Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right. Thank you. Um, welcome everybody to the planning commission for October 8th, 2025. We've got everybody here. Um, we are going to start. Oh, yeah. Thank you. Except for Commissioner um Tyler. Thank you. Um, I am all over the map. I'm just sorry. I'm pivoting from where my brain has been all day. Um, I did not prepare a legislative thought because of where my brain has been all day. So, we're going to proceed with a quick legislative prayer and then pledge of allegiance. Awesome.

Our father in heaven, we're grateful to come together to uh perform the public's work here in Centerville. We're grateful for the blessings that we have and especially for all of the things that this city affords. We ask for thy guidance as we do the city's business. And we say this in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen. Amen. Amen. I I pledge allegiance 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.

All right. Business items to discuss. Uh, one and two. Who is leading us out? Mr. I am leading them on both. All right. Well, I'll be leading on one and then I'll have assistance on the second one. Makes a lot of sense. Yeah. So the first item in your packet is um first review and discussion of proposed updates to CZC 12.51 landscaping and screening conservation.

This is one that the city has been discussing for quite a few years but it probably in more detail since the beginning of the year. There have been uh meetings with Wever Basin water management teams and city council members, a few of them in the city uh and the uh city manager and even myself regarding um efforts to look at water conservation as I I talked about at our last meeting. the uh water is not coming in by mother nature like it has in years previous except for record but we're still in a drought so it's not enough to to resolve the drought condition so that is good

um but but the the request was to look at our codes and see if um we have I guess interest or ideas relative to we were based water conservy district guidelines as well as state of Utah um updates. So to kind of explain the nexus of what we're talking about, we were basing as many of you know has had this program for a while and they currently have as you see in the packet water conservation opportunities for residents. We've had requests from residents for participation in this very program and had had to say no our codes aren't in alignment with weaver basin water conservy district requirements. You don't qualify basically. And um the other thing that has happened while we are basin's been working towards this path um with multiple communities that they serve is state of Utah has become more and more strict with water conservation guidelines and expectations. So even this last session they passed more um standards and restrictions slashguidance depending on what word you want to use relative to water conservation expectations. So regardless of whether we look at what we were based in water the what we were basing water conservy district is wanting and hoping for to participate in their programming we still have to do something relative to meeting and addressing the state expectations of their codes. So something needs to to be evaluated and determined here. Obviously, um, water conservation, like I I was saying, is something that that has been deemed to be important not only by our our water providers, but multiple state legislators, even more so as we look at the Great Salt Lake and the water we want the Great Salt Lake to have available to it. And and again, I know there's a lot of things that are kind of all over the place and different people have different opinions about these things, but broadly speaking, uh there

definitely is a state in in a local area um push, hope, desire to look at that. So, what I've done is I I've been back and forth and you can see multiple email communications with Weaver Basin Water representatives um relative to what is their guidance, what what are they looking for, what's the expectation, what's the state's expectation, DWR um and then I even went to DWR's website and pulled specifically DWR language, which is I think it's the one Cindy, it says landscape incent program conserve water Utah. Yeah. So, as you scroll down, you'll see that they have ordinances. Then you'll see actually at a minimum the following. That's that's a summary some some summary. There's the word I'm looking for of what they interpret state law to mean. Now, that being said, you've probably seen that our city attorney did also a review and I have provided state code and there are comments she's made that she doesn't necessarily uh maybe agree with how DWR is presenting the code here relative to her interpretation of the code. So I tried to give as objectively as possible all the information as well as put together a a code summation that matches what we were basing would expect to participate in their program once you find in their packet. Now you'll see there's a secondary version. I believe it's we were based let's see it's that one right there. Yep. We were based review. So there's additional commentary that's added and it will be DR. This is from their reviewer. Whenever there's a DR on the right hand side, I believe it's like DR four, five, and six. Oh, yeah. There you go. DR1, DR4. Those are addendums or commentaries that have been driven by David Rice who represents We were basic. So, I'm me and I added some internal comments because I'm still not sure like

when it says 50% just says perimeter internal landscaping 50%. Buffer landscape between residential non-residential development 50%. 50% of what 50% of the property line 50% of the area. What are we talking about? That was my question.

And so I I still feel like I want to talk to to probably Corey Cory Snder if I can get a hold of him just to kind of get some clarifications on areas like that that are not clear. And then he's got other comments like maybe we're expecting too much on tree plantings or shrub plantings and either non-commercial or even residential scenarios, right? Uh, so there's there's language in there um that reflects their their recommendations. So, Sydney, if you go I'm kind of going all over the place, but I I'm trying to do it because I think it helps to understand the container of the discussion. If you'll click on Weaver Base and email, I think it's we bas uh that one. Yeah. So you can see then what I did is these these bullet points I've taken that language and I've incorporated that into the the um amendment first draft to try to match those if we want to participate in the program. I will say um and I I hope uh Brent Hansen is okay with me saying this, our city manager is very much in support of a consideration of a code amendment to match what what Weber Basin is seeking here

because there is quite a quite a bit of residential interest in this program. But um I know that there's there's also the flip that there's probably people in the community that don't want that aggressive of a position. So this is an important um code review. Um what you probably see in the summary I did I did as far as a background. I think I did it either in the background or the recommendation. Yeah, that that I just brought up setting a public hearing. Obviously as we pursue whatever we decide to do, we'll need to eventually set a public hearing and then it'll be helpful to get public input on whatever we decision we we decide to take. Um, and then from there, you can decide how you want to address whatever we decide to go with. If if we want to like I guess what I'm saying is if we want to take what I've presented today, let's say set a public hearing for two weeks out, I could publish that public hearing. We could get the public input and then from there determine how we want to proceed. If you think that is helpful to get some evidence to help you to know what the pulse is of the community at large relative to this kind of an initiative or this idea, we at least would know where the public feels the code should be and then we could obviously accommodate either at least the minimum the state standards or or roll in these we were basing standards or if you want more time to review it and talk about it and then come back in two weeks before we set a public hearing that's fine too. It's really the the hope is that we do it um correct in an organized fashion that that will protect the future of Centerville, but also that we were based in the region if we feel like that that that water conservation is something that's important to us. So, I hope that that introduction gives you enough um to work with. I don't know if you have at this point, Chair Care, I don't know what direction you want to go. If you want to like allow the commission to

talk, ask questions, if you want to ask Lisa for some input relative to the legal aspects of it. I don't know. But, uh, I guess I'll defer to you how you want to proceed. But that's that's the the long and short of the introduction on this.

That's great. Um, Lisa, what are your thoughts? Yeah, I think one of the preliminary questions to answer is to whether the goal is to obviously comply with state law, which I think we already made those changes when this state law came into effect, but do we want to encourage water conf conservation? Answer, probably yes, in addition to and above the state law requirements. But do we want to go as high as what the Weaver Basin program requires in order for the residents to qualify for the rebate program? My recollection or understanding of sort of the council direction or why this was put on the council's um you know priority list um is because we do get a lot of comments from residents of why doesn't why can't we qualify for this? It's Centerville that's holding us up in, you know, qualifying for this. But as you can see, they're requiring that our ordinances have to say zero lawn in the park strips or any area, any landscape area less than 8 ft. And so that's what I was trying to explain in my email correspondence to Michael is that I I get what Weber Basin is saying, but just know state law does not require the city to go that far. Weieber Basin's water incentive program and rebate program, which all the residents want, does require that. So, that's going to be the difficult question. And I think that the city council would would appreciate the planning commission's input and recommendation on that. How far do you want to go?

Um, and what does it require? So, I think hopefully as we flesh this out, um, you can see that my emails were late on Friday before this packet went out. So, we can certainly review those and, you know, doublech checkck the legal analysis, but I still think that the Weber Basin program goes farther than the law requires us to for sure. And I think that our code currently complies with the law. As I said, we already made some amendments, but I think there still need to be a few amendments, Lisa, but you and I can debate them or discuss that internal.

Um, one other thing I will say, if we look at this, aside from the residential complexion, the non-residential complexion of it is something still we could even consider separately. And the reason I bring that up is obviously if you change the landscaping center to at least more water-wise conservation from a na non residential landscaping perspective then that also in some ways frankly is viewed as business friendly because landscaping with certain kind of design styles can get kind of expensive. Yeah.

So that is something you need to think about. There's there's a I guess a middle of the road path even here we could explore if if that's where we felt like we needed to be relative to that aspect. So think about that as well. Okay. Um I'll open up for questions um or even just discussions amongst ourselves, but I'll start with a question. So um tipping my hand, the I view center as a fill infill city as opposed to an onthe-move development city, right? In a lot of ways, except for in the northwest, you know, western uh spots. So when I think that uh of of how this could potentially affect us, I don't see it making a sea change to our park strips. Yeah.

Because the park strips are the park strips are the park strips and they already exist. That's right. And so it's only going to be when there's a significant change requested or, you know, a lot being um subdivided, you know, into two.

Yeah. um or more major development that I see this coming into play. And at that point, I'm more than comfortable saying that for those infill, they should be conforming to more restrictive standards because I don't feel like it's going to change the character of the city so dramatically that will then start looking like Arizona, right? because that's that's as I understand it the primary concern that there are citizens who will say but I really like the green. I don't want a bunch of red rock. Yeah. And I get it.

But I would like to um balance the two. And I don't find much tension between imposing higher standards now to allow the few citizens who want to um uh flip the strip and allow everybody else who's already grandfathered in keep their lawn as is. I don't know. Those are my thoughts. What do you guys think? Is it is it going to make a am I misappraising that? What do you think about how dramatically it will affect our city's parks strips? I agree. I think it should be like personal preference. If they want to comply and be able to meet get the re, you know, the rebate, then allow them to. Otherwise, they're grandfathered in. Yeah.

One of my questions for Weaver Basin and and I may be, you know, trying to separate hairs here, but their requirements say for new development, this is what you have to say. This is what you have to comply with. versus saying in our code park strip no land no lawn in the park strips. Now you're talking non-compliant, right? So are they saying new development has to do this but the rest of you are fine or are they saying new development has to do this and everybody else is now nonconforming? The state says new development but we were basing it isn't really clear. That's that's the

or they the same. Anyway, I'd like to explore that because I do think that if you are making everyone else if if we have to go to their standard that says no long in the park strip in order to qualify for the rebates, you are making every well many many many perhaps most park strips in the city nonconforming. And that is going to trigger a lot more bringing you if you want to do anything. That's right. You need to bring that up. Yeah. And that that was my thought too is that um if you say no lawn in the park strips, that doesn't say just new development. It says no lawn in the park strips.

Yeah. And we're not saying I mean I agree with with non you know non-conforming law. It doesn't require you immediately to rip out the lawn throughout the city, but it does mean with when you do things to your property that might trigger then you would have to which is very different than just saying, "Hey, new development." Unless they're saying, "Hey, new development means anything." Even if you're amending, you know, you're adding on an addition or, you know, those Does that get triggered for home occupations? What? No, not for home occupations, right? It would just be land use approvals, administrative and legislative. Correct. Yeah. Landscape checks. Yes. So, what things trigger it? What' you say? Well, that's what I'm saying. I don't I don't know. But if it is just saying new development, it's

just when you are trying to get the rebate that they require it. No. In order for someone in Centerville to be able to be even eligible for the rebate, Centerville has to say no lawn in the park strip throughout the city. Our code has to match their standard of expectation that you're like, my question is no lawn in the park strip throughout the city or no lawn in the park strip for new devel. I thought it was just like an applicant says, "Hey, Weaver Basin, I want to put my strip." No. And that's why residents are quite frustrated because our code doesn't it's not eligible and most of our neighboring cities.

But you drive through Bountiful and everybody's not flipped their strip and you they were one of the cities. And that's what I'm saying. It doesn't require everybody to even if you say in case even if you come up with an ordinance that says no lawn in the park strip, it does not require everyone to bring it into compliance. only if they trigger something like they're developing their parcel or they're you know significantly you know re would coming in for a pool permit trigger something like that? No. From our perspective I would say no as well actually it would be a building permit but so if you adus or stuff like that

adus no they wouldn't get a landscape. This is this is where my head is is what are the triggering events and are we as a commission comfortable with those triggering events triggering uh coming into compliance, right? Because I share Lisa's concern. You're blanket putting everybody into a status of non non-compliance. And and I want to clearly state that we're we're objective on this. That's why I try to present it as objectively as possible. But I also will note I have talked to Weaver Bas and they're happy to come to future meetings if if that's what we'd like them to do to answer from their perspective these question. I think we definitely entertain that. Right. So

yep. Well anyways finishing out my thought. I'm totally comfortable with creating a city-wide non-compliance if it is triggered in such a way and under circumstances that that wouldn't affect wouldn't wouldn't create the sea change that everybody fears. Yeah. The other thing I'll note to that is I'm trying to think how to say this. The likelihood of it triggering. Well, thinking about enforcement like we're and and our city manager has told we were basing we're not going to have a landscape cop driving around with this program. Nobody's going to be nobody's going to enforce it, right? It's going to be more like you're saying on triggering event scenarios or new development where it will come.

We could build that into the statute, could we not? by not allowing it to be a misdemeanor, for example, or affraction. Yeah. I don't think we would be uncomfortable for residents. Yeah. Would it be triggered by somebody changing their driveway? So, I'm just I'm just Yeah. And that's the thing is we don't really have landscaping. Well, we don't have a lands like for commercial site plans. It's easy because if it's a certain percentage change or it's a change of use, our code is very clear. If you do this much to change your site,

you need to bring the whole site into compliance. So, often times they'll say, "Okay, well, we're not going to do that much of a remodel because we don't want to we can't bring all of our parking and our landscaping into compliance." But, yeah, I I mean, I think maybe it doesn't trigger that much. I I guess it's just my question. Let's look at it. Let's know. But you're right. Maybe, you know, a pool probably doesn't require us looking at at everything. Planting one tree. No, but two trees. Yes. On those trees. I can't force the city. I mean, maybe it won't trigger much at all. But I don't think it will. The only times where I would say that it ought to be triggered is if you're subdividing,

right? or if you are doing something that is so dramatically different than what's there like tearing down the house and putting up a complete or if you develop a vacant lot. We have some vacant residential lots. Well, yeah. Or well, what happens though is somebody already has a home and we get a lot of these where they want to split off and start developing here. So, they're going to have to tear their lawn out in order to lot split. That would be one. But how many do we get? One a month. Frank, Frankly, I'm not too concerned about that scenario either. That's 12 because they're choosing to do a drastic, you know. Yeah. I don't think they're going to care. There isn't there isn't that kind of grow. We're not We're not like West Haven, right? That's right.

We're just not too empty. So, I don't think it'll be. Anyways, that was my one thought. What What else do you guys questions, thoughts, comments?

We discussed my question. Can I add just one more thing that that is required that does tie into this, but it kind of is a segue from this. Not that we're going into item two, but it links item one and two. There is a water conservation element requirement that has to be a planning tool that's that's amended into the general plan or adopted before the end of the year. And then I by and in fact it's in one of the codes that's actually attached to your packet for the water conservation. We have to have a a copy of the minutes and the ordinance of approval for that element being adopted into the general plan sent to them right after December. It has to be done before December 31st and then emailed over to DWR showing it's been completed in January. So, just be thinking about that, too. As we talk about this one and we talk about item two,

uh, another thought struck me before we move too far. Um, confession. I didn't read this closely in part because of how the last couple of days have been for me at work. But I'm gonna ask what is probably a naive question. Does the does the draft language include um uh requirements that you put in more than just mere rock? Well, the Weaver Ba the Weaver Basin program does. It says you have to put in 50% live plant. Well, I I don't know the percentage. 30 no more than 35% turf, but in your front yard areas, but then the rest can be

But even in the park strip, you can't just rip everything out and put in gravel. You wouldn't qualify. You wouldn't qualify. That's exactly where I'm headed because we don't want it to just be flat rock. Yeah. If we're going to say in our ordinance, no turf, I would feel way more comfortable, and again, I confession, I didn't read it as well as I should have, if we did adopt a standard or a requirement very much like what Weber Basin does because the the yards that I've seen that have flipped the strip that do it, it looks pretty good, right? But does Centerville want to get into We will differ on on some opinions, but the ones I've seen I I like

I do. So, they have high standards on what you need to put in there. Yes, you need to put some par, you know, low drought tolerant plants and things like that and the drip system, but we currently don't tell people what to put in their front yard or their park strip other than what they can't do, right? So, we would get into, okay, for your front area, you can't put lawn and you now need to put these things. Yeah. Yeah. What if we incorporated by reference the Weber Basin standard and just said has to be a compliant Weaver Basin. I mean, I think that's been the attempt is to say because if you're going to take out the lawn,

the responsible thing to do is to put in reasonable landscape architect design than just not because what the Rever Weaver Basin literature says is, you know, just the rock is also not healthy. it creates this heat and and the trees have problems and you're not, you know, you need to have this drip system in there at least for, you know, certain things. And that's why I think it might be helpful to include more than just percentages, but to I mean I it's it's hard to know where where to draw the line, but it like you said, if you just put rock in, take out grass and put in rock, that's a problem, too.

And we don't want to encourage that, I don't think, at all. So that's why I'm saying it's it's this what is the goal? Because if you want to comply and allow people to to meet the Weber Basin and and be eligible for their program, then it's pretty easy. We just follow all of their requirements. And they have said what I've done. Again, I this is not sacred to me. But they have said what I provided in your packet satisfies their requirement as it's currently written. Okay. The way the way the changes that you made

as it's currently written, they have said it's good. and and they even had the state screen it and the state wanted me to do a few other agenda. State being DWR, but the state has said if I make those changes, it's good. So, the one in your packet would check both what the state and we were basing our seeking. That doesn't mean it's what the city has to adopt, but that would meet their programming expectations in both cases, but it doesn't clarify what we talked about at the beginning. So we have to have clarification which is what which is going back to Mason's conversation with you about oh the clarification of exactly what that means is that for existing is it for just

the way that they have it the way they have it written it would be applicable in all cases the way that that it's in the draft that I provided it doesn't necessarily say for new development only but from a practical standpoint I think it's a good question like if we just go through all of those, like you said, a pool, a new driveway, a new, you know, I'm having a hard time trying to find anything that's going to trigger this because we just don't even have a standard. It's pretty much like there's no landscape requirement or a resident asking to do it willingly. It's almost Yeah. Do you remember that applicant three years ago that that tore off their balcony and they came back in and they and we said, "We don't have enough green space."

Well, they had too much imper Yeah. too much impervious or too much percentile. Why would that trigger the requirement to come into compliance because they had so much concrete that they didn't meet because our storm drainage, you know, we have a separate review to make sure that you have enough uh do you see where I'm headed? Why would that trigger uh need to come into full compliance? Would that also trigger this? I don't know that it was full compliance, but it didn't meet. Once they come in for a building permit, we do review. Have you met everything? And it was obvious that they had a lot of concrete all over and now you're putting in more.

Your max improve is 60%. I don't know that it would have triggered fixing. Yeah. Like let's say they had concrete in their park strip, which is not allowed by code. Would we have triggered that? I would. Well, I that's a bad example because the the violation was impervious surface. It's max is 60%. Let's say they didn't need a setback or something. We wouldn't Yeah. So 40 of it has to be pvious for drainage and other needs in the aquifer. But when you get a Yeah. When you get a building permit for something Oh, it's a Yeah. the general health and welfare of the watering system of the city.

Well, can I ask the commission what's your general uh feeling? Um, do you want to notice up the version as written or do you want to do something else? I don't like it. I'm not comfortable with it because I think it leaves it it's too broad. It's too open because there's a lot of whatifs and we're trying to we can't mitigate all of that for all the whatifs in the city. But we can help direct it in in a better path so that people are more clear. Um, if I saw that and not having been on the commission and not knowing, I'd be a little put out by that for sure. I'm like, "What do you mean I have to do that?" Oh, if I want to participate, but now it says everybody. So now I'm out of compliance. So I could get a ticket. All my neighbors are going to get tickets.

Well, that's that's what Yeah. Right. I see what you're saying. Yeah. So that's where I'm going. So as currently stated, I don't think that there's enough from me. There's not enough clarification on that point there. again because I didn't read closely as currently drafted. Is there an enforcement mechanism that would say that uh failure to have this in compliance is an infraction? There's no Yeah.

No, no, we just default to code. I will say I appreciate the way Mike has drafted this because in terms of public comment it's best to go out with as far as we would go and then bring it back rather than trying to add so that the public comment is relevant to you know the potential but and also the desire so so that we're educating the citizens that if you want to be eligible for if you want everyone in Centerville to be eligible for this program. This is how far we would have to go. That's right.

And again, two weeks from now, you could take time to read over it. I could have a representative from we were basing here to discuss it so we can get clarification on exactly what needs to go. Do your own better, Phil. Talk to neighbors and residents yourself get some, you know, drive around fulls of how you feel about it and maybe asking the Weber Basin residents some of these hard questions. Frankly. Well, I like that. So, in two weeks,

and I have a question about the percentage. So, explain that a little better. So, I know there was a discrepancy between whether it was 35 or 50 and what that meant and and exactly what does the 30 what is the percentage mean? So, it's 30. So, we were basins is 35% solely of your front overall front and sideyard landscaping areas. Okay? You can't have any more grass than 35%. That's the maximum turf allowance. The state has it limited to 50%. Um, and the state is only doing applying it to new development whereas again we were basing we're not sure. Right.

Yeah. Okay. And then on a commercial or non I guess non-residential which would include u multif family and industrial properties it's 20% is required by the state but we race 20% of the overall site is the max for facade and lawn but we were basin wants it to be limited to 15% of the overall for their program standard and that's including everything that's the whole Yeah. Okay. Yeah. And then and then like like Lisa was saying, the state talks about no no for new development um no um turf in park strips, but again you can have rock and you can have drought tolerant plantings, right? orings

and then they don't want it in they they say that the city's this is state code again DWR has it written differently so we need to be careful even though she's got DWR the state just says and you're good you can keep it there but the state says that um we can't create codes that require grass and areas that 8t in width is that what it is what Lisa I missed the end we can't require higher by law 8t in width but we see it says in no let's see at a minimum in no new development no lawn areas

less than 8 ft in width yeah this to me I don't think that they explain this very well because they say 8 feet I had my own diagrams I didn't bring them but no less than eight feet at the narrowest point so if I have a huge triangular piece that goes out to 50 feet but the narrowest point of that area is eight can't have lawn. I I don't think they mean that. So, I was going to draft it to say, well, you know, at at 8, anything over 8t is Anyway, I I think it's a little problematic how they say it, but one says at the narrowest and one just says 8 feet or less.

Yeah. So we need to clarify that because in my opinion really if this triangle like this part that goes up to 8 ft you're right that shouldn't be blonde because it's too hard to do but this part should be if it's you know I mean they're sort of saying if it's less than and your wording referencing 109536 literally says merely states the city cannot require an owner to install or keep in place lawn in a landscaped area less than 8 ft. And I like that better because it's saying, "Oh, we can't require this little triangle that's less than 8 feet, but we can require all this area that goes clear out to 50 feet wide."

But on the flip side, Weaver Basin wants that to be criteria that no grass will be allowed in there 8 ft. If you have an area that at its narrowest point is less than 8 feet, well, I like I have a section of my yard that like narrows and then goes back. Like, do I just have to have a dirt patch or a rock patch right in the middle of it? Like, that doesn't make any sense. Yes. That language is really odd. So, your answer to his question is yes. Yes. For we b in order to comply with theirs, we can't require we cannot allow actually it's not just we cannot allow no lawn in any landscaped area less than 8 feet in width under Weaver Basin. It's like a lot of control.

Just doesn't even make sense. Yeah, there's she Sydney's highlighted the state code language. Municipal may not require property owner. Yeah, we can't require it, but we this is my point. We can permit it, right? Can't anyway. I don't know. However, if if you want it to proceed at this point, planning commission with just the the guidance for staff is you'll take two weeks to look at it and and fill it out as it's currently put together with all the sporting documentation, get a better feel for it, and then we'll have a representative here from Wever Basin. We can go that direction for now if that's where you think it's at. Yep. I think so.

I'm hearing yeses from at least a majority. I do like the opportunity to hear from Weaver Basin because you know to see if there's more flexibility here. I suspect there probably is like you know discussing I don't know having having done this for another municipality this very same practice I can tell you I don't know if there will be let's put it that way without saying too much very diplomatic. So for the for the part that of the city that's in the dual creek basin, would they do they qualify for the weaver? That's an interesting question. I think you should ask we were bas representative. That's a fair question. My bill is dual creek.

The same thing the entire west side. Do we then have to have two separate systems of landscaping? I suspect they're only going to give you a grant for the area that they cover. That's all I would say. Why would I want to give you money for That's interesting. They don't even serve. We know whether Dual Creek owns any or leases any Weber water. They might honestly because if they do, we could argue that. So, would that be a good idea to have some of the Dual Creek people come? I think you just ask we based the when they're here and see what they say. Not sure Dreek has a

I don't think they do. My understanding also as a dual creek shareholder is that we only have and the way that the water system works is they don't mix with weaver in any way. But they may they may if they're in a drought cycle rely on we bas potentially but I I just don't understand how how their system is connected in any way. Yeah, that I I think it's a fair question to ask at a later date. I do have a follow-up question for you, Mike. In the information you provided, there was something about a landscaping paper like reference this landscaping paper with these plants on it and stuff. And then there was some questions with that. It might have been their website. Was it a we were basing document maybe? I don't even know. No, it was your comment and you said something along the lines of I don't even know where this list is.

That's right. And they said yeah, it's hard to Oh, yeah. Where would I find this list was your comment? Yeah. So, yeah, I remember that was in my comment on I think so. So my question was are we planning material or do we have to like limit everything to just what's on there because then that's a bad plan. Is one of my is it oh there it is. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I got it now. Yeah. Yeah. I I don't know of that list. So it's referencing a list of low water plants available from community development. I don't know where it is. That's another one I'd have to talk to Corey Snder about and see if he knows because he would have been here potentially when that language was included in the landscaping ordinance. So if anybody probably knows what that that list is, he would be the one to know. Yeah. Now I now I know what we're talking about. Yeah.

Okay. That raises another point. I'm quite comfortable incorporating by reference people that have done this in other you know if if we just say hey we if we water has a list use that list. Yeah. And I don't necessarily want you guys to spend your valuable time. I think that should reinventing the wheel. Personally that should be a dynamic list too. So if you say anything on Weaver Basin because they're going to be updating it quite a bit whereas we won't. That list should that that clause I would just rather omit it because it really doesn't need to be there if we're trying to comply with other water provider standards anyway. Anyway, okay.

All right. Well then, um I'll just say thank you and let's move uh in the direction we've talked about. Let's invite Weber to come visit. Let's revisit this all together in two weeks. Sounds good. We'll do it. All right. Why don't you move on to item number two? This will probably be pretty quick. Maybe. Don't think so. I don't know. Depends. We actually do have a presentation tonight. So,

uh, the second one is a first review and discussion of the proposed Centerville city comprehensive general plan update documentation. Uh, we have Chris Hos here tonight to do the presentation that I've been talking about for months with all of you. Um, this is the finalized first draft of the actual I guess you'd say final I guess finalized first draft of the final draft of the comprehensive general plan update document. Um, and I'm going to let in a minute Chris present to to you where he's at and and do his presentation. As you see in the background, we've been working on this since May, June of 2024,

and we've gone through quite a bit of survey and research, and he's been to community events, three of them before the survey, and we've had an open house and a lot of uh opportunities for public input on this. And so, we feel like this plan document in its final format is reflective of all of that input over multiple exercises to get here. Um I will also note that this document has been shared with the mayor and council for their own first review and look at but clearly there is a process to to move forward with this. Uh the next steps in this process if you felt comfortable to do so much like our last discussion would be to set a public hearing. We could again set a public hearing as soon as two weeks from today if that's what you'd like to do um to review it or if you feel like I don't know you want a little more time to to read it and review it. I guess you always have that opportunity. The only caveat again that I evidenced in the last discussion is there is a water conservation element that has been created and established as part of this update. If for some reason we don't progress to a point where the plan itself is ready to go, I would request that we take out that water conservation element and fasttrack that if we feel comfortable with it accordingly so we can meet that state standard to get to the city council in time for their review. Particularly, they probably would need two to three meetings to do so. So if at a minimum we get to that point, that's something that I would would would would want want to get scheduled for a public hearing and move forward if we're not ready with the general plan as a whole. So with all those caveats and introductions, um Chairman Car, if you're okay with me indulging, uh I I would say to invite Mr. Hut to come forward and move forward with his presentation.

Uh there are a lot of slides. we can go through them quickly or slowly, however you would all uh want to go through those. That said, um here is a brief overview of the timeline for this general plan. Again, our kickoff was in June 2024. At that point, we kicked off with existing conditions. Uh our team made several visits to the city, walked around. I spent a lot of time in the city getting to know what the situation is. Um we talked to some of the stakeholders uh which included planning commission, city council, uh property owners, employment, UD do UTA. There's a lot of groups that we involved as part of this process to better understand what the current concerns were, what the opportunities were. all of those pieces that helped make Centerville what it is today, what people liked, what what needed to improve and and so on. Um, at that point, we also kicked off with the public engagement. Our first event was the July 4th public openhouse at the park right here. Uh, it was in conjunction with the movies in the park. we uh were in the pavilion and and that was one of our first events to sort of find out where residents were, what they cared for, uh what people wanted, what they didn't want, what they liked about the city, and so on. So, we did that and then we jumped um through a few months of of that public engagement and understanding with the online surveys and things that were there to 2024 where uh it's been a little bit since that happened almost uh a year at this point but we had this joint session where we talked through some of those

findings that we had at that point what our understanding was, what things that we were missing to better or or rather further that public engagement process to understand more deeply those concerns and and and opportunities here. Uh I don't need to go through all this. We went to the Christmas tree lighting had some more joint work sessions. Uh there was a week-long boards presentation out here that had happened at that point. We got back from that. Then some more uh work sessions. February 2025, the city council wanted to have an additional event. We at that point had that event and then we sent out a survey to every business and residential home in the city so that everyone can give feedback. So everyone has had the opportunity to give that feedback. That being said, the and I don't have the numbers right off the top of my head, but we're I believe we're close to 12%, which I know sounds quite terrible, but the typical is 4 to 5%. So, well over that as far as response to these. Um, going a little bit deeper with that survey from the the previous open houses that we had, we got the majority of that that 12%. When we sent it out to every resident, we received approximately 18% of the same response that we had from our worst open house. uh there is a level of apathy um

may say uh as part of public process today which I'm sure you are well aware we jump to today we're now October 2025 we're going through these presentations if there are adjustments and things obviously we can make those we do have a timeline on water element, but the the rest of it, we don't want to rush, but we have a great understanding of what residents have wanted through this process and have a a fairly good confidence level that the land use, which is one of the most critical pieces, meets what residents were uh intending it to to be. Uh just a synopsis from our last event. Uh 418 out of the 419 responses. Again, this is the the mailer that was sent out. There was some concern by some of the council members that we were getting people outside of the city taking the survey. Realistically, it's hard enough to get people in the city to fill out some of this, let alone someone from a different city. There was one individual, they were a business owner. They own property here but did not live here that filled out the survey. So that's that 19. So they own property but they aren't a resident. That's that last person that took the survey. The main topics or priorities that came out of that as you can see is the existing culture. Maintain that. maintain what makes Centerville great, which is some of the smaller town, the the main street feel, the historic nature. There's a lot that makes Centerville Centerville, but all of that is is one of the biggest priorities that that residents had. Next is preserve the hillside.

Don't allow development to happen up there. And there was a mix between people who wanted to continue to improve open space opportunities, recreation opportunities on the hillside and there was another group which was a smaller group that said nothing new, just leave it as it is. We don't want more ATVs or whatever essentially that we heard from that. The third thing which actually wasn't one of our items at the beginning but became a write in vote for our second survey that we did is improve the city parks, maintain improve city parks and and so it it actually rapidly jumped to one of our top priorities as we worked through this process. And then beautifification practices similar to the preserve hillside. There were some mixed concern um things with the beautifification practices specifically how much is it going to cost to beautify Main Street. There was some numbers thrown around that I think one person at one point told me it would be six million to underground everything on Main Street. That's I don't know where they got that number. It's not that realistic. But there is a cost associated with it. The entire main street improvements that we were showing as potential options were all within the existing rightway, meaning there's no takings of property. You don't have to buy any. It's UD do right ofway. So, that was some of those just just to give clarity there. Create a cohesive plan for the west side of the city. Uh, everyone knows it's super beautiful and cohesive over there now with all the industrial and how well it works together. Sorry, I'm I'm a very sarcastic person if you wouldn't tell. That was one of the things that rose to the top. People wanted

to not raise their taxes. They wanted opportunities to bring more tax base. And without changing the culture of what makes Centerville Centerville, you have one really easy opportunity, the west side. Uh, frankly, when I talked to some of the residents, I I talked about the west side and they're like, "Wait, that's Centerville?" So, it's a great opportunity to make some adjustments without affecting what's happening in Centerville. That makes it it a great place. Uh, next slide. a little bit more moderate income housing within the city. There was a majority of the residents that agreed that the best location is the is west side of I-15. They they recognized that, okay, there are some things some residents were like, I don't want anything else. I don't want anyone else. I don't even want my kids to live here. Single family, that's what we do. that there was that sentiment, but a majority of it said, "Hey, if if we need to have this cuz we know affordability is an issue, let's put it there." And and that makes sense. Uh there was some concerns with residents on the west side feeling not connected to the east side which happens when you have a giant dam called I-15 breaking your city in half

and legacy to to further exacerbate that. But the more residents you have over there, the more more culture that you can actually start to garner when that happens. Right now you've got oo complexes, two residential areas. Of course, they don't feel connected. It's surrounded by industrial and other things like that. Um, next piece was the urban design streetscape elements. Streetscapes, uh, uniform streetscapes, street trees, raised planters, outdoor dining, and plaza spaces were the top items that people wanted to see happen. So that when you come into Centerville, you realize I'm here as opposed to where's the cut off between Bountiful and Centerville. Where where does that transition happen? And and obviously locals probably know a little bit more, but generally there's no transition. There's no welcome to Centerville. There's there's nothing like that. So that was part of the sentiment behind what we were hearing there. 82.9% of the residents expressed the desire for the main street improvements. So something to happen, not just leave it status quo. And then uh and the specific one, 41% of those respondents preferred there to be a um pedestrian safety island, which is essentially an a median in locations where people would cross the street. Not everywhere, so you can still have turn pockets, but refuge islands so that people could cross more easily. Right now, there's eight crossings on Main Street. Do you know how long Main Street is? It's over three miles. That's approximately 0.4 miles per crossing. No one's going to walk that. So, um, I walked around the city a lot and

there's a lot more people that walk and bike than was understood at the time. There is a culture and there is a desire for that. Uh, the other piece that was quite fascinating, we sort of um latched on to again part of the culture of Creville is that historic nature. There's a walking tour that a lot of individuals didn't even know existed. And it starts in a a semi- random place and it ends in a semi- random place and it goes by around 20 different sites. So we actually found a route that starts at the Whitaker Museum and ends at the Whitur Museum. I believe it's um 1.1 miles for the walking and 2 something for the biking tour. So fairly short. and we proposed some of the adjustments to that walking tour to more than double the amount of sites it visited and then some improvements that the historic district was already working on uh to integrate that with this tour. So, we'll talk about this in a little bit as well. Um, we also sent the raw data and things so everyone could look at it there. There's nothing to hide there. Um there was some mixed signals on some of the things but these were the results that we heard from the majority. Here are the major visions and goals for that. Again, we've already talked about some of these. Um but those were the top five. The next five were the connect uh connectivity and active transportation which I had just mentioned. Um smart family centered housing. I I that I don't know if that's a curse word or not right now in the city, but essentially centering it around families, locals being able to stay here. People love to stay here and and one thing that

came up in the public engagement was the fact that senior living doesn't really exist here. Where do they go once they age out of their place? Somewhere else. And where do your children go once they age out of your house? Hopefully that's sooner than later, but nowhere really. And so that's that's what that is getting at. Um, encourage quality dining and entertainment. Uh, sit-down restaurants. I don't know how many times I heard people wanting that. There are a few, but enhancing that culture, especially given that you have Centerpoint and the movie theater and some of these other nice pieces that are an evening. If you look at Centerpoint, the next closest theater at that same level, Salt Lake, there's some smaller venues in Ogden and that's really it. So you have a great opportunity to enhance that and and we'll talk a little bit more about that as well. And then strategic redevelopment of key areas which sort of bodess with what I just talked about and then the water conservation and environmental stewardship. Sometimes people care about that, sometimes people don't. Realistically, we have a a problem in Utah. We live in a desert and you couldn't always tell that by driving down the street. thus your previous conversation. Um but but that's that's some of that discussion. Uh these are the general plan elements that we addressed. The the things that you'll see beside it is its primary driver meaning land use. That's a state requirement. Yes, residents want that, but that's a state requirement. So that's it primary driver. As is transportation and housing, those are state required. Conservation, preservation in terms of water use is a state requirement. Everything else is

generally city request existing land use. Uh these were some of the the findings which is not a shocker. Um it's mostly detached residential. There are pockets of attached products but uh main commercial core is parish with with some commercial along Main Street as well. And then the west side is mixed industrial with a little bit of residential and some office and commercial on that south side. If you notice the difference between this and the previous uh there, ignore the west side for now. We'll get back to that. But go back a slide and then come forward. The real changes there's three green pieces in the existing that we just marked for future land use to be detached residential to match surroundings. This does not mean that their property becomes non-conforming if they want to do anything. This does not mean that they can't continue to farm or whatever it is that they want to do with their property. This is just saying that if development was to occur here, it's not going to be attached product. It's not going to be commercial. It's not going to be anything else. It's going to match the existing character of everything around it. That's all this does to support the idea of maintaining Centerville's culture. that just just for reference. That's really the only change on the east side. As far as the west side, we already talked about this briefly, but that's your major opportunity to meet the state requirement and maintain Centerville's culture. also to en enhance some commercial retail tax base opportunities on the west side and really focus in on the the um it's the megaplex on the west side. Uh so so there's those opportunities there on on the east side. We do talk about enhancing and infilling some of

the commercial. There's some stalls that never get used uh around the coals and some of those other spots. There's some opportunities for some infill commercial and some things. We talk about that in the general plan as well, but that's that's generally what we're looking at. One one thing that came out of this is right now the public transportation in Centerville isn't great. It's okay. It's okay for maybe you but not for everybody. There are people who kind of wip from coming forward, you know. Say that one more time. I'll just keep my mouth shut.

Okay. All right. But but some people need to use it. And and if you look at demographic changes from the generations that are represented here and some of the younger generations, the the ideals of what you want your family to look like and how you want to get around and how you want things to work are different. They just are. Uh they're very different, especially after 2020, a lot of things changed. And so finding an opportunity for every Centerville resident to stay in Centerville is important. Um so the the opportunity and this is again an opportunity. Uh there's a potential opportunity for a frontr runner station. You have 4.3 miles to Farmington station and 3.3 miles to Woodscross. Typical uh spacing in Salt Lake and Utah County is two miles or less. So you have the opportunity where you could have that again it's potential and we're not telling you you have to do that today or that's even something that that um needs to happen. There was some interest in that going along with that. Uh so our company helped with station park whether you like it or not we helped with that. there are uh no vacancies and new businesses trying to get there all the time with nowhere to go. So, they're starting to span north, but it's not great because it's not around the station. They want to be around that station. So, this could be an opportunity for an economic driver for the city to further level that tax playing field. Go ahead.

But isn't that um UTA's decision, not ours? Yes. But you the the thing that we're pointing out here is you have an optimal situation where it can happen. And in their original planning, they had a location here. It didn't happen, but they had a location. Okay. So, so it can happen. It's not a closed door thing. That That's Yeah. And Chris, and they do like to have Well, UTA wants to see it in general plan documents as well for funding and other opportunities. Yeah. If it's ever gonna happen, it has to be in here or it just won't. Got it. Thank you.

And again, the the general plan document is a visioning document for the next 10 20 plus years. And so it's this is not assuming that all of this stuff is going to happen tomorrow either. Um so there's a little background. Uh the other thing there's I know the lake is low right now but there's opportunity for flooding with changing patterns and things. So we we maintain that whole west side west of Sheep Lane as a potential park for wetlands. Right now when we asked residents what were your major open space opportunities? What did you look for? They said, "Oh, we love the mountains." And it's like, "Well, what about the lake?" And like, "What lake?" The one on the other side of the I-15 relatively was not thought of as an opportunity because there's no access. You can't get to it unless you go to Farmington or or south. So, that became an opportunity to one mitigate some of the flooding that can occur, increase the opportunity of mitigation of that. It's bird habitat and open space opportunities that currently don't exist in the city of residents who do go to some of these other places for that. It also opens up some of the trails along Legacy. So you have um the Denver Rio Grand Trail and the Legacy that come through here, but in order to get there, you have to sort of bike across Parish or drive over and park in some random road and hope all is well. So we actually, and we'll get to this, but in the open space, we pro propose a few trail heads in a park in this west side as part of this. And then we shift the industrial north and then redevelop around Parish Lane to really capitalize

on the opportunities that exist and and the good pieces that are already there. Let me go down to land use principles. So this is the one that we were just on and then one more down.

Okay. Yeah. So again, as we've mentioned several times, preservesville's character. This does that. we we keep the east side essentially untouched. Um identify areas for suitable future growth, the west side, and then create some unifying town centers or focus areas. And we'll get to those too, but the the first focus area is where we're at on this main street. This is the the historic core, which includes the walking tour and some of those other pieces. It should be maintained and preserved. The second piece is this commercial core which which has the the deep red center point and and those pieces east of I-15 and it's got Young Motorsports. Those pieces that's that second commercial core and then we have the west side which can become an entertainment core uh restaurants and and things of that nature. Um, and then balance commercial and residential, which will we bring some more commercial in to help with the tax base and leakage. I'll get to that if you don't understand the term leakage. Um, and then opportunities for housing 55 plus uh first-time home buyers, different things of that nature to try and help with those missing pieces from the city. and then obviously obvious meeting the state requirements. But when we go through this, the the state has a lot of fun requirements that they keep putting on the cities. Um, and I use the word fun on purpose because as a consultant, some of them are very difficult to meet and still meet the the needs of the city. We put the needs of the city first and then we try and I shouldn't be saying this out loud but then try and finagle how the state

requirements can be incorporated. We've done that here. But community should come first and and so that's this approach. Town centers as previously mentioned those are the three that I just talked about. Um civic center and in the main street core historic downtown um center point and parish lane. So that commercial and some entertainment and then the west side which is that mixeduse core which can bring in some retail and other things of that nature for those other desires that were happening. Uh existing transportation this probably isn't a shocker to most of you. Some of the intersections of concern um you'll see pair uh lane uh that one's pretty rough and then some Porter Chase on 400 West. So 400 West is a major in my head it's a major corridor because that's all commercial and people use that and and then um here's some of the Yeah.

Right. Go back one slide please. Uh so most incidents occur along Paris Lane in the general plan. You'll see a heat map of the incident like this giant burning sun along Parish Lane and I-15. Yeah.

Um I mentioned that before. Eight pedestrian crossings on Main Street. So an average of 04 mile spacing. Obviously there's like more concentration around where the schools are, which makes it this is actually even worse than I'm saying it is because there's areas where there's just massive gaps and you can't cross. Uh some of the key improvements, there's a few lighted intersections. We're proposing a few roundabouts on Chase. Um, you can see along Chase a bridge connection on Chase. There's a a tentative bridge connection on Jennings, but the reason why we're showing the the Chase Lane connection as the primary connection is because when residents want an alternative to Parish, they're not going to go as far north as Jennings.

They would to Chase. So if you want a legitimate solution, Chase is that legitimate solution that can happen and there's already talk of the pedestrian bridge at the park that would cross approximately there. So if you merge those two projects, you end up saving significant money and relieving that parish lane valve. Uh so that's a little bit about the transportation. Other improvements I just talked about the bridge over I-15 at Chase Lane. uh the extension of 20 uh 1250 west. So it's that dashed red line west of I-15 and then Jennings Lane extension going east with the potential of it going west as well and then Chase Lane moved to a minor arterial because realistically go ahead.

Um you said it would save us money. I'm sorry I'm going back to the pedestrian bridge. Are we responsible for that? So not a dot. You'll have to talk more to the funding and and where that's coming from for the pedestrian bridge. Bridge is being built by UD do as part of the I-15 widening project, but then passing along the maintenance of the bridge to the cities. Just the maintenance. Yeah. Maintenance and potential snow removal. I'm just worried about kids going to and from school. Chase. So that's still that's still something that's being discussed at a higher level with the council and staff going back and forth with them. I just want clarification on on that comment. Thank you.

Yeah. So, the existing pedestrian bridge would not be on you to build. If the road came in, there may be some partnership, but it's still going over UD do. So, it's a relief valve to their interchange. So, I would assume, and this is a pretty educated guess based on other things that we've done along I-15, the majority of that would be on UD do if not the entirety because it's helping their system not fail. Taking the load off of Parish, too. Exactly. But I just Yeah. Chase because all the kids walk, they cross that street on 400 West. There got to be something there, right?

Kids that get killed like at least two every school year. Well, maybe maybe that's a little far out there, but I mean there have been deaths and it's Yeah, there there have been deaths. It's sad. I don't think it's as high, but yeah, no death is exactly right. So, we are proposing some and and one of the best ways to do it. A light doesn't really help at that location because it's quote unquote not warranted because of the amount of trips that go through that spot. But maybe a four-way stop. Well, but the problem with a four-way stop is uh you've probably driven on the road and noticed sometimes people just blow through stop signs and it's because they're on their phone. A roundabout, you're going to end up in the center of the roundabout if you're not paying attention.

Well, and it would reeducate, too, because if we've done it straight through and then you throw up a stop sign, a lot of people would be like, "Oh gosh, that's new." And just miss it. That's true. And a roundabout actually does better at traffic calming than a four-way stop because you have to stop and then people will jet after that. Whereas a roundabout, it's a more even keel through it. Then you got to kind of accelerate to get Okay. So that's why we're proposing that specifically at that location because it is an issue. I would love that.

Yeah. So that that's a little bit context. We can uh so this is the the the left map is UTA's future plans. Those dashed lines are proposal uh additions. So they are proposing express lane, which I know has been a a conversation piece for a while. We wanted to bring it up to see what residents cared for. What we noticed is the majority of residents wanted it to stay on Main Street. However, typically when you're using bus service, you want to go to destinations. You also want so so there's two pieces to it. There's origin and destination on a trip. It's where you're leaving from and where you're going to. The majority of the origins and destinations for individuals that are typically going to use this are higher intensity residential and commercial and libraries and those types of users. Those are on 400 West. So, we propose a secondary route, a secondary option to go along 400. And what it would also do, and you don't see this on this map, but if you go further south, it goes into Bountiful, goes right by the rec center, which is another big destination. And so we're proposing to move it off a main street because if we're trying to do these street improvements and then they try and put their buses on it, it potentially changes the character of this. Um people usually don't take the bus to get to the city hall. Uh just

Yeah. So you propose this to us or you're proposing this to UTA? Uh so you we've already had conversations with UTA about this but as was previously mentioned if it's shown in the plan as hey this is a potential option that we want to show it it will potentially do a better job at actually getting to its demographic that would like to use it.

Um so we're showing both. The main street one is is public opinion and the 400 west is the more practical realistic user group which which would actually want to use that route. Uh the east side that's the active transportation plan. Uh we we made some modifications. That's the Davis County one that came through um as part of the city. We made some modifications to that as well just to improve some of the bike connectivity um throughout this area and up to the canyons

housing moderate income housing. The the letters that's not a mistake that's intentional. Uh the the state gives a menu of x amount of items.

Every city has to select so many. These are the ones that we've selected for the city. Most of these were already in you um use. A few of them are new uh by state um mandates and things that that came out in the last legislative session. You'll see that hopsy, what that means is how home ownership promotion zones, which is essentially promoting home ownership. And then the other ones, uh the FIZ or the first time home um first home investment zones. And and these are all west west of I

not to get into it too much but they're economic development areas kind of like an RPA. They could be developed similarly with with uh revel agency over site and tax increment incentives. It's it's a higher economic discussion but think about an RDA but it's built to accommodate new housing and also other associated uses to justify that housing.

Right? so that the the housing that you're building that's more affordable can be more affordable to develop as well essentially. Um but yeah, and then here's some of the gap analysis that was seen there. There are some shortages. Uh AMI is a term that you may not be familiar with. annual median income or or sorry average median income of the city. And in order to meet moderate income housing, you have to be a certain percentage of that median income. And this is this is based on what it is for Centerville. So what the average median income is and then how we uh have broken down the homes by its affordability.

What is the average median income? Oh, it's a number higher than one but less than seven million. Love it. I would probably sorry I don't have that off the top. There's a lot in the document. I suspect it to be maybe for household of four somewhere around 70 grand would be my guess. Yeah, it might be a little bit higher because Centerville has a Yeah. Desire like the the medium for Davis County is like high 50s, low 60s. Yeah. For Davis County.

But but that's just the average that every household in the city makes. This is what the average is. And then we have to go 80% of that average and so on. Yeah. So um that that is that uh this is what I referred to earlier the open space recreation. Blue is proposed new parks that don't exist. You'll see the yellow circles are proposed trail heads to increase access to the mountain and to the lake. Um, you'll see the existing gaps on the east side is really just in the commercial area. There's not a lot of Whoops. Not a lot of residential over there. So, I wasn't as concerned with that gap because it is mostly commercial in that area, but we are proposing to enhance the Centerpoint area with potential plazas and other users that are more synergistic. Uh, I I know the city loves banks.

Oh my word. Again, there's the sarcasm. Oh my. There's no more banks. But but the point is there's some opportunity to transition some of those facilities to be more conducive of the Centerpoint Theater and create a welcoming destination space and potentially get more tax out of the people that come and visit. um and make a little nice place where people can actually come and and maybe stay longer or come earlier so that your

transportation to the facility at key times is minimized. Um so that's on the east side. There is one small uh gap that exists west of I15 still, but um it will probably be taken care of on its own uh even today because that's where the theater is and that's where uh it's Legacy what's the apartment complex? Legacy Crossing.

Legacy Crossing. They have their own amenities. That's why that gap it's it's an artificial gap. They have their own amenities. They're they're fully private and that's why they don't show up on this map. So, um that's really the only gap, but it's not really a gap. And then the west um the wetlands park with some active pieces uh established with those and some additional trail heads. So if you're coming across Jennings or you're coming across uh Chase or you're dead ending on Paris. So when you go out Parish and you're going south, it would be essentially there. So you'd be able to cross and access a trail head right to Legacy. Um, and

and to that point, Chris, actually, just for the planning commission, you may be aware of this, but there now is in its very final steps a trail connector to the very thing Chris is talking about along Parish Lane uh west of Maverick on the side that Maverick is on. That's what the improvement was as you go into Legacy was a trail connector to the Legacy Trail System. So, that has been built already by you. It

has been. Yeah, Maverick is a trail head. It's an unofficial trail head, but establishing a more um permanent trail head, Maverick's probably going to stay around for forever, but you don't control them. So, who who knows what could happen to that? So, establishing one that's actually controlled by the city that's accessible to everybody is is a great opportunity. Can I ask Yeah. What could be a dumb question, why is Jennings not punched through on this? uh map all the way to the west. It on this map it is showing through actually. It No, I mean all the way to meaning continue out to the trail head.

Yeah, that's a good point. Um I don't know. Okay, that we did we did it on the park, but yeah, it would make more sense to continue to the trail head. Yeah, and that's an easy thing that we can add to the GIS layers and the maps. That's actually Yeah, that's a good question. Yep. Um yeah, very very valid point. You will see there is an existing trail head that is not in the city. Um it is county on the far south side. That orange circle you don't control, you don't maintain it. So to do improvements, you'd have to work with the county to get those to to happen.

Which one are you referring to? Straight down the bottom. Bottomove corner. This one right here. Oh, okay. Is that Bonavville Shoreline?

Yeah, Bonavville Shoreline comes through there. I can't remember the name of the trail head off the top of my head, but there is a trail head. It it's it's a dirt space where people can park and and launch into Bonavville. The proposal and the language that that sort of goes around this is either have an agreement with the county that you can make some improvements. Maybe it's a bathroom. I I don't know what it is, but there could be some improvements that happen there or establish your own trail head and that location that's yellow. There's opportunity to put some facilities, whether there's parking or other things in at that location. And that's where I know there's ATV things that happen there. There's the Bonavville shoreline. So, it could be a great opportunity for some enhancements. I believe that's forest service trail head

or the bowl forest service but like it's Davis County but forest service overlap. Yeah. Any questions with that part of it?

You'll you'll see our additional um uh Wetlands Park Center Point Plaza and then there's four additional trail heads. Two on the west and then two on the east. So there's one in a in a pretty big gap between existing trail heads where there's actually roads that go up there, but there's no trail head. So it it creates a new launching point. And then on the south side and then um it says what they connect to here are the public facilities. So public safety, education, utilities, infrastructure, community facilities are all addressed in this element. the opportunities for a new uh cemetery location. I I know that's not a another one.

Well, as part of this, we've been discussing the the last plot was sold what 12 months ago or something. That was my family. Um so there's no more opportunity. We've done some research. Co's thrown a a wrench in things and uh for those who are members of the church of Jesus Christ, they changed the policy as well so that people can be cremated at this point. So we've noticed a massive shift from burial to cremations in the state of Utah.

Um so we don't have full data on the amount of space that would even be needed anymore because of some of those shifts. It's it's hard to tell. Uh we do have some anecdotal data and a little bit of data from that, but as far as spacing is is concerned, a mausoleum you can fit a lot more people than you can in the cemetery. So the size of cemetery that you have today, you wouldn't need to double it. That's essentially what that conversation boils down to. Uh here are some potential locations. These are vacant properties or u properties large enough to facilitate that new cemetery. Uh I I know there's been some properties that have come up around the existing cemetery from time to time and and the city didn't get those. Who knows? Maybe that is an opportunity that we show here. Uh but we sort of vet some of these. Some have better odds of happening than others. Uh if you do west of I-15, you could have floating bodies. That could be an issue. You'd have to raise the whole site.

They're they're realistic opportunities that you could make happen with some effort. Um on the far right side, south right um south right southeast. Uh that is steep. So you could have a lu run for those caskets as well. Um there are opportunities to flatten out some of the site but but realistically we're just trying to find opportunities. Some of the opportunities in the core of the city would be more practical. Uh another piece to this is the the creation of a municipal campus master plan for the city hall and public safety buildings. Public safety I know is in the works uh at certain levels. There's been talk about this this facility that we're in right now and its age and some of the cost to upgrade it or get it back to working condition or new. That that's part of that discussion. Doing a plan that specifically drills into that opportunity is important. Uh another piece with that is you have the public works on the west uh west side. as you reszone some of the properties over there and the values go up, that public works facility is um more valuable and potentially gives you a larger return especially if you can consolidate the facilities here because there is some ground to do that. So there's opportunities there to look at the facilities as a whole and find solutions to to make that work. Uh the other piece is the future school needs um with a shift in population. The demographic trends of the city it is aging. It's not as young as it once was. So it's aging a little bit. And so as the school needs change, maybe there's a

shift in some of the school uses, maybe there's additional schools that would need to be placed on the west side. I'm not the I'm not the district, so I I can't decide that. That's something that needs to be addressed. Uh this is what I talked about earlier. That is the historic walking and biking tour that we're proposing. Again, ending and beginning at the Whitaker Museum, which is essentially what kicks it off anyways. Makes a lot more sense to start there and end there so that people can get their things, go through the route, and in there and get their questions answered. It also promotes it a little bit more because now it's starting and ending on Main Street as opposed to it was starting uh if you go straight from the Whitaker Museum which is is that started an end point on the left. It starts um if you go straight east from the existing green dock sorry uh to where they just have a lake. That's essentially where it starts today and then it goes in a a undefined route through the city. So this would be mapped out. There'd be QR codes and things like that so people could see and know exactly the potential for audio tours and things because that's already a piece of that the historic district's working on. So just integrating that into it would be a pretty cool opportunity for the city. We talk about um agriculture and conservation land. There are some existing a grounds. Even when we tried to ask people how important that is to residents of the city, it's not anything that makes the city critical uh critically work or not work is what we essentially heard from residents. It's like cool, don't really care. Um I I know there are that's maybe a bit insensitive to say there are some families that actually run that ground

and and own the ground. So we're by no means are we saying get rid of it. It's just it wasn't a major priority. Uh then the hillside and slope protection that was a priority. The floodway and wetlands that was a priority. And then the water conservation preservation low impact development. some of the things that you guys talked about tonight and some additional pieces are are listed there. And then generally the historic preservation, what that does as far as benefits to tax base, culture, and general revenues into the city is is great. Um, going back to the economic development, your top five drivers and your bottom five drivers as far as where the leakage means tax dollars that could stay in the city that are actually leaking out to a different city. Um, capture rate is essentially how much you're bringing in and keeping in the city. And and those are your numbers. So, your biggest is general merchandise stores. 100 million plus 304% capture rate. Pretty good. Generally, you're above you're 151%. So, you're you are capturing more than you're losing, which is great. But those red categories are the ones that you sort of want to focus on. Accommodations, 16 million of leakage that could be spent from your residence in the city are going and being spent somewhere else. And there's more information about what those are. I I don't want to spend a lot of time saying accommodations is this this is it's in there. Um, food and beverage was the other piece. We talked about pulling in some restaurants and other things to minimize that piece. And then the clothing and clothing accessories. There's not a lot to really drive that here. There are some, but it's not like a major piece that would be easily plugged with the other things that you have

going on in the city. Accommodations you could do. food and beverage you can do because you have the theater and you have Centerpoint and some of these other pieces that bring people in. Um, and it's much easier to get here than it is some of those other spots. So, there's some great opportunity with those categories specifically and and then you'll see the media, entertainment, and recreation. Despite having Centerpoint, you still have leakage. Uh, entertainment and recreation includes all the other pieces. And so there is a a significant leakage of people going elsewhere for those opportunities. And then um do you guys have any questions to this? Your your capture in those top five categories is 2 point uh 232 million and your leakage is 46 million. So it's a surplus. You guys are in a good spot. There's things that could be done. And the this is the survey responses. This is a previous thing that was shared with the group several months ago. If we don't need to go through this again, but any questions? I know I tried to keep it brief, but that was still long. So,

thank you. Okay, it's awesome. Nice work. Yeah. Great. Okay. Thanks, Chris. Okay. So that rounds us out, right? So the ne Yeah. So then the question would be given the presentation, what would you like to do as next step? Would you like me to schedule it for a public hearing for two weeks to consider it or do you need more time with it? I don't need more time. I think I don't need more hours. That's like that's like 98.5%. I don't need

We'd have leakage. That's funny. I do have a question for you. So, there are options in here on the slide of of what to do on Main Street and that we're not debating any of that. This is just in there as if this or this can happen. They're ideas absent from the things he said are statemandated. Even those, they're still ideas. They're planning ideas. I I I think again like we've talked about multiple times before, this is a planning guidance document tool only. It does not have any legislative authority other than to give ideas for guidance for true legislative changes in the future. Let's let's move it forward. Yeah, let's go for it.

Can I add uh the state has been making changes. It has no teeth today as far as like it's a guiding document. So if zone changes happen, they have to be vetted through this, but the state has been making moves to potentially add more teeth to the general plans. Keep that in mind. It it isn't the case today and it may never happen. More affordable housing, right? Well, that's one of the pieces. One of the threats. Yeah, that's one of the threats. There's a few things like we want to bring more tax into the state, things of that nature, but today it doesn't have the teeth of a code.

And to that point, the general plan can always be amended in response to what the state asks us to do. Sure. Correct. I That's a beautiful plan. I think it's great. Yeah. Yeah. Let's notice that up, please. Okay. I will notice. We need to do a separate um approach for the the element that you were talking about the for the water element. No, because if it gets if this gets approved, it will satisfy that requirement. But if we get to a point that we're split, we will then address that with city council if that way. All right, moving on to community development director's report. Thank you, Chris.

Thank you. Uh I just wanted to let you all know we are firming up our uh South Davis Greenway feasibility study participants. Uh you have a fellow planning commissioner who has accepted the opportunity to represent the planning commission and Gary Woodward. So he will be the representative of the planning commission. It'll be a feasibility study. Yeah. Yeah. I was pretty happy about it that he accepted. It'll be a feasibility study. Take about a year. uh we'll have four about four meetings with the steering committee. They will participate in guiding that and and again to remind you what that even means, it's a a connectivity trail system that we're trying to explore how it could be most feasibly um evaluated and established to go from Farmington and connect to Salt Lake County.

Yay. So it' be a nice trail system that and it would the idea would have would be that it has a uniform look and feel between all the communities and it becomes kind of a gemstone experience to connect you through urban and and other environmental conditions of our communities. Awesome.

It's going to be pretty exciting. So the first step that WRT requires is to do a feasibility study and then once that's established then it cues us up for further potential financing opportunities to then improve said corridor. once that study is established. So, it it can lead to some exciting future um opportunities. And then we did have a council member accept the the opportunity to participate and that is council member Gina Hurst. So, she will be the council member representative. Uh be a staff representative. Uh Sydney is an alternate. Currently, our city manager Brent Hansen will be another city representative. So, we're going to we're allowed to have up to six. We're going to have five. We still need to identify who from the trails committee would be the best representative from that group, but once we get a trails committee volunteer, we'll have our our five to participate in that experience. So, pretty excited. We'll have a a city coordination meeting where they'll just come and talk to city the city team and that will be on the um first we'll meet with with our consultant team and they're going to do that with every city first and then they'll start to seam that together with these steering committee meetings. So, pretty exciting. I I think it'll be really good. Um and your council has been supportive of the the project thus far in getting the funding. It was a very low match from the cities. That's the best part of it. I think it was like a 85% or 82% uh funding by WFRC and then the remainder was a match between the the four communities and then also UD do will will be asked to participate and so will UTA. So do it. So, yeah, we'll keep you updated on that, but that's what I have to report.

Great. Thank you. Yeah. All right, let's review the minutes of prior meeting uh from September 24th. Anybody have any questions, concerns, or edits? Seeing none, I'll accept a motion. I'll make a motion to accept the minutes. I will second it. I have a motion and a second. All in favor say I. I. That rounds us out for our agenda. Sir, we appreciate your your being here. Um after the meeting, if you have any questions, please please Thank you for your service. Yeah. Um I will take a motion to adjurnn. I make a motion to

I have a motion. I'll take it as a second. Second. All in favor say I. We are done. Okay, we're ready for