Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

ready to rock. All right, everybody. Welcome to the Cedar City Planning Commission. It's been about a month since we met, so it's good to see everybody. Um, could we start with the pledge of allegiance? And Mr. Jet, we haven't seen you in a bit. Would you lead us? Please follow me. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you, Tom. Also, welcome, mayor. It's nice to see you here. Thanks for coming. All right, we'll get right into our items. Approval of minutes dated January 20th, 2026. Anybody want to make a motion to approve those? I'll make a motion that we approve the minutes from January the 20th, 2026. I'll second it. Motion and a second. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Okay. Item number two, public hearing annexation petition for the Lindsay annexation.

Go ahead, Dan. Will you push the button real quick? Which button? The one for the microphone. It's right below the little screen. There you go. There you go. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Sorry, when we reset it, it turned everything off. Rick Hullman's on a cruise.

No, rough duty. New Zealand. So anyway, I got my sister here, Judy. Uh we're just uh wanting to join Cedar City and take the property out of the county. So if you want to get right there on 3000 North, right on the corner. Uh Y right there. Okay. Where where those are the condos that that Vossy had? Oh, those are Spencer Jones's condos. Okay. And then where where is this at?

Right there. By the bus garage. Yeah. Was that scheduled to be an RV park at one time? I have no idea. I don't think so. No, that was that was a different spot. Oh, it was a different spot. Yeah. Okay. That was across from Maverick. Oh, okay. To on the north there, this is west of Maverick. Oh, all right. Forgot about that. And just uh kind of for your information, uh planning commissioners, um the property line, the applicant's property line sits, if you can see my pointer

right here, but they did work with the adjoining property owner to make sure we close up the gap so there would be no gap. And the annexation is also including the entire 3000 north right ofway. Right. So that gap belongs to no one at this point. No, it it does. They just did a uh after the annexation of the property to the south, they did a parcel line adjustment between those two. And uh so the that's why there's a strip there that wasn't annexed previously. It just squares it up. Then this will this will clean it up so there won't be any gap. Okay. Anywhere around that. All right.

Kent, will you have the microphone? Any thoughts from the city? Uh, no. This one seems pretty straightforward from my perspective. I don't know. On Don, we No concerns. No concerns. Commission, any questions? To me, this is one of those things if the city's fine with it, I'm fine with it. It just seems like it's going to clean a lot of things up. So, I'm very comfortable with it. So, what are you going to do with it? Can't tell you. You can. You just won't. Whatever gets approved, I guess. A gold mine. Probably uh multiuse. Okay, good.

It's a high level Area 51 type secret at the moment. Huh. So, we'll go with that. All right. Commission. Uh any other questions before we go to a public hearing? It is a public hearing. So, we'll go ahead and open the public hearing. Is there anybody would like to speak to this?

Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing then and entertain a motion from the commission. I'll make a motion for a pause or recommendation on the annexation of item number two, the Lindsay annexation at 100 East and 300 North. 3000. Oh, 30,000. Thank you. I'll second that. We have a motion and a second. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thanks, Dan. Thank you. It was easy. Judy, it was barely worth coming for. Oh, it was barely worth coming. It was Take care. Good to see you.

Okay, items three and four look like they're regarding the same uh parcel general plan amendment low density residential to medium density residential and then a zone change from annex transition to R22. Go ahead. Yes. I hope this one is also barely worth coming for. Can you give us your Give us your name. Give us your name. Uh Daryl Brown Watson Engineering. Um Thank you. So we've got this property. Yeah. Where where are we at? So we've got 3900 West right here along the east boundary. Okay. If you can see that we've got Magnolia Fields. Yes. Okay. Now, now, now I know where we are.

Yep. So this is a this is a portion of uh CV land and livestock. 22 about 22 acres. Currently, it's annex transition zone and uh low density, and we're proposing medium density and R22 zoning. Uh so we're we'reing up right up against the south side of Magnolia Fields here. And you can see we've got R22 and Magnolia Fields along 3900 West. And then uh across the street and about kitty corner from our property, another R22 zone property. What is Magnolia Field zoned

right here? So R21 and R22. So here in the R22 area, we've got um twin homes and uh the owner uh the developer who developed Magnolia Fields is also developing this 22 acres that we're proposing. And what's it master planned or general planned? So right now it's uh general planned low density. That's one that's R1

R1. And so we are we are proposing medium density and R22 zone. Yeah. So general plan is is showing low density residential but uh the R22 the uh the proposal is that that would be a compatible use with what is around it and that so that's what that why they're proposing the general plan change to the medium density. So Paul, you were you can Paul,

you have a Oh, sorry. You have a good memory. Did we was the was the Magnolia Fields adjacent to the south? Was it R1? I mean R1 and then we changed it to R2. I think we did. Okay.

Yeah. Mine neither, but I think that was the case if I recall. Well, I'll tell you my problem is I really struggle with going outside the general plan and there's exceptions to every rule. I mean, there there there are exceptions that and and so I guess I need to figure out what can you give me a reason for an exception? Uh I I don't know if I have in a reason for an exception, but I'll I'll talk a little bit about the product that he's he's wanting to put up there. So he's doing twin home uh he's wanting to do a twin home subdivision. Um and those

And you said next to it is twin homes, too. Correct. Okay.

Yep. So not necessarily um I'm trying to figure remember the word uh contiguous. It's not contiguous to um twin homes, but we're basically a lot away from twin homes. So, up here in this R22 area will all be twin homes. And so, we're proposing twin homes down in this uh in this 22 acres. Um the developer thought is that it um he wants to provide more, you know, affordable homes. Um and so and so that's one of the biggest reasons why he's proposing this and wanting to build a a twin home subdivision.

Who's the developer? So it's a premier development Scott Faylor. Okay.

And he owns that property already or he's acquiring that property? He is in the process of acquiring it. So that's so right now it's under CV land and livestock. So Randall, it's a question for you. Can we reszone someone else's property without their We check for their permission, Tom. Sorry, Randall. No, you're good. Um, so no, we we don't move forward unless we have the property owner's permission for the zone change. Okay. All right. Yeah, you're hedging your bets a little bit. It's not an uncommon thing when someone is trying to purchase a property that they'll have that contingent upon a zone change. Okay. And so I'm assuming that is one of the contingencies in the sale. All right.

Yeah. So Tom, I I share your concerns when we change the general plan. Um there's certainly pluses and minuses if we go through the general plan goals and policies. Upzoning does help us with the uh our state housing plan. That's that's something we have told the state we would do. Uh not in every case where it doesn't make sense. Uh we talked with Daryl and and who was the owner again? I forgot. Scott Faylor. Scott about maybe more of a mix and match. And I don't want to speak for him, but What do you mean mix and match?

Well, maybe some single family some as opposed to just a sea of twin homes or a sea of R1. And he'd mentioned there's some resistance when when you do that as far as marketing the homes. I I can't speak to how how true that is. Uh but it it is not totally inconsistent with with some of the stuff that's being built out there. U staff's concerns. Uh one, we want to make sure we have some internal circulation. We don't want to see this just a looped subdivision off that master plan road. We talked qual, right, Darl? Yep. What? Why? Why? For transportation purposes. to try to get a grid out there so we are not continuously looping and forcing left-hand turns on okay

one of these basically join somebody else's problem connectivity to the north with what he's already got going on uh and then there was some discussions about the uh primary access road there off of off that master plan road so uh we tried to alleviate some of the concerns that that uh this proposal could propose okay so yeah and the The developer has been very open to the suggestions we've made on that. We feel like we're moving in a good direction regarding the transportation portion. Correct. Okay. Yeah. Good.

Commissioner, any other comments, thoughts? I'm not sure. This is neither here nor there, and I've shared this in the past. Um, people come in quite often and say, "We want to do twin homes or we want to do highdensity housing because it's affordable." Um, there's some truth to that. There's an awful lot of truth to the more units you can put on a piece of land, the more money the developer is going to make. And I think that's the main motivation. Um, I I just sometimes cringe when I say we need more affordable housing. Well, then let's build affordable homes. We don't have to necessarily do twin homes or highdensity housing. I've read a lot of cost breakdowns in my career. I know it's doable. Um I just I don't know. It just makes me cringe sometimes when I say we need to put more houses on one piece of property to make it more affordable. Again, there's some truth to that. I get it. But also, that's just the means to for the developer to make more and more and more money. So, um I'm glad people make money, but I think our responsibilities to the city and not to the developer here. So, I think we need to do what's best for the city. So, whatever that may be.

Can you tell me the the estimated square footage of the lots is being proposed or is that too premature? No, I I don't have that information off the top of my head. Um, but we'll at least have the minimum. Um, is that seven? I think that's seven. Is that right, Randall? 7,000 square feet. I don't know if it's eight. I'm double checking right now. Yes, I'm double checking because I changed I think we changed it down to seven. I thought seven what it was because it was nine.

Yeah, I think you're right, Tom. I just don't want to give you an incorrect answer. We did change that not too long ago. You're correct. Yep. 7,000 square feet of your aiming for twin homes. Okay. And then we reduced the width too down to 50. Say that again, Don. We reduced the width down to 50. Okay. Yeah, I remember that. We'll probably end up with a wider product just because of the setbacks were not reduced. So I would say it's going to be closer to 8,000 probably. Yeah. FT.

Yeah. See, you almost need at least what 354t on each side to make that work. Any other questions from the commission before we open the public hearing and then we can come back. All right. Thanks, Darl. This is a public hearing, so we shall open it. Open the public hearing for items three and four. They kind of go together.

And Clark, no surprise here. I'm completely opposed to this. It's so interesting that we always say, well, you know, it's adjacent to something that's already there, so it fits in. If we use that um line of thinking, we'll just then build on to more and more and more twin homes. And you know what? Medium density is high density. I'm sorry. And we need to follow the general plan. The other thing is I'm sick of hearing a reason about the state. The state never gives you an amount. I would like the state to come out and say a certain percentage of your population has to have enough highdensity housing for them or a certain percentage of your of your housing, but it's not with the state. It is never enough. They will want more and more and more. And we need to say no to the state. It's like this federal government's a blackmail. But on this piece right here to say that, you know, well, you know, there's town homes there, twin homes there. That's we can use that for every single piece of property to change the general plan. I say we stick with the general plan and I agree with Wayne Decker. It's mostly for the developer to make more money. It may shave off a few thousand dollars for the consumer, but not much. And the thing that we need to do is make affordable housing, single family homes where we're not piling people on top of each other because pretty soon Cedar City is just going to be a sea of highdensity housing. Go look at St. George. I was just down there. I just, oh my gosh, it's getting worse and worse. At some point, we have to say no. Enough is enough. Sorry to the developers. This was R1. We're sticking with R1 and we're trying to, you know, I think if we said no to the developers, honestly, they would come up with a way to make affordable single family homes. I think they really would, but they don't have to. Thank you.

Or an we can flip that around and you say say sorry to the developers. You might want to say sorry to the people that can't buy a home here. I believe, you know, think about I think back to the first house I bought. It was a small little house. It didn't have granite countertops. It had none of that. We could build smaller houses with smaller lots with less um frills, if you want to call it that, or upgrades. And people could get into a house where they're not on top of each other.

Yep. And interest rates were 10% and the home was $65,000. My first house it was 14%. Okay. And the house was 65,000. No. Well, I just know that it's We've got to figure out something. But the twin homes are 350,000. Town homes are at least starting at 350,000. Yeah. Well, I I I and I get it. I'm serious. But if you if we don't at some point say to the state, you know what? Parowan said no.

We're not going to do that. If we don't at some some at some point put our foot down and say I'm sorry to the developers and everyone else. I bet if you said no, this is our one. Then if they don't buy it, somebody else will buy it that we'll try to put in. But we don't they don't ever have to. Do you see? Have you driven out there recently? An Have you driven? Well, there's town homes across the street. I think what are those? Town homes or what are those homes? Twin homes across the street. Iron. They're single family across the street. the the Magnolia fields or are twin homes? No, but the on the other side of the on on the west side of Magnol Aren't those twin homes or I don't think, huh? No, those are all singles. Okay,

Tom, if we use the excuse, well, these are twin homes, so then right we might as well change that lot next to it to twin homes. Well, then we might have changed the next lot to twin homes. Do you see what I mean? It never ends. It never ends because you're always going to allow a change because the whoever last built there built, you know, R3. Let me ask you a fair question. I'm being I'm being serious because this is an issue that's going to have to be addressed. Would you be saying the same thing if if it was all modular homes in that subdivision and they're single family, but they're all modulars? Oh, you mean Yeah. You know, prefab you mean? Yeah. Prefab. Would you be

to be honest with you, I think a single family home that's prefab would be better than people being built on top of each other. I look at all the these high density housing just wait till a fire comes through there. I'm just telling you I I look at down Never mind. But I'm just saying we've got to at some point say to to the developers, no, this is R1. We stick with our general plan. And I understand, Tom, there's always some exceptions. I get that. But we can't just change the general plan because a developer says, "Hey, right by us are twin homes, so we're just going to add twin homes down here. It will all work out." See what I mean? Because then who's going to buy the next piece of property and want to change it? Yeah. Anyway, thank you.

Thank you, Ann. If if I if I could just clarify for a moment when we talk about the state and their moderate income housing plans, the the state gives us a a menu, so to speak, in the state code of of options that we can pursue. I don't I don't recall how many there are, but there's probably 20, maybe more. I think there's more as of last year. Uh quite a few years ago, we chose three options which are required by the state. So, the state says you shall do three of these things. uh with because of the the our history with looking at these higher density zone changes that was proposed to the commission and council and that was chosen as an option that we would demonstrate compliance with. Uh so it is not necessarily mandatory by the state that we do these things. This is something we told the state we would do. If the commission doesn't like those things, that's something we can revisit what options the planning commission and ultimately the city council thinks we should pursue.

Could you bring those to us one of these days discussion? We can just certainly do an open discussion with it and come this March, who knows what they're going to do with the housing plan. We just don't know. But that's certainly something I can bring to you and you guys can take a look at. Okay. Can can you pull up the um master plan again or the general plan and zoom out just a little so we can kind of see. Keep that. So this is general plan you're seeing here. You put the words back up. What's that?

You put the words back on it that just went away that showed the on it. Well, this this is general plan. I don't think has that on there,

but this is this is the um low density residential. This is the medium density here. So, we've got medium density general plan for all of Magnolia. It's not all It's not all uh zoned R22, only the portion where the twin homes are, but it's all uh general planned the medium density. And then we have the medium density over uh here just off of 800 north and 3900 west. So, they're proposing to extend the medium density down and zone to the R22. Does that help?

Yes. up to the north of uh just south of 1600. That's equestrian. Is that right? So equestrian here. Yes.

And then everything over this way is uh high density, right? The yellow. So then if I turn the zoning back on, you have the R21 and the R22. R22. What's that orange just to the west of what we're talking about? That's half the pivot over here.

So that is annex transition zone with medium density residential. What about on the other half of the pivot

annex transition and highdensity residential

so there is opportunity out and around there

as the person is usually the very pro developer when it comes to argument saying I do think when you make a master plan you you ideally ideally want to put the high density within a buffer of medium density within outside of that the sing the low density and the fact that there's so much already out there that is zoned appropriately. Um my my initial thought is to try to maintain as much as that kind of Utah shaped part of that pivot right there of CV's property as low density just because there's already so much to the side of it that's all already higher density. Um and this is a very small like project. So to me it's not the end of the world because it's not loads more. But I I agree with an that it makes it easier for the next piece to the south to kind of go the same way. And then all of a sudden we have this weird strip in no man's n in the middle of medium density that's supposed to be single or low density. And then it just makes the argument easier for that to once again when there already is so much higher density especially a little bit further um to the west. I mean that that's a huge amount of high and medium density over there.

Yeah. The idea between those hot or the idea in 2022 and none of these ideas are ever perfect is that we as the as the industry grew out there, right, we may need some higher density to try to support the jobs that might be generated out there. So, so can can we feather is they similar to what you've done up in the front? Uh, excuse me. similar to what you've done at Magnolia when you s Yeah. Okay. So to answer your question, similar uh twin

you have twin up and toward the front portion and and multifamily toward a single family toward the rear. So the proposal is all twin home. Okay. Lots in here. All right. Um can you clarify your question about feather? Are you like like higher density in the front and then lower density twin up toward the front and and single toward the rear like kind of what you did at Magnolia? I think that is what we did at Magnolia. That is I'm just asking if that was ever part of the conversation. Yes, it was. Okay. But they just don't see the economics of it. Right.

Okay. Chairman, may I ask that if we have somebody from the public if they can speak so I can kind of hear what other people's thoughts might be if they if they have some else here for the this one.

Everybody open for discussion. One of the things just looking at it like coming off 56 that is a is a much easier argument to make I think for closer the to the major roads to be to be considered. So what's the zoning of that down closer to 56 like that's still county. So that's not this is all county here. So Montist.

Okay. Carter Wilkkey. So, I was on the, you know, I was part of that committee that redid the master plan. So, this one's a little bit different than normal. Normally, we normally what you would do is you'd have your higher density closer to the main road and you'd go lower density as you go away. But, in this situation where this is all in M, and this is kind of what Don was just alluding to, where this is all I in M, we went the opposite direction. We put the higher density next to the inm, and then we went lower density going away from it. So that's how come this one's a little backwards from what you normally would see. Okay. Normally it would make sense to have your higher density closer to the road and then as you mentioned you would feather it headed this way but with inm right here

you also want to put the higher density as close to the INM as possible. So that's how come it goes backwards in this one section. All right. So I don't know if that helps or adds to what you guys are talking about here. That's important. Um, but that's kind of where my only other thing is is Ken, where does this come in with our needing to get water down 3900 West in that whole area? I mean, we're already hurting and now we're adding I mean, this is and it was because of this subdiv I mean, that the Magnolia Fields phase two was what put us over the top. Didn't that already get ran? Yeah. I mean, yes. So it's already

so the um as as I recall and uh someone else can correct me if I'm wrong. The direction we got from council was we you know to establish that reimbursement area. Yeah. But not hold up development. We are pursuing the project to try to get it built. Um but but yeah, we're just collecting the fee and keep letting people develop while we work get the solution built. I guess my question is whether it's R2 or R1 with that new pipe, it's not going to make a difference either way, right? We're going to size it enough that correct. Yeah, once that gets looped up, the water system will be fine either way.

We won't care. Okay, sounds good. And can someone tell me where the Staley West stuff's happening right here? Well, this is Staley owns this piece right here. Right. So then the argument then is going to be made also, okay, they've got an industrial right there. So if I was going to develop it, I would think right above that green square of staleies. That would make more sense for a higher density to kind of be the buffer between industrial and our and low density. Is that what he's doing right here? Is industrial. Oh, okay. See, that's not in the city. So that's all in county. So we don't have any idea what's going on. That's what we were told. Yeah. So if you make the argument you want the buffer between the industrial, you want the buffer from the main roads, you want the buffer that like Yeah. This was industrial.

There's not going to be any low density left. deer. Well, going to what you're saying, I think, Mr. Burgess, yeah, if you had industrial here, you could in theory say high density right here, medium density right here, low density right there. Right. So, yeah, it's this is this whole piece right here because of industrial here and now industrial here. You're kind of in a conundrum in this right little piece of the world. Yeah, this one is complicated. this one is. And then you know the other thing is too it is low density and that's what he was talking about where it's not technically continuous because there is one road half of a road of low density between the two. The R21. Yeah. It go because the R21 does a little has a Yeah. They're like single family back there along that road. Yeah. And then outside of that one little record.

Yep. Yeah. And commissioners, if I could just add one other one other thought to what uh um Mr. Wilkkey um said, part of what makes this higher density here make sense in addition to it being against the industrial is that there is the master planned minor arterial road that would come through here. So that would be, you know, along a major roadway in the future and that will probably make 3900 a little bit less busy also hopefully. And that would put access into the the subdivision. So it will it's supposed to go all the way to Mid Valley. How wide is a minor arterial? Is that 75?

Yes. So 39 is the same, right? Yeah. 3900 west and 4500 west is what this would be are both master planned as minor arterials. Um so both 75 foot wide. Oh, so they're the same size. It's not 45 is not bigger, right? Similar, but never mind that. Right. So I mean with with this What was the shape of yours again? Can we throw that picture back up? So it's it's just a it's just a square rectangular. Yeah. Right there. Yeah. I prefer it if it was rectangular the other way to have more main road frontage than back and kind of do like what they did and have some R21 at least back behind that make a little more sense.

So is there still a buffer between that and the Staley development proposed daily development? Yes. Yeah. The rest that CV farm is all right there. Yeah. If you scroll down how big is that area between the two? That's probably 35 acres. Okay. or or more including this. I misunderstood that. Including this. It's 69 acres that piece. Say it again. 69 acres right now. Including that piece. Including that piece like 40. And that piece is how many acres? 22. So approximately 40 acres. Okay. 45. Yeah. 40 something. Yeah. On

and all of Magnolia changes the picture. family portion of Magnolia is all medium density. Yeah, that changes the picture for me considerably considering that Staley development. I I didn't have my bearing straight on that. So, it's going to be hard for for R1 to thrive here. R21 maybe, but you're surrounded on all sides by somewhat Yeah, I was unappealing low density things. Yeah, that changes. What is to the east of 3900 to the London Highway? That quilt work that Can you bring that back up? We had all those different colors and I'm not sure what right through there. What is all that's all Schmidt's new stuff is that just so it has like

just a schmidz down and it changed too. This isn't even what Yeah, those multicolored ones you're talking about are Cedar 106, once known as Plum Creek, and it starts with on its east side higher commercial, then high density to low density. So, it does the feathering you guys were talking about within itself, but it also changed when we changed the road. Yeah. A little bit. It's It's changed three or four times. Yes. We've gone through, I think, four development agreements on that one so far. Well, there is a big part of low density that big rectangle on the top. We've so that

it's not part of that development, but behind it to the north is all still low density or is that I think we got two maps on there. It's hard for me to Yeah. So, so that is currently zoned as annex transition. General plan is low density. Yeah. that that ser on 106 is a poster child, so to speak, for that kind of feathering concept and and it it is very divisive. I mean, it looks kind of stark on the map, right?

And I I you know, I'm not a big believer that all the high density we use them as cannon fodder for our roads and and and industrial plants. Um but I think for transportation wise and for jobs, some of that higher density makes sense. Uh this this one is is a little bit more difficult. Um and there's no perfect answer for some of these questions whether whether that R22 makes sense. I my original suggestion was could we kind of mix and match this uh do an R22 and and not just have a C of one type of development, right? I think ideally I think it'd be great to have some twin homes mixed with some smaller, you know, single family residential. Um, but my understanding is there's some resistance to that in the marketplace. You know, Jennifer might know that better than than I do. Um, so this this is a difficult one to chew on.

Some resistance to what? In the marketplace. And Darl, you correct me if I'm wrong, but if if there's let's say on one side of the street it's all twin homes or there's a mixture of twin and singles. Sometimes the single family folks that's not the neighborhood they want to buy into, right? And that's what he's experiencing. That's what I was told by by the developer. I mean, and that's why we did our subdivision is just off the map to the south here. We have the stuff close to the highway, commercial, higher density. Then as you get farther back, I mean ours are only R21, not any R1, but like they're all single family homes and like feels like a low density kind of feel to it. Yeah, it's the town homes.

Yeah, but but even that like we did that development trying to go in the affordable like trying to reach kind of people that are being priced out of single family homes and those are also the people who have the hardest time getting approved for a loan also. So, it hasn't done as well as I'd rather probably sell houses to baby boomers than young families because they can get loans. Yep.

Just one other thing, Carter Wilkey Commission, just remember. So, you're looking at two agenda items, but you're looking at them kind of together, but they don't necessarily have to go together. So, your medium density is also what would allow the R21, which is single family home, single home, smaller lot. So you could in theory just you still have the option to change the density or the general plan portion of it but not the zone portion of it. They are two separate different items just so you know. So yeah the medium density would also include the R21 and I think R21 is pretty universally liked because all the people again saying like we want single family but maybe a little more affordable.

I think in today's market the R21 is probably the model that you're going to see a lot of developers move towards. I mean or even smaller but all of Iron West is that because of that reason it gives us smaller lots. I mean that's what all of the rest of Magnolia Fields is is R21. So I just wanted to make sure you guys Yeah. Clarification that there is two separate things there. That's a good clarification. Thank you. Yeah, the R21 is 7,000 square foot lots and with 50 foot whis changed not too long ago as well.

Okay. And Mark, I just wanted to say one thing. Imagine that you have and I realize that there's just a few of the R1 houses, but imagine you came and you looked at that map and you said, "Hey, but across the street from me or next to me or whatever is going to be an R1. I'm okay because it's zoned R1." And so even though we have other high density around us, we will have R1 houses. The problem here in the city is nobody can count on the city. And I'm just going to say it. I've said it before. the man that bought across the street from me kind of on the corner. He I said, "Why did you buy here?" He said, "Because every time I went out with the realer and there was an empty piece of land, they said, "Well, it's it's zoned our R1 or whatever, but you never can trust that. It will be changed." So, I I understand that we can say, "Hey, it's mostly high density, so we might as well just make it high density. It might mo be more convenient." But I always think of the people that are sitting there that are in R1 houses that trusted the city when they zoned it R1. And now, you know what? They're going to wake up with a big surprise one day. And that's all I'm saying. If we don't hold to what we say we're going to do, there's a lot of um lack of trust it with the the citizens in this city because they can't trust the general plan. They don't know what's going to happen. They think it's, hey, I think I'm safe. And then, you know, all of a sudden, guess what? They voted you out. So, I'm just saying that when you think about this, I understand you're thinking about other people, but think about the people that are already there, too, and what they thought when they were buying there. Thank you.

That also includes the land owner who is going to get a lot different price for his his land versus what the zoning is. Also, you're saying R2 has a higher premium than R1 R21. Okay. per acre.

Well, despite it being in the county, the green portion is still mostly R1, right? Until it becomes IM1. Yeah. IM2. Any other thoughts? Don, any additional thoughts from you?

I don't really have a whole lot more to add. I I I do think the R21 uh could help us meet our housing if it a little bit higher density. It would be consistent with what we've got going on to the north and it would still be a single family product which I think could meet the spirit of maybe the higher density R1. Uh, so that that might be a suggestion for the commission to pursue here.

I'm open to change my mind, but I would right now be comfortable with R21, but not with R22. I would be comfortable with that, but I would also be more comfortable with R22 if, like I said, they flipped it and it didn't go deep into this so we could keep that kind of middle ground as R21 or R1 um and keep the stuff on the main road, which will be harder to do lower density anyway. I don't like the idea of it going deep into it and skinny. I'd rather it was skinny along 3900 3900. Well said. So, how far back are you proposing to do R2 off of 3900? How deep is that lot?

Well, just in I don't know about that one, but in just looking at what they've already started there, Magnolia, I like the idea of Magnolia, that skinnier strip. So, if you kind of continue that same idea on instead of way back and then the the bulk of the property in the back can end up being that buffered lower density. So, are you proposing in your thought and your thinking that we'd just do a little sliver or the whole front would be R2? I don't I don't care if it goes all the way down across the whole thing. It probably would make sense just because of that main road and just harder to do lower density stuff off of there, but

I definitely don't like it going deep that west boundary of the R22 and just bring it clear down to the Staley property. I honestly wouldn't care if it even matched Magnolia all the way down because you'll get single family homes in that lighter yellow and the R21. Um but but yeah, but isn't the only proposal before us to change from AT to R22

and our opinions may need be neither here to there here nor there. The proposals to change or not to change. That's my understanding. I think we we have to stick within even if we follow that idea with the R22 adjacent to the main road, we have to stick within the geography that is proposed tonight. Sure.

Yeah. And see, I really I'm real torn and I I said my comments at the very beginning and I'm very much prodevelopment. I'm very much pro development developers, you know, builders. That's the only way we can helply hopefully bring down our our prices a little bit as you supply. But it goes back to my original comment that I really struggle with changing without and you make some good arguments and the the this this body has made some good arguments. Carter's made some good arguments going up against industrial so forth and and

so so if but the art is some kind of level of compromise I see that see that kind of what and and correct me if I'm speaking wrong um that's what some of the people are thinking kind of split the baby a little bit. And but if that goes back, if we put industrial in the front, if we put high density in the front and put low density in the back, the low density is going up against unless I'm not understanding an industrial area. But there's just a one proposal before us. No, I get it. Yeah, I'm just saying this. Let's make a decision on the one proposal.

That's what I'm trying to figure out. Or a recommendation, not a decision. make any decisions. Sir, as your uh developer, have you talked about rotating that piece and going with the road or this? Yes. Yes. Yes. That this portion that that we're proposing is what CV is willing to sell. He's not willing to sell the furnage along along 39. I don't want to make too many assumptions, but my assumption on that point would be because he probably thinks there's a premium for the one on 3900 for even higher density. Say that again. He's you're

I mean if this was my property and I don't know him like like I don't know what his thoughts are but if this was my property

and someone came and wanted to buy 20 acres I would push him deep be as well because I would look at the 3900 frontage as something I could continue to do more of higher density ongoing as well with the argument of it's on 3900. Um and if and if he got approached to to buy um it might have to do with where kind of he's going to continue to farm in the meantime or other things. It might could be a lot of things but I would be thinking that it would be easier to to reszone the 3900 and then you could get this one part of R2 because it's next to Magnolia and then I can maybe later on get more R22 along 3900 because of its proximity to

how wide is that lot? I know it's about 1,800 deep, but how wide is it? The part you're the one you're looking at. Yeah, it's 5 something. It's shown on the uh on the PDF. I can't where it should be. It shows that it's 522 feet. Okay. It I just need bigger print. Okay. So, the gentleman that owns this property owns that whole section. And he's just willing only willing to sell the upper section that you're presenting. Yes, that is correct.

Mr. Bitman, you're our chief executive officer for the city. I want you to share in some of our pain. Do you have any input?

Well spoken. Well,

is there anybody that would like to make a Jace? I think if I understand you, Jayce is that Ann's argument seems correct. It would just be a domino effect. That that would be my gut reaction. I'm not saying that's right. That's saying that would be my thinking,

right? and it might have just as much to do with where his pivots are and easier to keep. So, I'm not much of a farmer. So, I just know that we have to figure out some way to balance the economy a little bit so we're not so high up on our prices. And um I watched the market very closely and it's it's obscene what our market is. And part of that is the the as a developer the price of land

is so high you almost have to get a higher density in order to make it worth like even doing. Um but this is a tough one for me. I I'm not terribly opposed to this section being R2, but I would feel I would feel better if it matched the Magnolia as far as east and west just so we're not cutting into that one section of low density in the middle that's still left. Ma'am, you made a comment. I didn't hear you. Ma'am, the market will do that. Well, I I I get that. If you go that deep, you wipe out all your opportunities. Correct.

But we're trying we're skewing the market sometimes and I'm trying to figure out let the market naturally gravitate to a balancing point. Right. Can you share your name, please? Cindy. Can you lower that to your mouth a little bit? The mic? Oh, thank you. Cindy Leoon and I live in Equestrian Point.

Okay. And I've been there for 12 years. And I moved out there because it was rural and it was quarter acre, half acre, 1 acre, 5 acre lots. And now I'm getting high density all around me. We're becoming the island. And I'm not opposed to development. I understand that we need affordable housing, but I think changing the general plan and changing zoning every time a developer comes in and wants to put high density, I don't think that's the answer to affordable housing.

Um, do you have an answer? And as someone who's been there for over 10 years, um, you know, where what do you say to the people that that moved into a rural area? Completely agree with you. So that we didn't have to have high density everywhere. Um, and once you change the zone, then there's just going to be more and more. So that's and and I'm torn because I, you know, I know that we need some answers. I don't have those answers.

If I did, I would clearly be the smartest person in the room, but I'm not. So, I don't know what the answer is to affordable housing, but I don't think that um just taking every available piece of dirt and putting apartments or high density housing is the answer because that creates more problems down the road in my opinion. I know hundreds thousands of combined man and woman answers hours were put into this read the master plan when we when we did this in 202021 something like that and

yeah I think I thought I think the thing to to my way of thinking the general plan or the master plan isn't against highdensity housing it's just saying this is where we want it and we want it away from here and we want it away from here and we want it away from here and we want to be able to keep some of the feel of equestrian point uh or other like places. Are we public hearing or what's that? Are we through a public hearing? I I would like to move this along unless there's more public hearing.

I'll make a Well, let's close the public hearing then. No, I'll make a motion that we deny the the an the zone change. And I do that with with pain. It just Well, we got two things going on here. So, number three, general plan change. And then number four is the zone change. Okay. I'm I'll make a motion that we deny the general plan amendment change from low density to medium density. And can I go on to number four? Sure.

And I'll make a motion that we deny the zone change from AT to R22. And I again, it doesn't come lightly. Second. And I agree. It doesn't come lightly, but second. Okay. We have a recommendation to not make changes. Uh, and a second. All in favor? I. I. Any opposed? Okay. Thank you. The motion carries. All right. Next on our items, the city items. Um, Mr. Bitman, ordinance adoption. Impact fees.

Mr. Chair, may I make a a comment here? Um, I spoke with Jennifer Davis, one of our members of the of the commission. She's home with the flu. This is a very it a very Yeah, we thought it needed to be this this this this discussion we're going to have tonight

is going to alter our our housing. It's going to alter our economics. It's going to alter the potential affordability of of our market. She asked if we could please table this issue to um so she could be here during that. I know there's some urgency on on this issue, but I I'm just out of courtesy to her, I felt I would pass on this this message from her. I would like to see that happen also. Yeah, I would like, you know, public hearing before the city council scheduled for March 4th.

Bringing it to this body is required by statute to bring it here. You don't need to make a recommendation. You don't you just need to hear it. So, if you want to table it, you'll miss your chance to hear it and it's going to go to the council on March 4th. Unless they delay that public hearing on their motion and send it back to you.

That's just so I I I think since this is a public hearing, we ought to go ahead with it. If we don't want to make a recommendation, it will still go to the city and we'll still have allowed for a public hearing. What are your thoughts, Randall? Does that work? Yeah. No, that works. And Jace was just asking a question with regards to whether you could still hold it. Um the planning commission could make a vote on the 3 of March. You can, and we've done that where we've kind of expedited hearings, just know the minutes never make it to the council. So, while you may discuss it on the 3rd, the council will never get the details they'll get if you discuss it heavily today. So, we have um our consultant that has been uh working with us on the impact fees on Zoom um Fred Philpot. Uh Fred, uh do you want to go ahead and share your screen? And is that okay? You ready for us to go ahead and have him proceed?

Yes. Yeah, I can do that. Can you guys hear me?

Yes. And I'm not opposed to not making a vote on it, but I think since we plan to hear it, we can. Okay. All righty. Um, yes, I I've been assisting the city go through the um impact fee facilities plan and impact fee analysis. Let me jump back a little bit. Uh uh the purpose of the impact fee is to identify impacts from new development activity and we need to identify system improvements and project improvements and ensure that the impact fee includes the cost the proportional cost of system improvements um in the calculation of the fee. uh there's specific uh definitions relative to some of the services that we look at for public safety and roadway facilities which we've uh followed relative to our analysis. Um the two main components that we've addressed is the impact fee facilities plan or IFFP and the IFA which is the impact fee analysis or proportionate share analysis. Um the impact fee facilities plan is a process of whittling down essentially your uh entire list of capital improvement needs that is identified in a master plan in a capital facility plan or capital improvement plan identifying what is growth related and what we anticipate happening in the next 10-year window. Essentially, uh, the impact fee act doesn't specify that we have to look at a 10-year planning window, but there is a requirement to expend impact fees within six years from the date they're collected. So based on that requirement, the standard of practice is to shorten that window for master planning or or a capital facility plan that may look beyond

um a 10-year window and try to isolate what is needed in a relatively short uh planning window and uh line with that requirement to expend those funds within the appropriate time frame. In order to do this, we have certain steps that we need to fulfill uh to ensure that we're complying with statute and case law. We have to look at your service area and demand level of service. We need to look at existing facilities and excess capacity in the system. Identify future capital facility needs and then evaluate any financing strategies associated with existing facilities and future facilities. Uh this is a graphic that illustrates uh essentially what the proportionate share analysis means. We're tying our evaluation to the demand variables that we're calculating. It needs to pass through the lens of that level of service. Ensuring that we're maintaining the level of service is if there's anything identified that exceeds the level of service, we can we can show that but it doesn't go into the calculation of fee and then we identify the relationship of existing and future facilities that are necessary to serve that demand. Uh again that is in essence the the the foundation of this proportionate share analysis or impact fee calculation. Process-wise we have to go through through certain noticing which the city has done and completion of the analysis. Then we present findings to staff which we've done to provide input from them ensuring that we're uh addressing things appropriately. Then we have the uh presentation and work session. Um often we uh will present draft findings for review in preparation for public hearing. Um uh there's specific noticing that's required to to hold a public hearing and then the city or entity has the opportunity to hold a public hearing and

take action. Um the action that you can take is you can adopt the proposed fees, you can modify it lower than the proposed maximum or you can reject impact fees altogether. uh if you adopt an increase to those fees, then there's a 90-day wait period before that becomes effective. So, we've looked at parks and recreation, public safety, both police and fire, storm water, wastewater, culinary, water, and transportation. Uh for for this analysis, uh as we look at those components, the service areas citywide, including future annexation areas, our level of service level of service is defined by each service that we're looking at. So it's specific to transportation, culinary, water, etc. Um, our existing facilities and buyin is also defined by each service and evaluating those system components. And in addition, the future facilities were evaluated to determine what was needed. Uh, we worked directly with city staff to evaluate proposed capital improvements and ensuring that we're allocating those to uh to new development activity. Um and then again all of that along with any financing uh you know outstanding debt or interest expense was evaluated and brought into that proportion of share analysis to determine our fees. And uh here is a summary of that. So um there's quite a bit of detail in the actual impact fee facilities plan and impact fee analysis that you can review. But this provides you a summary table. Um, I will point out that for wastewater and culinary water, we kept that on a per eru or the equivalent of 1 in meter across the board. Um, in reality, you're going to have different developments generated the requirement for different meter sizes and and that would be specific to the actual development. for uh parks and recreation that is

typically assessed to residential development only and not assessed uh to non-residential development. And for fire and police as well as transportation, those fees are on a per thousand square foot basis for non-residential. For residential, it's typically on a per unit basis for those uh those fees. Uh so here you can see when we look at typically we'll we'll look at a single family comparison and say okay what is our uh proposed fees what is it going up to and you can see there's a there's a pretty hefty uh increase relative to what you currently assess. Now I will I will point out that um I I believe in in a lot of these cases in the previous impact fees you did not adopt maximum impact fees at the time this study was done in 2020 and and amendments later on. Um so this is purely a comparison of what you're charging now to um what we're proposing as the maximum fee. So on a single family residential unit, 143% increase or uh an increase of $12,000 and some change there. Um I also provided some comparisons here uh just with some um communities in southern Utah. Obviously there's there's many communities that assess impact fees, but I wanted to pull some that are larger communities that had uh all of the fees that we're looking at here. I will point out that St. George actually has a a power impact fee. So they they have more than the fees listed here, but uh trying to keep it apples to apples. So again, if we have the proposed 20,891, St. George is a little bit lower, whereas Washington is actually a little bit higher uh when you look at the fees that they assess. Uh pretty similar fees across the board when we're compared to Washington. Um so a good benchmark there

relative to um the assessment. Um, so, uh, again, showing to me, uh, essentially that we're not out of the realm of reality of where fees are are at for some other communities. I would also point out St. George is actually going through an update to their impact fees to account for inflationary pressure that has happened since their last update. So, it's likely their fees will be going up from what is listed on this chart here. And, and we're involved in that. We're helping them go through public safety and all of the utilities to update the capital costs for their impact fee facilities plans because their costs have has increased substantially since those fees were were calculated. So, it's likely they'll be seeing a a jump here that will be more in line with what we're proposing uh for your community. All righty. That that's a crash course. I'm happy to go back through um any of the findings, address questions that you might have relative to legislation or the process um or specific fees.

Thank you. Would you mind going back to the demand slide? Back what slide? Yeah, the the one that said demand ver back further. Keep going back right there. Forward this one. Yeah. So, is that suggesting that our existing would only cover half the demand in the future? Is that right? No, this is purely illustrative. It is not proportional to the fees that were calcul. Perfect. Okay. Thank you. That's helpful.

Could you go to the slide back to the slide that that right there? So this percent change across the board. That's what it's estimated to be with the new impact fees. Yeah. And your number of residential will be different. Again, I just provided it assuming a 1 inch meter. So you can see like waste water, those are all the same fee. Culinary water, it's all just a one-inch meter. It'll vary based on, you know, whether they need a 4 inch meter or 6 inch meter. It's going to be that percentage is going to fluctuate. But I'm a little a little confused on the the 1,000 per 1,000 square feet that per one.

Yeah. So if you have 10,000 square feet, you ft of building space, building square footage. Say that again. So for fire, police, uh, and transportation, it would be per thousand square feet of actual building space. If I was building a th00and square foot a convenience center, it would be based on 1,000 square feet as my unit. Um, and it's it's a fee per thousand square feet for those. Um, so if I build a 10,000 square foot warehouse, then you're 10 units and we'd apply a ratio time 160,000.

Uh, no, because some of those fees depend on meter size. Some will depend like here um if I looked at transportation it would be 10 times the $64 for transportation and 10 times the $19 for police so and fire but this the storm water is has to do with acreage and um specific development type um waste water and culinary water on meter size. So when you get into non-residential, it's it's a little more specific than residential. Uh so it will vary bridge.

It'd be nice to see some examples of various sizes square footwise. So if it was a 10,000 square foot as it and you have a 10,000 foot building, I'm paying 143,540 for storm water. Um I recall the actual schedule. Oh,

well, your your your charting is a little bit confusing to me, but I'm a simple-minded individual. Yeah. So, storm water um industrial that fee is per thousand square feet. So, yes, you'd have 10 times that. Uh sorry, so I I misspoke on storm water. Uh it that one is per thousand square feet based on the different land uses. Which which one is storm water? The one you asked. So it's per thousand square foot of building. So if I have a 10,000t building, I'm paying $13,540 in storm water. Yep. Yes, that is correct. That's crazy.

Well, that's not uncommon. Most most entities have a fee. When they assess a fee, it is per demand unit. And for fire and police, it is typically per thousand square feet. for transportation is per thousand square feet of building space. Uh waste water and culinary water is typically based on meter size and storm water that one does fluctuate where it may be on a per acre basis. It could be on a a a runoff coefficient. um in your case it is a combination of that where we've looked at different land uses and applied a runoff coefficient that we could get a value per thousand square feet assessment. So uh it is it is quite typical for um impact fees to you know for non-residential to be you know much higher than residential because they are paying per thousand square feet based on their demand. it is tied to the demand variable that comes from those land uses.

And if I could offer on the uh storm water in particular that that does depend also on how they handle their storm water. We do have in our ordinance that if they completely handle their storm water on site, they're not discharging off site at all. They're storing it all on site. Then there is no impact fee for the storm water. permanent or slow discharge. I'm talking about permanently holding it on site basically.

So, so yeah. So, it it uh it it depends on how that's being handled. It we we have cases where um a portion of the impact fee is paid because they're able to handle some of the water and some they're not and they're discharging it into city system. some some where it's all going into city system, they're paying the full amount of the impact fee, whatever council chooses to adopt, and then we have some where they don't pay any uh storm water impact fee. So, it just depends on the details of how they handle the storm water for their project.

So, I have some property, it's Fort Cedar, I run in to the irrigation into an irrigation canal. So, I'm not going into the city's system. So on

that that water eventually makes it into our master plan storm drainage facilities. So um yeah, yes, if you're discharging into the irrigation, that's still going into our master plan facilities that the impact fees are are designed to to help us be able to fund to build. And I'll I'll point out that your ordinance allows for consideration of uh data that a developer or or builder can provide to the city that would suggest an alternative fee. So this provides a schedule that the city can use to assess the fees. And then we also include a non-standard formula that is utilized in the case where a developer comes in and says, "Hey, I think I'm different. my uh my demands are going to be different and here's the data and the city can consider that and make adjustments to the fee to address those unique circumstances and treat uh development on a case-byase basis if necessary.

Is there somebody that can go back to the last fee increase and tell me what was proposed and what was accepted? It seems like we're kicking part of this can down the road every time this is presented, but that I don't know anything about it. So, what was what was proposed and what was accepted? So, the council the last time the impact fees came up, they got a similar report and it said here's the maximum allowable fee you can impose pursuant and I think they took a 10% was it 10 or was it 20? They gave it a 10% haircut or they

took a discount. If you move that forward, they changed that discount a few years ago for storm water and fire, kept the discount on everything else. Um because they could see that the storm water and the fire impact fees, we did an update in 20 2020 2021 somewhere around there. But I also point out, Paul, that it um it doesn't necessarily kick the can to future development because the impact fee has to be proportionate. It can create potential challenges in your system and that if you don't maximize the impact fee, then you have to identify alternative funding mechanisms to help mitigate uh infrastructure need. But we we can't then take any uh policy decision that creates maybe a deficit and then put that on future development activity. That's not justified in the statute. So it doesn't that doesn't result in an increased fee in the future. It just means you may have more deficiencies in your system that you have to mitigate with utility revenues or general fund dollars till it doesn't go on the backs of new development.

These system improvements are going to come.

Yeah. And I'll give you a typical example of how we spend our impact fees for uh sewer, for water, for roads. Um we'll have a developer come in and propose a development and we'll say our minimum size of a water line is an 8 inch line that you have to put in to serve the development you're going to do. but we want you to put in a 12inch line because we need to feed more water through there to serve the rest of our system. So, we pay that developer out of impact fees the cost to make that line bigger. Great.

We do the same. We do similar stuff with sewer all the time. Uh we currently have uh some very expensive uh impact fee eligible projects for sewer on the west end of town where all the industrial developments going in. Our sewer system doesn't just follow the boundaries of Cedar City. It goes out into the county and back into the city. So when we upsize those lines that have to run through the county, we work with Iron County to figure out how we split that up and we pay that developer to put a bigger line in.

We've spent impact fees in the last few years looking for water. Um that's been expensive. So these impact fee projects, they're going to be here. If we don't impose the impact fees, as Fred alluded to, you can stretch your general fund dollars only so far. You can stretch your utility uh receipts only so far. Uh on that list, the general fund would go to fire, police, parks, and wrecks. The other items on that list list have utilities that cover them. Transportation's kind of screwy because it's normally C road funds that help cover that, but those dollars only go so far.

So Paul, I made a I made a suggest suggestion. I hope I'm not out of line to Paul Cousins. Paul was telling me that we have a and this is picking on the sheriff's department as for this particular example that how far the sheriff's department is getting stretched by us putting more and more and more subdivisions farther and farther and farther out of town. And you know he says our sheriff's department needs more deputies because we're their area is just they're getting spread thinner and thinner. So I suggested I said why don't we basically draw circles and I and I use the example for the city we have you know a mile 5 miles 10 miles 20 miles so we have places again I'm not picking on any place but subdivisions out in West View um and and that are lo that are in the city next to the county and then in the city next to the county and we're sending our law enforcement out there farther but law enforceers is just an a metaphor for the water and the sewer and the and the roads and and everything else that's going out there. Is there a way that we could draw a circle and then another saying, "Hey, if you're within this boundary, it's X with this Y and with that Z." I think I did my ABCs right?

So, we can't we we don't really have any say on how the county chooses to develop. And some time ago, Iron County chose to allow denser development. And that's the road they've been going down for years. And they've incorporated their municipal service tax, which was supposed to be paid by people that live outside the cities to offset the cost of municipal services that they need to provide to those people. I don't know if your concentric growth circles would solve the county's problem.

That's the word I was looking. Well, I'm talking about even for the city because we're spreading ourselves farther and farther, but we have to go over county property to get to city property like 4B Ranch as an example. Sure. That's not an unheard of way to do growth. I don't know uh how you would do that now that we have growth going everywhere. how you reign them back in. Um, and I don't know how it plays into impact fees, right?

I just know that we're we're getting farther and farther out out of our center. And I recognize as we grow, we're going to get farther and farther out of our center. I I think that needs to be some place in the conversation to figure out, you know, because the developers go out to the 4B area because the land's cheaper than buying it up in maybe up in Fiddlers or out there in South Mountain. It's because of the it's farther away. So, hey, I can get the property cheaper. But sometimes I feel that we maybe we're passing those costs on to everybody else because the developers getting the property cheaper out there. He's asking a higher impact further away.

You could set different uh impact fee areas. You could set different impact fee areas where impact fees could be charged and they could be spent. I don't know what the analysis would look like to necessarily say that those further out would be a higher impact fee. Cedar City has traditionally not limited where we can spend our impact fees in that manner. If you set those districts up, you can only spend what was generated in that district in that district. Uh we've we've chosen not to do that. We've chosen to keep it flexible so we can respond to where we need to use them to make our operations work.

And I agree with you that that's important. That's very these are just questions that I that I have a question Paul ask those questions. So we have a master plan and I'm new to the city. Is there a master plan budget that kind of goes handinhand with the master plan? Sure. Yeah. So each of those master plans that we do for our utility uh utilities we provide has a list of projects and at the bottom of it says here's how much it's going to cost you and the dollars of when we did and is is there anyone that changes that budget master plan when we change the master plan.

So when you say a budget for them it's not a budget. It just shows you the cost right? There's no money budgeted towards that costics for storm water. Our 2022 plan said here's $90 million of stuff you got to do to implement our plan. And that was four years ago. So I'm assuming that 90 is probably different now. Okay.

But we budget them as we go. We budget them as we can afford them. Um, we budgeted them as we see growth happen and we tried to keep up with that growth area. All of our master plans do have that analysis in them and they all change every seven to 10 years when we redo them.

And Paul, I don't want to pick on you, but go ahead. I know that that these numbers are going to turn our housing other than the the high-end earners, you know, that are, you know, building their McMansions. Uh, it's going to turn, if I just look at these numbers. I mean, the other one has turned our housing upside on its head. The adding these and it's I get it's not staff's problem. I'm just saying that this the economics of the real estate, it's going to turn our housing market on its head when it comes to affordability of of people get try to get started, be it a twin home or be it a u a single family home. And and and Paul, I I don't know what to do. I definitely do. I I'd hate to be in your seat because you're dealing with things that I can't even imagine that you have to think about.

So if you don't one theory uh is these projects are going to get built. Yeah. If you don't have growth pay for a cost of growth, then your general fund pays for it and your rateayers pay for it on the we're on the if we don't. So

well and another relative to that is we will often get uh comments relative to affordability which is definitely a concern. And it's a statewide concern relative to housing, housing shortages, cost of housing and affordability. And there are mechanisms to help with that as entities look um to adopt strategies that help with moderate income housing and affordability. As Paul is discussing, um impact fees are a mechanism to recoup uh the cost of infrastructure system improvements as a result of new growth and uh future development. If you were to eliminate those fees, um the counter question, I guess, is would the value or price of homes decrease?

Could you say that last part again? I I I'm hardly hearing if you didn't do impact fees, the cost of a home come down.

I don't think so, but the cost of a home inversely may not go up. They and I and I I can't remember the exact number and I think I'm correct. They said you eliminate for every thousand dollars a home goes up, you eliminate a certain percentage of the people that are been able to qualify for a home. Now, I know there's different arguments that, hey, if you if you give a discount, the developers are just going to get richer. Well, you know, and a friend of mine told me tonight, he said, "If the market's in a hyperinflated market, yeah, they're probably right. If the market is a balanced market, probably no. They'll probably pass those costs on because it will figure out a a balancing point." I'm just afraid and and I I understand cost or cost or cost, but what do we tell the person and and this isn't a a a you problem. This isn't us problem. This is a society problem. What do we tell the guy that, you know, him and his wife just graduated from school and they're trying to buy a home? They said, "Well, yeah, your cost just went up 10,000 bucks or 12,000 bucks and sorry,

you're Yeah, I just don't know how to how to deal with these. Yeah. And I I think the what I was just trying to highlight with that question or um comment on on the price of a home

is as we look at affordability uh I think legislators and and uh city council's decision makers have challenges relative to detering determining affordability and what tools are available as we look at impact fees. I guess we need to determine if we push or pull this lever, does it address that issue of affordability or does it have to do more with market factors and uh um appreciation or depreciation of property? And um again, if you if you opt to make a a reduction or adopt a reduction in fees, does it achieve the objective of affordability? Um, in in my experience, there's not as a direct connection between those two variables of impact fees and the price of a home. It's more the latter part you described, which is market conditions. Um, and to that end, I'll point out that um there are mechanisms to help with that uh to look at in uh in your moderate income housing strategies, you can reduce or wave impact fees for affordable housing initiatives. um and you can make adjustments on a case-by case basis. So, uh those might be better tools to to promote uh affordability rather than uh wholesale reduction and impact fees for example. Um so those are just things to think about as as we talk about impact fees and their impact on on affordability.

Absolutely everything contributes to affordability. Um I I I have a concern um with one of these slides and uh it was a concern I had years ago when impact fees were u bumped up 127% I believe that's that's right and I uh I was very active uh building homes then and I was vehemently opposed to it and the one thing that just drives me nuts is when I say see something that says well St. George does it well Washington County does it and this is what they're doing and this is what they're doing. Is that why we're basing this or is there a real need? And I I think we need to scratch our heads over that always. And I'm not questioning your figures because I don't know enough about it to question them. But I think when we get into analytics, sometimes we just start comparing what other cities do and say, "Well, they're doing it, so therefore we have to do it." Instead of just really determining what our affordability is and what we need here in Cedar City to to maintain our infrastructure. So I I get a little frustrated when I see this, especially extreme increases like this. Um, everything contributes to affordability. Um, this will drive affordability. This will drive home prices up. I don't think there's any question about it. Do we have to do it? I think we need to examine absolutely every other avenue before we increase any kind of impact fees, which is essentially a tax.

Um, yeah. So, speaking to that, uh, we I I agree with you on comparisons. It's it's not an applesto apples comparison when you look at what other communities charge. We we simply provide that for an economic comparison, but none of the analysis considers any fee comparison when determining the actual fee calculation. So everything that we include relative to Cedar City's impact fee calculation is based on your level of service and your infrastructure needs. So you can have confidence there that yeah, those are purely comparative only economic comparisons. It's just when we get to city council meetings often that is a request to say well what are our neighbors charging and they like to see to see that. So that addressed that first element is it doesn't influence the analysis whatsoever uh relative to what others are charging and then um yes I yeah uh cost is cost and so um as costs go up for cities then that cost goes up for the development community and those costs have to be borne somewhere in some way. Um, again, the market drives uh prices and so it can affect um supply and demand variables. All of all of those factors are definitely influenced by impact fees, which is really outside the scope of this. Um uh then this the third item that this being a tax is that may be a matter of perspective but impact fees are an element uh fee mechanism that are allowed by statute as long as we comply with the statutory requirements relative to the IFFP and IFA and all the noticing which the city has done. Um and the intent is for this to be a proportional allocation of cost of system improvements.

Yeah. a lot doesn't make it right. Let's do this real quick. I I know Carter had some things to suggest or to talk about. So, let's let's open the public hearing so we can get a little more input. Um,

perfect. Carter Wilkey, I just have a couple of Well, I have one comment then a couple questions. So, to your comment, Mr. Hits, as far as the budget, so the way that it works is whenever we are coming up on an impact fee study that we need to do, we do all the master plans for those different categories right before it. that master plan says this is how much all those projects are going to cost and then that is the number that the impact fee is based off of. So between so the last two or three years they've done all the master plan updates that sets says these projects need to be should be completed here's the cost for all those and then that's the number that these that this study uses to push to bring those forward is that correct Fred is that I appreciate that. So then when we change a zoning, you know, request.

Yeah. The master plans are all based off the current general master plan. So nothing happens when those are changed until until the whole master plan until until uh Yeah. So if we were to make a master plan change today, it would be on the next round of sewer master plan or transportation master plan or fire master plan when that change would get picked up. So what would happen if you did it in real time? I don't think I don't think you'd be able to keep up. You'd be doing this every week. So I mean that's you know you ever heard of AI?

Well so that's so that's part of the reason why that's part of the reason why going against the master plan is a difficult thing because our impact fees and all of our master plans whether it be water, streets, fire, everything's based off the current master plan. And so when you make big changes to the master plan, you can start to skew those numbers. So I think I understand.

So my other question was, and this could be to Fred, it might be to Kent or or to Dawn. So tell me, because every different or uh group has different definitions. So what changes us here from single family to multifamily? So let's say I'm building a single home. That's single family. What if I'm building a twin home? Which one do I fall under, Fred? Do I fall under single family or multif family? Yeah, typically what we evaluate um uh is uh single family detached or attached versus uh um more than more than that as multifamily.

So what if I have four town homes? I mean by lending laws, by real estate laws, that's all considered a single family home. A forplex is four and below. So, if I build a forplex as four separate units, four separate meters, is that four separate single families or is that one multifamily? Yeah, I'd have to review that with building. I believe that would be four separate uh single family units. Okay. So, then if I build a fiveplex or a sixplex, am I charged this for each one of those five? Let's say I build a sixplex, six apartments, one owner, one tax ID number, six different units. Am I charged this time six or am I charged this times one?

Times six is per the number of units. So it's per the number of doors. That is correct. So if I build a 20 unit apartment building, it's this times 20. Correct.

Okay. My other question, and this is to you, Fred, who knows a lot more about this than I do. Has there ever been a way of going back to single family? Mostly multif family I'm not as concerned about because all multif family are pretty much the same size but I do struggle a little bit if I go and build and there are standalone homes now that we build that are 900 1,000 square feet if I build an 1100 square foot home one bath maybe two versus I build an 8,000 square foot home that has five bathrooms I struggle with is there a way Fred have have other municipalities ever looked at on the single family side either basing it off square footage, number of bathrooms, number of possible residents, or is it all do most just always do one house is one house?

Yeah. Uh most will do one house with one house. Um it it becomes a matter of uh isolating demand data to that level of

detail. Um, so I can speak to Cedar City that that can be challenging to parse out the data on a systemwide basis using that information and isolating the demand variables to that. So impact fees do use to some degree a law of averages. But again, there is uh um within the ordinance a way to look at development on a case-byase basis. So if we say, hey, this is maybe something that's creating more or less demand than a typical or average single family home, then we can evaluate that.

Okay, that was just my one thought there because, you know, I mean, at the end of the day, a house that has two bedrooms or three bedrooms, you know, we know that a house that has five or six bedrooms and will potentially have five or six people or more, they're going to use more storm water. They're going to use put off more waste water. They're going to, well, not waste water, but they're going to use more. They're going to flush more toilets. They're going to turn on more taps. They're going to use those things in a different uh ratio. So, I was just curious about that. So, okay. I think that's my only question. Fred, may I ask a question? Your microphone's off, Tom. Oh,

Fred, may I ask a question? So, looking at just looking at storm drain, I and I made that discussion a few minutes ago. Why is a home 393 but a and we'll say the home's a th00and square feet and we'll say a warehouse is 1,000 square feet. Why is the the home 393 but the warehouse in the industrial is 1354 and then why is this institutional 39 378?

Because it has to do with uh the assumed runoff coefficients. You're going to have more impervious area likely in non residential development than residential development even though the building square footage is going to be the same. I get it. No, I I get it. But I don't

if I could jump in on that. your your commercial and industrial uses need to have a lot of impervious surface for parking, for vehicle circulation, for those kinds of things that a home for instance would not have, right? A home has its driveway, then that's it. You don't have the the same kind of demand there that you would have on the uh commercial or industrial uses. The institutional frequently has much larger landscaped areas than what a commercial or industrial would have. You know, would you think schools for instance, right? You have much larger landscaped areas for that. So, so it all comes in on that on that runoff coefficient as Fred mentioned. You know, the your different land use types uh behave much differently from each other in terms of the storm water generated from those sites. I mean, I can show you sto I can show you storage units. They have very little asphalt or are our our shops, 111,200 square foot shops. It's dirt dirt and then a driveway. And and then as uh as Fred mentioned it, the this analysis has to has to really because there's not another way to do it, consider some of these averages, right? And when you have a project that is significantly different from an average project, then there is that opportunity to take a look at at the individual project. So we do have a a recourse to speak to our city engineer to hey come is this is really fair look at

um so we have something built into the ordinance on how to deal with those and that's what we would follow. Okay. All right. Thank you. That helps.

I like one of the things that Mr. Bitman said too, either growth pays for growth or somebody else pays for growth. And the school district, since I'm a part of that, is bumping up against the exact same thing where we want school quality, classroom size, um all those things uh that we've enjoyed as a rural community, but we want all the conveniences of a city. And when we see 702 area codes and things like that call, we're like, okay, they wanted to move here because it's rural and get away from the very thing they're demanding that we produce for them. So, they want all the conveniences of the city, the ruralness of the country, and somebody's got to pay. And the school district is bumping up against the inability to to pass bonds, to pass truth and taxation things and things like that. And eventually, I agree with Mr. Bitman is just like rubber bands as tight as it can get.

So I don't know that that addresses this but it seems to me to be a metaphor for the same type of thing is that we're experiencing this growth and we want affordability but affordability comes with a cost too. I don't know the answer. This is my thoughts. Any other comments from the public since public gallery? Yeah.

City, anything from Don, your planner? What's the answer? There's no easy answer. There's there's really not. Um, the money has to come from somewhere. I don't do I know if these numbers are perfect or at what they should be. I don't. That's why we have Randall's a lawyer. He has all the answers.

Well, I can give you the legal answer. We We're meeting the requirements. Um, and it comes back to the same thing. If you look at our master plans, if you disagree with something that's in there that doesn't need to exist, then great. Go back and tell us what to remove because we don't need this water tank or that pump or that street. um because that's the only way you're going to affect these numbers is to remove things from the system that our council with your advice as they came through said we need these things. Um once that is in and it is in now you're going back to what's been said repeatedly who pays for it because somebody is um the city will always subsidize a little bit right you come in with a specific industrial use that's slightly lower. We're going to adjust those impact fees for that specific development. Well, that's now a difference the city is going to subsidize.

Do you want the current taxpayers to subsidize half or more than half of the costs of these systems? Because if we don't change our impact fees, that's what's going to happen. Those of us that are already here will be dramatically subsidizing, as we already are right now, people who are moving in. Well, I'm going to start selling property out in Baker, Nevada by Leman's Cave because it's cheap out there.

I have a question. It's probably a stupid question, but is there a way to uh on a single family to base it on instead of a flat fee on on some of these items, base it on square footage of the home? Would that would that actually be a fair way to do it than a because as Carter says, some some homes are a thousand square feet, some are 10,000 square feet.

We we would have to evaluate the demand variable and go back into our analysis to determine that because for example, we're assuming that um a larger square footage home would re would result in increased demand, but that may not be the case. You could actually have a larger home that has less demand on a system. Take parks and recreation and my personal experience. I lived in an eight00 foot house and we use the park facilities all the time. I'm in now a 3600 foot house and we don't use the park facilities as much anymore. So it it would depend on the service and we'd have to actually analyze the system based on those new demand variables rather than the average that's in here. So, let me ask you one other question. Um, there seems to be somewhat of a movement for tiny homes um in our in our society. I'm going to let's say I'm going to build a a 700 foot one-bedroom tiny home. Well, am I still going to be paying uh $20,891 for a 700 foot tiny home?

I think that would fall under the case by case review. I'm having a hard time. Case by review. Case by case. How do we who does that case byase review? That would be you presenting it to the engineering department. So you as the developer would come in at least this is how it's been done is that they would come in and show the impact will be less in some in one of these categories and therefore once we see that your information seems correct we will reduce the impact. So this applies to all of the items well probably excluding police and fire because there could be kind of hard to quantify.

Yeah. So the Yeah. Exactly. So these are the what you're seeing here and what the council will be considering are the default amounts the where it starts from. If you can show you are substantially different because of the size of your units, for example, then yeah, you could potentially justify a lower fee for your specific house or development. Okay.

You ready for that, Kent? 400 people a month coming to visit you. Well, they're going to visit me anyway, so that's okay. Um, one thing I guess I would just uh comment on, you know, procedurally here is this will be considered by city council, right? And so, you know, if you I think it would be wise for you to make whatever recommendation you want to make to city council for their consideration. um coming out of this. It's not ne necessary, but it I think it it's certainly making a matter of record what this body thinks. If you if you feel like you um are of enough like if you're like-minded enough to be able to put together some kind of a recommendation, I think that would make sense. Let city council know what you think on this. I just uh you know, because it is going to be going to city council and they can either have your thoughts or not have your thoughts. There is no way I can sit here in the last 20 minutes with all of these figures and decide whether and no have any idea if it's justified or not. I have absolutely no idea. Uh I'm not sure any of us do. And and if I have no idea, I've got to say no way.

Yeah. Well, and if I could comment if I could comment to that. Um, I think these numbers are all justified because there's there's a state law, a state statute there that that governs this and the analysis has been done and can in um compliance with those requirements. And so there the the the analysis is there, the backup is there to support all of these numbers. that but then it becomes a policy question as to whether the the entire amount is charged or whether some of these should have some haircut on them. Right.

And that's where I say that that's something that uh this this body, you know, as a policy recommendation to city council could could certainly make a recommendation.

Yeah. That said, I I honor your opinion and you know a lot more about it than I do and I what what I know of you. I'm extremely impressed, but I I don't know. And so I'm not going to say, "Yeah, let's charge this if I don't know." Because I I I've taken your word for it, and I trust you, but uh there's no way in the world I can vote for something like this if I don't know all of the details. And I I there's no way to figure out those details in 20 minutes. So, and even if I had a lot of time, this is out of my element. So, uh I I've just got to say that just seems ridiculous to me to have these kind of fees go up like this. So, that's my take on it without knowing uh as a as a semi-retired contractor. I just uh I has the home builders association been notified or have they have they offered any input? the realators, the home builders,

what's been the input there or or has there been any the feedback? Thank you very much for letting us know. I'm sorry. Thank you very much. I heard they were all very polite and said thanks for letting us know. Okay. But they've they haven't come up with a policy position or anything else. Okay. But the the feedback you've given tonight is valuable in its own right to say at first blush it looks high. It looks too high to me. I mean that's good feedback that the council can use that. That's that's helpful. Um

it just scares it just scares the wits out of me. Yeah. I I and I everybody comes up here that's been in the business for a long time say well back in the olden days and I don't want to be that guy but man this is just so much higher than it is it was in the past. So I don't I just can't see the the justification and I'm not saying that it's not justified. I'm saying I don't know and if I don't know I I can't vote for it.

You know what makes it harder for me is there's nobody nobody to blame. There's no there's there's no one to say it's your fault. you know that that that's the hardest part about this is it's the you know and as we've all discussed it we're kind of damned if we do damned if we don't. I I appreciate you you having that perspective but I I I just kind of see it a little different. This isn't a you guys aren't going to vote to impose the impact fee tonight.

No, I get it. The most the most feedback you can give the council is probably something you've already given them by saying, "Gee whiz, that number looks way too high." That would be my stand.

And I think that that's probably valuable feedback for the city council to get uh whether they get it from the planning commission or they get it from the development community or the real estate community or the schools or anybody else. Um that's probably good valuable feedback. And if you look at it as an item by item like I was just trying to do some we see the 143% increase for single family in the total but they range from 33% increase to 200 plus increase 340 actually for police but the one that speaks out to me the most is just the 204% parks and recreation increase. And that just seems like the of all these things on here, the one we have the most control over spending. And so like I would hope that if this is the future we're looking into, then that would cause us to change um some of the things we're we're promising because obviously in the world of affordability being the kind of paramount problem in housing, um adding 21 grand to every house just seems like a real tough barrier. Yeah. Um, to your Carter Wilkkey, to your point, Mr. Decker, you know, as a member of the city council, hearing your guys' opinions of course is something that I personally, and I I'm sure all my colleagues do as well. We do take that very seriously and and it's something that is weighted heavily. Um, having this discussion tonight and having those in the minutes, I think, will be crucial. Whether or not your actual recommendation comes tonight versus your recommendation comes the day before. and it gets passed to us via our legal counsel and our staff or we it's written down on a piece of paper in the minutes, I don't think makes that big of a difference. So, I'm only speaking for myself, but I guess what I'm trying to get at here is if you don't feel comfortable making a recommendation tonight, there could still be a

recommendation made on the third before we talk about it on the fourth. It just won't be written down in the minutes, but the recommendation will obviously still be passed to us either way. Does anyone read the minutes? Yeah, we read the minutes. They're included in all of our packets and so we read through and hear about the conversations. Personally, and that's part of the reason why I'm here. Me, I'm here. They're not minutes. Don't take this the wrong way. Minutes are never as good as being in the meeting personally. Obviously, every single word cannot be written down. And so, either the recording or being in person is definitely more helpful. And on these big items, I I think that we do either watch or try to be here to really hear what actually happened and get a better idea. But so there's that too is the recommendation. That's why I voted for you.

Oh, thank you. The recommendation could come. Okay. Technically the day before and but it would be good and and I think Mr. Burgess makes a good point. You know, I'll be honest. I think what he just brought up is look at them maybe in different ways. Some of them seem like high percentages, but when you look at the total dollar amount, you know, 300% of $200 is not as big as 300% of $2,000, right? And so you look at the total dollar amount for some of those, the percentages are bigger, but the uh the actual dollar amount might not be as large of a thing. And some of those things are more needs and some of those things, as was mentioned, parks and wreck, might fall under the want category. And so we need to weigh that also when we look at those things. So thank you.

Thank you. Let's do this before we close the public hearing. We do have the benefit of having the mayor here. Do you have any thoughts that you would like to share on this matter? Mayor Nelson. I can't be the only one.

Well, I don't get a vote. So, I um yeah, I the same as Carter. I wanted to come and just hear discussion because I think it's valuable to to get every perspective we can possibly get as we're trying to make decisions that are uh going to affect a lot of people. Um I think one of the ones I've personally been wrestling with and as we're starting into our our budget discussions is the comment that that Paul made is is really hard. like we we haven't done a tax increase on the normal citizen, right, in over 30 years. So, everybody that's been here, lived here, um we haven't increased taxes on them, but we're subsidizing new growth. Um because if these are the projects we need, they still get paid for. And on I can show you from last little while, we spent a lot of money out of the general fund for water, right? And that's just the most recent example, but it happens over and over and over again when we expanded the sewer plant. Did all that come from impact fees last time we did the sewer plant expansion? I'm going to guess no.

Some but we we often when I when I've looked through some of the projects we do, you get some from here, you get some from here, you get some from there. It doesn't all come from new growth. So that that's a hard thing that I do wrestle with and how to balance that and is and if if all the general public understand that or okay with that. But then they also complain about how we don't have enough parks and we don't have maintain um the we got weeds growing and there's there's things that we also hear as negatives that we don't have general fund money to go take care of those things because we are subsidizing the projects that we need to do for for growth. So, it's a hard balance that I also don't know the answer to, but but I I do I do struggle with that idea that uh that we are subsidizing it from the general taxpayer or we need to make it really public that by doing this we're when we have to go out for a tax increase that everybody's okay to pay the tax increase knowing that we're subsidizing new growth with it. Um so, it's it's a tough issue. Um I couple of thoughts that I had tonight just listening was on like the affordability piece. Um Tom's idea about the square footage maybe is something we really should look at of how do we incentivize what we need with reductions in things but leave the the actual numbers for impact fees may be higher. Then we come through with how do we reduce or or incentivize if you develop closer to town because that's less impact on our systems then we'll give you a reduction. If you if you develop these smaller homes on smaller lots then we give you a reduction on impact fees. So it helps bring in line what we want in the development community um with a carrot or an incentive. Um so had some good thoughts listening to you tonight and thank you for your service and taking it serious and the way you're evaluating it. Thanks, Mayor.

Thank you, Mayor.

So, I'd just like to say I know Paul's office, the engineering office, Don's office, um, and and many others, you know, they've spent hundreds and hundreds of man hours, you know, working with the, uh, this the I I guess he's he speaks like an engineer, the the one that's doing our our study. Um, and you know, I I I just don't want you to think that we're discounting your time by our frustration because our frustration is just a reflection of everybody else's frustration. And they don't they don't it's like being in a traffic jam. You just go, who do you blame? Because you're part of that same traffic jam. You know, the people that are complaining. And so it this is hard. This is this is a very very sensitive issue and it's going to affect I don't care if we raise it a thousand or we raise it 10,000. It's going to affect a lot of lives and and I just hope we we can approach this and it'll affect a lot of lives if we don't do it. It'll affect a lot of lives if we do do it.

Yeah. Well, let's do this. Part of what we wanted to do was flesh it out. Um, we've closed the public hearing. Did you Did you can But come up and come and give us your two cents real quick. We'll open it. You got 33 seconds. Okay. Go ahead. Okay. Really quick. Um, I just want to pull the microphone down just a little bit and give us your name again.

Okay. Cindy Leoon. And I just want to thank you guys for serving because it is a thankless job and you guys are faced with a lot of decisions all the time that are always tough decisions. You know there's you can please some of the people some of the time and you know that how that goes. So I want to thank you for serving first of all and second of all I do agree with mayor with the mayor that we can't keep kicking this down the road. These fees seem really high right now, but is that because we've because previous boards have kicked the can down the road and not wanted to um raise taxes or um spend money or ask for, you know, higher fees. And now it's we've with the growth that we've experienced, now we can't keep kicking the can down the road. We have to address the issues that are before us now. So that's all I wanted to say.

Thank you, Cindy. I think that's well said. Can I get one sentence on the uh the minutes that the proposed new parks amount is higher than the current water? And you look at the the culinary water right now is a concern most members of the community have. And we're going to be paying more on this new proposed impact fees per home than we're currently even paying for culinary water. And like to me that just seems I I want to see now the plans for like the parks because that is so much. Thank you, Mr. Burgess. Okay, with that in mind, uh back to the commission. Does anybody want to make a recommendation for anything?

I can't support it. I did my part. Do you want to make a recommendation that way? I I think we flushed it out sort of how we wanted to. So, it goes to the city not without some comment and I'm happy to entertain that. Any any motion? I'm not quite sure how to phrase that, but I'm just I I can't support these extreme numbers um with the knowledge that I have. So, I I'm not quite sure how to how to propose that, but I I guess I would move that uh um a negative recommendation on increasing the impact fees uh to this extent uh on item number five. We have a motion. Anybody uh second that motion?

Second. We have a motion to second. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Motion is to uh well the vote is to vote it down. Thank you. All right, the last item. How what what do we got to do on this, Don? I think we're getting into a late hour and I see Go ahead, Kent. I just wanted to to thank Fred before he jumps off the call here. Thanks, Fred, for taking your time with us tonight. Well, thank you, Don. The last item. Can we push it or do Oh, there's probably a little pressure to get it done. I can see. Is this the stuff that I brought? Is this the building material one? Yes.

Do we push it? That's the chair's pleasure. Sure. Well, how what's the urgency though? I don't want to push something that's urgent. Well, I I think there's a little little desire there from at least a certain developer to get this done. Um, it's it's very similar to what you'd seen in the past. So, I can be super brief if you want to get this. Let's go with super brief and get it done.

So, I won't do my half hour PowerPoint presentation tonight. But, uh, so, as you know, this has been around the block a couple times. This is our required building materials on 200 North and Main Street for all buildings within 150 ft that have frontage on those streets. uh we change this from preferred uh materials and discouraged materials to what's permitted and what's not when we try to loosen things up so we can entertain modern materials. So I'm going to go quick for permitted materials. We still have cried stone, cultured stone, brick, uh lap sighting, architectural concrete or stuckle. We changed that to no more than 60% of the aluminum composite materials which we're seeing a lot of. We see them on the college lots of new buildings so long as they're non- metallic nor highly reflective. And then one thing we've done in past practice is other materials that emulate the permitted material. So if some if we get a new one that comes out next week and somebody wants to use it and it looks like something that is permitted, we want the flexibility to be able to do that. Uh we we changed things from accent materials. We took away subjective language like Stuckco, limited amounts of Stuckco used for vertical surfaces only if the quality of the design merits. That is tough for staff. We are playing judge, jury, and executioner. So, we've gotten rid of that that type of language. So, materials at no more than 25% of a building facade includes glass, wood, metal walls, which is all one of the concerns is the kind of the prefabbed industrial stuff. that can be a good piece of or it could be a good part of a a building's frontage so long as it's limited, right? Uh colored architectural block tile and then again this clause about other materials that emulate these materials. Uh lastly, we have prohibited

materials. Uh your plain gray CMU block, vinyl siding, plywood, mirrored glass, the real highly reflective stuff you might see in a bigger city. probably the biggest changes that you uh are proposed from the last time you saw this. We took this to the downtown economic committee. I forget the the total full name there. Historic committee and we had some restrictions there that would just be between along Main Street between 200 north and then 200 south. So the the strike zone so to speak tightens a little bit right in you know what I would describe the historical core of the city. Uh and those materials are are uh include, forgive me here, cage stone, cultured stone, architectural concrete, full brick um and then the other materials and no more than 25%. So they wanted that taken down to more of a historical, you know, historical building materials. The other thing they asked for were colors. Um they didn't want to see the real bright fluorescent colors. So if you look at subsection B1,

is this is this in the downtown zone? This would just be the downtown. Okay. It would just again between 200 north and 200 south.

Uh so we came up with some language. We we think we can enforce fairly uh fairly earth tone colors, a prohibit prohibition against your really bright fluorescents um and highly reflective metallic type materials. Again, those can be subjective. So if you look at the ne next subsection that's C we tried to give staff some guidance how we would evaluate these things. Um and then lastly subsection the last section D uh we thought it was important that uh we can certainly maintain nonconformity. So if you're rehabbing your building you're want to put up the same material staff's not going to tell you I'm sorry you have to change your materials. There's going to be materials, let's say, in the historic area that we we don't know, maybe a historic if they're if they dig them up underneath some stuckle or something along those lines, we want those to be able to be placed back as they originally were. That's as fast as I can go. Uh I think the biggest hangup, I shouldn't say hang up, but part of the discussion at the last meeting was the return or the wrap. How much of each side of the building?

And I thought five feet was enough. Yeah. And and I went through the material. I mean, I'm sorry. I went through the minutes. There's a lot of discussion. I landed at 8 ft. There was discussion about, you know, your your typical lengths of construction materials. So, we stopped at 8 ft. The one thing I did add was if you are on a corner side, let's say downtown on Main Street, you would still need to finish that corner side. We wouldn't end that'd be your visible side on the street. You wouldn't have a 8 foot stop and then a big giant wall of stuckco. So say that for me again for an old badeared guy. So the materials apply to the to the elevation facing the streets.

Okay. The streets or the street the the streets i.e. main street and 200 north. Okay. So even if you were to reverse your building the materials would be applicable to the side the elevation that is facing the street. And then there was a lot of discussion about how far on each side of the building should those materials apply. Previously the ordinance indicated 30 ft. Uh if I understood the direction from the last meeting, we wanted that the commission wanted that significantly reduced. So that's now been changed to 8 ft. Okay.

With one exception. And if you're on a corner, then we want to see those materials apply to at least that corner side, the visible side of the building. The corner staff staff suggestion. I'm going to build a building on on 100 west and 200 north. So the side would be the 100 west. That side also if that's the corner, the corner side that would so it would have faced 100. Yes. Okay, that's correct. I think that's reasonable. So that concludes my report. Happy to answer your questions. Sounds great. Sounds great. Say that one.

You can see in that it addressed a lot of the things we talked about. So yeah, I think we were pretty close. No, I I seriously I I didn't just say that facitiously. I think it sounds No, I I agree. Well, we have been through it a couple times with some uh slide examples and picture examples. So, uh would anybody like to make a motion? You have to have a public hearing. Oh, yes. This is a public hearing. Thank you very much, Mr. Wilky. Uh open the public hearing and close the public hearing. Did anybody want to get No.

Okay. Did anybody want to say anything? So, since I'm the one who initiated this conversation to begin with, I'll make a motion that we approve the change in building materials along Main Street 200 North with the changes that Don just presented. Second. We have a motion and a second. All in favor? I thank you. Thank you, Don. You could put me last on these meetings all the time. That way, you could pass. And with that word