[0:00] C commission I mean welcome uh welcome

[0:04] everybody. Thank you for being here

[0:06] tonight.

[0:08] Um we have a fairly full agenda and it

[0:11] has been requested that we really hug

[0:13] these microphones tonight so that um we

[0:16] can hear. So just kind of keep that in

[0:18] mind. Um and I'll do the same. Feel free

[0:20] to remind me. Um,

[0:24] we have the invocation or thought by

[0:26] Commissioner Bailey and the pledge of

[0:28] allegiance by Commissioner Jorgensson.

[0:30] And we'll go that far.

[0:32] >> All right. Well, thanks everyone for

[0:34] being here. My my thought is somewhat

[0:37] surrounded uh some other planning

[0:40] commission and consequences

[0:42] recently in the state of Utah. I've been

[0:46] seeing comments online. It's not in

[0:48] North Agn. I think we all know what I'm

[0:49] talking about, but

[0:52] it it just brought the thought of maybe

[0:53] unintended consequences. So, we have a

[0:56] heavy burden on our shoulders to do our

[1:00] best to interpret our code, our zoning

[1:03] code, our ordinances, and make a

[1:06] recommendation to our elected officials.

[1:09] But with everyone here today voicing an

[1:11] opinion, it does it does add to the

[1:15] conversation to ensure that we get it

[1:18] right according to our code, according

[1:21] to our citizens,

[1:23] and importantly according to property

[1:26] owners in North Ogden as well. So

[1:29] there's just a a really interesting

[1:32] balance there. And if you look at some

[1:34] of these other, you know, consequences

[1:37] of decisions that you see around the

[1:39] state,

[1:41] you know, digging a little deeper,

[1:43] there's there's a little bit of a

[1:45] history of unintended consequences

[1:48] that sometimes lead to those things you

[1:50] didn't see coming. So, we do our best to

[1:54] uh understand our precedent that we set,

[1:57] but our hands are sometimes tied by a

[1:59] precedent that was set before us. So

[2:02] that's kind of my thought for today.

[2:04] Thanks.

[2:06] >> Okay,

[2:08] >> everyone would join and uh rise and join

[2:11] us in the pledge of allegiance.

[2:14] >> I aliance to the flag of the United

[2:18] States of America and to the republic

[2:21] for which it stands, one nation under

[2:24] God, indivisible, with liberty and

[2:27] justice for all.

[2:33] Thank you, Commissioner Bailey. Thank

[2:35] you, Commissioner Jorgensson. Uh, roll

[2:38] call today. Well, we we'd like to excuse

[2:40] Commissioner Green. Um, she has previous

[2:44] notice. She won't be here tonight. Um,

[2:46] and I would look for a motion to approve

[2:50] the minutes of the May 20th meeting,

[2:53] 2026.

[2:55] >> So moved.

[2:59] Jorgensson.

[3:00] >> All right. With Commissioner Swanson

[3:02] motion to approve the meetings or

[3:04] meeting minutes and Commissioner

[3:06] Jorgensson seconded the motion. Voice

[3:09] vote. All in favor?

[3:11] >> I.

[3:12] Great. Any conflict of interest or

[3:15] exparte communications or disclosures?

[3:19] Okay.

[3:21] >> Look at us cruising through it. All

[3:23] right. Uh we'd like to open up uh for

[3:27] public comments for items not on the

[3:29] agenda. Um these are specifically

[3:32] comments that maybe don't fit in with

[3:34] the agenda tonight. I wanted to read

[3:36] this. Um this this what I read now will

[3:40] go through um not only comments that

[3:43] will be said now, but during the public

[3:45] hearing as well. Time is made available

[3:47] for anyone in the audience to address

[3:49] the commission concerning matters

[3:50] pertaining to city business. Citizens

[3:53] will be asked to limit their remarks to

[3:55] five minutes. We'll have a timer just in

[3:57] case. Um any materials that are

[3:59] displayed are referenced with pictures,

[4:01] written materials, part of the record,

[4:03] and must be left with the commission.

[4:05] Speakers are required to have signed in

[4:07] at the door and will state their name

[4:09] and city residing before beginning

[4:11] remarks. If you agree with the previous

[4:14] speaker, state your agreement to avoid

[4:15] repetitious remarks. Speakers shall

[4:18] address the commission from the podium

[4:20] or microphone and shall address all

[4:21] comments to the planning commission.

[4:25] Uh with that being said, find first page

[4:28] again. Um any public comments for items

[4:32] not on the agenda?

[4:36] » Uhhuh. Yep.

[4:43] » I've only done one to one other of these

[4:44] medies. Anyway, this I'm Janine Mcnite.

[4:46] I live here in North Ogden and I have

[4:48] lived here since August of 1993.

[4:52] When I moved in, there was only one

[4:54] block above us on the hill and

[4:56] everything was mountain. So I have seen

[4:59] numerous changes, many of which of

[5:02] course have made it more noisy and busy

[5:04] and and some of that in the name of

[5:06] progress is good and some may not be.

[5:10] So, um, in items not on the agenda, I

[5:14] didn't see anything about the

[5:16] convenience store on 3100. And that's

[5:19] what I wanted to address. I wanted to

[5:21] find out in coming tonight what the

[5:23] process is of of zoning and how you

[5:26] reszone, if that's put to a vote of the

[5:30] citizens or you just hear comment and

[5:32] then you make a vote and it's your

[5:34] majority. How is that done?

[5:38] Um,

[5:41] » so uh the you'll see it happen tonight.

[5:44] Okay.

[5:44] >> Not for that property that you're

[5:46] talking about, but essentially someone

[5:48] creates a petition, comes before this

[5:50] group, and this group makes a

[5:52] recommendation to the city council.

[5:54] >> The city council is the one that has a

[5:55] final vote, but this is where the public

[5:57] hearing is held that gives you the

[5:59] chance to make comment during the public

[6:01] hearing. Uh, city council does allow for

[6:04] public comments, just not during the

[6:05] agenda item. when they hear any things

[6:08] like that. So,

[6:10] >> okay. So, then not on the agenda since

[6:12] it's not then I want to make So, I have

[6:14] to go to a city council meeting as well

[6:17] or you can pass the word.

[6:19] >> So, if when the reszone request comes,

[6:21] it will come here first for a public

[6:22] hearing and then there will be a city

[6:24] council meeting after. So, potentially

[6:26] there's two more meetings to come to.

[6:28] >> Okay. So, it won't make any difference

[6:29] if I voice my opposition right now. It it always helps just in case maybe

[6:34] you're out of town that day or

[6:36] >> Yeah.

[6:36] >> because that I would like to do because

[6:38] I live above 3100 and you know I've seen

[6:42] all the changes with the houses being

[6:45] you know the training of the the fire

[6:48] department and and and now the the road

[6:52] being closed and I would just hate to

[6:55] see residential turned commercial. So

[6:59] I'll leave you with that. Thank you.

[7:09] My name is Alex Hoff. Um, I do live here

[7:12] in North Ogden. I've lived here the

[7:14] first time in 2013 to 2016 and I'm back

[7:18] since 2020. And I also have a concern

[7:21] with this convenience store on the at

[7:24] that property. Um, I may or may not be

[7:28] here for the next meeting. So, I'm going

[7:29] to voice my concern.

[7:32] Um, first of all, I think it's a really

[7:34] bad idea that will bring more traffic up

[7:35] there. I don't know if you're aware that

[7:38] there is a high school and elementary

[7:39] school and other schools. So, that's a

[7:41] very busy road. For those of you who may

[7:44] not know, the Utah drivers here do not

[7:46] like to stop for red lights. I don't

[7:48] know how many times I've actually tried

[7:50] to cross that intersection when I had

[7:53] the go um walking sign for me to go

[7:56] through and some idiots going to come

[7:57] through and try to run me over. Also

[8:00] realize that there's a lot of the the

[8:03] cross country track

[8:05] teams also use that road to run across

[8:08] and go across that intersection. So I

[8:10] think this would be a very dangerous

[8:13] um idea and would endanger a lot of kids

[8:16] and adults and that sort of thing. So

[8:19] just please keep that in mind when you

[8:20] are looking into this conversion. I also

[8:23] believe agree with her that we need to

[8:25] keep the residential residential and the

[8:28] fact that you have a another Maverick

[8:30] less than a mile away. It makes

[8:32] absolutely no sense unless somebody's

[8:33] just trying to make some money on a city

[8:36] council to do this because it really

[8:38] makes no sense for a business to be that

[8:40] close to another business. In fact, if

[8:42] you look at uh Radio Shack, that's one

[8:44] reason why they went out of business

[8:45] because they had too many businesses

[8:48] next to each other. Thank you.

[8:55] » Okay.

[8:58] » Good evening, members of the planning

[9:00] commission. Um, I've written down my

[9:02] comments so that I could keep them um,

[9:05] concise. Um, my name is Maryanne Varner.

[9:08] Um, I am standing here tonight alongside

[9:10] my neighbors to speak on behalf of the

[9:12] future of North Ogden. We are here to

[9:14] present a community first vision, one

[9:17] that prioritizes long-term character of

[9:20] our neighborhoods over short-term

[9:21] commercialization.

[9:23] Those of us who live here know that

[9:25] North Ogden is a rare sanctuary. It's as

[9:28] peaceful, quiet, and exceptionally safe.

[9:31] There is a deep pride of ownership in

[9:33] our neighborhoods. People pay a premium

[9:35] to live here, to retire here, to raise

[9:38] their families here because they want

[9:41] the specific uh quality of life that we

[9:44] offer. We have room to breathe. We have

[9:47] stunning views of the mountains and

[9:49] valley and passing wildlife through our

[9:51] properties. This isn't just a place

[9:53] where people buy a starter home. This is

[9:55] a place where people plant lifelong

[9:57] roots, where neighbors walk and talk,

[9:59] and where they choose to spend the rest

[10:00] of their lives. Now, we often hear that

[10:03] commercial development is about

[10:04] convenience. But let's look at the

[10:07] reality. We can already reach a gas

[10:09] station and a grocery store in less than

[10:11] five minutes. Our daily needs are fully

[10:14] met. As residents, we are more than

[10:17] willing to drive an extra three to five

[10:18] minutes for minor conveniences if it

[10:21] means keeping commercial noise, bright

[10:23] lights, and traffic out of our

[10:25] residential backyards.

[10:27] For us, preserving our quiet culture far

[10:29] outweighs raw proximity.

[10:32] Bringing high density commercial

[10:34] projects directly adjacent to

[10:36] residential homes introduces three

[10:39] severe risks. First, traffic. Few roads

[10:42] lead into our quiet community. Forcing

[10:46] commercial traffic onto an already busy,

[10:48] strained intersection is a major safety

[10:50] concern. Second, youth and safety.

[10:54] Placing highdensity commercial hangouts

[10:56] next to homes encourages late night

[10:58] loitering, drawing kids away from their

[11:00] homes and schools. And third, direct

[11:04] residential impact. sitting uh citing

[11:07] these projects right next to homes

[11:09] degrades our property values, ruins our

[11:11] dark night skies, and takes away our

[11:13] peace of mind. To capture the emotional

[11:16] heart of this issue, I want to share a

[11:18] sentimental echo by so many of our

[11:20] community. People choose to buy, retire,

[11:23] and stay here for life because of what

[11:26] we have. We pay more to protect our

[11:29] peace, safety, and mountains. Let's not

[11:31] lose the culture that makes North Ogden

[11:34] special. To the members of the planning

[11:37] commission, you live here, too. You

[11:39] choose North You chose North Oregon for

[11:41] the exact same reasons that we did. You

[11:44] appreciate the quiet streets, the

[11:45] mountain views, and the safety of our

[11:47] town. Tonight, we look to you to

[11:50] represent us, to protect our

[11:52] neighborhoods, and to defend the unique

[11:53] character of the place we all call home.

[11:56] Thank you for your service to our

[11:57] community.

[12:13] My name is Kevin Defes and I'm a

[12:16] resident of North Ogden. I've lived here

[12:18] for over 40 years and uh I'm also one of

[12:23] the neighbors that live up above 3100

[12:26] and Washington Boulevard is our direct

[12:30] way in and out to our homes. Otherwise,

[12:32] we got to go over and go through

[12:34] Pleasant View to get there. And I when I

[12:38] heard about this uh commercial

[12:39] development, I had a big concern about

[12:43] that, knowing that the junior high would

[12:45] bring a lot of foot traffic through

[12:47] there. The high school, if you've ever

[12:49] gone down to the Maverick on their lunch

[12:51] hour, it's hard to get in out of that

[12:54] bigger intersection, get in out of those

[12:56] places. And so, uh,

[13:00] before they put the turn lane down there

[13:02] by McDonald's, there would be sometimes

[13:05] I would sit to try to get down through

[13:07] two traffic lights to get in and out.

[13:09] And I just don't want to see commercial

[13:11] development cause a real problem and

[13:14] bottleneck for North Ogden City. That

[13:17] road is a main thoroughfare for a lot of

[13:19] us that live up there above 3100.

[13:22] And I just think commercial development

[13:25] would just hinder that.

[13:27] And I'm here tonight because I know that

[13:30] you guys don't make the laws, the city

[13:31] council does, but they take under

[13:35] advisement what you guys discuss and do.

[13:38] We are going to have a lot of traffic in

[13:40] North Ogden with some of the apartment

[13:42] buildings going on and over there by the

[13:46] Benlman golf course. when those homes go

[13:49] in, they're going to come into North

[13:50] Ogden and use the grocery stores and the

[13:54] different restaurants that are there and

[13:57] just if we can avoid bottlenecks. I I

[14:00] realize that, you know, commercial

[14:02] growth brings revenue for the city,

[14:04] which is always good. Um, I'm one of

[14:08] those uh

[14:10] people that would rather not see him

[14:12] raise our property taxes and so cutting

[14:16] cost and keeping our property taxes out

[14:18] of it. It takes commercial growth to

[14:20] help do that. I I realize that. But when

[14:23] it comes to traffic, that should be a

[14:26] big priority to making sure we can get

[14:28] in and out of the city without having

[14:30] problems. and and there's other places

[14:33] for commercial development. I think that

[14:35] would bring revenue to the city, but it

[14:37] would be in a safer area than near

[14:40] junior highs, grade schools, and high

[14:42] school traffic. And so, I'd appreciate

[14:45] when this comes up in future meetings

[14:48] that you would understand that the

[14:51] citizens, and it's not just me, my

[14:53] neighbors all around me. I've talked to

[14:55] them and they're all in agreeance. They don't like it. And uh we just want

[15:00] to let our voice be known and uh thank

[15:04] you for your time.

[15:17] We go ahead and assume that pause is an

[15:21] end to public comments for items not on

[15:23] the agenda. Do we have anybody online

[15:25] that would like to make no hand raised?

[15:27] Oh, hands raised. Yeah.

[15:29] >> Great. All right. We will move to item

[15:33] five on the administrative side. Site

[15:35] plan review for Coopertown commercial

[15:37] building. Consideration and action for a

[15:40] site plan approval for the Coopertown

[15:42] commercial building. Presenter Ryan Nun.

[15:46] >> Thank you, Planning Commission.

[15:48] Um,

[15:50] this site plan review

[15:53] um for the Coopertown commercial

[15:55] building

[15:57] uh is is part of a a larger development

[16:01] in the master plan community zone uh for

[16:04] Coopertown

[16:06] that includes a development agreement as well. So the

[16:12] review includes uh the code for the

[16:14] language in the development agreement

[16:16] and then the code for the master plan

[16:18] community zone. Um

[16:22] in the staff report

[16:25] um

[16:27] essentially there there was a building permit for this. We realized

[16:32] based on the deal of agreement it needed

[16:33] its own site plan review. So that's why

[16:35] it's being brought forth uh forward to

[16:38] the planning commission.

[16:40] Uh the language is pretty clear on

[16:42] what's required for the commercial

[16:44] building. Um it in this master plan

[16:49] community all the buildings need to look

[16:52] very similar. The language stated in the development agreement is uh

[16:56] approximately 40% brick and 60% uh

[16:59] cement board siding.

[17:02] Um if uh based on the elevations of the

[17:06] build of this commercial building,

[17:08] they're proposing a full

[17:10] uh apparently 100% brick veneer. That'll

[17:14] be a something for planning commission

[17:17] to consider. Staff's opinion is that would that's actually an that would

[17:22] be an improvement for the building um to have that full brick exterior.

[17:30] Um the

[17:32] it's meeting everything else based on

[17:34] heights and setbacks.

[17:36] Uh a couple items to note

[17:40] uh in regards to parking for the the

[17:42] commercial building

[17:45] there. They're proposing I um

[17:49] about I think it's 17 parking stalls

[17:53] or one thing I should clarify there's no

[17:55] use known for these uh these these uh

[18:00] commercial stalls that they're building.

[18:03] Uh so staff reviewed it just generally

[18:06] as a as an office use uh which required

[18:09] one stall per 250 square feet of the of

[18:13] the whole floor area.

[18:15] And so they are short with the stalls

[18:18] that are being provided on the north and

[18:19] east side. Uh but based on the DA uh

[18:25] where it states that all the parking in

[18:27] this area is generally to be shared. We

[18:30] recommend that there should be a a

[18:33] shared parking agreement

[18:35] provided just to ensure

[18:39] uh the neighboring parking stalls will

[18:41] can be used by the commercial use.

[18:45] The other thing is the stalls were were

[18:48] short. Uh the DA and our land use codes

[18:52] say that parking stalls be 9 ft by 19.

[18:55] They showed 9 by 18 ft. Um we've made

[18:58] that a um note to the developer and

[19:02] they're working on fixing that. uh so

[19:05] they will meet that 9 by19

[19:07] and and also maintain the required 24

[19:10] foot dry vial but we recommend to have

[19:13] it as a condition of approval for this

[19:15] site plan.

[19:18] Uh finally in the development agreement

[19:21] or sorry two more things the or sorry

[19:24] the there is a monument side needed for

[19:26] the whole development uh that is the the

[19:30] development agreement specifies that

[19:31] needs its own permit. So, we want to and

[19:34] it's shown to be on the same lot as the

[19:37] commercial building. So, we recommend

[19:40] that it's a condition of approval that

[19:41] it receives its own uh application and the DA does say it

[19:50] needs to come before planning

[19:51] commission.

[19:52] The other two are building lights. We

[19:55] recommend that be reviewed at the time

[19:56] of the building permit to ensure they

[19:59] meet the development agreement and our

[20:00] city code in regards to to directional

[20:04] and flood lights and all those

[20:06] standards. And then the last is the

[20:09] development agreement was specific that

[20:11] the commercial new use needs a bike rack

[20:15] on

[20:17] um I believe on Washington Boulevard

[20:19] side and that was lacking. Uh they

[20:22] they're they do show improvements to a

[20:25] bus stop that include a bike rack, but

[20:29] to meet the DA, we recommend that an

[20:31] additional one be provided at the

[20:33] building.

[20:35] Um

[20:38] yes, those so that that those are they

[20:40] meet the majority. Those are the few

[20:43] conditionals of approval recommend.

[20:45] Otherwise, staff does recommend approval

[20:47] of this and uh recommends the planning

[20:51] commission discuss and I'm happy to help

[20:54] answer any questions

[20:56] um any questions you have. Thanks.

[21:01] >> So, is there any businesses that would

[21:03] go in that would increase

[21:05] the need for additional parking spots?

[21:10] So that that's the intent of of getting

[21:12] the shared parking agreement is if there

[21:14] is a use that based on our parking code

[21:17] would need more parking stalls,

[21:20] they're able to use the neighboring

[21:22] parking and the like the guest parking

[21:24] for the residential side as part of the

[21:26] commercial use where they are they just

[21:30] don't have the space to have more

[21:31] parking.

[21:33] But if the but if they're like late

[21:35] night businesses that would impede on

[21:37] parking for the residents of the

[21:41] housing, right?

[21:44] So the development agreement specified

[21:46] how many parking stalls the whole

[21:48] development needs and so so that's just

[21:52] kind of the constraint is as long as

[21:54] they provide that many

[21:58] they're meeting the DA right what that

[22:00] requirement even if there's a use that

[22:03] maybe requires more so it's we're asking

[22:07] to we're recommended to do the develop

[22:09] the shared parking agreement so any

[22:12] future uses is they are aware that um

[22:16] that's an issue with the property and

[22:19] that but they have that I guess

[22:23] um they have that option or they have

[22:25] that

[22:27] >> trying to think of the words remedy to

[22:30] with the parking issue and and there is

[22:34] >> they're right next to 1500 North which

[22:36] would allow for on street parking there

[22:39] >> but they just would not meet the off-

[22:40] streetet parking

[22:41] >> so The residential buildings, are they

[22:44] already approved?

[22:46] >> Uh, no. We have

[22:49] >> we do have a few

[22:52] going through building permit currently.

[22:54] >> Are they going to be sell or lease?

[22:56] They're going to be lease.

[22:57] >> I don't know.

[22:58] >> Yeah.

[23:01] >> U, but that I believe if I'm correct,

[23:06] the shared parking agreement is within

[23:09] the developer. It's the same developer,

[23:12] right?

[23:12] >> Yes.

[23:12] >> So, he's sort of agreeing

[23:15] >> to build the parking spaces later when

[23:19] >> whatever buildings go up go up.

[23:21] >> Exactly.

[23:22] >> Okay.

[23:23] >> And then if a more intense use comes in,

[23:26] like a tenant improvement that pushes

[23:29] the parking demand beyond that allotted,

[23:32] that gets addressed later in a in a

[23:35] building permit. Does that make a tenant

[23:36] improvement building permit?

[23:38] >> Does that make sense?

[23:40] Okay.

[23:42] The uh the development agreement

[23:45] requires 304 parking stalls in total.

[23:48] Correct. For the commercial and

[23:50] residential use.

[23:53] >> That that's what's in the staff report.

[23:54] >> Yeah, I think that it was Yes. There was a number I think just for

[24:01] residential and then but then there

[24:04] there's language that states they

[24:06] >> Oh, I see. It is 304 for residential and

[24:09] then additional for the commercial

[24:11] >> and that they should be um shared

[24:15] essentially

[24:18] » and the commercial is short two spots,

[24:20] right? It's supposed to be 19 for the

[24:22] square footage.

[24:23] >> Yeah, just looking at it as what it is potentially just office space. It is

[24:28] short the

[24:30] >> depending what goes in the office space,

[24:32] >> right?

[24:34] Ryan, I had a question regarding uh

[24:38] future uses in this commercial. Uh what

[24:41] if a food service wants to go in there?

[24:46] Um is there room to provide for grease

[24:52] traps and things like that?

[24:55] the utilities if they

[24:57] >> I would say based on the these these uh

[25:00] concerns with parking that might

[25:02] prohibit that type of use and so they

[25:04] would not move in. Um, I know you can

[25:08] install grease traps later as part of a

[25:10] tenant improvement, but speaking with

[25:13] the developer, they recognize that the de the development agreement and

[25:17] these kind of constraints will really

[25:19] filter who who will want to move in and

[25:22] occupy these these uh this building. Uh

[25:26] I I tend to recall as this was going be

[25:31] for the planning commission earlier

[25:33] under Coopertown

[25:35] that that commercial building possibly

[25:39] had a second story

[25:42] or was it always a single story?

[25:44] >> Um it just had a height limit

[25:47] >> a height.

[25:47] >> And so I think uh this is just it had a

[25:50] height and then the building materials.

[25:52] I don't um

[25:56] I don't recall the development agreement

[25:57] having an exhibit of the commercial,

[25:59] >> but this is consistent with what was

[26:02] originally proposed.

[26:03] >> Correct. Yeah, they're under that that

[26:05] height limit and they're um they have

[26:08] the the needed materials as that was

[26:12] specified in the development agreement.

[26:13] And in front of this uh on Washington

[26:17] Boulevard, they'll be with the

[26:19] commercial installing the required

[26:22] street lighting and street trees and

[26:25] those required improvements, the wider

[26:28] sidewalk.

[26:29] >> Yes. Yeah. So, I know I think our 10

[26:32] foot sidewalk's already in.

[26:33] >> Okay.

[26:34] >> And then they

[26:36] um I don't know if I included the land

[26:38] they do have a landscape plan that that

[26:39] is meeting what was approved. Okay,

[26:46] » thank you.

[26:47] >> Right, there's no more questions for

[26:49] Ryan. Let's discuss.

[26:57] » I mean,

[26:59] >> I have I have concerns about the parking

[27:00] with that many people already. Um, and

[27:03] depending on what goes in that

[27:05] commercial building,

[27:07] uh, will make residents unhappy if they

[27:11] can't find parking because

[27:13] businesses in there are taking up spots

[27:16] that could potentially be theirs.

[27:20] Um,

[27:22] I guess I wouldn't have a problem

[27:23] because during the daytime most people

[27:25] are at work. So if there's businesses,

[27:27] they're day businesses, but those that

[27:29] go after, let's say, 5:00

[27:31] have the potential to impede on

[27:35] parking stalls for people that are

[27:37] living there. And I think that

[27:39] >> plays a part in how they feel about

[27:41] living there. And so I guess that's my

[27:44] concern. Um cuz it looks looking at the

[27:48] plans it looks like a large project like a it looks like a

[27:54] lot of people are going to live there.

[27:56] >> It's hard to to discuss specific

[28:03] commercial

[28:04] uh projects that are going in there when

[28:07] we're just talking general

[28:09] >> commercial issues.

[28:11] But I would think that the size of the offices would sort of dictate the

[28:18] type of business that goes into that

[28:20] office

[28:22] >> and therefore would dictate the parking.

[28:24] And

[28:27] I would think that if if the parking

[28:31] in general, like when it's all done, if

[28:33] the parking meets the requirements as an

[28:37] entire entity,

[28:40] then we're two stalls short on the first

[28:43] part. You know what I'm saying?

[28:45] Challenge me, please. Like I'm I'm

[28:47] really trying to piece this together in

[28:49] my brain because I think that when it's

[28:53] all said and done, they'll meet the

[28:54] parking requirements and there will

[28:56] probably be some like, you know, people

[28:58] parking on top of each other maybe

[29:00] during the day or whatever, you know,

[29:02] saying, "Hey, this is, you know, whose

[29:04] space is this really?" But once it's in,

[29:08] that should be alleviated possibly.

[29:11] >> Yeah. I would I'm not sure. No,

[29:13] >> as long as I mean I don't I don't like

[29:15] to see more hard service. I'm not

[29:17] looking to add more hard service where

[29:18] we don't need it. Um

[29:21] if there are guest spots in that

[29:23] apartment complex that they're going to

[29:24] designate that can be guested for the

[29:27] commercial and guests for the apartments

[29:29] that would then meet meet the

[29:31] requirement for both. I think I'd be

[29:33] okay with it. I mean it is two spots. I

[29:37] see the concern though. I mean, if it's

[29:38] an office building and you have a bunch

[29:39] of employees that are coming in and then

[29:42] they use all 17 spots, you have nowhere

[29:45] for business patrons to come in.

[29:49] Is there Ryan, can I still ask you a

[29:51] question?

[29:52] >> Is there is there enough parking on the

[29:54] street that kind of offset that

[29:58] >> that you're aware of to like talk about

[30:00] that? based on the calculation, they're

[30:03] just two stalls short and so that can

[30:07] based on the development agreement

[30:08] saying stalls should be shared between

[30:11] uses.

[30:12] Um,

[30:13] >> but if they decide to park on the

[30:14] street, is there anything to prevent

[30:18] customers from parking on the street?

[30:20] >> No. No.

[30:22] >> So, there's enough there's enough room

[30:24] on the side of those streets to handle

[30:27] people parking and driving.

[30:28] >> Yeah. 1,500. And I think technically

[30:31] even Washington

[30:33] you could you could park not in the bus not in front of the bus stop but

[30:38] those are both public roads and and

[30:40] would allow off or on street parking

[30:44] um to to alleviate the the specific

[30:47] commercial lot shortage. But um it's

[30:50] difficult because the development

[30:51] agreement kind of recognizes it and then

[30:54] just states that they'll they'll be

[30:56] shared between the uses. Yeah.

[31:01] >> Does the on street parking consideration

[31:03] include wintertime when we have no on

[31:05] street parking ordinances in the city? I

[31:08] I'm thinking of another business that's

[31:10] on Washington a little bit north of this that uses a lot of on street

[31:16] parking and has come before city council

[31:19] to ask for variances on that parking

[31:22] because they can't in the wintertime. um

[31:26] they've been granted variances to allow

[31:28] parking where you ordinarily wouldn't in

[31:30] the winter. So, how does that play into

[31:33] this?

[31:34] >> Yeah, those those uh wintertime parking

[31:38] restrictions would apply here as well.

[31:42] Um that's why really we recommend the

[31:45] developer even though it's right now

[31:47] it's with themselves establish that

[31:49] shared parking agreement so whatever use

[31:52] goes in there is aware

[31:54] that there's short parking but there is

[31:57] ways to to alleviate it to that there

[32:01] are these additional parking stalls in

[32:03] the residential guest parking or

[32:05] wherever it is.

[32:09] The other thing we don't have for

[32:10] tonight is the sign design. That's part

[32:12] of this. Correct. So without that I I

[32:15] mean I think it'd be hard to approve it

[32:16] anyways, right? If we don't know what

[32:17] the sign if it doesn't

[32:19] >> the the monument sign is for the whole

[32:22] >> right

[32:22] >> residential and commercial and would

[32:25] need to be its own permit.

[32:27] >> Okay. So it's a separate permit. Okay. I

[32:29] thought it was falling under the same

[32:30] one.

[32:31] >> It is its own permit. And then the de

[32:33] the development agreement says that

[32:34] permit which usually is just staff

[32:36] approval

[32:38] >> does also go to planning commission.

[32:39] >> Thank thank you for

[32:40] >> but that sign is on this property. It is

[32:43] on this plot.

[32:45] >> They're showing on the site plan that it

[32:46] would be on the corner of 1500 in

[32:49] Washington.

[32:49] >> Oh, I see it. Thank you.

[32:51] >> Yeah.

[32:53] >> Does does anyone have concerns about

[32:57] uh building materials? It sounds like

[33:00] they're going all with

[33:01] >> Yeah. Looks great.

[33:02] >> I like that.

[33:03] >> I liked it.

[33:04] >> I'm okay with that.

[33:06] >> Yeah, I thought I thought the design of

[33:07] the building looked really good.

[33:12] » Back to the parking for a moment. You

[33:13] mentioned earlier that the the parking

[33:16] spots that they have marked out on the

[33:19] site plan are 9 by8 ft, not the required

[33:24] 9 by19.

[33:25] >> It was eight or yeah, 9 by 18. Correct.

[33:28] >> 9 by 18. So correcting that to the 9

[33:31] by19 which is one of the conditions that

[33:34] is recommended. Uh how will that affect

[33:38] spacing?

[33:40] It sounds like they did 9 by 18 because

[33:42] that's what space allowed.

[33:45] Is that going to reduce the number of

[33:47] parking spaces? Is it going to

[33:49] negatively affect or impact?

[33:52] >> No. I um

[33:55] speaking with the developer they were uh

[33:59] they missed that requirement and so they

[34:01] were they were they understood they

[34:03] needed to fix it.

[34:04] >> So the space is there.

[34:06] >> They have the space they just needed to fix it.

[34:09] >> Yeah. And by 19 more odd than 19,

[34:11] >> right?

[34:23] 1500 North.

[34:25] Um, how much of that will be developed

[34:28] with this?

[34:29] >> It's all done.

[34:29] >> It's done, right? Okay.

[34:31] >> They built the whole thing. Yeah.

[34:33] >> I just wanted to make sure.

[34:34] >> There's no dumb questions.

[34:35] >> Yeah. No, that one was dumb. Coke hasn't

[34:38] kicked in yet.

[34:46] And chair, just one thing on that. The

[34:49] property that's south of 1500 was

[34:51] originally contemplated in the

[34:53] development agreement back in 2021 with

[34:55] a negotiation between Ogden City and

[34:57] North Ogden City to align the boundary

[35:00] on the southern side of this project and

[35:02] that failed. And so right now there's a

[35:05] strip of land in Ogden and then 1500

[35:08] north and then north Ogden. So, the

[35:10] development agreement was amended in

[35:11] 2023 to reduce the parking number,

[35:15] reduce the total number of residential

[35:17] units to just those on the northern

[35:20] portion of 1500 North. And that slightly

[35:24] amends the DA, but this building C is

[35:28] required to come up out of the ground as

[35:31] part of phase one, which includes the

[35:33] residential units. So, it's a

[35:35] requirement for the developer and the

[35:38] development agreement through city

[35:40] council in 2021 approved the site plan

[35:43] of the commercial buildings. So, those

[35:45] have already been issued building

[35:46] permits and they're coming up out of the

[35:48] ground. There's footing in foundations

[35:50] right now, but they won't be able to

[35:52] receive certificate of occupancy until

[35:54] the commercial building is constructed.

[35:57] So, this is the next step. And then the

[35:59] development agreement also states that

[36:02] the landscaping plan will come back to

[36:04] planning commission. So establishing the

[36:07] commercial building, the remainder of

[36:09] the parking, making sure that they hit

[36:12] their 20% landscape requirement per the

[36:14] DA, there's one more set of plans

[36:17] that'll come to you. And we sort of

[36:19] wanted to put the monument sign and the

[36:21] landscaping plan together. So you get

[36:24] all of the functional structures come up

[36:26] out of the ground together. And then

[36:28] planning commission would have an

[36:29] opportunity to review the landscaping

[36:32] plan content of that sidewalk,

[36:34] streetscape and monument sign all

[36:37] together as one package is the way we

[36:40] discussed it with the developer.

[36:42] That was our recommendation.

[36:44] So this can be there's nothing in the DA

[36:47] that says all of it has to be approved.

[36:50] It's just planning commission has to

[36:52] approve these individual components. Um,

[36:57] and so we presented to you tonight the

[36:59] commercial portion so that the developer

[37:01] continue moving can continue moving

[37:03] forward with the project and building

[37:06] their apartments.

[37:10] Can Can you pull up page 21 real quick

[37:13] just so I can make sure

[37:18] it's uh

[37:22] I think it's further down that

[37:26] >> so I just have the site plan documents

[37:28] what 21 it's the oneeneral it has the o

[37:31] overlay of the whole property

[37:39] Yeah, one more page. Let's go to the

[37:41] next page.

[37:43] Is this on building A? Are those covered

[37:47] spots that are directly behind the

[37:49] commercial? Was that what that's

[37:50] supposed to be?

[37:51] >> That X above it.

[37:53] >> Yes.

[37:54] >> Where 11 and five are. Those are covered

[37:55] spots, right? So the garage garage or

[37:59] >> so just so the others can see that

[38:03] the extra spots are going to be caddy

[38:06] corner to

[38:08] um where the commercial building is

[38:10] since we were talking about parking.

[38:12] >> Yeah,

[38:14] >> they won't be directly behind them.

[38:16] you're going to have to

[38:17] >> so where John's cursors are, that's

[38:20] actually garages and then to the north

[38:23] is

[38:24] covered spaces there along the north

[38:26] side. And typically those are leased as

[38:29] part of the apartment.

[38:31] You know, we don't I don't know. I'm not

[38:33] the apartment manager, right? But those

[38:34] spaces are leased as part of the unit

[38:36] that you lease would be a covered space.

[38:38] So it' be where the word phase 2 is east

[38:41] of building B and then you have the

[38:43] whole parking lot adjacent to the top

[38:46] lot in the center. There would be some

[38:48] amount of shared parking between them.

[38:51] And even most of our office uses if you

[38:55] go up and down whether it's dental

[38:57] offices or insurance offices, title

[38:59] offices, there are it's parking is not

[39:03] maximized in most of those areas. We're

[39:05] generally overparked I would say in most

[39:07] of our areas. So, while there's two

[39:10] spaces that we think of when we go

[39:12] general office that are missing, I think

[39:14] that it's reasonable to assume there

[39:16] will be some some sharing of parking,

[39:18] but that's self-limiting and the

[39:20] developer understands that that the uses

[39:22] would be reviewed at the time of

[39:23] business license and if there isn't

[39:26] enough parking, they have to produce

[39:28] shared parking, dedicated parking, or

[39:30] that business license fails.

[39:33] >> Yeah, not a concern for Yeah, I just

[39:35] like I said, I wanted to bring it up

[39:36] because just to make sure others didn't

[39:38] think it was directly behind,

[39:39] >> right? The shared

[39:41] >> the shared will be a little bit away

[39:42] from the commercial area.

[39:44] >> Yep.

[39:49] » Okay.

[39:52] » I would entertain a motion if we're

[39:55] done.

[40:07] I would also stab at that motion if

[40:10] you'd like. Um, a motion to approve the

[40:14] site plan for Coopertown commercial

[40:16] building uh as a consideration or excuse

[40:19] me on condition of approval that we

[40:21] lengthen those stalls to 19 ft. We see

[40:24] the monument on its own application

[40:28] um and the landscape plan. the monument

[40:30] and landscape plan on its own

[40:31] application. Uh, and we see building

[40:34] lights and and bike rack.

[40:38] >> I'll second that.

[40:43] » Okay.

[40:45] So, I motion to approve it. Commissioner

[40:47] Settlemire seconded the motion. Let's

[40:49] have a roll call vote. Commissioner

[40:51] Bailey,

[40:52] >> yes.

[40:53] >> Commissioner Gardner,

[40:54] >> yes.

[40:55] >> Commissioner Settlemire,

[40:56] >> yes.

[40:58] Commissioner Swanson,

[40:59] >> yes.

[41:00] >> And Commissioner Jorgensson,

[41:02] >> yes.

[41:03] >> And I'm a yes as well. That passes.

[41:09] Let's move to item number six.

[41:12] Zoning map amendment 2026-6

[41:17] 2742 North, 400 East. reszone property

[41:20] from residential city center RCC to

[41:23] small lot residential zone R15

[41:27] as a fill-in project. Uh this will be a

[41:30] public hearing. Uh we'll have a

[41:34] recommendation by Scott Hes, community

[41:36] and economic development director.

[41:38] >> Thank you, chair. So we have an

[41:40] application by John W. Hansen for a

[41:42] reszone of this 1.22 acre property. It

[41:46] has two existing homes on the west side

[41:49] near Washington Boulevard that have

[41:50] frontage there. Um they're perceived to

[41:54] be on their own individual lots. They're

[41:55] just two standalone single family homes,

[41:57] but they have forever been on one single

[42:00] property. Um there's been several

[42:03] conversations with the property owner

[42:04] and the developer about what to do with

[42:06] those homes, assumptions about traffic

[42:09] circulation in the area and zoning

[42:11] densities generally. And the application

[42:14] was made for a small lot residential R15

[42:17] reszone that would run on a private

[42:19] drive on the south. So your net increase

[42:22] in units as proposed would be five units

[42:26] tucked into that space between the

[42:29] property lines north to south. Um there

[42:32] is not currently an extension of 2700

[42:36] contemplated to go west and connect to

[42:38] Washington Boulevard.

[42:40] And this is an interesting one. when you

[42:43] look at the general plan guidelines, the

[42:44] surrounding properties and what to do

[42:46] with zoning. So, this particular

[42:49] property is functionally adjacent to uh

[42:52] several civic and commercial uses both

[42:54] north and south on Washington Boulevard.

[42:57] The property west across Washington

[42:59] Boulevard is currently zoned residential

[43:01] R4 um multifamily even though the

[43:04] majority of it is used as office space.

[43:07] You have residential city center which

[43:10] is a makeup of apartments, old

[43:13] historical agricultural properties,

[43:15] small lot single family duplexes. It's a

[43:17] really wide variety of uses. Um, and

[43:20] then the general plan in this area,

[43:23] which is the uh downtown neighborhood,

[43:26] states in one of its goals under

[43:29] encouraging multifamily in the downtown

[43:31] area and for areas to the west along

[43:34] 2700 North to show higher densities on

[43:38] the future land use map to the west

[43:40] along 2700 North. So, as this is an

[43:43] infill property, as it's single family

[43:46] residential, it would meet the concept

[43:49] plan as designed meets the requirements

[43:50] of the residential R15. if the fire

[43:53] department and the city engineer will

[43:54] sign off on the private drive. Um

[43:58] staff's recommendation is that this be found largely in compliance with

[44:03] the general plan in conformance with the

[44:06] neighborhood and our recommendation is

[44:08] to recommend approval to the city

[44:10] council to reszone the property to

[44:13] residential R15. It's a public hearing.

[44:16] It's been noticed as a public hearing

[44:17] with mailers that have gone out. Um, so

[44:20] that'd be part of the process. And then

[44:22] planning commission, you we also have

[44:25] the applicant John Hansen here to

[44:27] represent the project as well and happy

[44:29] to answer any questions.

[44:34] for Scott? Nope. Yes.

[44:39] Okay. No questions. Um

[44:47] let's uh go ahead and open the public

[44:49] hearing. Uh invite the applicant to come

[44:52] up and uh and then uh and then we'll

[44:56] have comments. Applicant first and then

[44:59] comments. And chair, just one thing

[45:01] really quickly is that

[45:02] >> while reszone applications often come

[45:05] with a concept plan,

[45:07] >> the planning commission's function

[45:08] tonight is to apply a land use zone to

[45:11] the property. So concept plans are

[45:13] helpful to look at, but it wouldn't be

[45:15] approving this particular plan. This is

[45:17] one layout based on the property if it

[45:20] were to be reszoned as R15. So just to

[45:23] wish to make sure that you know we're

[45:25] not approving a subdivision or approving

[45:27] the concept plan. It's just applying a

[45:29] land use code.

[45:30] >> So these lots could be different.

[45:31] >> The lots, the layout, all of it could be

[45:33] different dependent on

[45:35] >> and would that come back to here or

[45:36] would that Okay.

[45:37] >> Yeah.

[45:38] >> Yep.

[45:43] » Uh applicant, would you like to come up?

[45:53] I'm John Hansen from 1165 West 4000

[45:57] North in Pleasant View. I'm representing

[46:00] Doug Young who has bought this property

[46:03] from the Shubes, a longtime name in

[46:06] North Ogden.

[46:08] Uh Scott, will you put that

[46:12] >> picture?

[46:14] U

[46:16] what this Mr. Young would like to do is

[46:18] build single family homes there.

[46:22] And uh the frontage I believe is between

[46:25] 48 and 60 ft frontage.

[46:28] The homes would be approximately 2500

[46:32] square ft on two levels.

[46:36] Uh I don't know what else to tell you.

[46:38] The the drawings of them are terrific.

[46:41] It would really enhance that

[46:42] neighborhood. Our problem has been to

[46:45] Washington Boulevard and Scott's pointed

[46:48] out that it's better just to deadend it

[46:51] and not compleimement or what's the word

[46:54] I want? Uh

[46:57] compromise the

[47:00] Washington Boulevard and all the traffic

[47:01] that goes there.

[47:04] So we thought about putting that on the

[47:07] north end close to 2700.

[47:10] Our engineers here, Mr. split. He

[47:12] There's a 7ft slope from north to south

[47:17] and it makes more sense to have the

[47:19] retention basin down on the southwest

[47:22] corner.

[47:24] So, one of our questions, you know, we'd

[47:26] like to see if you'd reszone that to the

[47:29] 5,000 square foot lots is what to do

[47:32] with lot one. That home is uninhabitable

[47:36] basically. I have not been in it, but

[47:40] I've been told by the manager that they

[47:42] won't even lease it. So, we're trying to

[47:45] decide whether they're going to raise

[47:46] that or maybe get another new building

[47:49] there. I'm not sure.

[47:51] So, I don't know if you have any

[47:53] questions. Uh, it's pretty

[47:55] straightforward there. There's one home

[47:59] on 27

[48:01] on 450 East that faces west.

[48:06] Uh that's the only home that would even

[48:08] be close to it. Along the other south

[48:11] bound is the Baptist Church and Fields.

[48:14] And then there's another home north of

[48:17] lot one that uh faces 450 East also.

[48:24] So we hope that you'd consider that. We

[48:27] need some smaller homes for some

[48:29] families to come in there. And I think

[48:32] that's what your city uh city center

[48:35] ordinance says. They'd like to, you

[48:38] know, maintain the city a city feel in

[48:41] there. Any questions?

[48:44] >> Now talk loud. Lauren

[48:46] >> John, would you you be building the

[48:49] buildings?

[48:49] >> What's that?

[48:50] >> Would you be building the buildings?

[48:52] >> I will not be building them. No, but I

[48:54] will be over the construction. There's

[48:57] several builders that would like to

[48:59] build those buildings.

[49:00] >> Okay. And they're going to be for sale

[49:03] or owner occupied.

[49:05] >> Yes. Not rentals.

[49:06] >> Okay.

[49:07] >> Owner occupied.

[49:11] This is really embarrassing for me.

[49:18] » Any other questions for the applicant?

[49:22] Hi, John. Thank you.

[49:23] >> Thank you.

[49:26] » Any other comments?

[49:36] Good evening, commission. My name is

[49:37] Trevor Davis. I'm a resident here in

[49:40] North Ogden. Um, I'm not here to debate

[49:43] the city's growth, but to formally place

[49:46] my existing property rights into the

[49:48] legislative record. My property operates

[49:51] under current agricultural allowances,

[49:53] and I own and keep horses on this land.

[49:55] I want it explicitly clear for the

[49:58] record that my right to maintain

[49:59] livestock is a legally protected vested

[50:03] non-conforming use. Regardless of what

[50:05] happens to the neighboring parcel

[50:07] tonight, my agricultural rights are

[50:09] grandfathered in under Utah law. Because

[50:12] this reszone introduces highdensity

[50:15] residential lots directly against my

[50:17] fence, the city is actively creating a

[50:21] future land use conflict. To mitigate

[50:24] this, Utah's right to farm laws are very

[50:26] clear. Non-residentidential encroachment

[50:29] cannot declare a pre-existing

[50:31] agricultural operation a nuisance due to

[50:34] standard dust, odor, or noise.

[50:37] Therefore, if the commission chooses to

[50:39] approve the reszone tonight, I ask that

[50:42] you protect both myself and the city

[50:44] from future litigation by attaching

[50:46] three mandatory conditions to the

[50:48] development agreement. First, the

[50:50] developer must be required to place a

[50:52] good neighbor disclosure or deed

[50:55] restriction on every single lot, plat,

[50:57] and HOA closing document legally

[50:59] notifying incoming buyers that they are

[51:02] moving next to an active livestock

[51:04] property and wave their right to file

[51:07] city nuisance complaints. Second, the

[51:10] financial burden of buffering this

[51:12] impact belongs to the developer. I

[51:14] request a mandatory condition requiring

[51:16] the developer to install a

[51:18] commercial-grade 6-foot privacy fence or

[51:21] an engineered landscape buffer on their

[51:24] side of the property line before any

[51:26] construction begins. Third, because of

[51:29] my current corral layout requires me to

[51:31] utilize a manure staging area near the

[51:34] fence line for daily barn maintenance

[51:37] and introduction or the introduction of

[51:39] small residential lots will create an

[51:42] immediate setback conflict. This is an

[51:45] active operational staging area where

[51:47] waste is collected and hauled off

[51:49] appropriately. Because North Ogden code

[51:52] requires a 75- ft buffer between animal

[51:54] struct or animal structures and adjacent

[51:57] dwellings, I request that developer be

[51:59] required to design a non-buildable

[52:02] common area or extended property setback

[52:04] on their side of the line to mirror this

[52:07] buffer. I am voicing these concerns

[52:09] tonight so they are part of the

[52:11] permanent record. If North Ogden City

[52:13] creates a conflict by changing the zone,

[52:15] the city must protect its historic

[52:17] property owners from frivolous code

[52:19] enforcement when the new residents move

[52:22] in. Thank you for your time.

[52:30] Um,

[52:32] I was wondering if you could put that

[52:34] picture back up of where the the homes

[52:37] would be.

[52:38] >> Would you state your name and address?

[52:39] >> Yes, of course. Um, my name is Jessica

[52:43] Howick Davis and I own the property

[52:45] directly adjacent to the parcel under

[52:48] review at 27,

[52:51] sorry, 40 north, 400 450 East. So,

[52:55] basically,

[52:57] lot

[52:59] 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 um are right next to

[53:03] my property line. Um,

[53:08] okay.

[53:10] And thank you for pulling that up. So,

[53:12] my family and I have lived in this North

[53:15] Ogden and Pleasant View area for over 40

[53:17] years. Growing up here, my family had

[53:20] horses and we experienced this exact

[53:23] scenario firsthand when development

[53:26] began pressing in. I have seen the real

[53:28] world problems, the safety hazards, and

[53:30] the friction it causes when high density

[53:33] residential lots are forced

[53:35] right against established livestock

[53:38] lines.

[53:40] Beyond being a longtime resident, I'm

[53:43] also a sixth grade teacher here in our

[53:44] community. and

[53:48] um I teach my students that their voices

[53:50] matter and that they need to believe

[53:53] that they can make a difference. So

[53:55] standing at this microphone tonight is

[53:57] me practicing exactly what I preach. I

[54:00] couldn't look at my students in the eye

[54:02] next year if I didn't step up tonight to

[54:04] abdicate for the safety of the

[54:06] neighborhood and protection of the local

[54:08] agricultural roots that we have.

[54:14] Okay. Sorry, I'm really nervous.

[54:17] >> Um, I'm here tonight to vote my strong

[54:19] opposition to reszoning it. Our

[54:22] immediate neighborhood is anchored by

[54:24] the historic scale and architectural

[54:27] breathing room of the residential city

[54:29] center zone, shifting this specific

[54:31] parcel to an R-15 small lot residential

[54:34] zone represents a completely

[54:38] incompatible highdensity island that

[54:40] disrupts the establishment fabric of our

[54:43] community. But my opposition isn't just

[54:45] about the neighborhood character, but it

[54:47] is a matter of immediate safety,

[54:48] liability, and the land use conflict. My

[54:51] active livestock fence runs directly

[54:54] along the property line of these,

[54:56] especially my horses are right where

[54:58] four, five, and six are like they they

[55:02] lean on that fence.

[55:05] Um

[55:08] Okay. Um, I run a legally permitted

[55:11] agriculture operation with horses,

[55:13] possible future cows, chickens, and

[55:16] dogs. Keeping livestock inherently

[55:18] involves dust, noise, and odors. The

[55:21] current zoning provides larger setback

[55:23] requirements that act as a vital buffer

[55:25] between my animals and neighboring

[55:27] homes. By packing tightly squeezed, high

[55:31] density micro lots right against my

[55:33] fence line, you are actively creating a

[55:35] dangerous situation. When you put

[55:37] suburban backyards directly against a

[55:39] livestock fence, people who do not

[55:41] understand

[55:43] agriculture move in. And this creates an

[55:45] immediate danger to children, domestic

[55:48] pets, and my own animals. And again, I

[55:50] do speak from experience when this

[55:52] happened to me and my family in Pleasant

[55:54] View.

[55:55] Too often, suburban neighbors treat

[55:57] horse fences like a petting zoo. They

[55:59] think they can feed my horses whatever

[56:01] they want, which causes fatal collic. or

[56:04] worse, kids throw rocks and debris over

[56:05] the fence to get the animals to move,

[56:07] which puts my horses and cows or other

[56:09] animals at risk of severe injury.

[56:11] Controversy, a curious child or a loose

[56:13] domestic dog getting too close to a

[56:16] spooked horse or cow creates massive

[56:18] physical safety hazard and severe

[56:20] liability trap. North A density code

[56:23] requires strict separation setbacks

[56:25] between dwellings and animal pens to

[56:27] minimize these exact impacts. Forcing a

[56:30] high density zone into this boundary

[56:31] line completely ignores that intent. It

[56:34] forces a land use conflict where my

[56:36] established farm operations will face

[56:38] ineedible ongoing nuisance complaints

[56:42] from new residents who shouldn't have

[56:43] been built that close to an active fence

[56:45] line in the first place.

[56:48] And just also coming really from a

[56:50] personal experience with this that I've

[56:53] had.

[56:55] Um

[56:58] the complaints do come and even with

[57:00] things like when I train my horses it

[57:03] looks abusive or and I know that are

[57:06] some of you that do know my family the

[57:08] howics and that we've had horses there

[57:10] for a very long time and they constantly

[57:13] got calls when we were training our

[57:15] colts and training our horses that were

[57:17] abusing them or it's caused more flies

[57:20] or dust or whatever.

[57:22] and it just gets to the point where

[57:27] they get pushed out and I don't want to

[57:29] see that.

[57:31] So I strongly urge the planning

[57:33] commission to vote against recommending

[57:36] this map.

[57:38] Please protect the integrity of North

[57:40] Ogden's existing residential zones and

[57:42] protect our local agricultural spaces.

[57:44] Thank you.

[57:55] Hi, I'm Lisa Dreeze and I just want to

[57:59] um I support her and I don't know how

[58:02] many of you were here when Country Boy

[58:04] Dairy was our dairy. It was an amazing

[58:09] part of North Ogden. And once they

[58:12] started building the homes behind

[58:14] Country Boy Dairy, the Hancocks had so

[58:17] many complaints about the smell of the

[58:20] cows. They were they've been there. They

[58:22] had been there for years and years. And all the residents that were

[58:26] moving in complained about the smell of

[58:27] the cows and the odor and everything

[58:30] that went along with it. And what

[58:32] happened to Country Boy Dairy? they shut

[58:34] him down because of all the complaints

[58:37] of the resident. So, I want to back her

[58:39] because um that's part of what North

[58:42] Ogden is is um country. It's a little

[58:44] bit of country living. And I also

[58:47] strongly oppose um this density housing

[58:52] and the commercial

[58:54] um going in along the west side of

[58:57] Washington. Um, we've, me and my

[58:59] husband, like he said, have lived in

[59:01] North Ogden for 40 years and we've loved

[59:04] North Ogden. Um, but it's becoming a

[59:08] real concern um of having commercial. I see these this duplex that's just down

[59:16] by Curts on the west side of the street.

[59:19] That is an eyesore. It is a complete

[59:21] eyesore. Do you know that years ago the

[59:26] barber that lived right next to there

[59:28] was moved out of his home and they tore

[59:31] down his home and he moved because they

[59:33] said they were going to build something

[59:34] there. Those that duplex is still there.

[59:36] There's graffiti on it. Kids have gone

[59:39] in and destroyed. You see things hanging

[59:42] down from the windows. What is Why can't

[59:45] we do something there? residential or

[59:48] commercial and that is there a reason

[59:51] why that's still sitting there that

[59:53] duplex.

[59:56] Do you guys know what I'm talking about

[59:57] across?

[59:58] >> Yep, we do.

[59:59] >> Okay.

[59:59] >> The property

[1:00:00] >> is there any I mean they were going to

[1:00:02] do something with that property probably

[1:00:04] 25 years ago.

[1:00:05] >> That you probably want to talk to the

[1:00:07] property owner. It it's I mean it's not

[1:00:10] our decision to put something there.

[1:00:13] >> I agree it's an isore. I really do.

[1:00:15] Okay. But Mayor Taylor took those homes

[1:00:17] away from the residents 10 years ago.

[1:00:20] The Jensen, they they raised their

[1:00:22] family there. Mayor Taylor went in and

[1:00:25] condemned those homes and moved them out

[1:00:27] and bought those homes. The city has

[1:00:29] owned those homes for 10 years and

[1:00:32] rented them out making money off of

[1:00:35] those homes. And now they've been torn

[1:00:38] down. And my understanding was it was to

[1:00:40] widen the road. or when Connie Jensen

[1:00:43] was bought out, it was because there was

[1:00:45] going to be a roundabout put there. That

[1:00:47] was 10 years ago and the city has has

[1:00:50] brought in rent money from those homes.

[1:00:52] Am I correct?

[1:00:55] » I can. Yes, that's correct.

[1:00:57] >> That is correct.

[1:00:58] >> They were not condemned. All of sold

[1:01:01] their home voluntarily.

[1:01:03] >> Not not in my understanding. Connie

[1:01:07] Jensen was a teacher at Greenacres

[1:01:09] Elementary and she came to schools

[1:01:11] >> in mention this is part of the reason we

[1:01:12] don't do the back and forth. I was in

[1:01:15] the living rooms during the those

[1:01:17] negotiations. It was all voluntary.

[1:01:19] There weren't any condemnation con

[1:01:21] condem condemnation that was used

[1:01:24] because the money we used actually

[1:01:25] didn't allow for condemnation unless the

[1:01:28] project was happening in the next two

[1:01:29] years. So,

[1:01:32] >> okay. Okay. Well, I'm not going to go

[1:01:33] back and forth, but all I'm saying is

[1:01:36] they were, as far as my understanding,

[1:01:39] they were pretty much taken. And I've talked to several residents

[1:01:43] that lived there. So, that's just my

[1:01:45] understanding. But, I'm just backing her

[1:01:47] and I'm opposing any commercial

[1:01:51] property, any anything along above

[1:01:55] Le.

[1:01:57] So, thank you

[1:02:18] My name is uh Kent Bell. I'm a lifelong

[1:02:21] resident of North Ogden. And my home's

[1:02:23] going to be is on the south side of the

[1:02:27] uh this lot right where the driveway is

[1:02:30] going to be with uh five individual

[1:02:34] homes there. There's going to be what,

[1:02:37] at least uh

[1:02:39] four or five people in each home with

[1:02:42] two or three cars pulling in and out of

[1:02:44] there and a lot of uh lights on and off

[1:02:48] there. It's going to make it harder to

[1:02:50] pull out of your drive pull out of our

[1:02:51] driveway and it's going to totally ruin

[1:02:54] the privacy that we have in our

[1:02:56] backyard.

[1:02:57] If you guys live next to it, you would

[1:02:59] not want that either. So, I'm totally

[1:03:02] against this reszoning

[1:03:05] and I think that uh like uh Trev and his

[1:03:10] wife Jess have said that it would uh be

[1:03:13] a big impact on their uh animals and

[1:03:16] horses and everything there. And

[1:03:20] this part of North Ogden should not be a

[1:03:23] multi-

[1:03:26] house dwelling there. It's supposed to

[1:03:29] be for individual homes and not uh high

[1:03:32] density homes like that. Thank you.

[1:03:45] My name is Deian Burns and I agree with

[1:03:49] Lisa Defreeze

[1:03:51] in the eyesore and stating of country

[1:03:54] boy dairy. And I also as a citizen of

[1:03:58] North Ogden, I am using my first

[1:04:01] amendment right and I don't think we

[1:04:03] should be chastised for coming up and

[1:04:05] using that. You as the planning

[1:04:08] commission do not have to reply and you

[1:04:10] don't have to be rude about it.

[1:04:22] My name is David Parkinson. I live at

[1:04:24] 470 East, 2750 North, which is just

[1:04:27] around the corner. Um,

[1:04:30] and uh, 2700 North, sorry. And, uh, I

[1:04:35] agree with the Davis family. Um, I have

[1:04:38] horse property right next to my

[1:04:39] property. I know what kind of smells. I

[1:04:42] know what kind of flies that that fly

[1:04:45] around. I know what kind of dust they

[1:04:47] kick up. I grew up in the country and

[1:04:49] I'm all right with it. Um, I took steps

[1:04:53] at my house to enclose my back deck

[1:04:55] because I didn't like the dust getting

[1:04:57] all over my furniture all the time so I

[1:05:00] could go out and, you know, do things.

[1:05:02] And uh, but I know that if you put in

[1:05:05] those kind of lots, you'll get

[1:05:07] complaints. There will be no doubt in my

[1:05:09] mind you'll get complaints on those

[1:05:10] things. Uh, Camp Bell has a beautiful

[1:05:14] home right there and uh

[1:05:20] it would be a travesty

[1:05:22] to put all these highdensity homes right

[1:05:25] next to his. Um,

[1:05:29] that lot situated perfectly for another

[1:05:32] beautiful home just like his. that would

[1:05:34] uh complement the area, have a huge

[1:05:38] backyard, allow for, you know, the horse

[1:05:42] dust to come over in the yard and

[1:05:44] fertilize the the ground and do

[1:05:46] whatever, but it wouldn't bother the

[1:05:48] home. And I think that's just

[1:05:52] it isn't right to do those kinds of

[1:05:54] things. I know the property owner has

[1:05:56] rights and I know that uh they'll want

[1:05:59] to do what they want to do, but the Shaw

[1:06:00] owned that for many years and uh refused

[1:06:03] to develop it because they knew that the

[1:06:08] neighbors had horses. They knew that

[1:06:10] they used to have horses and stuff

[1:06:11] there. So, I just think it's uh not the

[1:06:16] right thing to do for this property. And

[1:06:20] uh

[1:06:23] I think it'll also affect the traffic a

[1:06:25] lot in that area. Um when you get five

[1:06:30] homes with up to three cars each, two

[1:06:33] cars, there's a lot of people coming in

[1:06:35] and out of there all day long. Kids, get older and start driving. And

[1:06:42] this area has a lot of kids walking

[1:06:44] around. Kids coming down on skateboards

[1:06:46] to come to the park and stuff. It

[1:06:48] doesn't need any more high traffic.

[1:06:50] Doesn't need people going up and down

[1:06:51] the street like they do. Um, it would be

[1:06:55] just a much safer place if there was

[1:06:57] just a single home built there. I don't

[1:07:00] have a problem breaking the two lots up

[1:07:02] out front, but maybe they could

[1:07:04] subdivide off the back and sell it as

[1:07:06] one big lot and get a nice home there

[1:07:09] that would complement the area. Thank

[1:07:12] you.

[1:07:23] Hello, Jim Flint, Hansen and Associates,

[1:07:25] 538 North Main, Brigham City. I think

[1:07:29] looking at this, the key word is infill.

[1:07:34] There's we've got agricultural existing,

[1:07:37] historical on both sides, but at the end

[1:07:39] of the day, this is just a 1.2 2 acre

[1:07:43] infill project that would that would be

[1:07:45] slated for orderly development within

[1:07:48] the city and um I can sympathize with

[1:07:52] some of the others. I um

[1:07:55] my bedroom is 40 feet from a dairy.

[1:08:01] I'm fortunate because it doesn't affect

[1:08:02] me at all. But um

[1:08:06] I don't think that the longtime agricultural

[1:08:12] activities

[1:08:14] should overpower

[1:08:16] the s the simplistic view that this is

[1:08:19] basically an infill development. Thank

[1:08:22] you.

[1:08:37] My name is Douglas Varnner. I live at 36

[1:08:41] 3671

[1:08:42] Lake View Drive. Um, I have prepared

[1:08:45] comments. I'll keep it under five

[1:08:47] minutes. I will mention that several of

[1:08:49] my neighbors have read my comments and

[1:08:51] have approved of my comments to be given

[1:08:54] tonight.

[1:08:55] Good evening, commissioners. I am here

[1:08:58] tonight in strict opposition to the

[1:09:01] reszone of parcel 18-021-00006

[1:09:07] from RCC

[1:09:09] to R15

[1:09:12] and the discussed gas station and

[1:09:14] commercial zone at 3100 north and north

[1:09:19] 450 east.

[1:09:22] This intersection is a literal doorstep

[1:09:24] and gateway to our hillside neighborhood

[1:09:29] at the top of Lake View. When my family

[1:09:32] and our neighbors invested our life

[1:09:35] savings in our homes here, we did so

[1:09:38] based on the city's promised zoning

[1:09:40] maps. We trusted that the residential

[1:09:44] city center designation would protect

[1:09:47] the single family character of our

[1:09:50] neighborhood.

[1:09:52] The current unannounced construction on

[1:09:54] the lower end of 400 North 450 East with

[1:09:59] his associated detours has already

[1:10:02] severely alienated this section of our

[1:10:05] North Ogden community.

[1:10:09] Communication has broken down, leaving

[1:10:11] residents dependent on rumors for

[1:10:14] development plans and scheduled

[1:10:16] completion dates for street

[1:10:18] construction.

[1:10:19] Now, these proposed actions

[1:10:22] threaten tonight threaten to to compound

[1:10:25] that damage and sour public opinion

[1:10:28] permanently. This is no longer just a

[1:10:31] zoning debate.

[1:10:34] It is a question of representation and

[1:10:37] sound planning principles.

[1:10:40] First, let's look at the planning

[1:10:41] reality. A high density R15

[1:10:46] reszone paired with a major commercial

[1:10:49] gas station completely ignores

[1:10:52] neighborhood compatibility.

[1:10:54] The North Ogden General Plan explicitly

[1:10:58] tasked this commission with protecting

[1:11:01] established single family neighborhoods.

[1:11:05] Downgrading this prop this parcel to R15

[1:11:09] and slapping the commercial zone next to

[1:11:12] it is the literal definition of

[1:11:15] incompatible

[1:11:16] spot zoning.

[1:11:18] It fails to provide any reasonable

[1:11:22] transition or buffer zone between

[1:11:24] intense commercial activity and quiet

[1:11:27] residential doorsteps.

[1:11:30] Second, consider the immediate

[1:11:32] infrastructure and safety strain. The

[1:11:35] intersection of 3100 North and 450 East

[1:11:39] is not built to safely handle the heavy

[1:11:43] fuel tankers, constant idling delivery

[1:11:46] vehicles, and high volume 247 cutth

[1:11:50] through traffic that a major convenience

[1:11:52] store requires.

[1:11:54] Furthermore, placing a hightraic

[1:11:57] commercial business like a Maverick gas

[1:12:00] station, which sells vaping and tobacco

[1:12:02] products directly in the path of our

[1:12:04] high school students going to and from

[1:12:07] school, raises severe safety and health

[1:12:10] concerns that this commission cannot

[1:12:13] ignore.

[1:12:15] We are intentionally introducing a

[1:12:17] massive attractive nuisance and severe

[1:12:21] pedestrian vehicle conflict points right

[1:12:24] where our children walk. The

[1:12:27] consequences of your choices tonight

[1:12:30] will be felt for generations. If this

[1:12:32] body chooses to prioritize commercial

[1:12:36] expansion and dense developer profits

[1:12:40] over safety, stability, and express will

[1:12:44] of citizens who live here. We will

[1:12:47] respond at the ballot box. We are not

[1:12:50] just a handful of disgruntled neighbors.

[1:12:53] We are organized. We are talking

[1:12:55] doortodoor. and we will actively

[1:12:58] campaign to replace every elected

[1:13:01] official who fails to represent the

[1:13:03] citizens clear will. We will remember

[1:13:06] who voted to protect our children, our

[1:13:09] property values, and who voted to

[1:13:11] dismantle them. Please follow the

[1:13:14] directives of our general plan, protect

[1:13:17] the safety of our student pathways,

[1:13:21] deny this reszone, and protect our

[1:13:24] neighborhood gateway. Thank you.

[1:13:37] There any more comments? Any comments

[1:13:40] online? No hands raised. Um, invite the

[1:13:43] developer back up if you'd like to

[1:13:45] answer any of the concerns raised. Uh,

[1:13:50] >> chairman.

[1:13:51] >> Yes.

[1:13:52] Before we do that, we are talking only

[1:13:54] about the 1.1. We're not talking about

[1:13:58] the commercial at this point.

[1:13:59] >> I guess the man I'm not involved in the

[1:14:01] Oh,

[1:14:01] >> right. This the public hearing.

[1:14:04] >> Yeah.

[1:14:04] >> Or the 1.1 acres only has nothing to do

[1:14:08] with the commercial.

[1:14:09] >> The commercial under consider this

[1:14:11] moment. So bear in mind those comments

[1:14:14] moved back and forth I think a little

[1:14:15] bit but certainly to be considered but

[1:14:19] not particularly

[1:14:21] all of the comments for this specific

[1:14:24] item

[1:14:24] >> and and it's related just to the reszone

[1:14:27] not to the site plan those five new lots

[1:14:31] >> correct

[1:14:32] >> so

[1:14:35] yeah I have nothing to do with the

[1:14:36] commercial and that's a whole separate

[1:14:40] item for me. I empathize with the people

[1:14:43] who have the horses. I've had horses for

[1:14:45] 45 years. I've had them with my

[1:14:48] neighbors. Uh yeah, there's problems

[1:14:50] that come up. One time they got out and

[1:14:53] went through the neighbor's garden and I

[1:14:55] had to fix it. But as a whole,

[1:14:59] uh I didn't really have a lot of

[1:15:01] problems. And I don't know what North

[1:15:04] Ogden zoning is. How many large animals

[1:15:06] can you have per acre? What does the

[1:15:09] zoning say?

[1:15:14] Does anyone know that? I don't know how

[1:15:17] many animals these people are running.

[1:15:19] Sounds like a whole ranch.

[1:15:22] So, I think that's something that ought

[1:15:23] to be considered. And we don't there's

[1:15:27] no problem with us putting up a privacy

[1:15:29] fence. I think it's a good idea. I like

[1:15:32] the other gentleman's comments.

[1:15:35] So, you know, no one likes development.

[1:15:38] They always want it to be somewhere

[1:15:40] else. And it's the same story in every

[1:15:43] city. When a developer comes in and

[1:15:46] wants to change the environment, no one

[1:15:49] wants it changed. The fellow who spoke

[1:15:52] from Lake View, I was around when that

[1:15:54] was developed. That caused a big

[1:15:56] problem. But you know what? They allowed

[1:15:58] it to go and he's happy living up there

[1:16:00] in Lake View. So, it's the same story

[1:16:04] over and over again. And we don't want

[1:16:05] to be bad neighbors. We want to be good

[1:16:08] neighbors. We don't want to cause anyone

[1:16:10] any problems. And I like his idea of the

[1:16:13] six-foot privacy fence. I think that's a

[1:16:16] great idea to do it. So, would

[1:16:20] appreciate your consideration and uh

[1:16:24] that's all I have to say. Thank you.

[1:16:31] » All right.

[1:16:32] >> I I mean I can answer that question. So

[1:16:34] on properties in the R18 AG zone, so

[1:16:38] this is the properties immediately

[1:16:40] around it are zoned R18. So it's a

[1:16:42] standard 8,000 foot zoning. So these

[1:16:45] animal keeping rights would be

[1:16:46] considered legal non-conforming uses

[1:16:48] that wouldn't go away or change until

[1:16:50] that property owner sold the property,

[1:16:52] changed the use. If they were to abate

[1:16:55] the use for at least one year, you know,

[1:16:57] the city could potentially enforce no

[1:17:00] animals coming back. But the current

[1:17:02] zoning requires at least one acre and up

[1:17:05] to five acres in size. Animals and fowl

[1:17:08] are limited to four horses, cows, sheep,

[1:17:11] or goats or combination thereof per

[1:17:13] acre. Um, so you would need to have

[1:17:17] today if you were going to get animal

[1:17:18] keeping rights in the R18 AG zone, you

[1:17:21] would have to have at least one acre of

[1:17:23] property in order to get any large

[1:17:25] animals on there.

[1:17:29] » Thank you.

[1:17:31] Scott, I I have a question.

[1:17:33] >> Should we close the public hearing

[1:17:34] first? Okay. Uh motion to close the

[1:17:38] public hearing.

[1:17:40] >> Second.

[1:17:41] >> Great. Let's go ahead and close that.

[1:17:44] >> Go ahead and with your question,

[1:17:46] >> Scott. Uh when we talk about high

[1:17:48] density

[1:17:50] and as it relates to R15, what is the

[1:17:54] current definition of high density? So

[1:17:57] the general plan's current definition of

[1:17:59] high density is 18 units per acre up to

[1:18:03] 40 units per acre. And to give a little

[1:18:05] context, the highest density that the

[1:18:08] city has currently would be the

[1:18:10] apartment portion of Village at

[1:18:12] Prominence Point that are being

[1:18:13] constructed now north of 1700 North is

[1:18:16] right about 17 units per acre if you

[1:18:19] extract just the apartment component out

[1:18:22] of it. Um, rural residential is lots

[1:18:26] that are half acre or larger. Low

[1:18:28] density residential is 8,000 square ft

[1:18:31] or larger, which is uh what the R18A or

[1:18:35] R18 zone is. Medium density residential

[1:18:38] is 4,000 to 8,000 square ft, as well as

[1:18:41] attached housing types and densities in

[1:18:43] the range of 6 to 18 units per acre. um

[1:18:46] this particular downtown area. It's in

[1:18:49] the downtown mixeduse area of the

[1:18:51] general plan and within walking distance

[1:18:55] north and south of this particular

[1:18:57] property, you have a 10plex apartment

[1:18:59] and 10 duplexes to the south and then 10

[1:19:02] duplexes just one block north and to the

[1:19:06] east. So, it's a difficult it's a

[1:19:09] difficult area of the city to pin down

[1:19:10] what exactly is the right use. So an R15

[1:19:14] is a medium density. It is not a high

[1:19:17] density.

[1:19:18] >> It would be medium density by our

[1:19:20] definitions in our general plan.

[1:19:21] >> All right, Scott, I have a question for

[1:19:23] you.

[1:19:24] >> Yeah.

[1:19:25] >> What can be built in residential city

[1:19:27] center, which is zoned right now? What

[1:19:29] could be built there now?

[1:19:30] >> So right now you could do 8,000 foot

[1:19:32] lots with a 9,000 square foot on the

[1:19:34] corner. Given the property size and the

[1:19:37] configuration of a private street today,

[1:19:40] they could build

[1:19:42] depending on the configuration between

[1:19:43] three and four of those lots as it

[1:19:46] currently is depending on the fire

[1:19:48] turnaround required on the west side.

[1:19:51] >> And you're saying that with maintaining

[1:19:52] the two homes that are there on the

[1:19:54] Washington side?

[1:19:55] >> Yep. So that would be just the portion

[1:19:57] the rear yard portion of the property

[1:19:59] could be potentially. And I haven't, you

[1:20:01] know, I don't design it. I don't draw

[1:20:03] it. I don't I just did some basic basic

[1:20:05] math on lot widths and lot sizes. You

[1:20:09] could get at least three and potentially

[1:20:12] four under current zoning today. So it

[1:20:14] wouldn't require the reszone.

[1:20:18] » Scott. Oh, sorry. Did I jump in front of

[1:20:20] somebody? Sorry. Side of my eyes aren't

[1:20:23] working real well. Jump over. um

[1:20:27] a couple of blocks south

[1:20:30] of this at the corner of 450 and 2700

[1:20:33] North on the southwest corner. Um you'll

[1:20:36] remember back when I was on council that

[1:20:39] there was a long discussion about I I

[1:20:42] believe we approved duplexes on that. We

[1:20:46] did not.

[1:20:46] >> It's R1. It's actually R4. So it's

[1:20:49] >> it's R4 that we approved.

[1:20:51] >> Okay. I couldn't remember the zone that

[1:20:53] we approved there, but I do remember the

[1:20:55] discussion. There being lots of

[1:20:57] discussion amongst planning commission

[1:20:59] and council at the time about

[1:21:03] while this R5 isn't high density, it's

[1:21:06] technically medium density, but we did

[1:21:09] have conversation

[1:21:11] and con concern about the creep of

[1:21:13] higher density slowly block by block

[1:21:17] going further and further north. Um,

[1:21:20] that's the only concern I have. It When

[1:21:24] I first looked at this, I was trying to

[1:21:27] figure out how in the world they were

[1:21:28] going to get out onto 400, out onto

[1:21:30] Washington. Then I looked a little

[1:21:33] deeper and saw that they were going to

[1:21:34] get out onto 450 East. Um, so I I think

[1:21:38] there's a lot to consider here. Um,

[1:21:43] okay. That was what I wanted to know,

[1:21:44] though, was what we had zoned that one

[1:21:46] corner. Thank you. Right.

[1:21:54] We'll uh if there are no more questions

[1:21:55] for Scott, we'll open it up to

[1:21:57] discussion amongst ourselves here.

[1:22:00] >> Well, maybe I have a question. Maybe

[1:22:02] it's just leading into the discussion.

[1:22:06] the ascertation of the agricultural

[1:22:09] private private property rights that we

[1:22:11] heard. Are are there means and methods

[1:22:14] we can do to

[1:22:19] address any of those? I mean, he's got

[1:22:22] horses. It seems pretty common sense to

[1:22:25] someone buying a home

[1:22:28] >> that it's going to smell like manure

[1:22:29] here and there. You know, July is going

[1:22:31] to be really ripe.

[1:22:34] Do we do we have the means to address

[1:22:38] anything like that or is that more of a

[1:22:41] I guess I'm more just concerned as comp

[1:22:44] if there are complaints how does the

[1:22:47] city address that is there does it get

[1:22:50] addressed does everything have to be

[1:22:52] investigated and talked about or is it a

[1:22:56] yeah

[1:22:58] there's horses there

[1:23:00] >> it's basically they're moving to the

[1:23:02] nuisance And I'm not a land use lawyer,

[1:23:04] but when that happens, the prevailing

[1:23:07] uses rights exist. So the animal keeping

[1:23:10] rights wouldn't be impacted other than

[1:23:12] maybe, you know, noisy neighbors that

[1:23:15] move into those homes, but they moved

[1:23:17] into the nuisance essentially. And right

[1:23:21] now, the residential city center zoning,

[1:23:25] you could have a single family home with

[1:23:27] the rear yard being 20 ft from the

[1:23:30] property line. Um, so it's not I guess

[1:23:34] that the change from the current zoning

[1:23:36] to the R15 one permits the splitting of

[1:23:40] those homes out on Washington Boulevard

[1:23:41] into their own individual lots. So it

[1:23:44] doesn't keep it doesn't have a

[1:23:45] nonconformity of lot width because lot

[1:23:47] widths are 55 ft. But right now they

[1:23:51] could develop R18, a small infill

[1:23:54] subdivision with functionally similar

[1:23:57] setbacks and it's legal in the code the

[1:24:01] permitted use of the property today. So

[1:24:04] there's not really

[1:24:06] I guess the answer is no. Like we we

[1:24:08] can't require this property owner to

[1:24:10] separate their structures based on their

[1:24:13] zoning further away from an existing use

[1:24:15] just because of potential nuisance

[1:24:17] claims. And and just as an example, the

[1:24:20] current proposals, two existing, five

[1:24:23] new. If everything was to be raised and

[1:24:26] just go R18, do you have an idea of what

[1:24:29] that number is? Is it in the six or

[1:24:31] seven range as well?

[1:24:33] >> Hold on one second.

[1:24:35] >> Probably not.

[1:24:36] >> We'll use the only number that matters

[1:24:37] in planning, which is 43,560

[1:24:40] ft per acre times 1.22.

[1:24:43] So you have 53,143.

[1:24:46] If you divide that by 8,000 square foot

[1:24:48] lots, it's 6.6. So that's that's the

[1:24:52] number I got where you have the two and

[1:24:54] then potentially, you know, three plus

[1:24:56] potentially one more

[1:24:58] um is what if they were to take

[1:25:00] everything down and do one infill

[1:25:03] private drive development approximately

[1:25:04] what they'd be able to get.

[1:25:07] Scott, uh, could we provide an

[1:25:13] additional buffer to that agricultural

[1:25:15] use by possibly when they proposed a

[1:25:20] subdivision,

[1:25:21] maybe flip the street and put it on the

[1:25:24] north side?

[1:25:25] >> Yeah. And that was that was originally

[1:25:26] staff's recommendation just based on the

[1:25:29] lining up the road to 2700 North. I

[1:25:33] think if you look historically at the

[1:25:35] property ownerships there as it gets out

[1:25:37] to Washington Boulevard, 2700 was likely

[1:25:40] supposed to connect, but it creates an

[1:25:42] offset intersection.

[1:25:44] >> It does

[1:25:44] >> between Lmen View and 2700 that

[1:25:47] >> that's already a dangerous lefthand

[1:25:49] turn,

[1:25:49] >> but I I'm talking just private street

[1:25:52] maybe.

[1:25:53] >> So, uh it's it gives an additional

[1:25:56] buffer

[1:25:57] >> to the homes.

[1:25:58] >> You could do that. And the the great

[1:26:00] thing about a reasonzoning process or

[1:26:02] any legislative process is that

[1:26:04] stipulations could be put on the

[1:26:06] property. So right now it's a reszone

[1:26:08] request not with a development

[1:26:09] agreement. It's just to a you know

[1:26:11] standard R15 and then we develop it

[1:26:15] under legal standards. So unless the

[1:26:17] reszone were to come in with the

[1:26:19] requirement that the street be on the

[1:26:20] north side, it would be however can you, know, how can you make this property

[1:26:25] culinary water, sewer, storm water, do

[1:26:28] all of the the legal requirements for

[1:26:30] the subdivision process, but that's

[1:26:32] something the planning commission,

[1:26:33] should you make a recommendation, could

[1:26:35] recommend to city council as part of the

[1:26:37] legislative decision. But otherwise, a

[1:26:41] home could be built 20 ft from the

[1:26:44] property line and meet the current

[1:26:46] >> meet the currents of

[1:26:47] >> requirements.

[1:26:50] >> Yes, John.

[1:26:51] >> I I think it's important to note uh that

[1:26:56] uh when you're talking non-conforming

[1:26:58] uses, nuisances, there's a whole lot of

[1:27:00] like factual things that come into play

[1:27:02] there. And so it's hard to say in in any

[1:27:05] given situation without thoroughly

[1:27:08] exploring everything um whether what

[1:27:12] rights would prevail. Um I do think for

[1:27:15] example that um

[1:27:19] the the longevity of the use has some

[1:27:22] impact but it's not it's not always

[1:27:26] protected which is why courts fight over

[1:27:27] nuisances all the time. It's not

[1:27:30] something the city would be involved in

[1:27:32] typically. It's typically something

[1:27:33] between two neighboring property owners.

[1:27:44] I think R18 fits better in this spot. I there's no R15 surrounding it and I I

[1:27:50] think R18 would fit better, which is

[1:27:52] very similar to what's already there.

[1:27:54] And

[1:27:57] you know there's R14 across Washington

[1:28:00] but there's no R1. You know

[1:28:02] >> that puts it closer to R15 but there's

[1:28:04] no R15 on this side. And if you look at

[1:28:05] the road which is going into the

[1:28:07] neighborhood towards the school the rest

[1:28:09] of them are all roughly R R1A.

[1:28:14] It's my understanding too that this is a

[1:28:17] request to change it to R15. So, we

[1:28:20] don't necessarily need to provide

[1:28:23] suggestions.

[1:28:25] We can simply deny the request if that's

[1:28:28] the way the council moves. I'm just I'm

[1:28:31] just saying there's not a lot of reason

[1:28:34] to say, well, what if you did it this

[1:28:35] way or what if you did it that way?

[1:28:37] >> Well, we're we're recommending to the

[1:28:39] council.

[1:28:40] >> Correct.

[1:28:40] >> I was going to say it's we're not we're

[1:28:41] not approving or denying. It's a

[1:28:43] recommend.

[1:28:43] >> Yes. Thank you. That's what I meant to

[1:28:44] say. But you know what I mean? like we

[1:28:46] can say

[1:28:47] >> well and and the basis of my question to

[1:28:49] Scott on the R18 zoning is

[1:28:55] » we're getting 6.6 six homes on the R18

[1:29:00] reszone or not.

[1:29:04] And and so that's where I'm at where the effect the effect of the reszone

[1:29:11] allows some older home character to be

[1:29:14] preserved. And with a denial of a

[1:29:17] reszone, those homes are going down and

[1:29:19] we're getting 6.6 six homes

[1:29:24] on the same property.

[1:29:28] You know, the the actual number of

[1:29:30] residents is not something that our

[1:29:32] decision is likely going to affect. Does

[1:29:35] that make sense? Just the existing

[1:29:38] zoning at R18 fitting.

[1:29:42] It does fit the zone, but it also does,

[1:29:46] you know, I spoke about ramifications

[1:29:48] earlier. The ramifications are

[1:29:51] we know one of the two homes is likely

[1:29:54] going to be raised on Washington. They

[1:29:56] the developer is seeing some value in

[1:29:58] retaining one of the older homes with a

[1:30:01] denial.

[1:30:03] We in essence could be putting into

[1:30:06] effect a removal of that second home so

[1:30:09] that the same, you know, proposed

[1:30:11] density ends up occurring anyway.

[1:30:26] Well,

[1:30:30] I would entertain a motion. I would also

[1:30:32] entertain further discussion. I my

[1:30:35] opinion here um I don't it's really hard

[1:30:40] to for me to say

[1:30:46] um

[1:30:47] uh you know to to pass this at R15 with

[1:30:51] the given

[1:30:54] plan that we have here with the road I

[1:30:57] just it seems clunky to me but that's my

[1:31:00] opinion

[1:31:01] >> right in my opinion just based on

[1:31:04] projects I've worked on with turnarounds

[1:31:06] and driveways dealing with a fire

[1:31:09] marshal. I don't know how far their

[1:31:11] conversations have gone,

[1:31:15] but I'm not overly hopeful on the

[1:31:17] drawing that I've seen, but that is not

[1:31:18] the exhibit in which necessarily we make

[1:31:21] the decision on.

[1:31:22] >> Right.

[1:31:23] >> And they still have to get approval from

[1:31:26] the fire marshal.

[1:31:27] >> Exactly. So I again just to second what

[1:31:30] I said. I don't I don't think the number

[1:31:32] of units on the property is going to be

[1:31:36] a direct change no matter what. It it

[1:31:40] might cost a developer more money

[1:31:43] to do so. But at R18,

[1:31:46] >> the project is likely more feasible and

[1:31:49] they don't have to do the fire

[1:31:50] turnaround. It can be a through street.

[1:31:53] >> Well, it's currently an RCC. It's not an

[1:31:56] R18.

[1:31:57] >> Correct. But we don't have the I don't

[1:31:58] think we have the precedent to not go to

[1:32:00] R18 based on the neighboring zoning

[1:32:03] being. So

[1:32:04] >> the the two are functionally the same.

[1:32:06] So the the zoning standards between R18

[1:32:09] and RCC are essentially the same. Um RCC

[1:32:12] allows for some actually nuanced other

[1:32:15] interesting things. You can do attached

[1:32:17] dwelling units, planned unit

[1:32:19] development. So we, you know, looking at

[1:32:22] the code, it's potential they could do

[1:32:24] twin homes, but there's some specifics

[1:32:26] you have to meet in the attached

[1:32:27] dwelling units. But the RCC is a very

[1:32:30] open zone. But as far as lot widths,

[1:32:32] overall lot sizes, uh, setbacks, it's

[1:32:35] functionally R18.

[1:32:36] >> Yeah.

[1:32:37] >> And I understand what Commissioner

[1:32:39] Bailey is saying,

[1:32:41] >> that the the residents may not get what

[1:32:43] they want, and that's not something that

[1:32:45] we have control because it is already

[1:32:47] zoned that way. But but we're we're

[1:32:49] deciding tonight if we're we're

[1:32:51] recommending R15 and and I would

[1:32:54] >> I would put forward

[1:32:55] >> my reasons that I gave are directly

[1:32:59] related to that.

[1:33:00] >> Okay,

[1:33:03] I mean let's not dismiss those reasons.

[1:33:04] We're talking about an R15 versus an R1A

[1:33:07] and it's systematically ending up the

[1:33:11] same. But if we look at unintended

[1:33:13] consequences,

[1:33:16] leaving it R1A and the landowner raises

[1:33:18] everything might be worse for everybody.

[1:33:21] It's just a consideration.

[1:33:24] >> I I got Thank you for that. I appreciate

[1:33:27] that. I I like that perspective. I

[1:33:29] didn't have that perspective necessarily

[1:33:31] before. Um,

[1:33:35] >> but if we're playing the long game here,

[1:33:38] >> good

[1:33:38] >> and we deny the change to R15, we will

[1:33:42] see another

[1:33:46] um, we'll see this again. Is that

[1:33:49] correct?

[1:33:51] >> Possibly they could under the RCC

[1:33:53] >> RCC

[1:33:54] >> because they could effectively do the

[1:33:56] R18. Right. Right. 8,000. And as Scott

[1:33:59] mentioned a minute ago, the RCC zone is

[1:34:02] a little bit broader in what you can

[1:34:03] build than just the straight R18.

[1:34:07] >> Um, so it gives them effectively an R18

[1:34:12] just to leave it as it is. Um, with

[1:34:15] broader opportunity for twin homes and those kinds of things

[1:34:20] um where going to the R5,

[1:34:24] it may preserve one of those homes out

[1:34:26] front, it might not. But it, you know,

[1:34:29] it uh it sounds like one of them is

[1:34:30] definitely going um

[1:34:35] Scott, if they

[1:34:37] end up coming back with uh

[1:34:40] keeping it the the existing zoning,

[1:34:44] >> that ends up being a minor subdivision

[1:34:47] and we never see it.

[1:34:49] >> It depends on if there's any roadway

[1:34:51] dedications. Okay. Planning commission

[1:34:53] accepts roadway dedication. There's it's

[1:34:56] likely the ride ofway width out there in

[1:34:58] front of North Ogden Park in the skate

[1:35:00] park. I think that's the full right

[1:35:01] ofway width. So they'd need to build

[1:35:03] sidewalk curb and gutter. So you may not

[1:35:05] see it. It might just come back as a

[1:35:07] private subdivision which is under 10

[1:35:09] lots and

[1:35:11] no

[1:35:13] sorry under 10 lots and no roadway

[1:35:15] dedication or public dedication like

[1:35:17] storm detention basins.

[1:35:26] We typically bring back small lot

[1:35:28] subdivisions that are on private streets

[1:35:30] that the private street is narrower than

[1:35:32] a public street standard to the planning

[1:35:34] commission because it requires by code a

[1:35:37] specific recommendation or permission

[1:35:39] from the city engineer to do that. So

[1:35:41] we're usually fairly cautious on those

[1:35:43] items, but those are administrative.

[1:35:45] They're not legislative. They're not

[1:35:46] public hearings. public comments are

[1:35:49] encouraged, but it's a different process

[1:35:51] than what the reason looks like.

[1:35:54] >> So,

[1:35:56] you know, I'm I'm I'm I'm thinking both

[1:35:58] ways and and and I'm I'm leaning toward

[1:36:00] an approval because I'm an imagining

[1:36:03] the creativity we create in a in a

[1:36:06] denial to go back and look at the RCC

[1:36:09] zone and what can be done on the

[1:36:11] property. I know it's not what everyone

[1:36:13] came in, you know, neighbors and stuff

[1:36:15] came in wanting, you know, with more

[1:36:18] homes, but it's likely

[1:36:21] going to be the same outcome. But I'm

[1:36:23] also sitting here going, we have an

[1:36:24] applicant asking for an R15, and in the

[1:36:26] RCC, it could be something

[1:36:30] with some more creativity that could

[1:36:33] affect them in a more negative manner.

[1:36:35] and I'm seeing the limited sketch we

[1:36:38] have and I'm a little bit leaning on a

[1:36:40] fire marshal and experience there. So,

[1:36:43] it might sound counterintuitive, but

[1:36:45] that's why I would lean for the reszone,

[1:36:47] lock it in those five lots. You know, I

[1:36:51] know there's there's the potential that

[1:36:52] they come back in for a change of zone

[1:36:55] on the front parcel and we would be

[1:36:57] dealing with that later.

[1:37:00] But again, if you think of what more

[1:37:02] heads together and creativity and a

[1:37:04] straight through street with six homes,

[1:37:06] it's in essence the same outcome.

[1:37:13] It's It would reszone the front lots

[1:37:15] though too. Correct. It's not

[1:37:17] >> It's all one lot. Correct. Yeah, this

[1:37:19] would reszone everything.

[1:37:20] >> Both lots.

[1:37:21] >> Yep. If they were to subdivide and zone,

[1:37:24] >> if they wanted to keep both homes out

[1:37:26] front and put them on their own

[1:37:27] individual lot,

[1:37:29] >> they need a a different zone than RCC.

[1:37:32] There's only 141 ft of frontage. There's

[1:37:34] not enough width to get both of them

[1:37:36] there. The R15 at uh 55 foot frontages

[1:37:41] would permit them to separate those onto

[1:37:43] their own individual lots. That's kind

[1:37:45] of its own issue of those the home

[1:37:47] viability on Washington Boulevard. But

[1:37:49] at the size of lot that they have 1.22

[1:37:52] acres, you know, multiplied by the gross

[1:37:54] density permitted, they could take

[1:37:56] everything down and and just as

[1:37:58] Commissioner Bailey is saying, have a an

[1:38:00] administrative process to just create a

[1:38:02] subdivision in there that planning

[1:38:04] commission may not see.

[1:38:13] But to subdivide the front lots, it

[1:38:14] would require a reszone or some other

[1:38:16] type of

[1:38:18] >> permission. Basically, they can't do it

[1:38:20] in the RCC zone.

[1:38:22] >> And R15 is the only way to make those

[1:38:24] two lots on 450.

[1:38:27] >> Yeah. On individual lots on

[1:38:29] >> on individual lots. Yeah.

[1:38:30] >> Yeah.

[1:38:41] Well, you know, I I I think everyone's

[1:38:43] going to have their opinion, and I think

[1:38:44] everyone's opinion is based on the same

[1:38:47] protections of the property rights of

[1:38:50] the owner and the neighbors rights. I

[1:38:54] don't know if there's a huge difference

[1:38:55] in in in

[1:38:58] either decision.

[1:39:00] So, if we wanted to keep going, we could

[1:39:04] or

[1:39:05] we could put it up to vote.

[1:39:08] >> Is that a motion?

[1:39:10] >> I don't know. I don't know what the

[1:39:11] motion would be at this moment in time,

[1:39:13] but

[1:39:16] again, I I'm I'm with what's going on

[1:39:18] around I'm I'm I'm

[1:39:22] I don't know if we're going to come to

[1:39:23] an agreement without just going for it.

[1:39:26] So I

[1:39:30] let's see it's open somewhere.

[1:39:36] So, I would make a motion to approve the zoning map

[1:39:42] amendment

[1:39:44] for 2742 North 400 East to reszone the

[1:39:48] property from residential

[1:39:50] city center, which is effectively R18

[1:39:55] to small lot residential R15 as an

[1:39:59] infill project

[1:40:01] with an added point on that approval

[1:40:04] that This potentially allows some

[1:40:08] preservation of the home along

[1:40:11] Washington Boulevard.

[1:40:12] >> And that's a recommendation.

[1:40:14] >> That's a recommendation to approve.

[1:40:15] >> City council

[1:40:16] >> to city council to approve.

[1:40:19] >> I'll second that.

[1:40:22] >> Thank you.

[1:40:22] >> All right. Commissioner, excuse me,

[1:40:25] Commissioner Bailey mentioned uh excuse

[1:40:28] me, motion to approve the zoning

[1:40:29] amendment and Commissioner Gardner

[1:40:31] seconded the motion. Let's go ahead and

[1:40:33] take a vote.

[1:40:35] Commissioner Bailey,

[1:40:37] >> yes.

[1:40:38] >> Commissioner Gardner,

[1:40:39] >> yes.

[1:40:39] >> Commissioner Settlemire,

[1:40:41] >> no.

[1:40:42] >> Commissioner Swanson,

[1:40:43] >> no.

[1:40:44] >> Commissioner Jorgensson,

[1:40:46] >> no.

[1:40:48] >> And I vote no on that as well. Um, so

[1:40:52] that doesn't pass. We move uh

[1:40:59] I guess just to sending an unfavorable

[1:41:02] recommendation to the council. Yeah,

[1:41:04] thank you. I'm having trouble with

[1:41:07] >> I think it's important that everyone

[1:41:08] understands that while our

[1:41:09] recommendation as a planning commission,

[1:41:13] the vote is no, recommending not to do

[1:41:16] it, city council has full purview to do

[1:41:20] whatever it is they think is right. So,

[1:41:23] we it happened when I was on council, it

[1:41:25] still happens today. The council may

[1:41:28] look at things differently than we do,

[1:41:29] and they decide on their own that yes,

[1:41:31] they're going to approve this. So, um,

[1:41:34] you have a recommendation from planning

[1:41:36] commission and then city council will

[1:41:38] make that final determination.

[1:41:43] Thank you, Commissioner Swanson.

[1:41:46] All right, with that

[1:41:50] taken care of, let's move to item number

[1:41:53] seven, zoning map amendment 2026-05-3425

[1:42:00] North Mountain Road. reszone property

[1:42:03] from mixed zones including R110, R112.5,

[1:42:08] and HP3 residential, which is the

[1:42:10] majority of the piece to HP2

[1:42:14] hillside protection. This is a public

[1:42:17] hearing.

[1:42:20] » Uh, what did I say? Oh, two HP2

[1:42:25] >> HP2 hillside protection. No problem.

[1:42:27] >> Um, this is a public hearing and work

[1:42:29] session. We will be hearing from Scott

[1:42:31] Hess, but at the request of the

[1:42:33] applicant, um, no mailers were sent out,

[1:42:35] so we will hear this again at a

[1:42:36] different public hearing. Uh, presenter

[1:42:39] Scott Hes, correct me if I'm wrong

[1:42:40] there?

[1:42:41] >> Nope, that's correct. We we have spoken

[1:42:44] staff has spoken with the applicant uh

[1:42:46] several times about the concept plan

[1:42:48] about the geotechnical work that would

[1:42:49] need to be done and at the applicant's

[1:42:51] request they wanted a work session with

[1:42:54] the planning commission but in order to

[1:42:56] meet the state's 10day public notice

[1:42:58] period time frame we had already posted

[1:43:00] the public hearing notice as part of the

[1:43:02] applied or the application the paid for

[1:43:05] application but because no mailers were

[1:43:07] sent to property owners within 300 ft of

[1:43:09] this area there's no decision or

[1:43:12] recommendation that can be rendered by

[1:43:14] the planning commission tonight. So,

[1:43:15] we'll look at this as a work session and

[1:43:18] we'll talk through some of the nuances.

[1:43:20] So, this property on the southern side

[1:43:23] touches 1050 East and Mountain Road and

[1:43:26] then on the north end it's it touches

[1:43:29] Michelle Lane that comes out of the

[1:43:31] southern end of the cove. So, it's a

[1:43:33] significant sized piece of property from

[1:43:35] north to south. Uh on the south end near

[1:43:39] 1050, there's a sliver of property that

[1:43:41] is zoned 10,000 square foot lot uh

[1:43:45] effectively quarter acre zoning R110.

[1:43:48] There's another little sliver above it

[1:43:49] that's R12 which is not quite a third of

[1:43:52] an acre lot. And then the rest of it is

[1:43:55] hillside protection 3 which requires two

[1:43:58] acres per lot. Um, this is an area of

[1:44:01] the city that was identified in our

[1:44:04] 1990,

[1:44:06] I think seven, I think 1997, the

[1:44:09] hillside protection zone area. And if

[1:44:12] you think of North Ogden kind of like

[1:44:13] the crook of an elbow, that property or

[1:44:16] that mountain side that faces west, um,

[1:44:19] I learned from a previous city engineer

[1:44:21] is a historic aluvial fan. So, it's

[1:44:24] essentially a giant landslide that

[1:44:26] happened however many, you know, orders

[1:44:29] of magnitude years ago. And you can see

[1:44:31] it when you're driving in from I-15 down

[1:44:34] 2700 north. You can once you realize

[1:44:36] what that geological, you know,

[1:44:38] structure is, you can visually see that

[1:44:40] hillside um landslide. And because of

[1:44:45] that, that whole area of the city was

[1:44:48] downzoned to two acre lots as in a way

[1:44:52] to protect the public interest, protect

[1:44:54] those structures, protect the city, uh

[1:44:57] limit liability, not put so many hill

[1:44:59] houses up on the hill that would be at

[1:45:01] risk. And in some of those areas, we

[1:45:04] estimate that you may be able to find

[1:45:06] the fault line, but they could be it

[1:45:08] could be 100 feet deep. We don't really

[1:45:10] know where the fault line falls under

[1:45:11] this massive hillside. So staff's

[1:45:15] concern with the development proposal as

[1:45:17] it was proposed or the reason as it was

[1:45:19] proposed is we just simply don't have

[1:45:22] enough information to make an informed

[1:45:24] decision on whether or not this property

[1:45:27] in particular is more similar to the

[1:45:30] cove which is hillside HP2 hillside

[1:45:33] protection 2. And while the cove was

[1:45:35] developed with really large lots, its

[1:45:37] underlying zoning is a third of an acre

[1:45:40] lot. So if you look at Jordan Park, the

[1:45:43] new subdivision that continues Mountain

[1:45:45] Road, that's more similar to this

[1:45:47] development than what the Cove would be.

[1:45:50] And if you look at the two subdivisions

[1:45:52] that happened immediately north of this

[1:45:55] one, which is Wasach Hills and Hidden

[1:45:57] Hills, those have both been developed

[1:45:59] under Hillside Protection 3 with at

[1:46:01] least 2 acre kind of estate lots

[1:46:05] essentially. So you're sandwiched

[1:46:07] between some really interesting

[1:46:09] development here, but staff, at least

[1:46:12] planning staff, hasn't seen enough

[1:46:13] geotechnical work to know whether or not

[1:46:16] this is good, bad, or indifferent. Um,

[1:46:18] and then we're also concerned about, you

[1:46:20] know, road steepness and and other

[1:46:23] things. So, for that reason, we don't

[1:46:25] have a recommendation. It's just hold

[1:46:27] the public hearing. We have the

[1:46:29] applicant representative here to

[1:46:31] represent the project. And then we're

[1:46:33] happy to answer questions. And way in

[1:46:34] the back, we have our city engineer Tim

[1:46:37] here as well. Um, if we have any

[1:46:39] questions for engineering

[1:46:42] with that, I'll take any questions.

[1:46:46] Can we require all of that to answer the

[1:46:50] concerns of staff and planning?

[1:46:52] >> It is required. So the hillside the HP

[1:46:54] zones generally and we we drew a line.

[1:46:57] We I mean the the study here in 1997

[1:47:01] essentially drew a line of this point

[1:47:03] north said this area is more

[1:47:06] geologically sensitive than the areas

[1:47:08] south. And so it provides a wide variety

[1:47:12] of geologic studies that we can require

[1:47:14] as staff to best under you understand

[1:47:18] what's going on on the property to

[1:47:20] create safety for everybody.

[1:47:21] >> So because so because staff doesn't have

[1:47:24] a recommendation and we don't have

[1:47:27] enough information to really make a wise

[1:47:31] recommendation.

[1:47:34] We would we can we can request

[1:47:36] additional

[1:47:38] >> so that we can make a better decision

[1:47:41] >> and we have and since we had posted the

[1:47:43] public notice the application has been

[1:47:45] applied for we have an applicant who's

[1:47:47] supplied information. Tonight is really

[1:47:49] a discussion between the applicant

[1:47:52] >> and yourselves and thinking about what

[1:47:56] are the risks to be mitigated? What

[1:47:58] information would you like to see? you

[1:47:59] know, we we know on that side the

[1:48:01] geologic studies that we'll look at,

[1:48:03] wildlife studies, the wildland urban

[1:48:05] interface. Um, so there are some things

[1:48:07] that as the planning commission you

[1:48:10] could or should consider, which are

[1:48:11] things like maxim maximizing zoning

[1:48:14] density or um there are often

[1:48:18] tradeoffs between the impacts of

[1:48:21] increased zoning and what we might be

[1:48:24] like losing I want to say or you know

[1:48:26] trail connectivity or open space or

[1:48:28] other things. So, there's bits of the

[1:48:30] conversation the planning commission

[1:48:32] should and could have, but I would say

[1:48:34] that you're really waiting until you

[1:48:36] have a more clear geologic picture

[1:48:38] before staff would recommend that

[1:48:40] planning commission make a

[1:48:41] recommendation to the city council.

[1:48:43] >> Okay. And the current zoning is the

[1:48:47] hillside protected too.

[1:48:50] >> HP3.

[1:48:50] Okay. And then there's a sliver

[1:48:53] that's kind of zoned odd at the B at the

[1:48:55] southern portion.

[1:48:57] >> Yep.

[1:48:58] It's hard to I mean John might be able

[1:49:01] to pull it up but yeah there was just

[1:49:03] like the

[1:49:04] >> you could you could build a handful of

[1:49:06] lots on that southern side with mountain

[1:49:08] road coming down through

[1:49:10] >> um but you wouldn't you wouldn't be able

[1:49:12] to do a whole lot going north up through

[1:49:14] the canson property. Okay.

[1:49:16] >> Okay.

[1:49:17] >> Scott, does this does this property have

[1:49:21] uh water rights for secondary water?

[1:49:24] >> That's a good question. So that's I mean

[1:49:26] we have applicant representative

[1:49:29] >> but we don't have a again we don't have

[1:49:32] a subdivision application. So this is a

[1:49:34] reszone um which would you know preede

[1:49:36] any of those

[1:49:38] >> will serve letters and other other items

[1:49:40] as part of a subdivision.

[1:49:42] >> Do we have a a time scheduled for this

[1:49:45] work session?

[1:49:46] >> We don't have a time limit I guess. And

[1:49:48] you can we can settle.

[1:49:50] >> No, I met with the city council. I mean,

[1:49:53] tonight I mean tonight is effectively a

[1:49:55] work session. So, there's two ways the

[1:49:57] planning commission could go. One is you

[1:49:59] could uh postpone this item to a future

[1:50:04] date meeting, but staff felt it's you

[1:50:07] have enough information to have a

[1:50:09] discussion with the the applicant

[1:50:11] representative. you know, they've waited

[1:50:13] almost two hours. So, I feel like it's

[1:50:15] worthwhile to have that conversation

[1:50:16] with them, but it's just it won't be a

[1:50:19] work session between city council and

[1:50:20] planning commission. It's just that you

[1:50:22] cannot make a recommendation based on

[1:50:24] public hearing notice requirements. So,

[1:50:26] tonight is a discussion.

[1:50:28] >> And just one more question.

[1:50:31] You know, it it wasn't presented.

[1:50:34] It's not rude for us to say, you know,

[1:50:37] there's no back and forth, right, on the

[1:50:39] pre on the previous topic. It was it was

[1:50:42] seen as we were being rude, but that's

[1:50:44] sort of the general rule of no back and

[1:50:46] forth.

[1:50:47] >> Does it seem

[1:50:50] appropriate that this might be a back

[1:50:52] and forth?

[1:50:53] >> Well, when you're when you have an

[1:50:55] applicant and the planning commission,

[1:50:56] it is a back and forth conversation that

[1:50:59] I guess the traditional like Robert's

[1:51:00] rules would say that during a public

[1:51:02] comment period,

[1:51:04] >> they are making public comment, but it

[1:51:06] isn't a dialogue between the

[1:51:08] >> I mean, I'm playing a little dumb. I

[1:51:10] just it wasn't rude before and I wanted

[1:51:12] to

[1:51:13] >> put that on the record and then lead

[1:51:15] into that there's going to be a back and

[1:51:16] forth and for the reasons that you

[1:51:19] stated.

[1:51:20] >> So there isn't a five minute limit to

[1:51:22] our discussion.

[1:51:23] >> Whatever you want that depends on

[1:51:29] » I want pizza. Scott

[1:51:33] eat dinner.

[1:51:35] >> I have a question.

[1:51:36] >> Yes. for the applicant if you want to

[1:51:39] come to the mic.

[1:51:40] >> Um, we

[1:51:42] >> can we get your name?

[1:51:43] >> Should we open Wait a minute. Should we

[1:51:45] open public hearing if we're gonna have

[1:51:47] the applicant or it's not?

[1:51:49] >> It is.

[1:51:49] >> It has to be public hearing because we

[1:51:51] posted it as well. It just can't be the

[1:51:54] decision because we didn't. It's like a

[1:51:56] >> 50% of the

[1:51:57] >> We are holding the public hearing. We're

[1:51:59] not making the decation.

[1:52:02] >> Okay.

[1:52:02] >> Right. And we will hold another one.

[1:52:04] >> Okay. So, let's officially open the

[1:52:07] public hearing.

[1:52:08] >> Yes.

[1:52:09] >> And invite the applicant up.

[1:52:12] >> Thanks, Scott. Um, my name is Hunter

[1:52:14] Murray. I represent the Holland Group

[1:52:16] and we're from Kisville.

[1:52:19] >> Uh,

[1:52:21] yeah. So I think that sorry if we rocked

[1:52:23] the boat in any way with our process and

[1:52:25] everything but we've had a couple

[1:52:26] internal meetings with um the planning

[1:52:29] department as well as engineering and

[1:52:32] the the thought and the reasoning behind

[1:52:35] having more of this open discussion

[1:52:37] verse um maybe just simply presenting it

[1:52:41] and going straight to a vote was exactly

[1:52:43] what Scott had mentioned and I'm sure

[1:52:45] we'll talk a little bit about tonight

[1:52:46] and that's that with this being on the

[1:52:49] hillside there's going to be geological

[1:52:50] multle questions and multiple different

[1:52:54] details that we are ironing out as we

[1:52:57] go. And so the thought behind this

[1:52:59] meeting was really to say assuming that

[1:53:03] those geological questions are resolved

[1:53:05] and they pass and they look good. Um can

[1:53:09] we have an open conversation about the

[1:53:13] reason,

[1:53:15] the site plan, the density, things of

[1:53:18] that sort? Um, when the Canudson's

[1:53:22] showed me this land years ago,

[1:53:25] immediately fell in love with this

[1:53:26] piece. I mean, I think that the the

[1:53:29] area, the views,

[1:53:32] everything about the surrounding

[1:53:33] subdivisions, this is a really, really

[1:53:36] special piece that I think we're as

[1:53:38] developers holding really close to us.

[1:53:40] And we're here to make it right. we we

[1:53:42] want to make this project right and we

[1:53:44] really value your input and your

[1:53:47] comments and this discussion to to

[1:53:49] accomplish that. So that was the purpose

[1:53:52] was to

[1:53:55] converse and hear from one another about

[1:53:57] what we're trying to accomplish on this piece.

[1:54:00] >> What uh what kind of geological studies

[1:54:05] are you working on to answer your

[1:54:08] questions? So, right now we've done, you

[1:54:11] know, our standard phase ones and and

[1:54:13] hired CMT to do our geological um

[1:54:16] engineering. The additional things that

[1:54:18] we are working through um to Scott's

[1:54:21] point are the fault line as well as the

[1:54:25] aluvial fan. Um,

[1:54:29] from a quick analysis that CMT, our our

[1:54:34] geotech engineers did, um, this land is

[1:54:37] outside of both the statemapped areas of

[1:54:42] concern with the fault line. It's also

[1:54:45] out of the areas of concern with the

[1:54:49] state approved maps for the aluvial fan.

[1:54:51] Now, we understand that just because

[1:54:55] it's outside of that area doesn't mean

[1:54:58] that we don't need to still do some

[1:55:00] additional testing to make sure. I think

[1:55:02] we can acknowledge that sometimes those

[1:55:04] maps can be a little generic and maybe

[1:55:07] not very precise. And so our goal when

[1:55:10] it comes to um the engineering details

[1:55:14] is to um make sure that we can have that

[1:55:18] CMT provides a clear answer for that

[1:55:20] fault line and that aluvial fan and more

[1:55:23] importantly working closely with Tim um

[1:55:26] and Scott and everyone involved at the

[1:55:27] city to make sure that um they've seen

[1:55:30] eyes on it and they they concur with

[1:55:32] what our engineers have have found. And

[1:55:36] with CMT and the is it just like pit

[1:55:39] testing is that are they

[1:55:41] >> that's what we're doing right now. Yes.

[1:55:42] >> And just an estimate on the north south

[1:55:46] portion you know that length

[1:55:49] you know how many how many test pits are

[1:55:52] you have you done? How many are you

[1:55:53] planning? Cuz

[1:55:55] >> so I I believe we're north of I want to

[1:55:59] say we're north of 12. I think we're

[1:56:01] probably closer to 18 or 20. I don't

[1:56:04] have the exact number. Um, we had that

[1:56:07] discussion with CMT and and I believe

[1:56:09] we're again north of 12, but probably in

[1:56:12] that 18 to 20 range throughout this

[1:56:14] project

[1:56:16] >> in in this process through the

[1:56:18] discussion. I'm not an engineer by any

[1:56:21] stretch. Had a dream once that I was and

[1:56:23] it was the worst nightmare of my life.

[1:56:26] But so for me, I'm going to have to rely

[1:56:28] on the technical abilities and knowledge

[1:56:30] of engineers who do this for a living.

[1:56:33] There was a reason back in 1997 that

[1:56:36] this area was designated as HP3.

[1:56:39] >> Yeah.

[1:56:39] >> Um because of the aluvial fan because of

[1:56:42] the the fault line remnants that run off

[1:56:45] through this area. Um, I mean, a little

[1:56:49] bit further east of this is a a very

[1:56:52] large landslide that came down roughly

[1:56:54] 12,000 years ago. Um, it's um,

[1:57:00] so for me, I'm going to have to see some

[1:57:04] good information that says this is safe

[1:57:06] to change it from an HP3. It It got made

[1:57:09] HP3 for a reason.

[1:57:11] >> Yeah. Um, for me, I'm gonna have to see

[1:57:14] some rely on Tim on Lauren with your

[1:57:18] engineering background. Um,

[1:57:21] with your design knowledge,

[1:57:25] right now I would say can't do it

[1:57:28] because I haven't seen anything that

[1:57:30] says this is this is what the engineers

[1:57:33] said previously. This is why we

[1:57:34] designated it this way and this is why

[1:57:37] we're now saying it's safe.

[1:57:40] >> Yeah. Does that make sense?

[1:57:41] >> Yeah. And I think Commissioner Swanson,

[1:57:43] we're in the same boat as you. I don't

[1:57:45] claim to be an engineer. And so I I we heavily rely on those third party

[1:57:50] companies to provide us with that

[1:57:52] information. I think, you know,

[1:57:54] sometimes when 30 years ago when you're mapping out areas of

[1:57:59] concern, did we did this piece draw the

[1:58:02] short end of the stick, so to speak, and

[1:58:03] the line just went one way when it could

[1:58:06] have gone another? Maybe. or maybe this

[1:58:09] land has some really big concerns that

[1:58:11] we're going to discover as we finish up

[1:58:14] our geological testing. And so, um, I

[1:58:17] think from the initial feedback from our

[1:58:19] engineers is that it is looking really

[1:58:22] positive. Um, with that being said, we

[1:58:26] absolutely acknowledge that

[1:58:29] the process to make sure everyone feels

[1:58:32] good is to make sure that our

[1:58:34] engineering team has signed off on it

[1:58:36] and

[1:58:38] concurrently or excuse me, at the same

[1:58:40] time, uh,

[1:58:43] North Ogden City has also signed off on

[1:58:46] it. So, we want to make sure that we're

[1:58:47] essentially comparing notes and both

[1:58:49] parties feel good before we um can

[1:58:53] really make any big statements, I guess,

[1:58:56] on that.

[1:58:57] >> And Commissioner Swanson, I think, too,

[1:59:01] just just with your experience, I I do

[1:59:04] think there is some general dialogue

[1:59:07] taking away the the information that is

[1:59:09] not there. Just zooming back out, we

[1:59:11] didn't hear about aluvial fans

[1:59:14] to voice an opinion just purely based on on just the reszone.

[1:59:19] >> I could I think considering even if it's

[1:59:21] C, you know, even if it's HP3,

[1:59:24] um the same studies occur, the same

[1:59:27] mitigated risks occur. So, I I guess

[1:59:30] what I'm saying is it doesn't just have

[1:59:31] to be, you know, people that, you know,

[1:59:33] have an opinion or knowledge of,

[1:59:37] you know, aluvial fans and and stuff

[1:59:40] like that, but I do think you have a

[1:59:42] valuable valuable opinion as a resident

[1:59:44] of North Ogden and and what you think

[1:59:47] the just the reszone in general.

[1:59:49] >> I I appreciate that. And and I I was I I

[1:59:53] was going to say that the the overall

[1:59:56] layout, the overall plan I used to live

[1:59:58] just uh right on 3,300 just just below

[2:00:02] where this is going to be. I've spent a

[2:00:04] lot of time in these hills as you have,

[2:00:06] Lauren, and I think probably everybody

[2:00:07] up here, so I know this area very well.

[2:00:10] Um I generally like the proposal. Um I I

[2:00:15] love the larger lots to the east. Um

[2:00:20] If it came back

[2:00:23] that from a geologic standpoint that we

[2:00:27] were that we were okay, I would give

[2:00:30] serious consideration to this. Um

[2:00:34] I I think it would be a beautiful

[2:00:35] neighborhood. It's it's a it's a great

[2:00:37] piece of land. Um, but that that's my

[2:00:41] only hold up at at this point is

[2:00:44] finding that being presented with

[2:00:46] evidence that says this is why you can

[2:00:49] believe what we're saying versus what

[2:00:51] the engineers in 1997 said.

[2:00:54] >> Well, and I think labeling it as a as an

[2:00:56] area of of concern when they when they do this testing.

[2:01:02] >> Yeah. it becomes a long report and it

[2:01:05] actually has recommendations for like

[2:01:07] structural engineers.

[2:01:09] >> Sure.

[2:01:09] >> You know, pounds per square foot,

[2:01:10] bearing capacity, some areas with peers

[2:01:13] or whatnot. So, you know, I I don't know

[2:01:17] how much of an impediment it is in the

[2:01:19] overall uh feasibility of the project,

[2:01:22] what it's likely. Well, I think you can

[2:01:25] build homes here any, you know, in any

[2:01:30] way that is recommended by the

[2:01:33] geological engineer, the geotechnical

[2:01:35] engineer on this. So, I don't know how,

[2:01:39] you know, there's a chance that it's

[2:01:40] just not

[2:01:42] affordable to mitigate those risks.

[2:01:46] >> Right. Right. Yeah.

[2:01:48] One thing that I want to bring up, we've

[2:01:52] been talking a lot of general plan stuff

[2:01:54] in previous meetings and and one of the

[2:01:56] concerns was that in the the last time

[2:01:58] the general plan was put together is

[2:01:59] building up the mountain side. People

[2:02:01] were against it in 2015.

[2:02:04] So we are putting if if this geological

[2:02:08] study comes back and says it's good, one

[2:02:11] thing we have to consider is we are now

[2:02:13] building they're they're it's more dense

[2:02:15] than what was than what is in the

[2:02:17] previous general plan layout.

[2:02:19] >> Yeah,

[2:02:19] >> we are we are it's going what from if it

[2:02:23] was HP3 it's 15 homes to 71 I think is

[2:02:26] what I saw in the staff report. So it is

[2:02:28] quite a bit denser. They're still very

[2:02:30] big lots, but it's, you know, we have to

[2:02:33] make sure we take that into

[2:02:34] consideration what people were seeing on

[2:02:36] the general plan from 2015 to now. And

[2:02:38] then they're like then all a sudden we

[2:02:40] reszone this to HP2 if it if it passes

[2:02:43] geological survey. So just something we need to think about as this

[2:02:47] moves forward. And to that point, a

[2:02:50] question for the applicant is

[2:02:54] does this pencil at all as HP3 with

[2:02:57] estate laws, things like that? Uh, it

[2:03:00] would not be our intent to do it. Um,

[2:03:04] yes, there's there's that component. Um,

[2:03:08] I think the

[2:03:10] I guess the answer is no. That would not

[2:03:12] be our intent to to do that. And not

[2:03:15] that this matters, but it was somewhat

[2:03:17] interesting is is you know pole patch up

[2:03:20] there north Pleasant View. It was it was

[2:03:24] developed as those large five acre lots,

[2:03:29] but every single lot up there is more or

[2:03:33] less in an aluvial fan. And every single

[2:03:35] lot, goes and does this study and it's on the homeowner and the or the

[2:03:42] land owner, I guess, they have to go do

[2:03:45] these same studies and go through the

[2:03:47] same process like individually. It's

[2:03:49] just an interesting thing. It it

[2:03:53] in my opinion it's an incumbrance on on

[2:03:56] the land owner. It becomes

[2:03:59] it just becomes a roadblock and and and

[2:04:02] nothing is really ever recommended

[2:04:05] that's all that crazy to do. Most of it

[2:04:08] is like on-site excavation. You keep you

[2:04:10] know home I had a home up there that

[2:04:12] they didn't want a basement. Well, they

[2:04:14] got a 12-footer, you know, it just they

[2:04:16] had to keep digging and digging and get, you know, so I think

[2:04:20] there is a there's a benefit to future

[2:04:24] residents or or residents that would

[2:04:26] live here is that there would be a

[2:04:28] blanket geotechnical report for the

[2:04:30] development with guidelines on how to do

[2:04:33] that. Again, just we're hearing a lot

[2:04:36] about these reports and it's kind of

[2:04:39] made um

[2:04:42] development up there in Pole Patch a

[2:04:45] little sporadic and they've had to

[2:04:47] really to not encumber the private

[2:04:50] property rights of the land owners.

[2:04:53] Pleasant View City has had to make some

[2:04:56] pretty big concessions to their own

[2:04:58] zoning to allow people to build in

[2:05:02] certain areas of their own property

[2:05:05] based on these reports

[2:05:09] and just just like comments not to like

[2:05:12] say that it wouldn't get like that we

[2:05:14] would re I would recommend either way.

[2:05:15] just more if if to be prepared that

[2:05:18] residents may come and and voice

[2:05:20] opinion, have some kind of comment

[2:05:22] towards it.

[2:05:23] >> And I absolutely see that um from the

[2:05:25] current zoning of essentially 15 uh lots

[2:05:30] to what we're working on right now is an

[2:05:33] increase. Our our

[2:05:36] original

[2:05:38] thought or assumption with the HP3 was

[2:05:41] that it was designed to protect the

[2:05:44] property so that if if the geotechnical

[2:05:47] >> passes, there's a further conversation

[2:05:50] to maybe hold a little bit. And so I

[2:05:52] think um we're trying to find that fine

[2:05:55] line of of

[2:05:58] let's make sure the geotech looks good

[2:06:01] and then and then assuming it does, how

[2:06:03] do we work with the city to go provide a

[2:06:06] really nice, clean, special subdivision

[2:06:09] that I think everyone is is happy and

[2:06:11] can take pride in. And so um no, I I

[2:06:15] appreciate the comment. Absolutely. One

[2:06:17] great

[2:06:17] >> one other thing that I

[2:06:19] >> I'm I'm a big nature guy. There are you

[2:06:22] can see them on on your map right here.

[2:06:24] All the trails that go through it.

[2:06:26] >> At least having a way to maintain that

[2:06:28] trail connectivity after the fact.

[2:06:30] >> Yes.

[2:06:31] >> Whether

[2:06:32] >> I think that would be

[2:06:34] >> that would work really well in your

[2:06:35] favor if

[2:06:36] >> the public would likely enjoy that a

[2:06:38] lot.

[2:06:39] >> I I think I think you're absolutely

[2:06:40] right. I didn't see any green space

[2:06:42] here. Um, unless you count the detention

[2:06:46] pond. Um, and I didn't see any any

[2:06:49] allocation for the trail system that's

[2:06:51] there. I I get it. It's on private

[2:06:53] property, but

[2:06:55] >> you know, it's something that we could

[2:06:57] say

[2:06:57] >> they're asking for a reasonzone and

[2:06:59] we're having a work session and,

[2:07:02] >> you know, no green space is, you know,

[2:07:05] it's it's a thing there.

[2:07:07] >> But if you retain access

[2:07:09] >> Yeah. to green space, you're giving up

[2:07:11] less land, but you're also setting a

[2:07:13] precedent for maybe the next person that

[2:07:15] comes in above them or east.

[2:07:17] >> And you know, it there's a lot of trail

[2:07:18] connectivity. A green space could be a

[2:07:21] nice place for people to start their

[2:07:22] recreation from, like maybe a little

[2:07:24] park with a parking lot that is open to

[2:07:27] the public to then access those trails.

[2:07:30] >> Yeah. I in in some ways I was hesitant.

[2:07:34] we've we've made a lot of um

[2:07:37] internal decisions and assumptions as we

[2:07:40] kind of play around and configure and

[2:07:41] different things like that. And in some

[2:07:43] ways I'm almost hesitant to show this

[2:07:46] because I I just want to let everyone

[2:07:48] know that the trail connectivity for us

[2:07:51] is equally a priority. It's it's not

[2:07:54] reflected on this. Um,

[2:07:57] and that's one reason why I was like,

[2:08:00] "Oh." But, uh, at the same time, I want

[2:08:02] to just reflect that we do anticipate to

[2:08:05] make sure that trail connectivity is,

[2:08:08] um, not just in there, but but a big

[2:08:11] focus,

[2:08:11] >> big focus of our project.

[2:08:13] >> One other concern that, uh, the city has

[2:08:16] is preservation of some of the

[2:08:19] vegetation out there.

[2:08:22] And the way I see these lots laid out,

[2:08:27] a lot of that's going to be gone. So

[2:08:29] maybe consideration of maybe some

[2:08:32] clustering

[2:08:33] so you can preserve some of that

[2:08:35] vegetation.

[2:08:37] Um,

[2:08:38] another comment regarding the geological

[2:08:42] issues. Uh there's been a lot of better

[2:08:46] understanding since the general plan was

[2:08:49] originally

[2:08:53] the our or the uh HP

[2:08:57] 3 designation was put in here. Um

[2:09:03] once those uh studies are done, our

[2:09:07] state geologist, the state engineer can

[2:09:10] have some input on those because they

[2:09:13] have dealt with a lot of the issues

[2:09:16] on various communities across the

[2:09:18] Wasatch front. So, um getting him

[2:09:22] involved to maybe do some extra review

[2:09:25] on those

[2:09:28] uh may give us a better uh understanding

[2:09:32] of what those

[2:09:34] results are are happening there. So,

[2:09:38] >> we we definitely want to compare notes.

[2:09:39] We want to be able to provide our

[2:09:42] findings from who we've hired and and

[2:09:44] deliver them to the city and let um we want the city to feel comfortable as

[2:09:50] well.

[2:09:50] >> Yeah, that's

[2:09:51] >> I think I think we this you and the city

[2:09:55] would be in the same boat in the sense

[2:09:56] is no one wants to be on KSL with houses

[2:09:58] sliding down the mountain. let's avoid

[2:10:00] that and we're both

[2:10:02] >> kind of, you know, so I think that's

[2:10:04] going to be a big factor. But

[2:10:06] >> definitely

[2:10:07] >> I I would say that with what we've been

[2:10:10] seeing lately, even the I don't think

[2:10:13] the diagram hurt you at all. I actually

[2:10:16] would argue that the previous applicant,

[2:10:18] the diagram really hurt them. That being

[2:10:20] said,

[2:10:23] I'm really This is a good s you know,

[2:10:26] we're This is a goodiz lot. Thank you.

[2:10:29] >> size to me this is this is right in the happy medium. It is going to be

[2:10:34] you know you know maybe in the upper

[2:10:36] tier of of middle class affordability

[2:10:39] but we don't see it we haven't seen a

[2:10:41] ton of that in recent years. So I think

[2:10:43] that's

[2:10:45] something you got going for you. But I

[2:10:46] do think that the trail thing I think it

[2:10:49] can be sold as much of an amenity for

[2:10:51] >> we agree

[2:10:52] >> your own customers where we would call

[2:10:55] them the new land owners.

[2:10:57] Um, this is kind this is to Scott and the general plan. Was was your

[2:11:03] comment about the cove going to larger

[2:11:05] lots sort of

[2:11:08] a hint that if this was zoned more that

[2:11:10] it still

[2:11:12] follows the general pan because there

[2:11:14] was less density over there.

[2:11:15] >> Yeah, the hillside residential area is

[2:11:17] lots 10,000 square feet and up. So, it's

[2:11:20] assumed HP1 is essentially the R110 zone

[2:11:23] with additional geologic requirements.

[2:11:26] The cove is just it it's just its own

[2:11:29] thing. It was developed in the early

[2:11:31] 2000s and it was developed as larger

[2:11:33] lots on these private cold lanes and

[2:11:37] it's not reflective of what has to go up

[2:11:41] there. It's just what is west of it, but

[2:11:44] it's in the HP2 zone.

[2:11:47] >> Okay, Scott talkative today. If you look

[2:11:50] at this diagram here,

[2:11:55] >> um, right there where 1050 is coming up

[2:11:57] and it curves in,

[2:11:59] you have lot one there to the right. I

[2:12:01] think it's lot one.

[2:12:02] >> Yeah.

[2:12:03] Lot one there to the right.

[2:12:05] Immediately across 1050 from that is

[2:12:07] where North Agnes City has a well

[2:12:10] pre-drilled.

[2:12:11] >> Yeah.

[2:12:11] >> So my question is, you're aware of that,

[2:12:14] right?

[2:12:14] >> Yes. Yeah.

[2:12:15] >> Okay. is lot one, lot five, lot six,

[2:12:20] and all of the um

[2:12:23] >> those are in the

[2:12:24] >> infrastructure are are they look like

[2:12:27] they're going to be within the radius

[2:12:28] that you can't have sewer, you can't

[2:12:30] have water, kind of like we had over at

[2:12:31] the water,

[2:12:32] >> you can there's certain requirements,

[2:12:35] >> okay,

[2:12:36] >> to be able to build in those.

[2:12:38] >> Okay. I I just was thinking of the

[2:12:40] waterworks experience park.

[2:12:42] >> Yeah. that we couldn't put a bathroom in

[2:12:44] and we couldn't do some other things

[2:12:46] because it was within what's the

[2:12:47] distance John?

[2:12:49] >> So feet of the of

[2:12:51] >> water there's there's several zones one

[2:12:53] two three

[2:12:54] >> and at the waterworks parks it's in zone

[2:12:56] one so there's no pipe even if it's

[2:12:59] fused

[2:12:59] >> nothing

[2:13:00] >> but

[2:13:01] >> we've actually already ran the sewer in

[2:13:03] this area.

[2:13:03] >> Okay.

[2:13:04] >> Um and it is a fused pipe for a portion

[2:13:07] because it's in zone two. Yeah,

[2:13:09] >> there there should be in the public

[2:13:11] works standards the well protection zone

[2:13:14] >> right

[2:13:15] >> maps that

[2:13:16] >> I just wasn't sure

[2:13:17] >> and be looked at and

[2:13:19] >> yeah I

[2:13:19] >> they have to meet those requirements

[2:13:20] >> and just looking at the diagram I think

[2:13:23] lot one would make a great pocket park

[2:13:28] » hint hint

[2:13:31] >> you know I like the pocket parks but I I mean this is kind of a work session

[2:13:35] this has nothing to do with the

[2:13:36] applicant but I I would really like to

[2:13:39] conglomerate a good chunk of land. You

[2:13:42] know, more soccer fields, you know, not

[2:13:44] another, you know, plastic playground

[2:13:46] that burns your kids butt in July,

[2:13:48] right?

[2:13:50] >> Well, like that.

[2:13:51] >> Nice playgrounds.

[2:13:53] >> Yeah.

[2:13:53] >> It's hard when you're getting up in the

[2:13:55] hilly

[2:13:56] >> areas to make a flat soccer field, you

[2:13:59] know.

[2:14:00] >> Would these I don't know, this is way

[2:14:03] early in the process. Are these going to

[2:14:04] be public roads or is this going to be a

[2:14:05] private neighborhood? We anticipate

[2:14:07] these to be public.

[2:14:08] >> Okay.

[2:14:08] >> Yeah. Which again for uh maybe a trail

[2:14:11] connectivity or things of that sort,

[2:14:13] public parking on the road, things like

[2:14:15] that. Um we plan to I mean they're

[2:14:17] public so they'll they'll be implemented

[2:14:19] that way. Yeah.

[2:14:20] >> Thank you.

[2:14:21] >> And as a point of note, I think this is

[2:14:22] the second time we've seen a an idea in

[2:14:26] a work session for this piece of

[2:14:29] property. The last one was a little bit

[2:14:32] different. I don't know if you brought

[2:14:33] it to us.

[2:14:35] >> Uh no.

[2:14:36] But but it almost exactly the same

[2:14:40] amount of homes. Um kind of uh and like

[2:14:46] I think we had the same concerns back

[2:14:47] then which was green space and trails.

[2:14:50] So just just as a point of reference, I

[2:14:53] don't know if that even matters because

[2:14:54] >> it just seems like they're a little

[2:14:56] closer this time to be able to

[2:14:59] >> present with all of I mean

[2:15:00] >> I got I mean I don't know how many pits

[2:15:02] is is normal but when he answered like

[2:15:05] 12 to 14 I was going that's pretty good.

[2:15:08] You know I was thinking they were going

[2:15:09] to try to do three or five and find a

[2:15:11] fault line and and run with it.

[2:15:13] >> Yeah.

[2:15:13] >> So it seems like they're just a little

[2:15:15] closer this time. And so part of my

[2:15:17] comments are like this is what you could

[2:15:18] do to sell everyone on it.

[2:15:20] >> Yeah.

[2:15:21] >> And generally the when you build a pit

[2:15:25] or or construct that you're not looking

[2:15:28] for the fault line. The fault lines are

[2:15:32] generally located by trenching

[2:15:35] across and you find the fault line and

[2:15:38] that the pits give you soil

[2:15:41] characteristics and

[2:15:44] things like that. But if you're looking

[2:15:47] for a fault line, you're going to be

[2:15:49] trenching across trying to

[2:15:52] find it where it crosses. And on aluvial

[2:15:56] fans, they're buried so deep that trench

[2:15:59] has to be hundreds of feet deep

[2:16:01] sometimes.

[2:16:03] And that's almost impossible to do.

[2:16:06] >> Yes. And and and so I think for for us

[2:16:09] like the off the off the bat response um

[2:16:14] from our geotech engineers was that

[2:16:17] they've they've analyzed the state

[2:16:19] approved mapping and we are outside of

[2:16:21] those concerns. With that being said, we

[2:16:24] don't if if that is not acceptable to

[2:16:28] West Point simply just showing those maps and showing that we're out of

[2:16:32] that area, I think we're as a team happy

[2:16:35] to put our heads together and say, are

[2:16:38] there additional studies? Are there one

[2:16:40] or two extra things that um North OG

[2:16:43] North Ogden Engineering and and the

[2:16:45] planning department would like to see in

[2:16:47] order for them to get comfortable? And

[2:16:50] so I think we're kind of at that phase

[2:16:51] right now where we're getting feedback

[2:16:55] and we're getting our reports back from

[2:16:57] our team. We're going to start sharing

[2:16:59] that and comparing notes um with the

[2:17:02] city and

[2:17:04] we're hopeful that what we provide on

[2:17:06] the first round is is adequate. uh if

[2:17:09] for whatever reason it's not then we're happy to follow that direction to

[2:17:13] uh go and and pro prove or or find out I

[2:17:16] should say that uh it is or it's not.

[2:17:22] » I'm just thinking I'm I'm a little bit

[2:17:24] of a blabbermouth. This is my last

[2:17:25] comment I think but

[2:17:28] >> just kidding. Just kidding. Sometimes

[2:17:29] I'm quiet, sometimes I'm,

[2:17:35] you know, just recent years we or was it last year we had the the fire up

[2:17:39] there?

[2:17:40] >> So, I like the idea of of retaining

[2:17:42] vegetation, but I also like the idea of

[2:17:46] not costing the city, you know, millions

[2:17:48] to go up there and create a huge buffer.

[2:17:50] But I would be again I it's just selling

[2:17:54] points but I think it might be

[2:17:55] interesting you know to talk to a

[2:17:58] landscape specialist or an arborist or

[2:18:00] things you know that that could be you

[2:18:03] know maybe like a list a list of

[2:18:05] existing plants that you would recommend

[2:18:07] residents to you know if there is the

[2:18:10] there's going to be the clear cutting

[2:18:12] but you know a list you know say hey you

[2:18:14] know when we're selling these lots we're

[2:18:15] given some extra information on you know

[2:18:19] what plans you can go buy that are that

[2:18:22] are native to what was there before. So

[2:18:25] maybe it's a different patch, but maybe,

[2:18:28] you know, it's something people can put

[2:18:30] in their yards and and whatnot. And then

[2:18:32] I think with that, just a little bit of

[2:18:36] forethought into

[2:18:39] fire coming down that mountain because

[2:18:40] we have planes and everything going on.

[2:18:42] So

[2:18:43] >> yeah. No, I think that's great great

[2:18:44] input and we can we can definitely do

[2:18:46] that. Um, and and this is something that

[2:18:49] we'll still have several conversations

[2:18:51] with fire marshall to make sure that the

[2:18:54] um I've always called it the wooi zone,

[2:18:56] but the wild urban interface. Uh, you

[2:18:59] know, we still going to yeah, we got to

[2:19:01] make those um we're going to have to

[2:19:04] adhere to all of those guidelines and

[2:19:06] things. And so, um,

[2:19:09] yeah, that that'll be a priority for sure to get his uh his sign

[2:19:14] off on that.

[2:19:17] couple couple questions I had that I'd

[2:19:19] love maybe some feedback on um is one

[2:19:22] thought that we had with these lot sizes

[2:19:25] that we are proposing is that um what we

[2:19:30] have found is that

[2:19:33] there's a there's a happy medium

[2:19:35] oftentimes with um open space and and

[2:19:39] also personal backyard space and kind of

[2:19:41] how do we blend the two and make it

[2:19:43] work. Our thought originally with these

[2:19:46] lot sizes was to provide the homeowners

[2:19:48] with large lots, large backyards,

[2:19:50] something that they can feel like

[2:19:51] they've got the ability to,

[2:19:54] you know, have a goodiz backyard. Um,

[2:19:57] and then and then kind of layer that

[2:19:59] with trail connectivity that then opens

[2:20:02] up to um the public land and the you

[2:20:06] know large open space in that aspect. I

[2:20:08] just would love a little bit more maybe

[2:20:11] clarification or feedback on um we

[2:20:14] acknowledge the trail connectivity is

[2:20:16] going to be a priority, but in regards

[2:20:18] to the open space um is there maybe a

[2:20:21] little bit more conversation we could

[2:20:23] have on

[2:20:25] how do we make that a little bit of a

[2:20:27] priority for sure while still keeping

[2:20:29] the integrity of large lots and and and

[2:20:32] uh bigger backyards, things of that

[2:20:35] sort.

[2:20:38] I mean, I said I wouldn't talk. Sorry.

[2:20:42] >> He did ask the question.

[2:20:44] >> I

[2:20:45] um I thought I thought last

[2:20:50] the last meeting we had the the larger

[2:20:53] estate lots there east of the cove.

[2:20:56] And I I kind of liked the ringound

[2:21:00] trail that you know that was you know

[2:21:03] they were using as a fire buffer against

[2:21:04] the forest

[2:21:06] land but I I kind of I kind of like that was on the on the perimeter and the

[2:21:12] fringe in my neighborhood

[2:21:16] to get to the canal trail. the the

[2:21:21] proposal was like in some of these

[2:21:22] culde-sac lots,

[2:21:25] you know, you know, here to do like a

[2:21:28] 10-ft trail through, but then you

[2:21:31] started going then they started going

[2:21:32] through and, you know, parking and

[2:21:34] everything. So, I almost wonder

[2:21:37] to your point, you know, with that lower

[2:21:39] lot, you know, maybe not pocket park,

[2:21:42] but maybe that's the trail head. Maybe

[2:21:44] there's a trail head there

[2:21:45] >> and then you go right and then you then

[2:21:47] you go right around, you know, between

[2:21:49] the existing development. I don't know.

[2:21:50] It's just

[2:21:51] >> Well, combine that.

[2:21:52] >> Yeah. No, that's

[2:21:53] >> it's just kind of answering your

[2:21:54] question.

[2:21:55] >> Yeah.

[2:21:57] >> Similar to 22nd Street trail head and

[2:21:58] Austin.

[2:21:59] >> Yeah.

[2:22:00] And so like that almost seems like

[2:22:02] a instead of going clear to the top of

[2:22:04] those culde-sacs and trying to do it

[2:22:06] that way to actually you know start

[2:22:08] lower and get hoofing around your

[2:22:10] property maybe between the existing

[2:22:12] >> just a you know just again a general

[2:22:15] idea uh you know to answer your

[2:22:17] question. Yeah,

[2:22:18] >> I would add that um you know I I design

[2:22:22] a home here and there and I would say

[2:22:26] that uh just one we can look at lot

[2:22:29] sizes and square footages. Um but I

[2:22:32] would say a majority of the lots are are

[2:22:34] close to 100 feet. Some are more, some

[2:22:37] are down in the in the 90s. But I I

[2:22:40] personally think that what people are

[2:22:42] used to seeing, we're really used to

[2:22:44] seeing 100 foot wide lots. You know, a

[2:22:47] lot of the homes you see with the

[2:22:49] threecar garage, the front door, the two

[2:22:51] bedrooms up front, we you know, you

[2:22:52] could walk into a lot of homes and you

[2:22:54] know your way around, but that is that

[2:22:57] generally fits really well on a on

[2:23:00] around that that 90 to 100 foot

[2:23:02] frontage. just if anyone wants to get a

[2:23:05] visualization on what the lot sizes

[2:23:09] would allow besides just the pure square

[2:23:11] footages.

[2:23:12] >> Yeah,

[2:23:13] >> I think you're right on that. I would I

[2:23:15] would say that

[2:23:18] lot one maybe presents itself as a nice

[2:23:21] trail head, but I'm you're sticking a

[2:23:24] trail head next to somebody's house that is there, whereas a different lot

[2:23:29] within that subdivision might make a

[2:23:32] little bit more I mean, I'm not going to

[2:23:34] nitpick here, but they would know what

[2:23:36] they're getting into when they got

[2:23:38] there, right? And

[2:23:39] >> um

[2:23:40] >> and maybe, you know, maybe it's

[2:23:41] somewhere like where the detention pond.

[2:23:43] >> Sure. But I I really thought that was it

[2:23:46] worked out really well in the last

[2:23:47] developer favor, I think.

[2:23:49] >> But I think it worked out really well

[2:23:50] for everyone just to have that buffer

[2:23:54] >> at the fringe of people's yards instead

[2:23:56] of in what I experienced when I was

[2:23:59] moving into my neighborhood where they

[2:24:00] were trying to put it in people's

[2:24:01] sideyards.

[2:24:03] >> Yeah. Yeah. I agree. I agree. And just a thought there.

[2:24:09] Did you say you had any other questions

[2:24:12] for us?

[2:24:13] Um, no. I think, yeah, I think just any

[2:24:16] feedback is is uh is great for us right

[2:24:20] now.

[2:24:22] >> In that case, this is still an open

[2:24:25] public hearing and so we would invite

[2:24:27] the public if there are any online or in

[2:24:31] person and then we'll invite you back up

[2:24:33] if that's okay.

[2:24:34] >> Yeah, that's great.

[2:24:35] >> Okay.

[2:24:41] Uh, No, in a public hearing, we don't go

[2:24:44] back and forth. Um, and this any any

[2:24:49] comments made right now have to pertain

[2:24:51] specifically to this, but there will be

[2:24:54] an opportunity later.

[2:24:57] >> Uh, Brent Call, North Ogden resident.

[2:25:00] Um,

[2:25:03] I I really appreciate the the the

[2:25:05] discussion and the uh the back and forth

[2:25:08] on this and I think that's a great way

[2:25:10] to

[2:25:12] uh to to start to look at something like

[2:25:14] this. Um but uh as you guys know, I've

[2:25:18] been a little outspoken in the past on

[2:25:20] the general plan and uh and and I would

[2:25:25] agree with Commissioner Swanson and

[2:25:28] Settle Meyer. I at least what I'm

[2:25:31] hearing is is that there better be some

[2:25:33] pretty compelling evidence

[2:25:36] uh to to to

[2:25:40] move away from the current zoning and to

[2:25:44] put a higher density up there. And uh um

[2:25:48] I've talked in the past about this creep

[2:25:53] that seems to be happening uh with

[2:25:55] respect to the general plan and uh

[2:25:59] approving subdivisions and and and

[2:26:01] different developments uh that

[2:26:05] in my opinion um really haven't fit into

[2:26:08] what uh the general pan plan represents.

[2:26:12] And uh um you know I agree that there

[2:26:16] are times that needs to happen and uh

[2:26:19] there's good reasons for doing those

[2:26:20] kinds of things. But we have a general

[2:26:22] plan for purpose and I know that and one

[2:26:26] of the main reasons I'm here tonight is

[2:26:27] to hear the discussion about the general

[2:26:29] plan. um that uh

[2:26:35] we need to be very careful and there

[2:26:37] better be some pretty compelling

[2:26:39] evidence to move away uh from what the

[2:26:42] general plan currently represents. And

[2:26:46] so I would highly encourage uh the

[2:26:48] commission and the staff that uh if they

[2:26:52] consider something like this that there

[2:26:55] be very very careful consideration

[2:26:58] uh before moving ahead. Thank you.

[2:27:08] Any other public comment on this item

[2:27:12] and any online

[2:27:15] to close the public hearing?

[2:27:17] >> Do we need to invite the developer back

[2:27:19] up? You have any I don't think we

[2:27:22] necessarily have to.

[2:27:24] >> Okay.

[2:27:26] Well, we need a second and then a

[2:27:28] >> second. Second.

[2:27:32] » All right. Who got the second in there?

[2:27:34] Jorgensson.

[2:27:35] >> Sure.

[2:27:36] >> All right. Commissioner Swanson, motion

[2:27:37] to close the public hearing.

[2:27:38] Commissioner Jorgensson seconded the

[2:27:40] motion. Voice Voice vote.

[2:27:44] >> I I

[2:27:45] >> Thank you.

[2:27:47] >> All right. Um

[2:27:52] there do we have a

[2:27:53] >> we're not making any decisions

[2:27:56] >> we can kind of

[2:27:58] I guess we can discuss but we can also

[2:28:01] move on. I think we I think we're pretty

[2:28:03] clear. Are we Did you Did you have a

[2:28:05] comment? I don't want to

[2:28:07] >> I didn't make a comment because I'm

[2:28:08] thinking about it.

[2:28:10] >> Okay.

[2:28:11] >> Well, I think we'll see it again. So,

[2:28:14] >> um I I agree with you. Um, in that case,

[2:28:18] we'll move to item number eight. I'd

[2:28:21] like to make a motion that we defer item

[2:28:24] number eight to a later date.

[2:28:27] >> Second.

[2:28:29] >> Okay. Uh, that is altering the agenda.

[2:28:33] Um, just so everybody's aware. And then,

[2:28:37] uh, that moves us to item number nine,

[2:28:39] which is public comments. Right.

[2:28:42] >> Did they vote on the

[2:28:43] >> Oh, vote. Thank you. vote on the Is that

[2:28:46] a Is that a count vote or an I vote?

[2:28:49] >> Just a

[2:28:49] >> You just do a voice

[2:28:51] >> voice vote.

[2:28:52] >> I want to go nay.

[2:28:57] » One nay.

[2:28:58] >> All right.

[2:29:00] >> You're out. But

[2:29:02] >> just because we have public that came

[2:29:03] for for that specific reason, we're

[2:29:05] asking them to come back. So I'm just

[2:29:07] making my heard.

[2:29:09] >> Okay.

[2:29:09] >> Thank you.

[2:29:10] >> That's fair.

[2:29:11] >> Appreciate that. Uh,

[2:29:14] number nine is public comment.

[2:29:17] Do we have anybody that would like to

[2:29:19] comment?

[2:29:26] » Sure.

[2:29:28] >> Refuge. I just want to hear that.

[2:29:30] >> Tell us what you think.

[2:29:33] >> Tell tell us what you think.

[2:29:35] >> Yeah, you can comment.

[2:29:36] >> I wanted to hear about them. Um

[2:29:41] I I suppose that the risk I've I've told

[2:29:44] myself that I wasn't going to interact

[2:29:46] and I got in a little bit of trouble

[2:29:47] earlier for doing so. So I don't want to

[2:29:50] but um we are what that is is we're

[2:29:54] going through the general plan and just

[2:29:56] kind of Scott, do you want to talk a

[2:29:58] little bit more about this? We're going

[2:29:59] through the general plan and deciding if

[2:30:01] it's still relevant and what needs to be

[2:30:03] changed and altered. Y should I sit down

[2:30:06] so you can

[2:30:07] >> No, not so it's still public comments.

[2:30:09] So at your request I'll just make a

[2:30:11] couple of comments and then please make

[2:30:13] public comments. Um but we have a

[2:30:16] general plan that was last text updated

[2:30:18] in 2015 with some minor updates in 2019.

[2:30:21] So it's an old general plan. It's not

[2:30:24] way out of sync with what cities do. You

[2:30:26] know 5 to 10 years they start looking at

[2:30:28] it. Our general plan land use map was

[2:30:31] adopted in 2022. So that is actually

[2:30:33] really current compared to some cities

[2:30:36] along the Wasatch front that are

[2:30:37] operating off of older uh land use maps.

[2:30:40] But the city council has directed the

[2:30:43] planning commission to do planning,

[2:30:44] which is what we're here to do. It the

[2:30:46] general plan is one of those elements.

[2:30:48] So as an accountability measure really

[2:30:51] for staff and for our planning

[2:30:52] commission and for everybody, we've been

[2:30:54] stepping through each individual section

[2:30:56] of the general plan having discussions

[2:30:58] about them. And that makes sure that you

[2:31:00] know I' I've worked here five years.

[2:31:02] I've read the general plan, but it's a

[2:31:03] fresh reread of it. And then we have

[2:31:06] these discussions with planning

[2:31:08] commission. So, this is before any

[2:31:10] decisions are made. It's to understand

[2:31:11] what's in the current element, begin

[2:31:14] thinking about what pieces are still

[2:31:16] relevant versus what might be updated,

[2:31:18] and then we'll go through a public

[2:31:20] process where we'll invite really

[2:31:22] everybody around the city to come and

[2:31:23] provide feedback and comments. Um, but

[2:31:26] the process so far has been let's all

[2:31:28] just individually step through these

[2:31:30] pieces of the general plan, these

[2:31:31] chapters, and so we're all familiar with

[2:31:33] what is written in there.

[2:31:36] >> But we'd love to hear your feedback. I

[2:31:38] think there's just been a lot of long

[2:31:40] meetings. And so I don't know if that's

[2:31:41] the reason for the

[2:31:42] >> persist night, but

[2:31:44] >> thank you though for because Yeah,

[2:31:46] because I mean trails I know the canal

[2:31:49] road has been mentioned before tonight.

[2:31:51] It's, you know, that's a big one if

[2:31:53] that's, you know, organized between

[2:31:55] North Ogden City and Pleasant View

[2:31:57] because I know that's and then again all

[2:31:59] the houses going up. I, you know, used

[2:32:01] to walk up there for exercise and now

[2:32:04] they're houses and you can't go there

[2:32:06] and and even, you know, where Frog Rock

[2:32:08] was, that was supposed to be a park and

[2:32:10] now it's it's housing. So, I just, you

[2:32:12] know, wanted I was hoping there would be

[2:32:14] like a general overview of what this

[2:32:16] meant. So, I was looking forward to

[2:32:19] that. And then the transportation plan

[2:32:21] are those the roads I'm guessing the

[2:32:23] road. Yeah. And so part of that Were you

[2:32:26] going to say some?

[2:32:27] >> No. Go ahead.

[2:32:27] >> Oh, is is because of the I thought the

[2:32:31] houses on the west side of of 400 to 450

[2:32:35] was to widen the road and so I wanted to

[2:32:39] find out that as well.

[2:32:43] » So, should I sit down? Is

[2:32:44] >> there a question?

[2:32:46] >> What about the houses on the west side

[2:32:47] of 450? like

[2:32:49] >> those were purchased using rightaway

[2:32:52] funds,

[2:32:52] >> right? And that roadway project is going

[2:32:54] on. Now, the plan that is in the uh

[2:32:58] packet is the active transportation

[2:33:01] plan. And the way to think of active

[2:33:02] transportation is that's walking,

[2:33:05] biking, rollerblades, scootering, folks

[2:33:07] in wheelchairs. It's just

[2:33:09] >> it's not a it's basically walking and

[2:33:11] rolling.

[2:33:12] >> Okay? And that plan, if you look

[2:33:13] through, has specific projects

[2:33:16] identified as trails in some cases, as

[2:33:19] bike lanes, as buffered bike lanes. And

[2:33:21] that's mostly focused with on street and

[2:33:24] sidewalk infrastructure. And then that's

[2:33:26] different than the hillside trails that

[2:33:28] we have. And then that's even separated

[2:33:30] from the parks component. So if you read

[2:33:33] the general plan, each of these pieces

[2:33:35] are addressed in their own chapter.

[2:33:37] >> On northden city.

[2:33:39] >> Yeah. Yep. On northden city.gov and then

[2:33:41] under departments planning and you can

[2:33:43] find the general plan the maps as well

[2:33:46] as the uh formal written document as

[2:33:48] well.

[2:33:49] >> Okay, thank you.

[2:33:50] >> Thank you.

[2:33:57] » Sorry um Brent call and uh appreciate

[2:34:01] the no vote. Um, but I also appreciate

[2:34:04] you postponing it uh to a further

[2:34:06] meeting because I think uh we've been at

[2:34:08] it two and a half hours and uh probably

[2:34:12] would not give the general plan the

[2:34:13] attention that it needs. And so I

[2:34:16] appreciate that. maybe a suggestion that

[2:34:18] next time we put it on the agenda, it

[2:34:21] goes first or early in the agenda and we

[2:34:24] can focus on that um and and give it the

[2:34:28] uh attention

[2:34:29] uh that it that it should have. Thank

[2:34:32] you.

[2:34:35] >> Thank you.

[2:34:41] » I guess my only comment would be is that

[2:34:44] my name's Doug Barner. Sorry about that.

[2:34:47] All right.

[2:34:47] >> I guess my only comment would be is that

[2:34:50] I know when I would sit in a college

[2:34:52] class and I was learning there was that

[2:34:55] interchange asking questions and teacher

[2:34:59] would say stuff and you could ask

[2:35:01] questions and clarify and so when I come

[2:35:04] to these meetings I'm not sure

[2:35:07] when I can ask questions when there's

[2:35:09] discussion and sometimes I feel like

[2:35:12] well here's the agenda and this is what

[2:35:15] we're going to talk about, but it's like

[2:35:18] sometimes you make those comments based

[2:35:20] on not having all the knowledge or being

[2:35:23] able to clarify or ask questions. So,

[2:35:26] it' be really nice if maybe if they in

[2:35:28] the agenda or maybe there was a notice

[2:35:30] or something that would say, "Hey, this

[2:35:33] is where you can ask a question." Um, I

[2:35:36] know that living up on Lake View, um,

[2:35:40] there's been a lot of comments

[2:35:43] and a lot of questions being asked about

[2:35:45] the construction. And so those are just

[2:35:48] things that are causing a lot of

[2:35:50] conflict. And if there's some way that

[2:35:52] we could communicate better and get more

[2:35:56] information of what's happening, I think

[2:35:59] it would be a lot less abrasive. And I

[2:36:02] think a lot of the people that are

[2:36:03] coming here that are my neighbors, I

[2:36:06] mean, they made me aware of it. It would

[2:36:08] just make things a lot easier if we

[2:36:11] could have some more interchange of

[2:36:14] knowing what's going on. I don't even

[2:36:16] know. People are asking me, they when

[2:36:18] they found out I was coming tonight,

[2:36:19] well, how long are we going to be doing

[2:36:21] detours? I have no idea. But it also

[2:36:24] appears that I can't even ask that

[2:36:26] question in the meeting. So, I'm just

[2:36:28] thinking it would be really nice if we

[2:36:29] had some forums that we could ask these

[2:36:32] kinds of questions and get some of that

[2:36:34] feedback. Just a comment.

[2:36:36] >> Thank you.

[2:36:42] » Can I make a quick comment? Yeah. with

[2:36:44] that. If one of the one of the great

[2:36:46] ways that you can ask your question, you

[2:36:48] can imagine how long the meetings can be

[2:36:50] if we get into a question and answer and probably the biggest difficulty is

[2:36:55] that the question and answer quickly

[2:36:57] becomes a debate, right? You've got

[2:36:59] individuals asking a question from a

[2:37:01] particular perspective.

[2:37:03] we're answering and and sometimes

[2:37:05] there's a lot of legal ease, a lot of

[2:37:07] code and all that kind of thing that

[2:37:09] doesn't allow us to do a certain thing

[2:37:11] that residents don't understand that

[2:37:12] that's why we're saying no. And it it

[2:37:15] just I mean back in the Brent Taylor

[2:37:17] days when I was on council, we had

[2:37:18] meetings that went to midnight every

[2:37:20] Tuesday night. We were six hours long.

[2:37:23] And I think most people don't want to do

[2:37:25] that. I don't want to do that anymore. I

[2:37:27] was a younger person then. But if you go

[2:37:30] on to North Ogden City's face uh web

[2:37:33] page, okay, down in the lower right hand

[2:37:36] corner, you're going to see a little

[2:37:40] window that says text my gov.

[2:37:44] And if you just simply tap on that, you

[2:37:46] can opt in and you can ask questions.

[2:37:48] Text and you you can you can send in you

[2:37:52] can send your question in. There's also

[2:37:54] the um North Ogden City Official

[2:37:57] Facebook page that you can go on there

[2:38:00] and just comment, just ask a question

[2:38:03] and uh and and it'll get answered. There

[2:38:05] are a couple of council members that

[2:38:07] monitor that. There are staff members

[2:38:09] that monitor that. And then there are

[2:38:11] also several

[2:38:13] private Facebook pages. um the

[2:38:16] unapologetically non-political North

[2:38:18] Ogden Facebook page, the North Ogden

[2:38:21] Utah community Facebook page. There's

[2:38:24] another one. Um you can just join those.

[2:38:26] There's four or 5,000 people that are on

[2:38:29] each of those and ask your question.

[2:38:31] Council members monitor those. Other

[2:38:33] staff members may comment. Uh there are

[2:38:35] others of us that have experience that

[2:38:38] will answer questions as well.

[2:38:41] Yeah, but I think specifically the

[2:38:43] detour question is a perfect text my gov

[2:38:45] >> yeah yeah type type question. I would

[2:38:47] also like to comment that I think it was

[2:38:49] a little bit helpful or no I think it

[2:38:52] was very helpful to hear those comments

[2:38:53] sort of before we discuss that too

[2:38:55] although I'm not trying to make that

[2:38:57] decision you know I'm not trying to

[2:38:59] solidify my decision there I see the

[2:39:01] error

[2:39:02] u and and I will be more clear about

[2:39:05] public comment in the future too I've

[2:39:06] added a few changes there so um I really

[2:39:09] appreciate the feedback and the public

[2:39:11] comments are there any more

[2:39:16] right We will move to remarks from the

[2:39:18] planning commissioners. Anybody

[2:39:21] have any remarks?

[2:39:22] >> I have a question for Scott. We've had a

[2:39:25] lot of comments tonight about a

[2:39:27] commercial lot. Is that coming to us

[2:39:30] anytime soon that you can give us an

[2:39:33] idea?

[2:39:33] >> Commercial.

[2:39:34] >> So, we

[2:39:36] >> the city owns a few, you know, two and a

[2:39:39] half acres along 450 east up to 3100

[2:39:42] North. We've had conversations with the

[2:39:45] planning commission about neighborhood

[2:39:47] commercial and where those locations

[2:39:48] should go. We've looked at 3100 as a

[2:39:52] major east west corridor. It does have

[2:39:54] the high school on one side. It's North

[2:39:56] Ogden Divide on the other. You look at

[2:39:58] the 1960s general plan that showed it

[2:40:01] was Bates Elementary actually was a

[2:40:03] commercial center and commercial

[2:40:05] marching up the hill. So staff asked the

[2:40:09] question to the city council during work

[2:40:11] session, what should this use of this

[2:40:16] property that the city owns be

[2:40:17] contemplated as? So it was not we have a

[2:40:20] proposal for a convenience store, there

[2:40:23] should be a gas station here. It was it

[2:40:25] was simply the question we're looking at

[2:40:27] the intersection of two major

[2:40:29] transportation corridors. We're

[2:40:31] attempting to look at commercial

[2:40:33] development in the city that would

[2:40:34] maintain sales tax. Um and and so what

[2:40:38] should it be? And in some ways, right

[2:40:41] now is the time to make that decision

[2:40:42] because you're putting in a brand new

[2:40:44] five-lane road and you would be looking

[2:40:46] at what's the water, sewer, storm water

[2:40:48] infrastructure that should go into these

[2:40:50] lots and our public works department is

[2:40:53] asking what should we plan for? So, if

[2:40:55] it's a commercial corner or some sort of

[2:40:58] neighborhood commercial corner, that's a

[2:40:59] different water meter, different size

[2:41:01] pipe, different sewer outfall than if

[2:41:03] it's some sort of single family. And I,

[2:41:07] you know, planning staff looks at that's

[2:41:09] a five-lane major intersection. The idea

[2:41:11] of having single family homes that back

[2:41:14] out onto that roadway seems impractical.

[2:41:17] Um there haven't been any land use

[2:41:19] changes or decisions made and that would

[2:41:21] go through a public process. But I think

[2:41:23] the comment made at work session of

[2:41:26] should we consider

[2:41:28] neighborhood commercial at the

[2:41:29] intersection of two major streets and at

[2:41:31] the location where like really the last

[2:41:35] stop before you go up over the divide

[2:41:36] would be um is that something we should

[2:41:39] contemplate? So, so if I was concerned

[2:41:42] about that, the best path forward would

[2:41:44] be to go to a city council meeting and

[2:41:45] discuss it there in public public

[2:41:47] comment. Maybe

[2:41:48] >> you're the department, you aren't

[2:41:49] department, you are the body that plans.

[2:41:52] Okay. So, the ultimate

[2:41:54] >> first recommendation would come from you

[2:41:57] and what that should look like and we've

[2:41:59] been talking about neighborhood

[2:42:00] commercial. Um, I really love the 1960

[2:42:03] general plan, mostly because it's a

[2:42:05] handdrawn map and I think it's really

[2:42:07] neat and I got to unroll it one day in

[2:42:09] my office and like find it basically.

[2:42:12] Um, but the people who built our

[2:42:15] community could see around corners, you

[2:42:17] know, they looked at Mountain Road, they

[2:42:19] looked at 3100 North, 1050, 450 East to

[2:42:22] Lake View. Those roadways are all on

[2:42:24] there and it was a an empty hillside

[2:42:28] largely at that point. And so they

[2:42:30] contemplated a roadway network that

[2:42:32] we've largely been able to build out.

[2:42:34] They contemplated commercial uses,

[2:42:36] residential uses, trail uses that in

[2:42:39] some ways we've seen happen and in other

[2:42:41] ways we have not. And so the question

[2:42:43] about, you know, keeping North Ogden as

[2:42:47] North Ogden, it depends on what era you

[2:42:49] were in in future thinking of what that

[2:42:52] North Ogden is. because had they vested

[2:42:55] the 1960 general plan, Bates Elementary

[2:42:58] would be a maverick right now and that's

[2:43:01] just the way that plan was drawn. So for

[2:43:04] us, we're thinking about should there be

[2:43:07] any neighborhood commercial going north

[2:43:10] and just practically for city financing,

[2:43:14] it's a three-legged stool between

[2:43:16] property taxes, sales tax, revenue, and

[2:43:18] I'll call them franchise taxes, but

[2:43:20] that's your service fees, your water,

[2:43:21] sewer, garbage fees. And

[2:43:24] saying no to one thing is saying yes to

[2:43:27] another. So saying no to sales tax

[2:43:30] revenue is saying yes to higher property

[2:43:31] taxes. That's just there are bills that

[2:43:34] need to get paid and that's not a reason

[2:43:36] to do it in this one particular area.

[2:43:39] But between the location leveraging the

[2:43:44] millions of dollars of investment into

[2:43:46] roadways in looking at our major

[2:43:48] roadways as the areas that maybe some in

[2:43:51] higher intensity should be. Those were

[2:43:54] reasons that the staff asked the city

[2:43:55] council the question, you know, what could the future in this area be?

[2:44:00] There's a lot of guard rails in place

[2:44:02] though. The city owns the land. It has

[2:44:04] not been reszoned. We we would have to

[2:44:06] go through a public process. So, it

[2:44:08] isn't as if we have a developer knocking

[2:44:10] on our door. It's it's really the city

[2:44:12] would be driving that decision because

[2:44:14] we're the land owner.

[2:44:15] >> Okay. And

[2:44:20] hearing all the questions, I'm just

[2:44:22] going to ask a fishing question.

[2:44:24] Does neighborhood commercial allow a

[2:44:27] Maverick gas station?

[2:44:29] We we have a neighborhood commercial

[2:44:33] zoning code in title 11. We don't have a

[2:44:36] zoning map identification. It's never

[2:44:38] landed on our zoning map. So, it's been

[2:44:40] part of our zoning code for 10 years,

[2:44:42] but it has never landed on the zoning

[2:44:44] map. So, um no, right now it's not the

[2:44:49] convenience stores, automotive uses are

[2:44:51] not considered in the current

[2:44:53] neighborhood commercial zone. And did

[2:44:56] anyone go to Teddy Bears like 100 years

[2:44:58] ago? Your own teddy bears.

[2:45:00] >> Currently Straw Market.

[2:45:03] >> Yes.

[2:45:05] >> You know, that's a little more rural,

[2:45:07] but that's all whenever this

[2:45:08] neighborhood commercial comes up, it

[2:45:09] came up on the town homes down there on

[2:45:11] the Randall property, that little corner

[2:45:14] one.

[2:45:14] >> Everyone's everyone

[2:45:18] it it it does give a nice spot for, you

[2:45:21] know, inter intermediate trips. Go grab

[2:45:23] something. go get a, you know, bite to

[2:45:25] eat. It doesn't, you know, like straw

[2:45:27] market isn't like traffic central, but

[2:45:28] we've all been there.

[2:45:30] >> Yep.

[2:45:30] >> And so the basis of my question was

[2:45:33] give, you know, give someone to go to go

[2:45:36] look up the the neighborhood commercial

[2:45:38] on on the website, get a little bit more

[2:45:40] bearing on what the discussion is based

[2:45:43] around. But, you know, I I'm not overly

[2:45:46] opposed to any neighborhood commercial,

[2:45:48] but I am opposed to like a Maverick.

[2:45:50] Does that make sense? Mhm.

[2:45:52] >> That's so you

[2:45:53] >> current form

[2:45:54] >> but

[2:45:54] >> right

[2:45:55] >> just Maverick in general. No Mavericks.

[2:45:57] >> I agree. But

[2:45:59] >> that's not to me. But

[2:46:02] >> hey,

[2:46:03] >> you you can judge the swimming pool uh

[2:46:06] participation at the swimming pool based

[2:46:08] on the number of slushies that are sold

[2:46:10] at Maverick. Like they they buy more

[2:46:12] based on how hot the weather is for the

[2:46:14] swimming pool. So it's kind of

[2:46:15] interesting. But right now

[2:46:17] >> that's why that's why that maverick is

[2:46:18] close to the swimming pool

[2:46:20] >> and not in a neighborhood.

[2:46:22] >> We it still needs to come to the

[2:46:24] planning commission.

[2:46:26] >> Yeah, you would have to do there's it

[2:46:28] would require all of the land use steps.

[2:46:31] I mean,

[2:46:31] >> and there is no proposed

[2:46:34] >> there's no there's no proposal at all.

[2:46:36] And to say all of the entitlement steps

[2:46:38] like it would require a general plan

[2:46:40] amendment and a reszone and then the

[2:46:42] city council to determine the property

[2:46:44] as surplus and then to find a developer

[2:46:47] and sell it to like it it needs it has

[2:46:50] all of the steps, right? This isn't

[2:46:52] >> so so a proactive conversation turned

[2:46:55] into

[2:46:57] >> concern

[2:46:58] >> the a rumor mill.

[2:47:00] >> Yeah. just and people want to I I get

[2:47:02] it. I mean, they want to protect their

[2:47:04] quality of life and what they see around

[2:47:05] them. Absolutely.

[2:47:06] >> There are concerns for sure. So, it's

[2:47:09] not a decision that it isn't even a

[2:47:11] decision. It was more of just a

[2:47:12] question. What What would this corner

[2:47:14] look like? What should this corner look

[2:47:15] like as the city moves from 21,000

[2:47:18] people to 40,000 people?

[2:47:20] >> But as we're doing the general plan,

[2:47:22] it's something we should consider as a future consideration for the

[2:47:26] community.

[2:47:26] >> Yep. And we'll ask the public's opinion

[2:47:28] on that as well. So we'll

[2:47:30] >> it won't be any unilateral decision.

[2:47:32] It's it will get the whole well public

[2:47:35] planning commission and then city

[2:47:36] council as the legislative body will

[2:47:38] ultimately adopt whatever version of the

[2:47:40] map and text we create.

[2:47:43] >> Thank thank you for the clarity.

[2:47:47] » Any other comments I have? I just wanted

[2:47:51] to comment um I agree that having

[2:47:55] something on the agenda

[2:47:58] um

[2:47:59] we should have we should address that.

[2:48:02] So maybe not have something like that on

[2:48:05] the agenda

[2:48:07] when we see three

[2:48:11] potentially,

[2:48:13] you know, questionable items like what

[2:48:16] we had tonight. If we have those like

[2:48:18] tonight we had those three

[2:48:20] >> that's

[2:48:20] >> we should have known a little bit maybe

[2:48:23] had a little bit more foresight to not

[2:48:25] have a discussion on the general plan

[2:48:29] when we see something that like that.

[2:48:31] I'm not trying to point fingers or blame

[2:48:34] anybody. I just say from here on out if

[2:48:37] we if we see items on the agenda maybe

[2:48:40] we we think about tableabling

[2:48:44] um

[2:48:45] tableabling that. so we don't have our

[2:48:48] community members wait to just see it um

[2:48:50] move to another night. I I appreciate

[2:48:52] your comments. Um I would agree with

[2:48:55] that and at the same time I also agree

[2:48:58] that it's not going to get the attention

[2:49:00] that it deserves um this late. So uh

[2:49:04] thank you for your comments and um

[2:49:06] hopefully we can maybe be a little as a

[2:49:09] group be a little bit better on that.

[2:49:12] >> I agree.

[2:49:13] >> It's good feedback.

[2:49:14] >> I agree. I think that however I I think

[2:49:17] a lot of what came up tonight was the

[2:49:20] commercial development that didn't

[2:49:22] really exist and so

[2:49:26] you know that's hard to foresee right um

[2:49:30] but I do think you know maybe less than

[2:49:32] two items on the agenda and we have a

[2:49:34] planning session or something you know

[2:49:35] we can maybe put some hard fast rules

[2:49:37] around it but again you never really

[2:49:39] know what's going to come up and and

[2:49:41] that does put us in another sticky

[2:49:44] situation. But so I appreciate your

[2:49:46] comments and as well as everyone here.

[2:49:50] Um any other remarks?

[2:49:53] >> Okay, we'll have a uh Scott, do you have

[2:49:56] anything for us?

[2:49:57] >> Nope.

[2:49:58] >> John,

[2:49:59] >> uh that's good feedback. One thing we've

[2:50:01] talked about is maybe doing an action

[2:50:03] agenda once a month and then kind of a

[2:50:05] planning agenda like long-term once a

[2:50:07] month so that we get that separation.

[2:50:10] um the question about whether

[2:50:12] legislative items are long-term or

[2:50:14] short-term may fall into that gray area

[2:50:17] um is unique. And then also it's not

[2:50:20] inappropriate for people to ask

[2:50:21] questions and if if you want to respond

[2:50:24] as a group, but like Phil mentions, it's that back and forth, especially at

[2:50:28] council, it can happen where it it can

[2:50:30] get really bad really quick. And um it's

[2:50:34] usually what the council does is they'll

[2:50:37] write down the questions and then answer

[2:50:38] them at the end. you know, not even of

[2:50:40] the comments. Sometimes I wait till the

[2:50:42] end of the full discussion so that it

[2:50:45] again doesn't turn into this back and

[2:50:47] forth.

[2:50:48] >> Move.

[2:50:50] >> So, and it's, you know, it's it's hard.

[2:50:53] It's

[2:50:54] >> it's

[2:50:54] >> I mean, that's just good to know. I

[2:50:55] mean, because there are just some,

[2:50:59] you know, the gentleman from Lake View,

[2:51:01] I tried guessing the best question I

[2:51:03] could maybe think he wanted to ask. Is

[2:51:06] there a convenience store or gas station

[2:51:08] proposed? So

[2:51:09] >> yeah,

[2:51:09] >> you know, I think

[2:51:11] >> that could have kept the whole thing

[2:51:12] from getting sidetracked if

[2:51:15] >> I mean I think instead of criticizing

[2:51:17] the schedule, I think looking at all of

[2:51:18] us, maybe when those first comments came

[2:51:20] up and we're all sitting here not

[2:51:22] knowing what in the heck we're talking

[2:51:23] about and and the citizens do, maybe we

[2:51:27] could have addressed that right then and

[2:51:29] there and had just a moment of pause and have this short conversation. And the other thing that's a little

[2:51:34] unique and hard with this group is it's

[2:51:36] a little bit more informal and and

[2:51:39] historically has been and and the public

[2:51:42] meetings are set up that anything

[2:51:45] outside of a public hearing. Residents

[2:51:48] get to watch government make its

[2:51:50] decision. They're not involved in the

[2:51:52] process. And that's really hard as a

[2:51:54] resident to to be in the room and feel

[2:51:57] like you're not involved.

[2:51:59] If you've ever been to the state

[2:52:00] legislature again outside of their

[2:52:02] hearing process like that's the way it

[2:52:04] is. You you sit there and you watch and

[2:52:05] they will not

[2:52:06] >> Yeah.

[2:52:07] >> They might not even smile at you. So, um

[2:52:10] but public hearings are the opposite.

[2:52:12] That's the time when we we let people

[2:52:15] talk for their five minutes and let the

[2:52:17] hearing go as long as it needs to for

[2:52:19] everyone to say their comments. And um

[2:52:22] anyways, it's just fun process. We're probably going to do some open

[2:52:26] meetings training is

[2:52:28] council needs some not that they've been

[2:52:30] doing bad things but just they have to

[2:52:32] get it every year to comply with state

[2:52:35] code just like you do. So we'll we'll

[2:52:37] figure out some training that will help

[2:52:39] I think with your process if if you have

[2:52:42] ideas on that send it to Scott and we'll train the areas where you'd like

[2:52:46] help. So

[2:52:49] >> can I make one staff comment as well?

[2:52:52] Um,

[2:52:53] total side note, our we have a planning

[2:52:56] intern this summer with the city that

[2:52:59] we're really excited about, Elisa

[2:53:01] Sangrren, and she's here. Um, we're

[2:53:04] hoping to give her really good

[2:53:06] experience, maybe potentially present

[2:53:08] here. Um, but just wanted to introduce

[2:53:10] her.

[2:53:12] >> Welcome. Welcome.

[2:53:14] >> Um, I don't know if it's

[2:53:17] regarding agenda items. We we generally

[2:53:19] know pretty well what's coming on the

[2:53:21] next meeting or two. So if that's ever a

[2:53:24] concern, I I'd say it's worth worth

[2:53:26] talking to Scott or I if if there is

[2:53:30] this many items that are time consuming

[2:53:33] >> and and generally we try to frontload

[2:53:35] the application or frontload the agenda

[2:53:37] with applicants who have paid for their

[2:53:40] time to come and consider those things.

[2:53:42] And so legislative items are a mixed

[2:53:45] bag. Sometimes they go quickly,

[2:53:47] sometimes they run long. We have had

[2:53:49] several reason applications that have

[2:53:51] been long. So, I would say we've had

[2:53:54] more growth pressure in the last six

[2:53:55] months than I've watched in the four and

[2:53:57] a half years prior to that. Um, and

[2:54:00] we're trying to get away from taking a

[2:54:02] bunch of the planning commission's time

[2:54:04] in administrative items. So, reducing

[2:54:06] the time for things like commercial site

[2:54:09] plans that are compliant as much as

[2:54:11] possible. and staff is, you know,

[2:54:14] determined and we really make a strong

[2:54:16] attempt to not bring an item to planning

[2:54:18] commission that's administrative that

[2:54:20] doesn't comply because you can't

[2:54:22] interpret the law, you can't create law.

[2:54:24] So, we bring those items to you to say

[2:54:27] these are it isn't compliance. Maybe

[2:54:29] these are the few things that you should

[2:54:31] think about um and try to make those as

[2:54:35] expedited as possible. But that's

[2:54:37] generally what we do. We try to

[2:54:38] frontload with applicants and then these

[2:54:41] planning items that are sort of at large

[2:54:43] um not make everybody sit in the room

[2:54:46] and wait if they're trying to get a

[2:54:48] decision on you know their commercial

[2:54:51] location.

[2:54:53] >> Can I make can I make one suggestion?

[2:54:56] >> This is just purely for me as I get old.

[2:54:59] Um

[2:55:01] your staff reports are always wonderful

[2:55:03] and they're detailed. Um but the

[2:55:08] as we go to make a proposal for a

[2:55:11] recommend recommend to approve or

[2:55:13] recommend to deny

[2:55:16] there's often some contingencies and

[2:55:18] they're spread out throughout the

[2:55:21] report.

[2:55:21] >> Yeah. and

[2:55:23] >> summarize

[2:55:24] >> if there were like an executive summary

[2:55:26] at the top where you said this is in

[2:55:28] compliance and the staff is recommending

[2:55:31] these contingencies 1 2 3 four and five

[2:55:34] so that when we go to make a a motion we

[2:55:37] can read that really easily. Obviously

[2:55:40] we're going to go through the meat of

[2:55:41] the thing but then we don't have to

[2:55:42] scroll through trying to remember all

[2:55:44] those it would help this old guy. I

[2:55:46] don't know about these young guys with

[2:55:47] their smart brains but

[2:55:48] >> Yep. Good. That's that's great feedback

[2:55:50] on how we organize the agenda. Thank

[2:55:52] you.

[2:55:54] >> I'm just getting old.

[2:55:56] >> That's okay. We try to have the

[2:55:57] conditions of approval at the bottom

[2:55:59] near your, you know, stated conditions

[2:56:02] and sometimes they're caveed with like

[2:56:04] this is one that staff doesn't really

[2:56:06] know. The planning commission needs to

[2:56:07] weigh in on the height of this fence or

[2:56:09] location of it. But I think that's a

[2:56:11] great great feature. It might make it

[2:56:12] easier for the residents who don't want

[2:56:14] to go through all four 40 pages to get

[2:56:17] to the recommendations at the end.

[2:56:19] >> Why don't they want to read it all?

[2:56:20] >> You know, I don't know because it's the

[2:56:22] best reading I do every week.

[2:56:24] >> I agree.

[2:56:28] It's it's really good feedback and I

[2:56:30] know you know there's finding

[2:56:31] departments that do PowerPoint

[2:56:33] presentations and break it out and we we

[2:56:36] try to simplify and write you know brief

[2:56:40] staff reports that capture the issues.

[2:56:42] Sometimes they're just long site plan

[2:56:44] applications are long. There's a lot of

[2:56:45] code to go through. So

[2:56:47] >> just tell Chad GBT to give you an

[2:56:48] executive summary and be done. Rock,

[2:56:52] >> I refu do not use chat GBT.

[2:56:56] >> No, I I I know I criticized a little

[2:56:58] bit. No, I appreciate what Scott and

[2:57:01] Ryan really do and their notes and their

[2:57:04] staff comments. I mean, it it helps out

[2:57:07] a lot.

[2:57:10] Oh.

Planning Commission Meeting - June 3, 2026

Transcript