[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.