Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

[clears throat] All right, folks. The hour has arrived. It's 5:15 and a half. So, we'll go ahead and get started. Faith, would you mind leading us in the pledge of allegiance? You look particularly patriotic today. 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. [clears throat] And thank you everybody for coming. Where else would you want to be on a night like tonight, right? Um

game time is 6:30. That's the answer to the question right there. Prior commitment. I love it. Um, all right. Uh, item number one is approval of the minutes dated October 28th. Anybody care to make a motion on that? I'll make a motion that we approve the minutes dated the 28th of 1925. 2025. I'll second it. Motion in a second. All in favor? Hi. Hi. Thank you. Great. Hey, Jet. Can you turn your microphone on, please? Thank you. Thank you. I make one point.

We have some people that have some prior obligations earlier into the evening. So, anything I have on the agenda, can we postpone to future agendas? And um and then if we can move anything that we can move off into a future one would be great. So these people are at because they can't reschedu some of these. Yeah, I think that I think that's probably okay. Okay. Who needs to leave early? Well, it doesn't count going to county. They need to be out of here before 6:30. 6:30 or 6:20? Uh 5:40. No, you're kidding. I like I like that answer better.

6:20. Yeah, I think we can arrange for that. Okay, before we start with the uh second item, is there anything from the city that in terms of the agenda that I know there was some just a reminder chairs uh we had issues with our public hearing notice. So for those from the public that are here for a certain item, there will be no official recommendation. If folks have something to say, we will certainly let us know. That's that's your Which item is that? So all the public hearings that you see on the agenda were not notified. So we will be doing a

no what the public hearing items did not receive a proper notice. So we will be doing a meeting on the 25th. Absolutely. Yet so we have renoticed everything on every on all public notices or on the public hearings. Yes. On everybody. Yes. Yes. Oh, well that eliminates. So that's why each of you should have received an email letting you know about that, which is why we asked about if you were available next week because that was the only way we could pull it off of getting a public hearing and still getting on a council agendas come December. Otherwise, they're waiting till January. So this is go civil and Francisco and [cough and clears throat] everybody.

Everybody. Yep. Yes, sir. Oh, wow. So again, I think now We send out our letters for today. Oh dear. Well, all it says is to mail it to the last known address. So, all of our So, that was the goal is that any of those personal notices that got sent out, if they're here, they'd have a chance to talk to you today and also be informed that the next meeting would be next week to cover these officially. So, how do we handle this with Mr. Robert since he did send them out and he got some or is it we didn't send out public the hearing? We did his job. They did fine. Okay.

As far as I know, right? Everything they did is fine. State statute requires us to publish it on the state website, our own website, and posted at least for all of these one location like the bulletin board. We usually do three. We did the state website. We didn't get it on the cities. We didn't get on the bulletin boards is what I'm informed. So this is our error which is why we're again grateful that you as a board were willing to meet next week give us a quorum so that they don't have to have a delay beyond what would have already happened. So Dan you got that and and the next next Tuesday we can cover yours again. No,

I did. Sorry, I didn't talk to you. I did talk to Rick about it and I talked to um so the applicants all were aware. Okay. Okay. I just Yeah. No, that so you guys won't have anything on, but next next Tuesday we have a special meeting. You will be on Well, you're welcome to stay. I just you know, you said can we get out of here early?

Yeah. So, again, that's the thing. The reason why we did it the way we did is that we could still have this non-public hearing is to notify anybody that comes in that those items will be officially addressed next week. So you would not have to resend notices. So the inconveniences are going to ruin another one of your nights. But because we're resetting it for a date, a known date next week, you do not have to resend notices. So please don't. And I think Amber got commitment enough from the [clears throat] Yes. I don't believe I talked to Mr. Decker, maybe Mr. in person, but I email through email. Yeah, we had four committed. So, we will have a form next week. So, awesome.

Can't be there, you know. So, well, thank thank you. Thank you for doing that. I appreciate that, you know, it gets resolved. I did not realize I and I appreciated that. I appreciated the emails because I didn't know I just didn't connect that it was each of them. So, uh, or I'm sure I didn't read it thoroughly enough. So, so you you can simplify this. Go through each of the items and just see if there's anybody public that wants to comment or even if the applicants are unable to come back next week. There's nothing to prevent them from talking. You just simply can't make a decision. Okay?

They may be better off doing that talking next week if they're coming anyway. So, you don't have to do it twice. But I leave that to the planning commission in the afternoon. [clears throat] All right. Well, then fair enough. We'll go through those uh the public hearings maybe in short order. So item number two, Tyler Meling. Is there anybody here to represent that? Thank you. [snorts]

Uh Tyler Meling with Cottonwood Hollow LLC on this item. Um, in uh several talks with uh Kent Fugal um and other staff, there's a been a lot of concerns over the timing of sidewalk installation with residential development. Um and so we we uh we had told uh Kent that, you know, we're happy to do some of the lifting on this and and bring it through the process and coordinate. Um when we brought it up to sketch meeting project review last uh was it couple weeks ago um some of the discussion afterward uh had brought up a change in state law that actually preempts a lot of the city's policy on this anyway. So in any case we needed to to amend it and and update it. Really what it comes down to is right now uh residential subdivisions developer installs all sidewalk up front uh throughout the entire project knowing full well that when heavy equipment drives on that you're going to have to rip it up and replace it. Um so you know for us we have a project where sidewalks are prepped ready to be installed. Um, and we were pull fully planning on dumping $110,000 worth of wasted concrete down the drain um to comply. Um, but when uh we found out that this was something that that was already on the radar to be changed, we we figured, well, we'll we'll time our installation accordingly. Um, so we're uh we're just looking to um we gave a few options. The one that you see in front of you is the one that city staff uh had worked on and and recommended um uh especially Mr. Fugal and then and then some tweaks from other staff. Um really what this would do is say that certain um things still have to be done. And so the ADA and um pedestrian strips at all the street corners uh would still have to be done

by the subdivider and everyone in the building industry agrees with that because generally your residential concrete guys that are doing regular sidewalk and driveway may or may not be versed on the ADA uh spec. And so it's it's just cleaner to have that done by the subdivider and be consistent throughout the subdivision. Um as well as uh any of the major uh roads. So, if it's a major collector or higher on its classification with the the roads plan, uh, which I believe is the 66 ft right ofway. Is that correct, Don? I think that's the 66T

the major collector 66T right ofway or wider. Then those would still need to be installed by the subdivider. Um and then the um and then anything that's like part of a master plan trails trail uh would need to be installed by the subdivider. Uh everything else would come in during the building phase um when they're pouring their driveway. So um that uh this the state law change uh which was just within the last couple of months I believe um they reumbered it in the last couple of months so it's hard to track down when exactly it changed was uh is that in in no case can the city require uh other than the sidewalks immediately adjacent to a home this the city can't uh require sidewalks elsewhere be installed within 18 months of posting bond for public improvements. Um again, because a lot of times, especially in a builder developer scenario, you're subdividing and simultaneously building um those homes. Uh so you don't want to prematurely install sidewalk knowing you're about to rip it up. So uh so that's where this is coming from. So this is the language that staff had recommended based on um a few of the options that we had presented and and we're okay with this. um most in the building industry. There there are some homebuilders that don't love this because then that makes the bid go up for the home building side, but generally that also means a lower lot price. So, it's it's it's a trade-off.

So, I'll give you I'll give you my two cents. Anything we can do to not be duplicative, anything we can do to bring down prices, we're doing ourselves, our families, and future generations an opportunity to own a home. I've recently been out shopping with my son looking for a home, and the prices are they're they're silly. [laughter] And so anything we can do to help minimize those costs would be absolutely wonderful.

Yeah. And this is one of those it's it's a hard cost of about 3,000 per per door that we don't have to worry about if if this has changed. And that's the difference between f qualifying and not qualifying for financing. [clears throat] Anyway, and this this is a public hearing, so it would go to the next week as well. So I'll be back. that. Yeah. Thank you. Uh any comments from the city? Yeah. Everything you said is kind of in the lane that you were thinking.

Yeah, Tyler's correct. This this language has been hashed out uh amongst uh staff and Tyler. I I think there's always some concerns, right? Um you know, we may end up with unfinished subdivisions, especially when it's not necessarily a developer builder. uh where you have custom homes, people investing in lots 5, 10 years, 20 years. Um there there's a double-edged sword, but uh certainly we don't want to see materials and money wasted either. So there's there's kind of a balancing act here. So I think it's [clears throat] discussion for sure.

Commission questions for city or Mr. Millie [clears throat] question

if if I it seems to make sense to me. Um since it is a public hearing, let's open the public hearing. Is there anybody else that would like to [snorts] speak to this? If not, we'll close the public hearing and will you be present at our next meeting? So you'll be able to explain that again. All right. So, uh, thank you very much for that. We'll go ahead and close that item and move to the next one. Public hearing. Well, first of all, zone change from uh, annex transition to indust drill and manufacturing one. Uh, is there anybody here to represent that?

Dan, yeah, I'm here. Do you do you want to make any comment on it or you want to you can just save it till next week if you want but I think couple things we've been thinking about on the zone up there I don't know where your zoning map is but uh part of that INM1 part of it INM2 okay heavy mixed with uh if you get to the light uh can you show the general plan yeah the general I was going

okay. All the light purple, okay, is INM1 and the dark is INM2. Uh we're proposing for the Francisco piece to have it all in M1. Okay. instead of mixing it. Uh there's a lot more uh future I think for that area for INM one than INM2 zone and uh to mix it and have it transition like that. I can see then the other complication we got is you've got the master plan road going up along the west side of is it bua? Okay. Uh yeah. That's the road master plan.

Just something to be thinking about between now and when we come back. That's Manavist subdivision right here. Okay. Okay. So, there's the blue line. And when when we looked on the uh there's the there's the that master plan road is actually encroaching according to survey. if the map's right on the county survey, like 20 ft into uh the west end of that subdivision. Remember, master plan stuff is approximate.

I know, [laughter] but I'm but I'm just saying that the blue line is, but when you look at the the dividing uh you know, the actual survey that's overlaid, it's encroaching about 30 ft to the east. subdivided this. So, we need to figure out if that's she went to prison.

Why don't you pull up the county map and I'll show you really quick. So Dan, while they're pulling it up, um, I've been we've been going through trying to change some ordinances and change clear clear some up, give some good definitions, and I've been speaking with Don and Don's been working with with his associates upstairs about uh getting clear definitions of what IM1 is and clear definitions what IM2 is. the uses on that right now. It's quite nebulous in what actually INM2 is more restrictive than INM1.

It is. Okay. When you look at it. So uh right there, see that line?

See how that's bleeding over into those lots on the on the uh east of the road that's planned to go up through there. Okay. See? And so that's a 75 ft corridor road, okay, that's going to come through and the and the city owns that property right there right now. And so we need to find out if you really are encroaching there and if you're going to keep a 75- ft corridor going north. Okay. Uh does it need to be brought back out? And then the last meeting we had with the public, okay, they wanted a large tall fence, you know, obscuring uh the INM, okay, and the regulation says it's 6 feet, okay? And some of those guys wanted a 20ft fence, okay? If you remember, right? So, but anyway, the regulation says that. And then uh the other thing the thought is is that if if we go back to making it all INM uh one okay instead of INM a mixture of two then that could be a commercial zone transition okay away from INM okay something to consider you know that could be applied for uh later so that we could put commercial use in instead of industrial. And uh so when you if you go north on that road, uh this is Francis goes right here. So we're we're just saying let's make all of ours in M1. This piece here and maybe even this piece here, but we'd like to see it all in M1. And uh and so if you get up here, uh go a little bit farther north.

Where's that road going to end up? And I think it's 800 800 North. That road that comes in. Uh there's 800. That's right.

Okay. Yeah. Right there. Okay. uh and the master plan, the road's going to continue on going up north, you know, and so do we if if if the survey here, I don't think you're going to uh if that's just off and the survey is off, but if it needs to be adjusted back, do you see what I'm talking about? Then it's going to encroach uh more onto the uh the owner's property that we have now. And then the other thing to consider is if if that happens, okay, and they want a wall built, okay, the regulation I think says a 6ft wall, Matt, no matter if it's in M1 or two, right?

So, is that right? The regs would not require a wall unless that zone was adjacent or that development was adjacent to a residential zone. Yeah, there would be. So, with the road there, it's not adjacent. Right. Well, but what I'm saying is the road is the cities. Well, I get it, but you're saying that I'm just saying that uh does does the road Okay, uh conflict with the fence, okay, or green space, you know, coming up along that and that's probably something staff will need to look at. That's why I'm saying I just wanted to stir the pot a little bit so you can think about it between

and transportation matters in this case because I know the question that's been brought up on this one is how are you intending to access the property because if I understand it correctly we don't have a crossing for the railroad there yet. Well, I don't know uh when you say crossing uh it goes across. Okay. You can go down there and drive over it. Well, but I meaning like a full-fledged like publicly available commercial crossing. So what? So that's the next question. Uh do you want a master plan road to go up there and are you going to have to have for a master plan road? We'd have to get a bigger cross. Have to have it. Okay. Um and right now you're saying we don't have it. That's my understanding. That's my understanding as well. Okay. And if you don't have it, who's paying for it? Okay.

Developer. And the developer. It it often comes back to the developer unless you're willing to wait for us, but waiting for us might be 50 years. Well, the city will the city will bring it in when the city needs to, but if you need it beforehand, yeah, that'll be But I'm just saying that if if things develop out there, okay, uh and you know, in the property, okay, who's going to apply for it? You're going to have the the developer do that. Is that correct? I I've seen a mix in the past. Probably would be a little bit both of us signing on to that application, but I think we've typically put the burden on the developer more than on us unless the city has the need for it now. Yeah. Um it's like any other infrastructure related item,

but that that's already a dedicated road for the city right from here to there. I'd have to see what's been dedicated, but obviously some just stirring the pot a little bit to think about. Yeah. And that's the same question I was going to ask you is with regards to how you guys intended. If you're if you're changing the zone now, then hopefully that means you're bringing something in. No, we're just we're just simply doing a zone change and and annexing it into the city. I'm just saying these are things if if we put it on the market,

okay, do we want to put it on potential commercial? Okay, would that be something that might be reasonable? Okay. And would it be reasonable not to go with the master plan that says it's half INM2 and half INM1. We're saying that INM1 would be the best solution for the whole piece. So, let me ask a question. Is north of 800. So, at the at the at the north end of this city road that he's referring to. Yeah. [snorts and clears throat] Right there. Yeah. Is that is that master plan? Is there a master plan road that runs? Yes. So, how do we how can we and it runs all the way a long ways?

A long ways. So, rather than putting all the burden on one developer because the railroad crossing is is a whole different beast relative to, you know, paving a road and developing a road. I I I'm support paying for your own road in but in in in most situations. But why would how is that fair to put that entire burden on the potential purchaser of this property sometime in the future for that railroad when everybody north of it will receive the benefit of? It's

what I'm hearing is is that it needs to be a legal crossing. Okay. Right. That's my understanding is it would not be adequate for what's being pushed. So the reasoning, Tom, is exactly the same as it is for every other infrastructure related item. You want to build something that doesn't have adequate roads, water, sewers, storm drain, whatever else to get to it, the city makes you put it in or and I get that or you wait till the city's ready to put it in themselves. So otherwise the city will be spending a lot of extra dollars that we don't have. Yeah. To put in infrastructure that we don't need yet. And I do not disagree with anything. This is similar to that in concept.

But how do we impose some of that cost on property owners to the north of his property? You do reimbursement agreements. So can we can we do that? You'd have to change some things to make that work, but that's what we've done in the past. Okay. because that would be the only fair to my in my mind the only fair thing to spread that cost out over a per square foot basis if that future developer gets to that point they can come in and ask to because our ordinance currently would not cover those northern properties probably yes

some things are helpful you can correct me if I'm wrong on that one we do it really well for water and sewer if you're running along that same linear you know piping doesn't work as well often times for something like this but it can be if a future council is willing to make those modifications or agree to that in an agreement. Well, we should that should be a conversation at some point.

Well, and see right here, this is the piece we're talking about. Okay, this is the SU piece right here. Okay, we're saying this wouldn't be a bad commercial site in the future. Okay, because you got this major corridor coming down into this and you're going to have more residential in here. Okay. Uh, a lot of uses commercially could go in there into an INM zone, INM1 zone like we have all over town. Correct. And I don't think and that's the cool thing is as the question that we'll be dealing with that you'll be deciding on next week to make a recommendation. Yeah.

We have never viewed our general plan as prohibiting less impact zones. So if it has high density residential, we would allow a lower density zone. INM2 is generally considered a higher impact, right? So you can do INM one without having to change the general plan. Um, at least that's the way it's been interpreted since before I ever started working here. That's the fair one. So that'll be an easy one, I think, in that end. My biggest thing is is that nobody's going to be able to build there until you have an access in. Right. That may be a problem for taking What if the access is the green dotted line? You'd have to have enough frontage, but you'd probably you could probably get there.

Okay. So, you would do 3,900 and then go along the north side of Buista. Well, you can see that's master plan road that the neighbors don't want that. That was one of the very things they were I don't blame them. I mean, I But it is a major collector 66 foot wide That's right. road. See, I just hate semi-truckss going up and down 3900. Well, and they could go elsewhere because 3900 isn't fully fully in in that sense. It's great. There's a lot of residential going there and Joel Burg's subdivision. I mean, there's all kinds of things that can be done with the property.

We're just saying that we would prefer to have it all in M1 with the potential to reszone it to commercial in the future. And that'll be up to that future council. Okay. Anyway, you won't get to vote until next week, so I'll shut up. Do we re are we going to republic here next week? Yeah, because Yeah, the publications have already happened for next week. So, [clears throat] that's a done deal. All right, good. Well, this is more just to give you good thoughts and see if any members of the public are here to say, thank you, Dan. Uh, pot well stirred. Nice job. Um, open the public hearing. Does anybody want to make comment on it besides what has been made? If not, we'll close the public hearing and move on to the next one, which is

Hey, John. Yes. I was just wondering can can we really make a decision on this without the new verbiage for these two zones IM1 and two I think you can we have I mean you know the zoning ordinance is what it is today um you know we have some ideas I don't know if we'll have time tonight but kind of throw a couple things at you and see if we can kind of define those uses more appropriately and try to mitigate the potential impact some of those uses may have. But we can get down the list and if we have a few moments I can speak to that.

Utah Utah law just kind of from a legal perspective if we were to try and stop this purely based because we didn't think our ordinance was ready. That's what they refer to as a moratorum and there are some very specific procedures we have to follow for a moratorum to stop on those grounds. Um, I don't know if I've ever seen that in the time that I've been here. Maybe Jonathan has. Um, I haven't. It's usually just, uh, we'll continue forward with less than perfect and hope to make it better later. That's kind of the approach we've taken. Thanks.

Thank you. [clears throat] Uh, with that, we did we clo Yeah, we closed the public hearing. Um so item number phone or phone 4 uh zone change from general commercial is that to R3M. Is there anybody here to speak on that? Marita. Yeah. Welcome aboard. Arlo Fawson with go civil engineering. So yeah, we're wanting to bring this in front of the council. There's a several houses right here. These are all I think pretty Where are we at here? So this is 400 west and I think 400 north.

Oh, that that little cluster. There's like five homes in there, right? Right. And so yeah,

they would like to continue to use this property as a rental houses. Currently, it's zoned general commercial, which can cause problems for loans when you're not using it as a commercial project. it's master or the general plan is for dense residential and we would just like to zone reszone it back to what it's currently being used as and and the other n you know I think all of these are just residences anyways right now so that's all we're looking for any other questions problem there seems very cut and dry

was that say that is everything adjoining. That seems very cut and dry and very reasonable considering the surroundings. Is everything adjoining on the I guess it probably be probably the north side. Is that uh uh GC also? Yes. Yes. There there's a strip of commercial right in there. Just how did that ever happen? I don't know. Cedar I think we're up

I think some of that area Tom and I might be mistaken but we [clears throat] if I recall correctly in the 2022 general plan some of that was master plan to high density because that's the development patterns that are out there but it's gen but it's but how I wonder how it got to GC to begin with because everything normally GC was on the north side of of industrial code that that I don't know typo GC or IM. Yeah, there's a good chance. [snorts] Could you do the general plan there? [clears throat] Yeah, I with Wayne I I mean it's only logical doesn't it's not an IMO loc. It's not a GC location.

Yeah. Yeah. I think that was recently done two or three years ago. Just trying to match that existing [clears throat] development pattern and encourage folks to spruce it up. Hopefully that's what you guys do. Any other questions from the commission? [clears throat]

And the only thing I would note on this one, and it's always the danger because development of course doesn't go in order from one road to the next. It used to be illegal, completely illegal, under Utah law to do what's called spot zoning, where you just have like one lot that's different than the ones around it. That is no longer illegal. It is just one of many factors to consider when you address whether or not you think it's okay. Uh obviously if you do that too much, it can create issues with sprawl and infrastructure and all those kind of things. Um less of a concern when it's not a change in use from what's already there. Um but it is one of those things that they still ask you to consider, but just know it's not illegal anymore.

Well, I drove by it last week and I'm looking I'm going GC what? [laughter] Yeah, I think the owner was because he come in and was talking to about, you know, thinking of doing something with it and I pull up the zone. I'm all wait a minute, we're going to have to address this first because that won't work. So, now I can't we're not voting on this this evening, but I do own some some a few rental properties on 400, but not adjacent to this or within a block of this. Does that preclude me? No, you should be fine. Okay. [clears throat]

Thank you. Um, this is a public hearing, so we'll be pleased to open it to the public if anybody has additional comments, which you'll also have an opportunity next week when maybe there's a little more intensity. So, all right, we'll close the public hearing then. Thank you very much, Arla. Um, development team, you're on and general plan amendment natural open to central commercial Now, you weren't here. Yours can't be voted on tonight. I know. I know. I I was made aware of it by Amber, so I appreciate that. I was taking pizza to a bunch of kids.

Sounds like a better job than this. Anyway, um the next two items go together, so I'll just kind of talk with them both on that. And let's see which is the one that is this the better one. Yeah. Okay. So, we're coming tonight to uh this is about a 14 acre parcel that we have down here. Give us some crossroads here. So, this is the this is all the way down now. What is it called? Cedar Boulevard now. Uh Highway 91. Okay. And this is I think right here's where the city ends now. Is that Yes. Correct. And this is that overpass that goes over the over the freeway right there

over to to Yeah. Okay. So we we always intended to do some commercial use here on this property when we bought it from the Bowers years ago. Is that of that hill that rock hill? There's rock hill and some flat land right in here. The combination of that there.

So when we look to see to get it to go commercial because I think I think there's I know this is zone commercial. I don't know what they've done with this part here of theirs yet. I should have looked to see Yeah. See what that is there. So you have to go way down on these maps now. Yeah. So there is central commercial right over there too from us. But when we looked at the general plan, they had this as open space. Now a city can take people's private property and zone it into open space, but there's usually a reason for it. [snorts] And we can't find a reason for it. nor is an agreement with a government agency that they want to have that land as open space or do something with it and and so the ombbudsman from the state just said that usually something like that has to happen before you turn that into open space. So we can't think of anything unless they thought eventually that was going to be an oh what

that's my understanding an ingress egress thing for the state there but now that this has been allowed that kind of destroys that from happening in that area there. So, we're coming forward saying we'd like to change this to in the master plan to be commercial and and then we'd also like at the same time then to go from the original what is it the AT zone to commercial there for that piece of property. Okay. So, I I know where you're talking about, but this the legal description says 2700 South Cedar Boulevard. Yeah. because we haven't asked for an address yet because we haven't started develing developing it and putting

So are we are we do we have a north and a south on Cedar Boulevard? So anything [snorts] you're right because that was the big confusion at city council over north and south and so this the street name is just Cedar Boulevard. Okay. But the street addresses on there will all have a south on them. Okay. Cuz they're all south of this building. Okay. All right. We didn't want it to be south [clears throat] south Cedar Boulevard. That's where the we got a little bit of Okay. Heartbreak.

All right. I'm just trying to make sure I'm got my bearings. [clears throat] Any questions from the council? If not, we'll open five and six. Can we open them together since they're as a public hearing? Anybody would like to comment? So, so could I ask one question of you? How did this become and I'm sorry make that sense. How did this become open space to be natural open space to begin with? It was done so long ago that we couldn't dig back far enough to find when that happened or what.

But who determines that? Well, it would have been whenever they did a, you know, planning meeting sometime to do the general plan, but I'm sure it's not been even looked at in the past few back there that it's just kind of stayed that way. It's probably that guy whose picture is fifth from the right back there. Right. [laughter] That guy There you go. It's Jim's fault. Okay. I just I'm familiar with open space, but I'm not right from I think at one time they thought that this was going to turn into a off, you know, a big offramp down there. And Okay. [cough and clears throat] All right. Well,

hope that never happens again. I can't visualize an open space there. Yeah, I Yeah, it doesn't make sense now given what we know and what we have. So, [clears throat] all right. We'll close the public hearing. Thank you very much. And will you be there next week? Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Good. Um, thank you. All right. City items. The engineering group. How HA or is it how HA engineering water preservation is that? So, Hal's not here tonight because we had to postpone the hearing. All right. So, we can push that one. Yep. I think we can push that. I don't know if anybody's here to speak on it, but

Jonathan might really want to talk about it. [laughter]

Any comments, Jonathan? Jonathan staff the city engineering department just to give the planning commission a little bit of an update. We have worked with uh Hansen on the loose to come up with a final draft. Uh we've uh city staff have we've submitted comments to them. They've addressed those comments. Um several state agencies have also reviewed this and submitted comments and um and those comments have been addressed for the most part. Um there are some things that the state asked for which are not required in this in the legislation and so th those things have not been included. Uh we we could include those if the planning commission would like us to. Uh the main thing was they were asking for um a list of all the irrigation companies and and maps and things. Um we we didn't really feel like that was relevant to this um because this this is more focused on city water use in terms of culinary water and and pressurized irrigation. Um but we feel like this is a good plan. uh it addresses uh the needs that the city has in terms of water supply. It addresses uh conservation for existing developments and then also conservation for future developments and then provides an implement implementation timeline.

So we feel like this is a really good plan that the city can put in place and u and start to see results. So that's kind of where we're at at this point. And then uh Ridley Griggs from Hass on the Loose will be here next week to make a formal presentation and then vote on it. He made a presentation pres previously. Yes, didn't he? Yeah. And so we've worked through the comments. We've we've also listened of course to to your comments as the planning commission and the comments that were made. Um, we've done we've have visited I can't remember the person's name, but we looked at the drop tolerant plants and and got a a nice list of Andrew Dudley.

Yeah, Andrew Dudley. Yeah, he has he gave us a really good a lot of good information about those color plants. That was great. Yeah. Yeah. Well, I'd just like to thank you for reading all this Gibbre goop jargon data. You get you get an A+. Yeah, that's it. No, I think it's it's good. I think we have a good plan here and uh I think these are things that, you know, we can implement right away and uh I I think the city's on a good track, but there, you know, we can always do better. So, it's just just additional things that we can implement and

Well, I think we're on the right track and just just we just have to stay on that track, keep moving forward as a community. Exactly. And share the responsibility, old people and new people in in the valley. Yeah. Exactly. And that it does and this plan addresses both. It addresses existing customers and and future. So, so yeah. So if there's any questions, I'd be happy to answer those or we can wait till next week. So

anybody have questions? It is a public hearing. So if anybody has comment as I suspected, so we'll close the public hearing and move on to the next one. Don Budro and ordinance and text amendment.

All right. Thank you, chair. Um I think this one's pretty straightforward. The the catalyst for this is uh we have a minimum 20 foot easement required along street property lines and commercial industrial zones and we have a 15 foot setback in industrial zones and we have uh no setback in the downtown commercial zone. So we had some built-in conflicts. you know, if if I tell you you're in industrial zone, I tell you your setback's 15 and you have a pee that's 20, well, your setback is now 20. Um, so this language is an attempt to uh kind of rectify those issues and and if we can uh justify a reduction in those easements uh down to 15 ft and all of our utilities have signed off, it gives us the latitude to do so. So that's that's uh [clears throat] that's it in a nutshell.

So uh you're saying indust industrial zones IM1 and two they only have a 15 ft 15t set back from the street. Yes. But but the pee is 20 and so so we're changing it to 15. We or change it to keep it at all 20. We we are allowing the reduction uh if the utilities don't need it basically is what this is saying. So if the utility companies sign off on this and I I thought we had some language added. Um yeah. Okay.

But we're also proposing this for the downtown commercial zone where there's no setbacks required. So if we can wave these things um it's something we can take a look at. And our downtown commercial zone is center street to north to to 200. Generally speaking, it it it's beyond those areas. Why are we limiting it to those areas? The downtown commercial zone has no setbacks. Yeah.

So, as an example, you know, we've got that brand new hotel going coming up out of the ground and it's right on right on property line. Um, so it's difficult to say, "Well, now give us a 20 foot pee when the that zone is designed to bring the buildings forward and give that traditional downtown feel." But that's not the downtown commercial zone. It is. So that's past center. I thought it went Well, no, I it does go beyond those those two streets to a certain extent. Could you throw the map up real quick, Amber? That's where my confus I was going to say, wait a minute, because we had that new hotel And that's where my confusion. So that

I thought it went up to second south. So that dark red color is the downtown commercial zone and then it goes um down there towards the college along center street as well. Okay. And then it's everything north of second south. Yep. Okay. [snorts] And then up to 200 north there. So if we wanted to make that farther go south more so we have a zero setback. How could we do that? We would have to amend the general plan and the zoning ordinance. Okay. Or at least the zoning. If you look at the general plan map that can actually extend down to 400 south.

Say that. Say that again. Randall. If you look at the general plan, see the darker colors here. Show down all the way down to 400 South if you would, Amber. Notice how that color changes at 400 South. The general plan actually would allow the downtown commercial to go two blocks further. Okay. But we don't have to go or it will allow it. The general plan would allow it without running contrary to it. But we don't have it currently because it stops at 200 South on the zoning map. But on the general plan map, unless I'm reading it wrong, you could go down to 400. So, I have the old Zion Hotel there. Would this fall within the downtown commercial zone? You're just on the wrong side of 400. Yeah, you're just south.

It stops at 400 South. So, you're just south of 400 South. You are just beyond. No, I'm I'm That's 200. Oh, you're 200. No, you're right. Next to Maverick. So, yeah. So, 200 it if I'm looking at a general plan, you could move for a zone change. Okay. That would be in compliance [clears throat] with the general plan. Oh, okay. All right. Thank you. [snorts] It sounds like some gears just started turning and thumbs to build the Tom Jet building. It It does kind of make sense to bring those in alignment with each other so that they and that's usually the goal. Yeah. The more you can follow the general plan, the better it is.

Yeah. Uh, anybody, it is a public hearing, so would anybody like to comment on this beyond what has been commented on? If not, we'll close it. And thank Don, I guess these will come up next week as well. Yep. Right. [clears throat] What time do you have to depart? 6:15, did I hear? Or 6:30. 6:30. I think it sounded like Don had prepared a couple things. Is that right? Maybe we could spend Well, we could talk about the use tables. I don't have a whole lot on that. Let's spend 10 minutes. We'll try and uh

it says it's my item. Could I um cause grief to our former council member Tyler Meling and ask if he could speak in lie of me because I've been working with him on this on clarifying this originated uh 6 8 months ago when I was informed that we had such a thing and then and I've spoken to Tyler and and he's come up with some pretty great ideas. [clears throat] Awesome. Well, since this is a discussion item and we'll probably carry it forward as well, love to hear. Let's shoot for 10 minutes or so and then

Yeah. Well, I I would much rather it be much shorter than that. So, just to bring up the issue. So, in uh section 26416, it talks about commercial and industrial building materials in the city ordinance. Um the uh um and I think for next week Don has a much more thorough presentation and he and I are pretty much on the same page on a lot of it. Sorry, Tyler. Are we talking about building material or are we talking about um permitted uses? I think it was the building material. So we're on 10 built building material. I want to put off the permitted uses to another day.

All right. 10 is what we're on then. Does that work? I don't like it to be up to me all the time. Uh, okay. So, we'll put off the nine. We'll put off nine at the request of I missed one, Mr. Jet. And did is nine what you had something about? I've got something on either one. So, all right. Go ahead. Since you're up, Tyler, let's just roll. Let's roll with the introduction to Perfect. uh 10 and we'll push the next one.

So we have a a you know on on the face you know preferred uh building materials, accent materials and then discouraged materials. Um but then these uh preferred materials become mandatory on Main Street and 200 North and then uh the discouraged materials become expressly prohibited and um you know and we want things to look nice and that's great. Um the issue we have is that it is quite prescriptive and so we're having a really hard time especially on the north interchange finding ways to build buildings that are not more expensive than St. George commercial spaces um with the cladding materials required. It's adding give or take 5 to 8% to the total cost of the building to, you know, full masonry. 5 to 8%.

Okay. To have full masonry um or full stone or some of these that could be a couple hundred,000. [sighs] Oh yeah. I think on that Starbucks Johnny Max is about 180. Um

and we actually had one item that was prohibited by the city. It was nice. It was that um uh what's it called? It's uh aluminum ACM. It's aluminum composite material. It's like a matte metal panel, just an accent. It was It actually saved us money on that aspect of it because the city said, "No, you can't do that." Even though the architect designed it and it looked great, you know, so we we uh we went with Hardy sighting. So, that that bit was a little cheaper. Um but just that sheer volume of masonry gets quite prohibitive. Um and uh and it and it ignores quite a few other newer more common uh materials uh that also have a similar aesthetic. Um now in practice the city has been interpreting this such that you know if it's one of these preferred materials or at least looks like it. Um you know generally that'll get it passed. So we're we're just trying to get that a little more honed in. Um Don and I have been going back and forth on this a bit and I I I think next week, you know, if there's a little more time, he has a much more thorough presentation. But really what we're looking at is um you know, let's maybe beef up some of the protections in the downtown corridor about 200 north to 200 south as far as uh you know, really uh kind of strengthening the language on on what is or isn't allowed. But outside of that um uh you know for example the the preferred building materials talks about composite lap sighting such as um IE which means only Hardy plank right and what we would like to see is is maybe an EG instead of an IE. So that's you know for example Hardy or LP Smart Side is another brand that um uh that is becoming much more common. you're seeing it installed in a lot of homes up in Saddleback. Um it's it's quite a bit stronger than vinyl. Um kind of the traditional vinyl sighting, but but

still uh a little more cost effective than some of the hardy products. Um uh then uh with architectural concrete, maybe maybe some adjustments to allow some stuckco as long as there's variation in the texture, in the lines and the color, things like that. Because again, you can have if you have one, we understand you don't want one big wall of just stucco in the building to just be stuckco, nor do we want that on our commercial projects, right? But but especially for some of those sections of Maine, maybe even not necessarily on the interchanges, but where you're not going to command as high a rent or as high a product, you may want to do all stucco, but even with some variation in color and texture, you're going to get a product that looks really nice, right? Um the uh um a few other things. Uh just clarifying in there again that it would be uh that these would be other materials that you would allow other materials that emulate the preferred materials. So again, if there's so we're not back here in 10 or 20 years saying, "Hey, look, there's some more uh materials that are newer that look better."

Was the new Maverick was that brick veneer? Is that brick? But I'm sure it was veneer the way they were. I I I don't know on on that one specifically. I know their architectural this this ordinance didn't as much drive that as um really they they had no reason to even come to the city for anything, right? They had the right to develop. It was just it was 10% larger square footage than the zoning allowed. And so because they were coming to the table asking for that, the city heightened the architectural standard on them. I think it looks great. It looks doesn't look if I recall it is a veneer. It doesn't look cheap. It is a veneer. I I think so. And a lot of the veneers look better than that.

This looks really good. It doesn't look like I compared it with a couple of other buildings and it really looks nice. Yeah. Um, and there's [clears throat] um there are uh Tyler Tyler, when a building material is approved, but it really requires nuancing to make it look like you want it to, who approves the nuances?

That's the question, right? So, right, right now the um really it comes down to uh city uh city staff um will make that determination. What does it does it line up with the ordinance or not? And I think we've still got some work to do. You know, Don and I just had some back and forth.

I I can speak to that. It is difficult for folks like myself and Amber to play judge, jury, and executioner in someone's architectural style, right? Um the way I've looked at this ordinance, you know, as a whole is it is pushing you uh one towards more of a traditional material. I mean, I think that's obvious. Um it is difficult you know like where it says stucco limit amounts used for vertical surfaces if the quality of the design merits it those are difficult to enforce. So um I I I think we should move some of these things to percentages. Um but but the nuance is in my career if that's the the direction the city wants to go that belongs with like a design review board or you have an architectural professional um and and some other professional if if you're going to lay that type of judgment right um but to to Tyler's point I I have looked at this as you know what is the the overall impact of the material I remember the discussion on Starbucks and it was metallic and and these these uh uh ephus type products, what is it? Exterior insulated finish surface or something like that that can run the gamut. It doesn't have to be stucco could be metallic. And in my mind, it is you know what is the what is the impact of the material, not necessarily the composition, but we also want these buildings to last too on Main Street, right? Um so we we've got some ideas. I've talked to Tyler. I've I've talked to Jed. I I think you guys and I I'll do this at the next meeting, but the general plan has lots of language where it talks about aesthetics and architectural quality in certain areas. Downtown is a key one, right? Um, [snorts] you know, do we want

to see a reflective glass building downtown? Some people may think they're great, but it's probably not downtown Cedar. So, I I think I think there's some good discussion to be had. And I I think part of that too, you know, just [clears throat] the on the prohibited list again, if if we it says metal walls, right? Well, if it's, you know, if it's a matte aluminum, one of these uh ACM materials, right? That's that's you're seeing on a lot of um a lot of buildings as an accent, right? That's a little different than having a corrugated tin building on Maine, right? And so, um, anyway, they I mean, we even had on our office building, um, you know, it made it through review and I I it was before my time, so I don't know, you know, why, but it, you know, there's some of that that's actually ACM product, right? That it looks like wood. So, you know, that was probably the grounds that were used. But this we just want to empower staff to be able to look at this but also have objective standards that are a little less subjective and you know that puts them in an awkward spot too but also you know give some more architectural flexibility. You hate to pay an architect several hundred,000 and then have half of their plan um need to be changed per ordinance. Right. So, um, anyway, so that I I think, uh, next week, you know, I'll leave a lot of that to Don and we'll we'll kind of go back and forth on some of these things. I I think we're pretty close to some agreement on that. You know, we we ran it by our our bid folks as well to make sure that we have some, you know, for for each type of option, we have something that can fall within every budget. So, if you want um you know, if you have a a property that really commands top dollar um you know, this ordinance allows you to do that, but also some of the properties you can't command top dollar rent and or or sale.

And you need to be able to have a project that's going to pencil, too. So, we're looking at that.

That's the most important part right there is in the end, it's in the end, it's my banker and my wallet that are taking the risk. Yeah. and and the last thing that I ever want to see and I can't even imagine we having this discussion and I've only been here for 37 years I guess that we even have government dictating building materials now I guess I understand there's has to be some reasonable compromise I've kind of learned that in my many years but if [clears throat] we're not careful we'll be California before you know it because we just have to inch our way right in right into the door and then ah and then the next generation that's not that bad. Let's say they've been doing it for 20 years. So that's where we have to be very very careful. It starts with commercial then it goes to multifamily then it goes to your own home where they're going to tell you what color your car you can have or what color windows you can have or and and if you want to live in a PUD in a private subdivision, let them make all the rules they want. But the last thing I want is government

barely sticking his nose in in my business, right? Because it's my wallet and my risk, right? And granted, I mean, we we may see where that goes, right? The state [clears throat] law already preempts the city from making these types of decisions with uh residential property. Um, it starts Yeah. Yeah. We prohibit it now, but I'm just saying it, right? We get we get the crawl it starts the creep. Yeah. And just it's slow and insidious and it will get there if we don't if we don't watch it. Yep. So, anyway, appreciate your time.

Thank you for that. I would suggest that during the week everybody take a look at some of those building materials. I have a cabin on the mountain that the logs are cement and you would never know it to look at it. So, it's good. Thank you, Tom. All right. Thank you. Well, uh, if it's okay, we'll push number nine to a future date and adjourn the meeting. I I I have a I have just like a I have just like a 10m minute thing I'd like to Okay, I'm just kidding. pretty