider hospitals and parks as also opportunities
for this type of concept recognizing that, you know
our single family neighborhoods in many cases
aren't really single family neighborhoods,
What they are mixed right?
Most of our neighborhoods in no creek are mixed.
Not all, but many of them are.
And One thing that was mentioned is
this could be tied to preapproved house plans So here
are some examples from South Bend where they've actually
essentially developed these preapproved house
plans that, you know, someone can come in and buy
and your plan reviews are already done.
Right You just have to do a quick code review to make sure
that it fits on the lot And South Bend has gone
into enough detail where they've said,
you know, this six unit apartment building
is allowed in certain areas.
And this two bedroom cottage is allowed in certain areas.
It's very neighborhood specific I bring this up because there's
movement at the state level, maybe to help
support cities to do this.
There's also grant money available
through the new bipartisan housing bill that was set aside.
This could be a way to do it It requires us to really understand
what the building envelope is, and that's
why, in a kind of a previous discussion
we mentioned, we might want to set aside some money to actually
have an architect explore how these units would fit
within our existing building envelope,
because all things being equal, right, as long
as you handle the parking and as long as you handle, you know,
coverage setback and height, if you can design these things
to look as much like a single family home
they might not look that much different than the duplexes
or triplexes We already have in many of our neighborhoods.
But this requires I think, a lot of study and work
I'm also not sure that there's a guarantee
that families with school age children will attend
and there's really no way for us to force that to happen
for a fair housing rules.
So i think I think this is definitely
worth this is definitely worth pursuing you know, understanding
that there's you know, engagement and trade to be
had here and ask a question.
Yes.
So I know the majority of our schools are in Beds district.
I they're in a lot of the older neighborhoods.
I'm thinking of like district Three.
I know there's areas where people have wanted.
They've had larger lots and wanted to subdivide
and they couldn't because the waterline is not
large enough to support that.
And I mean, and throughout the whole neighborhood.
So has there been a conversation with Salt Lake
City public utilities or anything because that would
require additional water that would require separate metering
and not only with water, but with power and gas
and all of that which is might be a heavy lift.
Has there been conversations?
Not yet.
I mean and we're actually going to recommend kind of a process
to begin those conversations in a way that allows
these ideas to develop and Francis has some good thoughts
on how we'll be able to continue to say
and flesh those out in a slide or two.
So some of these questions might be answered shortly Yeah.
All right.
So another option is housing preservation
And don't ever be sorry Housing preservation.
And should the question here is, should
the city require that affordable housing be replaced?
If it is demolished ?
This issue came up with the expansion of St Mark's, which
took out 6 or 7 units. in that case,
there was enough community reinvest money set aside
to help offset that through, you know,
some of the other city's housing goals.
But salt Lake City has adopted an ordinance
that prohibits the demolition of housing
and commercial parking lots.
And this topic is this topic came up.
The planning commission was really mixed on this right?
There was concern about how this could be a very rough tool
and that maybe the city's best interest is
deployed in a more demand side or supply
or demand side approach.
But there are some planning commissioners that felt really
strongly that we ought to consider this I will say
that the St Mark's project was the first time that I witnessed
housing being removed for a commercial use
and not a mixed use, right.
Most of the time housing is demolished for more housing.
There were handfuls a scattering of housing units
on top of city hall.
But now there's much more around us
commercial encroachment into neighborhood
residential neighborhoods is rare and protecting,
but protecting existing housing is the easiest strategy
and it does relieve some development pressure.
Now, real quick, right I think there
are there are policy statements in our general plan
and then there are ordinances that are hard and fast rules.
This could be a policy statement and a general plan
to help guide development decisions in the future.
It does not necessarily need to be an ordinance
And then finally, missing middle reasons.
So the question here is like, should we
reconsider our zoning map and our flu map to encourage
missing middle housing?
Just look at it more globally.
So functionally, many of our neighborhoods
have duplexes in them due to historic zoning
This would unlock the possibility of gentle density
if we did it the right way.
We have a general plan that supports
this idea in part right?
There are some specific goals called out
that talked about you know, making, you know,
targeted interventions into our single family neighborhoods
to support higher density where appropriate
However, the general plan also calls out for keeping
these single family neighborhoods intact
Our Northeast Corridor study that we did last year
identified maybe some opportunities along the corridor
that we could expand options for housing.
However, this requires substantial engagement and study
and this might require a more granular approach
to our future land use map that then than the current map really
allows us to do which is one of the reasons why we requested
as staff some money to redo our general plan So here's
our recommendation This came from the Planning
Commission meeting.
And this came from a discussion with staff
what they would like us to do now
or what they would suggest that we do now is that we adopt
the third South and Northeast Corridor plan
So I'm going to take that to the Planning Commission
in the next couple of months in this fall
will bring that to you.
They also recommended that we actually
make some tweaks to the future land use
map of the Northeast corridor.
You know early this year or later this year or early next,
because that's where we are seeing a lot
of the development pressure.
We could do that now.
We don't have to wait The planning Commission
had an interesting idea.
Invite developers who specialize in missing middle housing
to a strategy meeting and begin to build
a relationship with them.
The truth is the type of development
that I'm seeing right now is not accommodating this right.
Most of the people who come to us sight unseen
want to build townhomes right?
And and those townhomes are they want to sell for three quarters
of $1 million, which is crazy.
But that's the way that that's what the market.
But that's what the market is presenting to us.
I would like to get you know, people in the room who are who
are who are really interested in building modest homes
and just see how that works.
And what, if anything, is in the way and what,
if anything, can the city do now to consider as part
of the general plan update The just to, you know,
the planning commission was pretty
warm to you know, any or all of these ideas,
to varying intensities.
But they felt pretty strongly that you know,
since we're going to be doing a general plan that we really
ought to roll these conversations
into that whole process and i thought to myself,
a general plan is a two year document, right?
I don't want necessarily want to wait two years.
How might we roll the how how might
we roll this into the process to give us and you the option
to make some policy decisions more rapidly,
you know, given the urgency of the housing issues
So Isaac jested that we actually start Arkansas Colton
Right on the process of doing targeted policy
briefings on these ideas.
School oriented development design considerations
missing military zones, housing preservation strategies
in general, and subdividing ideas
to look at the trade to engage the public
on the specific topic.
I don't necessarily want to go back to the public and say,
Do you want more housing?
Right?
But what I want to do is go to the public and like,
here are some options.
What do you think the policy brief would review literature
and gather data and the policy brief
would make recommendations?
What I'm anticipating is that these policy briefs will
be delivered to you 1 or 2 at a time,
and then we can actually begin to move on.
Ordinance changes at that time, if the City Council does,
if the city council desires.
The advantage of that is that each of these items
requires a healthy amount of engagement and pretty
sophisticated engagement to.
Secondly it might benefit us to have a third party just handle
that conversation because some of these conversations,
although the reality is, you know the reality is they
may not make that much of a difference
in our neighborhood cycle.
Logically, they can be a big difference to people,
right, in how they conceive of them, how
they perceive their neighborhoods
and our needs have help with that.
Right.
That's not something that I don't think I could lead out
on successfully for the city.
Right.
That and that's that's sometimes why we hire consultants to kind
of help us almost act as a buffer
and to give the residents a kind of a third party
to have these kind of candid, sometimes fraught discussions
on, but also they have the time.
And they have the ability to really look broadly
And, we're busy kind of doing other things.
So I thought this might be a good approach
My goal here is to not kind of sit on these right once.
For example, the school or in a development thing was done.
We would bring it to you.
And we would, you know, we would present the policy brief we
would look at the trade offs.
We would give you an analysis of the data.
We would report on community feedback and then we would,
you know allow you to kind of make a decision at that point.
And we would do each of these in sequence.
And what do you think I have a few questions.
I can your butt back one slide.
So this is what you're presenting
and I thank you for the very thoughtful just analysis of all
this I'll tell you for me, I would really
like to look at what the missing middle zone middle reasons
could look like.
And this is I might be jumping around in this,
but the anticipation of what housing will cost
when the Olympics come or as labor and the economy
increases as far as how it's associated with the Olympics
I mean, that cost of living is going to go up significantly.
So that is a future.
But having that larger perspective of knowing
that housing is going to increase, I'd really like,
at least for me, I'd like to see how
we address the missing middle reasons
or however this is priority test.
Second is the school oriented development
because the majority of the schools are in my district,
I'm just thinking a mile, two mile and a half
is the potential for this to look at future rezoning
because there's a lot of single family homes that are currently
there Does that entail the city coming in to buy homes to then
create, or is this a phase out of those,
say say, a developer purchases 2 or 3 homes who happen
which happened to be on sale.
Does that entail Oh, I'm just thinking of all the schools
and a quarter mile to a mile from those schools
are all still very I can answer that question.
OK.
So when I First started looking into this,
I had Brian Poole on Map and I can get you
that map of what it would look like if it
was a mile around every school.
And if it was a mile around every school.
It's effectively the entire city by thought is really
it should just be a quarter mile And then second, it wouldn't we
wouldn't have the city doing this.
It would just be an overlay zone where if I developer wants
to go and buy a house that's up for sale
and is willing to go put in a 3 to four bedroom units
that have enough parking and that are for sale
and deed restricted, they would be able to do that.
And then I also thank you.
I appreciate and I would love to see them out.
One of the other concerns.
I have, too, is just the recent school closure
discussions that we've had.
So when we're looking at the school oriented development
with school closures happening does
the overlay of around the schools that could potentially.
I mean, birth rates not going up significantly
you know, right now.
So as we see a decline in the birth rates are we
are we conscious of how that affects
the zones around the schools?
If they are potentially going to be closed?
And the intent was the initial intent
was to entice young families to kind of keep those schools open.
Mm hmm.
So I'm just I'm throwing it out there,
know the mayor and council, these are good questions.
And there's no way we'll be able to answer them all.
Obviously, in this forum or this afternoon But I think Francis
and planning's request is, hey, that they're already proceeding
with the general plan update It's in the budget
for this fiscal year.
Should they be looking at some of these specific housing
strategies and maybe some other ones?
And the third party experts will get in and come back
and say, you know what, that's a good idea or you know what?
This idea doesn't really pencil or.
And so his question, the thing he wants you to think of tonight
is, are these Five good things that we should have the analysis
of the general plan update look at and/or are there other things
that you may think of, you don't even
have to answer that tonight.
The point of tonight was just kind of a bit of a thought
starter and we certainly have other work
meetings in the future to discuss housing to Yeah,
absolutely.
And just thinking about the school oriented design and Bev's
district, if you're looking at Skyline, Wasatch Upland Terrace,
that's pretty I mean, a quarter of a mile, that's pretty much
that whole stretch of East Millcreek I'm concerned
that there aren't any representatives from District
four that have been involved in this discussion
because the Planning Commissioners are
are in district to i don't know if they're in District three,
but that's that's that the neighborhood that really is
because it's seven seven schools in district Four that's that's
the neighborhood that is going to be
most heavily impacted and changed
if that were to come about.
So I'd really like to get a lot of feedback
from people who live in that neighborhood
just to kind of gauge the temperature on and what that
looks like, because I also gauging the temperature
you can determine where the priorities go in Like
I think this is a great plan, and do we move to design
considerations not to see any diminish in any means anyway
Sure.
But it allows at least some of the resident to be
more impacted and potentially even granted school.
I mean, yeah they may know things we don't
know about school closures.
I don't we don't know It'd be helpful to know
to i don't think they know anything at this Okay.
Thank you.
That was my feedback.
Yeah.
No, thank you.
So are you looking for any more direction from us tonight,
or is this just kind of to get the conversation
started and will come back?
I think i think the do.
Now the three that you have make sense.
And I think that's something we can start moving ahead on.
OK that future land use map and zone
changes in the in the general plan
update that's that's a longer.
I think items four and five mayor will come back to you
in the coming weeks and months though not tons and months,
but as we pick a consult in and give direction
we agree this is something we need
to get ahead of so that we're not really behind the curve,
especially with So I'll leave you with this.
When we did our last general plan,
there was no staff and about two thirds of the way through it,
I was hired This time we have a staff of ten, right?
And so we're approaching this general plan a little bit
differently.
I don't need the consultant to come in and write
the whole thing right.
We could do it ourselves.
We have an amazing amazing, highly skilled, very competent
cartographer in our department who can
actually do a lot of this, too.
And he's already doing some of the analysis Sean
and Brad and Carlos are working with me on this, too.
So we're going to be in the pilot seat in this general plan.
And so what I need the consultant to do
is really some very discrete tasks,
right And the other thing I don't want to do
is just kind of throw them into a public meaning
that's entirely open ended.
I think it's I think i think our discussions will be far more
successful if they're far more targeted And I'm, you know,
grateful to Councilmember Josiah and grateful to the rest
of the council for giving us some kind of ideas to chew on.
Right.
And I think I think I think you'll get some good feedback.
Right, because that's very specific.
And it's very like down to earth and and it can get kind of
into the it can cut to the quick and it'll be good It'll be good.
So thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
OK We are to the field trip portion of our work session.
So are we ready to go?
A recorder mentions that you should probably
adjourn actually when you come in for the stand
to adjourn second.
All in favor I.