Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay, I really like this map. Okay, we'll call to order our planning commission meeting for February 24th, 2026 for Roy City. Um, we'll begin with the pledge of allegiance by Commissioner Reed. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Okay, we'll begin with our first item. We don't really need to declare conflicts because we're not voting on anything, right, Steve? Yeah, it's on there. But I just never take it off. That's all right. I'd rather you guys not have to do it than need to do it. Yeah. If you feel like you have a conflict, I mean, we're just having a discussion, so there's no voting, but if you do have a conflict that you want to declare, it doesn't hurt to to say that. But any conflicts?

Okay. Um item number two is a the continued discussion regarding building heights. So if you remember I think it was November we were we started this discussion um didn't continue with December Christmas you know whatever and then January I forgot to put it on for a work session. So I'm bringing it up. We didn't really say yes, no, or maybe on on the heights and the changes. So, if you remember, it was more of currently it's all about the height

60 ft, 80 ft, 40 ft, whatever. But the way the code is written, it measures height by number of stories. So to bring the that aspect into in coherentness, it's more of now bringing what we did the downtown zones

and now we're just going to bring the other mixeduse zones into it. So this way I've presented it today is a little different than normal. So, I thought, well, why don't we just go zone by zone so everybody knows what zone and where it's at in the city, what buildings are allowed, and what those height stories are going to be. So, I'll start with the business park, which is around the airport station. Now, granted, a good chunk of it and only people here in the audience can see all this is airport, so it'll never get developed. So, it's really just the I Omega and currently Mega America first and then a few properties there that this this zone incorporates. So, currently the height is 80 ft. So, I just eight for eight. 80 equals eight stories. You guys want to do seven, nine, I I don't care. Um the FAA will still have some control on height and locations of the runway, but this was again just to take it so it all matched throughout the the code. So there are some sections like a limited bay. Um if you're west of 19, it only allowed for 60 ft. So we changed it to six stories. Most of that was again to you have more residential on the west side to protect those residential. Um but it was still you know 30 ft higher than the single family homes but in the code it does if you but up against a single family residential zone you have separation requirements. You still have all those things. So I don't know if you have any questions on these aspects. the row homes. You could have an 80 foot row home. That doesn't make sense because most

aren't more than three three and a half stories. So, bring that one down to three and a half stories. If you want to make that three stories, again, that's up to you. The half is more of if if I could have a half basement rather than a half story up above. I was I was thinking like we'd seen um was it the January or maybe the December meeting where they were actually developing on top of the roof like you like an outside bar or something. So yeah, uh that falls in underneath the roof, you know, what type of roof system you have and then there's allowances of what can and can't be on that for height.

Um station south, it's more of the light blue color, not the the dark blue. Most of that on the west side of the rail run or the railroad is the railrunner. So they are already being built at at 35 ft. So this would apply to most the other uh parcels that aren't that are vacant or you know have underlighting uses. So just changing it from 35 ft to 3 and 1/2. Again, you just want to keep it three. I'm fine with that. Um, I'm just trying to equate kind of similar.

Now, that won't cause new development to look that different. Right. I three and a half is very close to 35 ft is what I was saying. Right. Right. Okay. We'll get into the l the floor heights in in a few slides. Yeah. I remember. So, we had those conversations. Again, if it's three stories or 3 and 1/2, again, some of them, especially on the east side where you do have that hill, you might be able to get a half basement. So, I think having a three and a half is is better than just three. But, um, you never know what the geotech report will come out and if you can or if you can't.

It would help you if house would crash, but I'm trying to

uh station central, which is just the dark blue area. Um most of that is owned by UTA except for on the west side of the tracks and it's a private property owner. Um right now th those buildings can be 60 ft tall including a row home. So bringing that down to three and a half but keeping everything else six stories just in that zone. uh station north, which is north of 4,000 between the rail trail, the tracks, and Hinkley Drive. There's really only two types of buildings allowed there. So, 60 ft or six stories and row homes again at 60 ft or three and a half. Um the council has had a development agreement that was approved in order to take all the buildings up 10. It was portion of the building from 60 feet or from 50 feet to 60 feet, but you you have do have property owners and developers looking to increase that a bit. So having stories versus just a feat in general helps them.

And then development agreements probably won't come other than if they want something different by use or um and such. But station north, station south doesn't allow any commercial. It's all single family or all residential. urban corridor hits all the orange sections, mostly along 3500 West and Midland, but there are some on 19 and a little bit out there on 4,300. Most of that is that um holiday oil, so that won't get torn down anytime in the near future, 50, 60 years from now. Um so row buildings or any type of building in here it was 40 ft. Um that's what the old community commercial zone allowed. Uh I know when the planning commissioner was looking at this particular zone was conscious of of that keeping it similar to what the community commercial was but again changing row homes from 40 ft to 3 and 1/2 stories. So going to what the story minimum and maximum height of each of those. So storefront can have minimum 14 up to 24 but anything um above 18. So you see the note is got 11 subscript there's a note that says anything that's taller than 18 would count as two. So if I wanted a 24 foot first level that's now two stories. So, I'm limiting myself. If I keep it at 18 and under, then I still have the number of stories. Uh, limited bay is very similar to that. It has 14 to 24 ground level, but again, anything over 18 ft is considered two.

This is very similar to what the downtown zone has on language. So, we just repeated it again. upper stories on those two is 9 to 14. Um, most developers are going to do 9 ft, maybe 10, but you start getting more cost in a cost effective. If if you go, you know, my second floor is 14, my third floor is 14, it just gets the cost is is extraordinary. My thought is you're probably going to be more nine unless you have a penthouse then you want you might want to go a little bit taller just again you have that um advantage I guess you'd say and you make it more open and and it would cost more but cost effectiveness you're not going to get 14 ft each floor but allow the developer to decide that on their own if they want to spend you know $50 a square foot or2 $200 a square foot. That's That's their own.

Uh general student, can I add something there, Steve? So, I know like the commercial on the ground floor allowing the 18 foot will definitely encourage or give more opportunities for businesses to come in. Those low ceilings just aren't real viable on the That's what we kind of talked about. Remember, right, in the UC zone, we've actually had two development agreements to increase the height. Yep. Additional 10 feet. Was that? Yep. And one of them saved them I want to say it was like 900,000 is what they presented just by giving them flexibility because then they could work in the That was the one by Sacos. It was up by Sacos, wasn't it?

Um well that was in the downtown. There was one by the clinic on 52. The one they redid that looked really nice on the redo. And then the one on 4000 that Taco Bell asked for an additional 10 ft. So they themselves are already coming out saying hey we we need additional height in that ground floor. I mean even you know just doing the quick math on like cuz I think you said storefront that was up to four. I mean you're going what was before it was 60 ft right for a storefront storefront? No, it wouldn't be 60 ft the building,

but in those urban corridors, it was a 40ft ceiling and they needed an at least 14 ft for the commercial space to make it viable. So, you're already at 44. They were asking for an additional 10.

Yeah. So that's where a lot of this comes in is development agreements that keep coming in asking for additional height in order to have ground floor being taller and make it more commercially viable and and such. So um the downtown was approved about a year ago now. um the enforcement bar. We haven't had anybody build yet, but I know Agora, which is next to the KFC and the plasma center, uh they're just finalizing their building plan, so they could submit for a permit and then they'll start building. Um so that'll be the first project to get off the ground under that code. Again, just general height. So the general stoop and large format that's more of your Walmarts or you know bigger buildings 18T height maximum in the ground floor 9 minimum and then civic buildings for some reason the city thought they'd want a 20ft height main story but anything 18 and taller would count as so again it doesn't make sense to go above that 18 to lose a story but again that ability to to pick and choose how they want. And then Ro Home Holmes just 9 and 14 is for all stories. So that's kind of where I put it. I was hoping it was a little more legible rather than here's the building type listing the zones but not really knowing where the zones were within the city. So, if this kind of helped because, you know, we're not going to get an 80 foot building or eight story building in the UC zone that's going to be all towards the airport.

You'll have sixtory buildings, but that's more towards the front runner station in an isolated area. So, hopefully that helped depict where where things. So, kind of your up to your discussion. Proceed with what we've got. you want to look for any of it to be changed. So before when we said a building height that's 35 ft that's from ground to top of the roof, right?

Depends on the zone. Again, our our code is contradicts itself. So the the mixeduse zone chapter 13 has a way of measuring it. The rest of the zones have a different way of measuring it. Okay. So for all the R1 zones and manufacturing, it's ground to peak of of roof. In the mixeduse zones, it goes by story. So floor to ceiling, floor to ceiling, floor to ceiling. And the roof is not counted in that counted in that cuz I could have a gable or I could have a flat or what have you. So this is just to make it so it's this chapter in the ordinance is consistent.

Okay. So when we talk about the three and a half stories, that's not the same application going to counting the roof, the pitch of the roof. No. As part of a half that half story. I mean, if they wanted to I didn't assume so, but I wanted to make sure I was they wanted to use the attic space as that half story. They could. They could, but most uh building inspectors aren't going to call that a a livable space because it's not height room. Most of those usually are the basements. Okay. If I can have a half basement, daylight basement, something, then you consider that a half and then it goes up from there.

Like I said, if you want different stories, however you'd like to to do this. No, I remember when we discussed this the last time, I didn't I don't remember too much static from everybody about it. I kind of No,

sorry. No, council. I believe it was 50 vote or 4:1 vote, something like that. Um, the only issue came it was uh there was a referendum that came from it. That's why this stalled. I didn't want to include this and then have that one and go to vote and have this one have to be relooked at. So, I just kind of stalled from that one that the uh council did actually change the allowed height. Yes. which is what kind of led to the referendum where at least now I mean we can certainly make recommendations if we feel like these heights aren't

appropriate but like kind of what we're discussing here is kind of a straight across trade not proposing new heights but staff in the downtown did the same so it was 80 ft I did eight stories planning commission took it to to 12 stories the council dropped it to 10 so downtown east where did the 14T come from the 14 uh that was part of the original code that was written. Okay. I'm just trying to think of where anywhere that would become applicable. I just went with what was originally written when we were going through the mixed use code. Okay. That's where most of these numbers came from, just what the original. Okay.

So, if you wanted to do 60 to five stories or I really I don't have a dog in this fight. But if you like this then we'll proceed forward with a public hearing in March and proceed forward with that.

Yeah. I think just my perspective let's you know have a discussion. You know the height I'm with Steve I'm indifferent. I think going to stories is a better way of doing building height and if if we're really trying to get businesses here, you know, we have very limited commercial space and so I think the more we can do to incentivize and give, you know, the flexibility there for them to do what they want and still keep it within limits. I think this gives them flexibility but also keep some parameters there and economics are going to keep you from doing 14t heights. You know, I I think that commercial floor needs to have some flexibility. I mean, you don't go into any business and see a 10ft

ceiling. It just doesn't happen. And then the idea of having that top one some ability, I don't think a lot of developers will do that, but it does give them the flexibility if they want to do kind of the penthouse kind of approach. This gives them some flexibility. I know realistically, you know, applicability within reason. Nobody's, like you said, nobody's going to do that. I'm just thinking about the discussion that's been going on saying, you know, we're we're creating this standard that we can go, you know, 14t stories. I mean, we went from a building at 60 ft. Now we can go six stories at 14 ft tall. We're going to have these massive buildings. It didn't stop that discussion, even though realistically nobody's going to do that. It didn't stop that discussion.

Well, I mean, there's always a developer may reach for the sky and want to spend the the money 14 foot, you know, second floor and you know charge someone astronomical amounts. That's why I think it's more going to be the penthouse that's going to have a taller floor because you can do that. You're just doing a ceiling versus ceiling floor and above it. So yeah. But so if you guys are okay with these numbers then we'll just proceed forward or

Yeah. I I like what you said about the flexibility, right? Hey, I can do this many stories. These are the variable distances that I can have within these stories. I'm all for giving the developers more options and we have standards there, right? Hey, if it's I would imagine the probably the most conversations going to happen is on the max ground floor. When does it come to a second story? Maybe commission's going to lower that. But I don't think anybody had a problem with the rationale of the first story. It's

why do we have 14t subsequent stories? Well, again, nobody's going to do that, but it it creates that conversation that everybody's having now. That's going to increase this building to an unreasonable height, which again is never going to happen, but it's there in the code now. So, the way I look at it is it gives them that option. Most of us know that 95 developers will never do it, right? There's that one that may say, you know, I want 14 foot or 10 foot or 12 foot. I'm willing to spend the money. And that way we're allowing them to that option without having to go through the process of a reszone or a development agreement which which takes a long time which makes sense to me.

Yeah. Again it makes sense to me but and the latter is what started the building height discussion the um development agreements and just my past experience working in county government the one of the counties I used to work for everything was done through development agreement. It's just a nightmare. I'd rather us create parameters that it's just kind of people know what to expect when they come in and cuz you get into development agreements and somebody negotiates something and then this person wants that plus something and then all of a sudden it's just this tangled mess and it's kind of like why do you even have zoning to begin with at that point. So I I think creating you know kind of those guard rails and then within that giving flexibility agree

and avoiding development agreements for everything we do. Yeah, we've been chastised a few times on development agreements. So, okay. I didn't hear any thoughts of changing. Okay. Next item is chickens. My neighbors chickens keep coming over to my yard. This one came up from a conversation with a council member. Um, dinner to me. They live in a single family home on a single family lot in a multifamily zone.

So, they're in all intents and purposes, they're just like everybody else in an R1 zone, you know, 6,000 foot lot. And the question came is why can't I have the same or have chickens similar to everybody else in a single family? just because I'm in an R2 zone, but I am living in a single family home. Why can't they have chickens? So, if you remember in December, we kind of were talking about how small of a parcel should we go and how many chickens should that have. That's why I've got the 4,000 to 59.99 and an unknown number. or do we leave it at 6,000 just like all the other zones in the city and say not mend that table and just say if you have 6,000 to 15 you get six.

How many homes does this apply to? I I couldn't tell you. Okay. I mean in the R2 zone there's probably more than most R3 zones, but you know there are there are some here and there. I don't I I think this is a good idea. Again, if I live in a single family home, regardless of what zone I'm in, why shouldn't I have the same rights?

Well, and I've commented on this before, that I feel like that it shouldn't be zone restricted. If they have agricult, right? I I don't agree to 4,000. Um being someone who has to deal with that the complaints about people who raise them on small lots and the not only just the sights and sounds, but the things that come with it, which is rodents and other things that happen. It becomes a concern of people with those smaller lots. they deal with, you know, that moving around in the neighborhood on those smaller lots. So, um I would I'd be discouraged to do 4,000. That's just really small. And when you're looking at where you can put a chicken coupe to be a distance away so it doesn't really, you know, have an impact on the neighbors, you know, depending on how the lot is shaped, there's just no place for it to go. So like to me I I'm I'm for not restricting it based on zone, but 6,000 is the minimum lot size is how I feel on this one. Still not going to solve all the problems. You're still going to get complaints.

So right now it's not so heavily dense that it creates instead of one or two upset neighbors, you got six or seven because of the impact sometimes it has. So, so right now we're saying, if I remember correctly, nothing less than 6,000, no chickens, right? And and that's kind of where the discussion discussion kind of talk because the R four and five allow for a single family home. R5 on a 4,000, R4 on a 5,000. They don't exist because no one's built on those yet. But that was a thought is if I have an R5 zone and I build a single family home on a 4,000 foot lot, should I still have the same rights to have chickens?

At what point is a property too small to handle it, but I live on just over a quarter acre and my wife would love to have a horse back there because I got enough room in my backyard for a horse. It doesn't make any sense because of the sights, sounds, smells, and what the neighbors are going to like, right? And then sometimes it's just I'm sorry, you just your lot's too small to allow those things happen. And heaven forbid I put one horse on a quarter acre. That makes absolutely no sense. And this minimum size of the coupe doesn't change. I mean, for one chicken or six chickens, it's still got to be the same size.

Two square foot per chicken on in the coupe. And then your run can't be larger than So nothing changes on that. middle when we had oh go ahead the location the distance from the side yards and rear yards you started eating at 4,000 real quick with all the setbacks and got to have the coupe and and we had a really robust discussion when Mr. Bradford came with his property and we kind of paused everything and went back and kind of looked holistically at the whole chicken. We extended the right to bear chickens to a lot of people that didn't didn't have that ability to have a chicken on their property before.

Um, you know, and 6,000 was where we kind of landed then. And I mean, not that we can't do something different, but 6,000 is where we kind of said if we want to extend it to different zones, I mean, if they're similarly situated people that are in a multi uh single family and multi single family and a multif family zone, like I I think that's fine to extend that, but I start worrying once we get to the smaller. That's my concern. And I know in one of the work sessions we talked about lowering the number of chickens, and my thought is it doesn't really matter if it's two or six. Like if if somebody like that number doesn't matter. It's more the the lot size in my mind and the impact that would have happened. So I can I can just keep it 6,000 and top and remove that one line.

I do want to address that comment that I because that was me. That was me that had made that. I then went over the last couple of months and have gone through the Google Earth like awesome. So, and um for those five and 4,000 square foot lots, I wasn't actually able to find one that just with the information that I had access to that we'd be able to meet all of those requirements. Yeah. So, there might be one or two. Yeah. But overall, just because of the way that we have the setbacks, the size of the homes that are on those properties there, it would be a change that would look nice but not actually be feasible. Okay. Yeah. And I think we would end up if there was someone that wanted to do it, they end up putting in a lot of work into trying to prep that one to find out that it would not work.

So we didn't want to throw that out there. Good discussion. So should the question be do it if you can? No. You know what I mean? I mean is that what it comes down to is if you have a 4,000 foot lot, good luck making it work. That's the thought or a thought. There's two two ways I think we could go. One of them is that we just extend it into those other zones. The other is we do both. Extend it into those zones and reduce the lot size. Go smaller. I don't want to reduce the lot size. I don't I don't think it makes sense to do it. Yeah. You could but

I mean we could make it a thousand, you know, take you take it to five. You stop at five and not four. I mean it it does start become difficult with setback and how far you have to be from property lines and from someone's house and and stuff like that. But the thought is if you can do it, why not allow it? Let that those two people in the whole city that can make it work have a couple chickens. I don't know. And upset their neighbors. Yeah. Well, upset their neighbors is not my my concern. Dogs are more upset them, too. or me starting my car at 4:30 in the morning and you're still asleep. Still, if you deal with chickens and what people do with chickens,

which I don't

in the neighborhood and and I I do unfortunately um it it just when we look at being good neighbors, continuity neighborhood, respect of the neighborhood, um and we we do something, we turn a 4,000 square foot into a backyard barnyard. That a that's a different perspective for people on those smaller lots. in that higher density that says, "Okay, now the the smell and the everything else that comes from that and what that attracts to that neighborhood now from surrounding areas and fields and stuff. I I don't want if I want to deal with rats crawling through my yard to go to their yard to munch on, you know, the stuff that's been spread all over the place on that neighbor's yard that's small." So here's my thought based on the conversation. Let's take that out when we propose that to come to the smaller the smaller

when we come to the public hearing. Um but also acknowledging that that could be amended. So if anybody wants to come back with some information and um in in that meeting we would have the ability to amend that back in. But as far as what's presented in the meeting, let's making sure that all the as far as the setbacks and coops and anything else is in that information cuz it's for rabbits too, right? It's not just chickens. So yes, my neighbor doesn't have rabbits. I don't have to deal with that. So I don't know what's involved there. Yeah. I mean the way the rabbits and chickens are, you can have six and then 15. No, six chickens or six rabbits

or a combination more. I just meant the rabbits increasing. That's a different discussion. Yeah. So, this would apply to rabbits, too. But chickens was the more the hotter topic on that. I mean, keeping chickens isn't, at least in my experience, isn't cheaper than just buying eggs. But if people want to do it, they can do it. Unless you got a lot of them. Really? Yeah, it's really not. I agree. Two chickens is not going to give you a lot of eggs. Mhm. Okay, next item is open space. Have a chance to read this one.

Well, this one was comes from the water conservation and usage element of the general plan that was just adopted in December. In there was a a suggestion or or what have you to look at if I've got a multifamily development that's within an x number of feet of a park why should that development also have to have 25% of it open space grass and usage when the park can do that how do you save water so if I can if I'm within an quarter half you know that's up to debate because I can find either way or either which way it's more of a reduce. Do we allow for a little more density or do we just say well it's more passive open space um using water wide techniques and you can have more you know benches and picnic tables versus a large area of grass to play on. So there's two, you know, a couple avenues we can we can look at it is if you're within a half mile of the park and we reduce and this amount we'll talk about in a minute. Um whatever that is, can we increase the density or is it just more passive open space or or what have you? Now the question was when you guys looked at me is research around

well none of the cities surrounding us have anything like this nothing. So I had I had to kind of go out of my normal realm. So Park City and what was the other one? Aimed high Steve Syracuse is the other other city within

an hour drive. Here we go. Um but most of them it's more of in lie of so you're building a multif family there is an open space but we need a park somewhere and I'm using Syracuse as an example we need a park in this area so instead of you building your own you give us the money that you would have spent on your own park so we can build a more regional park that will serve your residents. Um there's nothing really says, you know, if a half mile, you can reduce it by this percentage. If you're within a quarter mile, it'll be this percentage. There's nothing out there like that in in the state of Utah. Most of it is in lie of give us the money so we can build the regional park. Syracuse has a few of them within a half mile of where I live. They got a big huge regional park that they're building now. And then 4 acres that was part of my subdivision is also a park within 500 yards of the regional park. And the city said, "We'll probably never develop that." Like then why did you require it? Well, our ordinance required. It's like it doesn't make sense

because they're not going to ever get the money and why have two large parks within half a mile of each other. So I went beyond went into Colorado and Idaho and Nevada and so you have town of Frederick, Colorado that talks about and these were the half mile quarter mile come into play but no one really came reduce it by this much and reduce it by this much. again they're you know developer can take credit of the proximity and instead of pay cash in loo Syracuse the same uh Nevada churchill county it just starts becoming harder and harder to find and there's no one that says has an ordinance that says reduce you get this within a half mile or reduce and you get that within a quarter per mile. So if we proceed with this type of stuff, it's really going to be we're making our own code and setting the example to other people that the way to reduce water usage on these type of things is is this. I can definitely proceed forward to looking at what portions of our code could be, you know, amended in order to accomplish that. What percentage of, you know, is it increase in density or is it an increase of something else or a decrease of something else if you're within a half mile or quarter mile? So, these are kind of things that I can kind of research the AI tool to help out, but really it's it's this is kind of where I'm at is

what would you like me to to look at? Cuz cash in L doesn't help us really because most of our parks are already established. Yeah, that's that's actually what I was going to add like let's say we did something like this. Where are we going to put? Yeah, I mean the only thing cash and l would be is just improving our existing park, but most of that is already done through um when you get a building permit and there's name just escaped my head. Yeah, one of the fees the impact fees.

Impact fees. You already have impact fees for fire, for parks and what have you. On the building permit side, are we double trying to double dip? And on those impact fees, if the city doesn't use it within a time frame, they have to give it back. So, I don't, you know, I don't want our finance department have to start tracking all these things.

Hey, you know, so and so gave us 80 grand to upgrade our thing and we've got 10 months to get it done or we have to give it all back. To me, it that doesn't really help. If we were like Syracuse, which is still expanding and don't have those regional parks or those big parks in throughout the city, it makes sense. Um, an established city like Roy Ogden where we're already landlocked. It's just going to be internal. Yeah, we have some really nice parks. Could they be upgraded? Yes. Is that is this the way to do it? Question mark. I'll just throw it out here. The only way this really makes sense to me logically is if you were a development immediately adjacent to a park. Okay.

If the park was half a mile away, my kids aren't going to I don't want my kids going half a mile to kick a soccer ball. So, well, that's fine. You know, I I just don't see how logically this works in the city just period realistically. I mean, you know, great to try and reduce the water usage, obviously, especially given how this winter's gone, but I don't feel like this is solving that problem at all. This like you pointed out, this is creating other problems, at least like we're seeing with some of the other cities, how they have to track the money and everything. But well, in cash and loo, I don't know how that all works. I don't like that idea at all. The

impact fees, that's a whole different animal in itself. I mean I I like the idea because it was something that we explored how it works, what are the details. Yeah. If if we weren't so development locked, this might be something worth but we are you know the right the spot unless we start knocking down homes to make more homes in new parks which also doesn't solve our problem. I if I'm wrong, please tell me. But I I just don't see how this is a benefit to the city.

If it was adjacent to a park, I think it's a phenomenal idea. But we don't necessarily have developable land adjacent to a park at this point. I think it's you've got rail that's within 200 ft. So they have they have given rights to allow for an access to the the rail trail that takes you right to West Park. So that could be an opportunity.

You have other we may have other parks that we have that who's know you know maybe a school closes down and wants to sell it multif family but we've got a park right next to it or within a quarter mile that's in the neighborhood. We got to kind of think beyond what exists today what could happen cuz there there are those developments. To me, it it doesn't make sense to have a lot of parks and ours not getting used.

Well, that's where the cash in lie of a park or things like that, you You know, and I know Park City, they do a lot, you know, in their by Park City, I mean the greater area, more the county than the city itself, but they'll do a lot of developments where they'll cluster zone or give increased density and trade for property and things like that that have really high value that then they can preserve in open space or or parks and and that kind of a thing here doesn't really no I think make a lot of sense. But I could see, you know, something like the RailRunner, you know, if they were instead of building a park there, they were able to give money to develop the parks that would exist like in that area. I think that could that has some merit to exploring that.

Yeah. That type of a thing. Sorry. Yeah. Do we need to I mean, is it is the juice worth the squeeze at this point? Then is it worth having Steve go through it and have to start tracking this and pull up code and do Well, again, it's it's not tracking anybody's code. We're other than other maybe Denver, Colorado. I was just looking. It says offer 50% open space credit if you're within a,000 ft of a park, but you know, I don't know what the 50% credit means. Did they get more density? Did they get This is all I could find. More parking. More parking. Smaller sets.

No. No. In just park, if we could set it up where some of that additional like saved funding went to things like canopies, accessibility upgrades for parks, that kind of thing. I think that would be a really beautiful option. In lie of Okay. to have it designated specifically towards accessibility upgrades and that kind of thing in in our existing parks if it's an existing park. I don't know how that works budget line item.

Yeah, that I'll have to figure out. But just me personally and knowing our our parks in the area, I would I would love to see if we're taking a public area and designating it as the replacement for a bunch of residences to then have that then be upgraded for that purpose as well. Okay. Because it's going to have higher use if you're having it for that. So the question still comes is how how close Yeah. distance. What are we exchanging? What what's the exchange? How close we have to be to a park?

Um I think way the parks like way the parks and wreck look at it is everybody should be within a half mile park. Okay. I just want to make Now if you allow your kids to walk there I don't know. I grew up in the 80s so they can walk five miles out. My kids I think Someone had a caveat about a major road. Yeah, you had to do a um offset, a graded offset in order for it to Yeah, you could major material road. That was your limit. Seems like I was reading it somewhere where it said I'm like 1/5 to 1/3 mile unless you came up against a major road. Major road 56 1935 would be cut offs.

Yeah. Okay. Well, do you want me to kind of explore that kind of aspect? What do you guys think? Does it have merit to explore it? It only it only makes sense to me. Like I said, if you're adjacent, if a devel I guess that's the question I have is how many real developments that we have that would be, let's just say it's a half mile that are coming that would be within a half mile of a green space in the next 10 years. Well, And I couldn't necessarily tell you cuz I don't know what developers are wanting to do. Well, fair. I mean I mean I could I could come in and get a

a lot of there's some properties like up on 31 that have a single family home but it goes back 600 ft and there's nothing behind them and I grab all that get it reszoneed to multifamily

but I'm within a quarter mile of a park which today doesn't you know that development doesn't exist but doesn't mean someone couldn't do it. So this to me this really is for those instances. Let's have something in place that there is that option. If we're within whatever distance that is of a park, this comes into play. Maybe 90% of it never happens just because you're not within the distance. But for those one or twoers that come in, I think it would help sight save water or save things that we're we're needing.

So I can always give this to I and have him run off with it. Me, I'm not going to do it. I will do it. back to the me myself and I um I mean what's I mean is does is the discussion start on what is a reasonable different the distance to then I I think there's two ways like we can worry about the distance in the future because this isn't going to go on to a planning meeting it would come back in another work session so we can figure out the distances really I think the question for Steve is do we have continue doing some research and kind of find out. I

mean, I can dive deeper into these cities that do have some little languages. This was just a act, you know, scratch the surface. Bring back what cities kind of have some language to it. I wouldn't mind seeing that. Okay, I'll I'll be honest on that. So, how do they handle it? you know, especially if it's a city that's built up comparable to ours, that I think would be just I think the applicability where where would this even apply? Yeah. Well, the same part for me is we probably are we wasting a lot of effort on something that has, you know, and the benefit is single digit applicability,

less irrigation water usage and more density. Those are the those are the benefits. That was just a thought of do we increase the density or do we what you know what kind of tradeoff is there? That's why he's saying eliminate the park but put in more parking. You know me and the parking I want more parking in all those buildings. And so if we say that then you know rather than having put in another building let's put in more I don't think you're ever going to be able to get enough parking. That's just like it's like highways. Yeah. Well the parking issue is really no different than in houses. The only difference is is now it's in a mass.

But we can't make people not use their garages for storage units. We just can't make them do that. But, you know, we can't give them opportunities to park their stuff at it and then follow the roads. Store.

I'm just going to do some research. It may be a month or two before I get to it or get back to you because it I don't know how. Take three, Steve. Easy it is to dive into Denver's zoning code. Yeah. If it's anything like Salt Lake, I'll just run away cuz I hate that code. That makes no sense. No, nothing. Really excited to see this one come back up. Okay, this was your item.

It was my item. So, um, this one we've talked about a lot and thanks Steve for doing a deep dive. Um, if I counted right, um, basically 17 times over the last 5 years. We've talked about parking 11 times in the last two years. Um, and I know the council, um, for me, this is more of a procedural thing. The council, I think, had some very inaccurate information in their packet that was presented and they decided to move forward on the parking without a public hearing and kind of the um presumption from the pack and things like that seemed like the planning commission didn't do our due diligence and didn't act on that issue. And so I I wanted to bring that up in the work session to kind of illustrate that we really have a lot. I mean 11 times in two years is a significant um undertaking and we've addressed parking a lot um from IEDUS to uh putting it on improved services. So the 2019 starting then just kind of a quick history um we allowed parking like in the back of homes and things like that and basically just said it just needs to be on an improved surface so that it's not just on grass or things like that. um IDUs when the state mandated IEDUs and kind of changed some of the requirements there then you know if you have more people living in a residence then there's got to be more parking so we we had a discussion there um the winter months parking you know there were some people who wanted to be able to park on the front yard during winter winter months um we had a pretty robust discussion on that IADUs again um home occupations um allowing home occupations to then be in the garage was part of the discussion which if you now use the garage for something other than parking now people need need a place to to park. Um then we had the whole discussion about circular driveways. Um

kind of came up with the hammerhead idea. Steve, thank you for the the name and you brought some good info there. But we allowed the hammerhead kind of to so that people could turn around. As part of that discussion, we addressed you know being able to park in other places. We brought um I think he's the uh deputy fire chief

um that came into the meeting because we had some discussions, you know, about creating a fire break and things like that. You know, if you've got an RV parked right next to another RV and the houses, those kinds of things, accessibility into the the back of it. And so, you know, I wanted to bring this forward and kind of maybe have a little bit more discussion. And and for me, I think it's a real issue when we amend an ordinance without having a public hearing. Um, and that's kind of what happened here. Um, so I'd like to have a discussion there. And then kind of what I'd like to bring forward as an idea is we um, then propose back in a regular meeting that we have. Um, basically going back to the old parking ordinance. Um, having a public hearing that the public can get um, the opportunity to then provide input on a potential ordinance change, which would then kick it back up to the council and then they can do what they want. I want to be really clear like the council is free to do I mean we we don't we're recommending body but I do think procedurally clearly we've addressed parking a lot and then procedurally I think it's important that the public have the opportunity you know some public hearings we have a lot of people speak sometimes just Mr. Homer's the only only one there. But I I think allowing that opportunity whether people take advantage or not is an important um part of the process. So that's kind of why this one's back um here for us to talk about in the work session. So with that, I'll shut up and listen. Now hopefully the minutes I gave you weren't too confusing. Why there's white white areas in the words. I didn't want people to have to start reading what other discussion was of another item. It was just more to look on what that discussion item was. My first first thought was why don't I just copy and paste it. Then my thought was, well, someone may accuse me of doctoring something up because it's not on the actual minute pages. So that's where

this came into play. So yes, it's probably 10 12 pages longer than it needed to be, but I didn't want to it's the right way to do it. Yeah, think you know have that that aspect come back and you know my name already gets drugged through the mud. Who gave you the check on other things? So why continue it on this? Yep.

So that's why there's it's kind of grayish grayed out. Not to say there's something in there you shouldn't read. It's just didn't want you confusing what this discussion was before the parking discussion started. Yeah. Thoughts? Well, you know, mine I totally

I've been a I've been a complete advocate against making age changes because I again because I deal with it in my everyday responsibilities. Um, but I look at it from a safety aspect as well as uh as far as traffic safety, pedestrian safety, and I also look at it as that the fire transference that the chief came and talked to us about. All those things, you know, were part of my concerns about moving forward with any change was just we weren't we're really taking in consideration the safety factor. Now, I gave numbers I think the first time we talked about this that you know our spending habits and our toys have changed in the last 10 years and how many we have and all that and and that's great other than in most circumstances if you're going to get those you got to find a place to safely store those and and wanting to do it on your property sounds great but again what are we sacrificing for that opportunity? Are we looking at again that fire transference? So two of them are next to each other. That fire goes from one dwelling to another dwelling. Um but we we restrict our height of a fence on um on the on the driveway side uh or from the front front of the house out. Right? We do that because we want to be able as we're backing out of our driveways be able to see if we have traffic coming or pedestrian coming. Now we turn around and say, "Okay, let's put parking there and people park a 12t high trailer. Then let's get rid of this fence requirement. Why do we say we can only have a 42 or 48 in sorry 48 in height fence?" Yeah, we can say go ahead and

park a 12T trailer or motor home there and we're not considering that as part of our traffic safety and our pedestrian safety that you know we we give them options to park in the backyard to put that back there on an approved surface. So why should we say go ahead and put another driveway on the opposite side when it shouldn't be there? Because it is. is causing that line of sight issue for pedestrian and traffic safety. Um, so for those reasons, I I obviously oppose making any changes, adding additional driveways. I mean, from aesthetics point, I think it's ridiculous. Why not just turn the whole front yard into a parking lot? I'm sure there's people that probably happy about that,

but it it just doesn't make any sense. If you if you own all that, find a place to safely park that. Don't make it that the city has to give up safety and continuity in the neighborhood to allow people to park all their toys on their property. We have outdoor storage for that purpose. And if it's too expensive to put it there again, why do we why do why does the city have to sacrifice those, you know, those those safety issues for the sake of being able to park it there because they can't afford to put it in open space in an open storage or in their backyards where they can safely put them. So that's my thought. It seemed like I know part of that was right in the record, but it was never really commented too much on and and from somebody who's had the knowledge and have had the support of the fire chief saying the same thing, why was that not part of the discussion? Why is that not part of the consideration when this was done? Um, so I'm I'm in support of Let's bring back up again. must have some public comment. Maybe we're wrong, but if it makes sense, then yeah, let's send a recommendation up.

Any other That's my piece. Thank you. Any other thoughts? I think I think getting it out there and I we should always have public comment on it either way. That's the whole point of transparent transparency in government. So, um, and I agree especially on the safety grounds and you know, not just RVs, some people got real jacked up trucks around here and this is the same thing. So, um, and I mean here how long now, Steve? 18 months. I don't know. I don't for all blurs one now.

And I know we've parking. I just know these two, you know, are newer. So, yeah. Yeah. All of this particular issue for us. Yeah. We've we've had the parking it's been different to be clear, right? We're not always talking about the exact same thing, but but generally it is kind of the same discussion is where can we put our stuff? Yeah. That's really what that drives most of these discussions is where do we put our stuff? And maybe I'm not the best person for this because I'm like it's your stuff. You figure it out. Like the rules weren't different before you got it. They're not different now.

Be an adult. Figure it out. Right. Like because we modified it for the ADU so they could park on the sides and around the back and the hammerheads and all of that, which I think was all really great, but I I don't know. I'm just I don't know. It's I'm not very empathetic on this one. So maybe I'm not the best example. And I again I don't have a dog in this fight. however you guys want to do. One aspect that probably never really gets talked up much and you probably deal with more than I do is storm water. Was our system designed for all the concrete in the front yard to handle it? The answer is no. Um oh yeah the impervious surface

the more impervious surface that was the word I brought up. Everybody's not impressive. But I mean, these are all discussions that we've had and honestly, we didn't even know what to do here because we beat the horse and send it to the glue factory and made jello- out of it.

And it it's like, you know, it just keeps coming back time and time again, we're asked to address the parking and unless there's some magic rabbit that we can pull out of a hat, I'm not sure what more we can do without sacrificing safety, you know, the the storm water. I mean, there's there's a myriad of things here. You know, trailer hitches, you know, when you get a trailer parked right there, that trailer hitch is right there for a kid riding their bike past and, you know, kids walking to bus stops. You know, look where I'm at. You know, we've got a bus stop both at both corners. There's stop signs and it's not a busy road at all, but you know, you put trailers and those kinds of things and you you just can't see in the morning when you when you back out if those were there. And

and storm water has to be a big consideration. Yeah. our aging infrastructure when it was put in that if we continue to allow people to just have surfaces that just roll it into our gutters and overwhelm them and it we're going to just pass the buck to the next, you know, somebody in 10 years that says, "Hey, we did all this. Sorry. So now you all the find the money to upgrade all of the storm water infrastructure." Yeah. Good luck with that. No, I I do need to apologize. I didn't realize until now

there was another time we talked about parking and I want to say it was probably se 2017 2017 2018 didn't think about till now where the thought came in other cities require it behind the front of the house front of the house so you're protecting I know that was a discussion and it wasn't one that the uh city council at the time wanted to pursue so I forgot to include that one and the on street parking for some like we've made a lot of changes. I love Royy's ordinance related to snow parking. You know, if it's not snowing,

park on each fair game. If it is snowing, get get it out of the way. You know, I go up to Logan and it's like November to probably June cuz it's Logan, but but you know, it's like no on street parking from 10 to 10 to 6 or something. I don't remember the exact hours, but Well, there's some cities that say November to at all. So, just do months at all, you know. So, at least we have You might see it's not snowing that you can park there. That's great. Park, not store. We don't want to store anything on the streets. Park on the streets. And shouldn't have a snowman on top of your car. There are plenty of those.

Yeah. No. And I've I've lived places that allowed full concrete front yards and I didn't like living there, I guess, is the best way to say that, right? So, the continuity of the community is affected with those type of changes. Yeah. It just does it affect property values. That I mean that's an argument that everybody's going to have but still nobody wants to live next to something. Yeah, it still affects the property value. Can't sell it for what it's worth. You have to pay somebody who wants to live next to it. It's only worth what you can sell it for. But um any this side of the table's been pretty vocal. Any any thoughts from the other side? I want to make sure everybody has a chance to

to be heard. fresh thoughts maybe from the new folks. Yeah. Um I agree with the the RV part with the visibility, the safety and everything. And mostly I agree as well, but I also read some parts in this about just the amount of adults who all now have to room together, including myself, the amount of cars that come with that on a day-to-day basis at 8 to 9:00 a.m. having to leave at the same time. So that's just a thought as well. I've had a good point. Having to have say four adults having to basically move their car every single day. So, that's kind of

part of the issue, and I think we're all guilty of it, and I've said it before, your your two-car garage was meant for parking, but most of us have $40 worth of crap in it and $80,000 worth of vehicle outside. I mean, I'm guilty of that now. Well, Well, my wife's car is in the garage. Mine's not. I've got neighbors that turn their garages into workout gyms and stuff. Yeah. And park on the street so they can But that's a choice they've made. But yeah, but we can't we can't obviously demand they use their garages that way. No, but we also don't have to.

But we don't have to have accommodate accommodate because they chose to. Technically, if you wanted to get legal about it, that is their legal required parking is the garage. Mhm. Everything else is accessory secondary. So, for those that, you know, have multiple people that are driving, two-car garage, you might have two on the driveway. Yes, they have to move. And you might be one or two more on the the side of the house or one or two more in the backyard. The the ordinances were originally designed that the garage was being used as parking.

So, effectively, if you have a two-car garage, with the ordinance the way it's written, you can have four cars and a side pad as well along the side of your driveway to accommodate another vehicle. So, theoretically, you should be able to park at least what, five cars, plus the whole backyard if you chose. Plus the whole backyard. Backyard. Well, yeah, not really, but you could. It's all gravel. And to his point about multiple families, my mom and dad, we there were nine of us and at some point there were six or seven of us driving cars, you know, fortunately where we live.

Well, we had a stall for the horses. Oh, yeah. They happened to have this the space for a stall park. Yeah. Yeah. Well, of course, we parked in the front of the house, but then we had to move them when it come time for and we had to do the the shuffle

because of, you know, convenience thing, but we sublied with seven drivers, you know, in a single family dwelling with a again double double wide and twocar garage in the back and a long driveway along the side. Basically the same thing. We made it. is inconvenience. But that's what we understand about parking and high density and everything else is that people like to park on the road as a matter of convenience and not necessarily out of necessity. So what we're talking about is, you know, people want to keep their toys and everything else on the property. Well, so let's sacrifice safety. Let's sacrifice, you know, infrastructure damage. sacrifice all that for the for the handful.

Yeah, I think we haven't really heard anything against that, right? The safety piece. I I'm glad you brought that up because like I said, I'm not the most sympathetic person towards this topic, but you know, I don't that's that's a tough one, man. So, and I don't I don't have a a solution for, you know, for a bunch of adults living in a spot now because housing's so expensive. Yeah, it's brutal. It's fair. That is a fair point you brought up. Yeah. Worth considering in discussion. Thank you. Thank you. And kids getting their driver's licenses. True.

On top of that. Yeah. Well, and I still feel like that we're talking about commuter cars versus boats. That's kind of what I'm thinking too, right? Totally different, right? Like if it's a Civic or a Geo Metro, if they even still make those, right? They don't lock them. They were gray car. Like that's that's different than a boat or an RV or a jack, you know, a jacked up 2500 safety wise, continuity of the neighborhood wise. There's all that stuff, but I don't know how we would address that in code or even if we could. But cars in by nature are smaller, so they can fit on what you already have.

But I'm going to posit that if we've got a situation where you have four adults living in the same household because of housing prices and such, that's probably not the demographic that's buying boats and and such and trying to store those, but they're also able to park on what's already provided because they can't park on a street. So, and again, two-car garage equals four parking spots plus the sign if they have the room plus the side and the whole backyard if it's paved gravel. Well, it can't be more than 25% impervious. So, you can do concrete on 25% of it, gravel on my backyard is then

it was built in 79. I didn't do it. So, well, Brock's tuning. So, Brock, we'll see you tomorrow. All right. come on by. I'll give you your address then. Um, so do we just decide to throw it up for public comment then or Well, I I think we let's have a discussion of how where you want to take this. Yeah. Is it back to the old portion before December or modify what's approved or just kind of leave both of them up or you know, however, oh, go ahead. I think this was just more and my thought was just to bring it up the topic again. Yeah, because I think one way or the other I think we need to bring it up for

public comment. My thought was let's go to the old ordinance cuz that's kind of a kind of where I feel like the group was headed. But I'm open if there's other things we want to consider. Like I think we can be open-minded in in that front. I mean, it doesn't have to be, but no matter what, I think it does need to come back for public comment. When we look at why not why no recommendation was forwarded to the council is because we make a recommendation to do nothing. Is that what we wanted? We have a recommendation to do nothing and does a council take that? So, to me, it's like let's pull let's pull it in and then have that public comment and then send it to

then make a recommendation. we make a recommendation to go back because they can do what they want with it from there from there which is there I mean we're the recommending body. So I'll bring it back to next meeting kind of with a couple options the old versus the new and then if you guys want to look at modifying both or one or Okay. Tuesday bring it back to a work session or just to a regular. Do we do we need to work like I mean we've had well again we take what was two years

approved in December without the what you're calling you know the procedurally or do we just bring forward the old before that? So my question is is which one do we want to have as the public hearing? H my thought is the old one any that's where we want to go. I can do that. I I don't think we need to sit in another work session on parking. Let's knock out 10 parking conversations this year. Yeah, let's just add a couple more lines to the

Yeah, I think the the old one just go to the old one and and open it up for public comment and see what happens. We'll probably get insight on the new one during a public comment. That's a good point. That's fine, too. Okay. Let's go with the old one with a public hearing. Okay. And then we can go from there because if we feel like there's revelations and we don't have to even vote that I I do think we need the public hearing and then if we feel like we need to go a different direction, we can from there. But otherwise, let's do that. Okay.

Myself will do that. Well, you've got me, myself, and I. So, okay. This is more Mr. Tanner. We ready? Yeah, we're ready. I just This really kind of goes hand in hand with what we're talking about as far as parking and stuff. When I You want me to kind of give how all this came? So he asked me the question, what's the purpose of setbacks? Give me a definition. Give me some sort of information on it. So hence the first question. Mhm.

I can dive into planning books all I want. So what I do is perplexity is is great. You ask that question. It researches everything online dealing with that question. brings it to you. So, here's kind of the the answer to the question, what's the purpose of setbacks? Life safety, privacy, light, and air. Now, if you go clear back to when zoning came into into play in 1926, and I say 1926 because that's when the Supreme Court said that cities can regulate zoning. It was in place in other places before that, but Supreme Court 1926 And they looked at a lot of it again was life, health, safety, and welfare.

You got to have setbacks for the air flow. You got to have light and buildings. So, you know, neighborhood character. Why did most people move out of the city into the suburbs? I call it elbow room. Mhm.

Keep my neighbors at elbow length or they're not right on top of me. And that's why suburbs exist. Now granted, some of those suburbs are coming back to smaller and smaller sideyard setbacks. Most of that's for the housing cost. Um, but usually you still have a distance between your neighbor. It's not a half mile or a mile, but that's that's what the country's for and it's what, you know, there are still places like that out there, but in a suburb, why is homes built so far back from the street? Again, a pleasant drive. You don't have those those worries. Why are they not close to each other on the side? Again, for the the life safety issues, but also elbow room. So, I have little a little distance. I can pick my family. I can't pick my neighbors, right?

So, that aspect. Now, if you ever used AI, it gives you some suggestions on follow-up questions. So that's where questions 2 3 4 5 come from is just the followup why setbacks are important. Again same kind of things privacy light air noise safety. Um, as Dan mentioned earlier, you know, if you have trailers parked next to trailers, right next to houses, you might as well just have houses right next to houses next to houses. Um, but you do, you know, people talk about why they don't like downtowns because they feel the buildings are close on them. Why do they like suburbs? Because it is so open. There's other there's there are those like me that like downtowns. I like to feel the big buildings. I have to go to Ogden every week. One, to get tacos, but two, I like to see tall buildings. You know, it's monochrome 30 foot building height. To me, I have to I don't get to Salt Lake once a week, but now, but so again, um, question three, why would someone want to reduce the setbacks in a single family residential zone? And most of that again is we're going towards what developers would like. If I reduce the setbacks, I can get more houses. If I reduce the setbacks, I have more I get more money in my pocket. Basically, what it comes down to, um, it does support walkability. Um, the one thing I think it doesn't really talk about is economics for cities. The more residential units I can have within 100 ft of the sewer water lines

is better. Less, you know, say it's 100 people versus 100 ft versus one person per 100 ft. The city's getting more cost effectiveness out of that first 100 ft with 100 people using it. Now granted, a half mile of sewer and water lines repairs is now up to a million dollars. just to do it. But if I have 80 homes using that line versus two homes or eight homes, the taxpayers are are paying for that. So that's something that's not in here um on why reducing setbacks benefit, but you are also giving up airflow light because you know if I get a 10ft set back versus a 20ft setback, it's it's a little darker. And then from that, are there risks of downsizing to smaller setbacks? You see the same kind of stuff keep popping up. Fire hazards, defensibility,

privacy, noise. I won't name the building, but the fire department says if that building ever went up, we're just protecting things around it. It's too difficult to get to that building. It's it's too hard to fight that one. We'll just protect Oh, I did say infrastructure. And then the last question was trade-offs for small setbacks and neighborhood privacy and fire safety. Go back. Go back one. Did I miss political risk?

If you start having those setbacks reduced, you're getting more and more houses closer and closer together. um you kind of have that you might not get reelected if you make that decision. You're not wrong. I mean it there are people out there that you know that's what they vote on. Mhm. So and so voted for you know multif family to have houses so close together I'm not going to vote for them again. I mean there's the mixed use thing was y so I mean to what extent politically or you know I don't know but these were just kind of the questions that came up not to steal your thunder there Dan but I just at least want to explain doing great

why what was in the packet was in the packet and I'll let Dan Can I tell a funny story please?

I'm glad we're talking about this here in planning commission. I was at a planning commission meeting once on behalf of an applicant and there was another applicant that was there who uh was applying to reduce the setback on his garage site. There was seven neighbors in his subdivision. He wanted to build a garage and he was only a couple feet short of being able to do it. So he got signatures from all his neighbors. So he able to shorten that side back on that one side by a couple feet. Anyway, the point is is he presented her application to the planning commission and there was a member of the planning commission. I don't know if she was representative of the whole panel or not, but she said, "What's a setback?" And I went, "Wow."

And so the person who was in your position had to get up on the whiteboard in the middle of the public meeting and drop on the whiteboard and explain to his own commission what a setback was. I don't want that to happen to us. So, I'm glad we're talking about this here as a group. Now, you know what I'm going to do with the next meeting. I'm not getting up cuz there's no whiteboard. Oh, I guess there is one here. Well, I and and this this and I bring this up one for education, right? Yeah.

What do we understand? Why are they there? but two that they're just a shift as as our infamous and and great legislative bodies that's swayed one way, you know, in um development of our state. You know, they're looking for opportunities to have the higher density. Mhm. I mean, there there's areas that they're doing five foot sideard setbacks. So, you're 10 ft away from your neighbor's house and that's just ridiculous to me.

True story. M is absolutely ridiculous to me. And so, but it's happening. We still have it happening here. And and there's variants that are given by city. And for me, it's like, okay, if we don't understand the impact that will have because even as we were talking about parking, if we give them 5 foot setbacks, how do they get to their backyards? If we're saying it's allowed, how do they get there? Cut a hole in the back of their garage and make them drive through. We need is we need to preserve those setbacks so that we can allow those opportunities for people to put you know things in their backyards correctly and legally, right? But if we if we cater to or we allow and be convinced to reduce those for whatever reason especially likely density just going to create problem

it's going to continue to create a problem for us. There's we have we have other solutions for density over setbacks, right? Like I mean I've again lived a lot of places and I've been places that had this much room between you know neighbors. I mean at that point you're almost family, right? And and you know the I thanks Steve for putting that together because it does hit right now. You're not getting light in the windows, right? not you're not getting good hair flow. Trying to get to the your backyard, not going through your house is

impossible if not very difficult, right? Like and and um so yeah, this setbacks and then not even just starting to talk about the safety issues around that. You know, if you got a kid that's choking in the back cuz they choked on a hot dog, now you got to get everybody through the house instead of Oh, yeah. Peanut. Yeah. Um, so yeah, the the and we just had last year, you know, that gentleman that um the contractor built his garage incorrectly and he had a whole that was a whole setback issue thing on that as well because it was too far forward, right? So yeah, it's it's setbacks are in my opinion pretty pretty important for

and and in that instance um you know the the setback from the front of front plane of the house to the front of the property that that goes back to some of the same issues as far as parking and obstructions and all those things that we don't want, you know, and

and a contractor is always going to be in favor of building the building closer to the propert. that means they can build it bigger, deeper, whatever, right? They're always going to be in favor of that. And so, I'm not sure I want to listen to what a contractor is going to ask, tell me because it's like offering drugs to an addict. They're say, "Yeah, give me, give me, give me." Um, but you know the having that set back the way it was back then was to allow that, you know, those larger vehicles that they're buying to get fully up onto their property, not restricting the sidewalks. and and so to me the all the setbacks are there to to protect the the home to give them opportunities as far as like I said the parking um avoid some of the safety issues and the obstructions and stuff that we're that we can deal with if we continue to allow those things to happen. And honestly, I don't want to live I don't want my neighbor to be 10 feet to the side of me. And most of those if you see them built they're typically twostory. Mhm.

In between the houses, there's no windows. Mhm. All the windows are on their on the front and the back and not on the sides. And it's like, okay, we need the vitamin D. We need the sunlight in our homes. Yet, we're building them so dang close the sun can't even get to them on sides of the houses cuz they're so close at that point. Just do a town home. Yeah, just do town homes with the normal setbacks.

So, anyway, that's my story. Great TED talk. defensible space. Those defensible zones are really important. Well, I look at the one that, you know, we as a planning commission voted to deny the one that had it encroached and it's like at some point when you encroach and encroach and you know by moving that like the council did I think it moves it so in the future somebody else is going to encroach and they're like oh well you know you gave 17 ft there I overbuild it by 3 ft and all of a sudden you're at 14 ft for the setback and like at some point like it's just I'm sorry some people make

poor choices And like I mean hearing that guy's story was brutal. I mean just just brutal. But when we start encroaching in some of these things like we need to be a little bit protective of what the purpose is because when we we go that way and say okay you know what in all of these areas we're going to allow that in order to fix one problem sometimes that one problem just needs to be addressed. And so thank thanks for bringing this. Yeah. Set a precedent because you know if we say okay yeah you can do 5 foot setbacks. That's great. 10 years from now and other planning commissions can be sitting here and they're like, "Oh, well, what if we go four feet and then three?" You know, it's just like where at some point then what's even the point of having some of these things there? And that doesn't mean we can't look at things and be like, "Okay, is it really necessary to have

20 ft or could 15 accomplish the same thing?" I think it's good to look at, but understanding the principles behind that I think helps helps us make better decisions or be more cognitive of things when when we make those recommendations to the council. That's commercial and residential both. I mean, honestly, it's it's just protecting it all.

So, it and that is it's going to happen. They talk about it every year and every year it gets changed, but they bring it every year to the legislation with some sort of bill and it gets amended and changed because, you know, people fight it back a little bit, but it keeps coming up. And it just, you know, they say that they can make affordable housing by shrinking lots, but they're still building a $500,000 house just on a smaller lot. That's not making it affordable. So, they can kid themselves all they want about shrinking the lot size and shrinking the setbacks. They're still making a $500,000 house that is not affordable. Got to have marble countertops.

Okay. Anything else? My bad. My bad. You're good. Anything else on this No. topic. Okay. Next up is commissioner's minute. And I've already said my piece throughout the meeting, so I don't have anything. Do any of the other planning commissioners have anything? I I noticed that they tore down that ugly structure behind AutoZone. This is a beautiful I back there. That was a consignment store, wasn't it? The old wood barn. Yeah,

that building. And then there was a white building that was struck by lightning that had a fire and caused a lot of issues. So, I don't know if it was the property owner decided it would be easier to sell the property if the buildings were raised versus leaving it. Good choice. I had seen it. All I know is the fire and police department were ecstatic. Um, funny story is the fire department was doing kind of a an exercise in there, so they put smoke in it. and was going in there just kind of training and they found somebody alive. Okay, good.

Well, so they had they kind of got him out, but the police were next. I'm glad the fire department found him cuz the police coming in seeing someone jump out at him. Could have been bad. It could have been bad. So, there were the the barn was kind of being squatted in. There were, you know, a lot of issues with it. So, it's vacant. Um, you'll probably Well, this is your minute. I can talk about the other opposite. Just go ahead. It's rock there. Um, over by Arby's where Wind or Woodberry was going to be building theirs. They fenced that in cuz they pulled a permit to demo those buildings finally. Does that mean they're going to be building? I haven't seen anything. Oh, dang it.

But, but it's fenced in. But it's fenced in and they have pulled a permit to demo to demo. They have they have homeless staying over there. Yes, I know. You see it all the time. Um the unit was right next to Dilling Downs. Unbeknownst to them, a water line was broken. Oh no. And just kept running. And when Spirit Halloween came in the following year, they could smell all the mold that was going on and and everything. I'm surprised Woodbury didn't catch on that their water bill was, you know, thousands and thousands of dollars, but there was I think they finally said, you know, let's just get rid of them because they're homeless that are living there. And so those buildings will be coming down.

Yes. Nothing submitted yet to build them. The city called me when I had my in-laws and family with me for a month and they're like, "Your water bill's so much." Like, how did they miss that? I was really thankful the city called. I don't know. All right. Okay. I just know the building inspector went out there and went, "Whoa, cut it. Cut it." There was calcium buildup. There was I mean, it was pretty nasty. Nasty.

Like to see redevelopment are forced for hand. I guess that's really all I've got. Just want to let everybody know about that. Okay, cool. Well, with that, I guess a motion is in order. Motion to adjurnn. Second. Motion in a second. All in favor? Any opposed? We are now adjourned. Thank you. See y'all in two weeks. Couple weeks. Unless we have an extra