Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Here we go. All right. Now we're unmuted. Um, first item on the agenda is approval of the October 14th, 2025 uh, regular meeting minutes. Any discussion or a motion on that? I'll make a motion to approve the October 14 minutes. Second. Motion to approve and a second. All in favor? I. Any opposed? They're saying they can't hear anything on YouTube. We got it taken care of. He's got the audio now.

All right. Um, second item on the agenda is discussion on the water usage and preservation element of the general plan. Hang on. [clears throat] all on the mute. Well, we're muted. This is not We have the recording needs to be

He says it's fixed now. Should I keep my audio? I think we have Yeah, we'll pick you up there. All right. So, so I'll turn some time over to Tim Watkins who's with Wasach Front Regional Council. Um, just kind of a general history. Was it a year or so ago? We applied for a grant with Wasatch Front Regional Council through the TLC program um which is their technical no transportation land use

transportation land use connection um that's what we did we got the grant when we did our general plan and the mixed use ordinance and stuff like that. So applied for it again so that because of this water element requirement we didn't get the the grant but what they said that they would like to do because it was still an interesting project was devote time from waset front regional council staff to give us technical assistance. So that's where Tim comes into play is he's kind of staffed to help write it and prepare it. Okay. Um, in June, May June last year, we went to a water preservation conference up at U USU. Um, three days. We had several staff members. Mayor went council member Scatteren was invited. I don't think he was able to get there, but we also had Rodney uh Banks from Raywater Conservancy. So there was a a good group of people and we went through the the three-day conference listed goals and criteria in which for the city to be able to comply with um water-wise and water conservation. Um so from that they kind of kicked us off for this element and since that time we've been meeting with uh we were basin water Roy water conservancy and what was this one down south? Oh, Jordan Valley.

Jordan Valley water. Just to make sure that because we're all in the same watershed, what it what what elements or measurements they need, what their indoor and outdoor water use um rates are. Not rates as in cost, but how much water people are using. Um and from that, we we also applied for a grant from uh division of water services or water resources in the state. We did get a $10,000 grant in orders to do some illustrations and what that is for, not only for the plan element, but also we'll create flyers and handouts and and stuff to educate public with that. Um, so with that, I'll turn some time over to Tim.

Okay. Okay. Well, it's great to be with you all and I um really valued the time I've had to work with Roy City and get to know your community better and uh but a lot of that's been just coming and paying visits and working with Steve and others at your community. So, I'll refer to some of that time that I've had to learn about your community through this u water use and preservation element. And so, just a little more about Wasatch Trump Regional Council. We are the metropolitan planning organization to handle or to coordinate rather the um the regional perspective on transit major roads regional roads and the funding for that. So we work with our member communities across multiple counties front region. We're also an association of government and that's um kind of a unit within the state that covers different regions throughout the state and provide technical planning assistance to communities. So, it's been a a great privilege for me to uh be chosen to work with you. So, you didn't get money, you got me, but hopefully you get what I'd like to do is just go through an outline that describes what's required water use preservation element is what it's called and [clears throat] it is due by the end of December and so we we come to you at the tail end of the due date. However, there's been a lot of great work and study that's been done and I think we we would have wanted to come to you earlier, but the funding that Steve referred to, we were able to get some great resources and uh components to put into this plan element. The presentation I'm sharing with you is basically the outline of the draft plan element that you will receive in your packet week after next and we'll review it for public hearing and I'll show you those dates here in just a

moment. So here is what the plan requires the plan element and the first item is to coordinate or project between the land use element of your existing general plan and then to make a basically a water use projection the future. what what future growth is anticipated and where what type of growth and then how much water might it use and then to explore conservation policies or recommendations strategies for both future and existing development and to also keep in mind reduction of any wasteful municipal water use indoor outdoor particularly outdoor that might be identified we'll touch on that later and the time that we spent together as different departments of Roy City and I was able to be part of these workshops at Utah State. There were some uh ideas for improvement of reduced water use or more conservation-minded water use. And then the the state code suggests a specific focus on exploring reduced turf in public streets, i.e. park strips and then any recommendations for the city's land use uh excuse me the u landscape ordinance update is really what that means and then it lists several principles to consider so you could keep in mind as I'm going through this presentation and as we have a discussion reduction of turf grass overall not just in public rightways another principle would be storm water runoff management we heard some great public feedback at our recent public meeting of house in late October on some storm water runoff management ideas, use of drought tolerant trees and vegetation, eliminating reducing water features, unnecessary water features, and then a focus on efficient irrigation. So that's kind of in a nutshell what state code

requires by December 31st, 2025. My understanding is that if it's adopted after December 31st, 2025, I don't think there's a fine or a penalty, but want to try to help you meet that deadline. And here's what has taken place to date workshops at USU. You'll see some of the recommendations that came out of that which fit nicely as potential plan recommendations. And then one of the major goals identified in 2024 was to update the Roy water conservation plan. And that's a look at the water supply, the water rates, and taking a look generally at water use in the community past and projecting that forward. But our charge is to look specifically at the land use element of the general plan and then also refer to the water conservation plan. And then Steve mentioned some landscape water reduction design strategies or studies and excited to share those with you and those are now being updated. They'll change a little bit from what you see but u based on some public feedback we received in late October. Those are being fine-tuned and we held that October 28th public openhouse. Shared a presentation similar what I'm sharing to you to the city council on November 18th. tonight's planning commission work meeting and we're looking at December 9th for public hearing this body and then a potential uh it's scheduled public hearing for December 16th city council potential adoption there. All right. Right. So looking at the land use element general plan the population projection the growth potential in Roy is pretty much based on the past growth increase and it really is about a half a

percent over time. So that same rate projected forward looks like this. You see the the green area is the existing population in Roy about 40,000 and then touch points in the future for uh population targeted uh growth studies for future water use. We're looking at a 5-year projection of about uh 417 thou 41,700 an increase of 1300 and by 2040 we're looking perhaps additional 3,400 residents and by 2050 5600 residents. And the little blue line and the the red faint line that you see, those are other sources of population projection from the 2020 census that are largely consistent with this half percent growth increase. So those include a look at the residential building permits over the last 10 15 years and those are projected into the future based on the past there. There's a lot of consistency with that half percent growth rate. And then the TAZ data is transportation analysis zones. And so the the traffic planning data of future transportation needs is quite consistent with that half percent as well. And that half percent is documented in the city's water conservation plan. Here's a look at the future land. It's this is an interesting map that Steve helped us develop and it's based on existing land use. But where you see the gray color or the white color, that is where it's either vacant is the white color or the gray colors represent areas of potential change. This is not a mandate to say these areas shall change. It's just to say based on the zoning, the general plan recommendations for future land use and um perhaps where

there might be some older properties that might redevelop someday or some underutilized properties or even vacant. They appear to be likely areas for future growth. And a little hard to see the colors [clears throat] or not the colors, it's the gray colors, but they're actually three patterns that I promise will be more legible in the adoptable plan. And some one hatch represents a near-term. And you can see the approximate acres 327, medium-term, and long-term. These are just to get have a plausible idea of where growth could occur. And then you see the single family. I keep pointing, but I should point the the mouse. So, single family infill calculating about 56 acres and these are properties that could receive additional uh single family infill development. All right, so let's see what a five years out 1300 population increase might look like. This is not necessarily a prediction, but again a a a possible possible buildout or additional land use change that could yield 1300 residents. So that might be 10 additional acres of single family. It's kind of those white areas throughout the community. There might be another 15 acres of town homes. There could be some multif family development and mixeduse development with commercial on the ground floor. That totals 31 acres with 472 units. 15 years out, we might see 22 acres of single family, 35 acres of town home, multif family, 11 mixed use, 8 and a half acres, some additional ground floor commercial. And that commercial also reflects that as the residential population grows, there's opportunity to provide more commercial services and build it the sales tax and property tax revenues in

the community. [clears throat] And then here's what a 25-y year projection could look like to meet that 5600 future population getting closer to 50 acres of single family and a variety of town hall multif family mixed use. So perhaps up to 128 acres of future infill and redevelopment in Roy where your community is largely built out but there is growth potential these areas identified. Again this is based on what the current land uses are and then the future land use mapping. [clears throat] And here's what indoor water use could look like. Indoor water use for residential is based on [clears throat] some water records that we we looked at from the water department here at the city. And what was interesting is we actually found a range. So on the higher end of that range about 55 acres, excuse me, 55 gallons per day per person and we assumed a slightly larger household uh average size for single family and smaller in multi family. That's pretty common. And uh so here's what it looks like in gallons per day on this top row. And then acre feet. Let's look at what a lower amount of water per household or per person in a household might look like. Because when we had those records provided for perspective, we saw some on the higher end, some middle, and then some on the lower end of the [clears throat] indoor water use spectrum. So you can see about a 14% drop when we apply 48 gallons per person and then as low as 40 and we even saw some um indoor water use records more in the winter time when people aren't landscaping that we're even in the 30 30 something

gallons per day. So there's a range and you know if we apply this 40 gallons per day per person for future residential growth that's even a over 25% reduction. So I think the recommendation could be to um continue to study and understand best practices for indoor water use and promote of efficient use of indoor water use throughout the community. public education. Uh sometimes cities identify high very high water users and and contact them to work with them and see if there's ways to to uh encourage conservation. And sometimes it's um it's a cooperative effort that leads to finding pipe leaks, opportunity to repair the infrastructure. And these are some of the the strategies that are identified in your currently adopted conservation plan is to look for any any leaks or repairs that might be needed. And then of course to promote best practices and encourage conservation. So this theme of high water use, medium water use and low water use, I think it's it's an interesting idea to keep in mind that the city could could encourage towards the lower the moderate and the lower use through through outreach and education and any detection of problems with the infrastructure. And we'll do I'll now share with you a similar analysis of high, medium, and low potential water use through outdoor or the outdoor water use. Your conservation plan suggests that most of the water conservation potential is in the outdoor application of water use. And the little graphic that you see on the right suggests that the outdoor water use really doesn't return to rivers and lakes the way the indoor water did. And I I failed to mention the graphic here.

shows that the indoor water use most of it ends up being treated and returns to to rivers and lakes in a hydraological system. Outdoor water predominantly if not all of it really returns to the atmosphere. So in looking at future outdoor water demand, the plan will focus on three general types of water use application for landscapes. And the higher water use you see is mostly turf grass. And some of the images that you see on the left are useful turf grass areas, but mostly not so useful and not utilized for recreation or kind of a a park focus. You know, here's a trail going around a subdivision, but it's a trail and that landscape area may not necessarily accommodate play. It's right by a roadway. There's some decorative landscaping in front of an industrial park along a major road. The moderate use in the center column, you start to see a mix of turf grass but reduced turf grass area with focus on more beds. And some cases you see a [clears throat] planter bed between sidewalk or parking or sidewalk and rideway street rightway that is beds with drip line irrigation and plant materials that that can spread without as much uniform application of spray water. So that moderate water use implies more of a blend of turf grass and and bed. And then the low water use is leaning more into the beds. And although I'm not showing turf grass there, there's just a little bit of turf grass in the background here. This is a a park area for play, but there's more of a passive landscape here. This is a trail system and it's actually a more of

a natural grass, maybe fescue mix. And it's mowed less, it's watered less, uses much less water. And here's a smaller setting for that potential natural grass. And I'll I'll share some of the feedback we've re received from the public on these types of different landscapes. But what's unique to this project and in response to the the generous funding we received from the Division of Water Resources is that we hired Landmark Design, very talented landscape architecture firm to illustrate and plan view what high, moderate and low water use could look like for different types of land uses and landscapes. So here is a 6,500 square foot single family residence. You can see on the left more turf grass oriented landscape. The middle graphic is a turf grass with more bed area. Again, that's a point source irrigation or the kind of excuse me, a drip line irrigation. You see more of the trees as we go from kind of high moderate to low. You see planted [clears throat] in beds rather than out in the middle of water. And that's a way to conserve water. What will be changing between the graphics you see today and the graphics you'll see in the final plan is one of the very helpful comments we received at the public openhouse was that there was encouragement not to necessarily reduce the number of trees in a landscape. And in fact what we heard from the landscape architect was that's consistent with water conservation because providing shade onto a landscape can help reduce the evapo transpiration which is the water the rate at which water goes up into the atmosphere. Okay. And so trees and shade can actually result in a net benefiting all the benefits that trees provide but also not necessarily increasing water use.

So here's a view of a single family lot that's a little larger 9,000 square feet. You can see the relative water savings in inches per year. Again, you'll see a consistent number of trees in these graphics. And I just want to emphasize that these images are not necessarily to say this is how residents must change their landscapes. It it could be more of where a landscape ordinance requires new single family to have certain turf grass limitations. And I'm sorry I don't have your uh landscape ordinance committed to memory at the moment, but we'll spell out what some of the provisions are in your code currently and what could also be considered in the future. And here's a larger lot. Again, this is maybe more of a focus for residents that have been established their home for some time and that they they want to uh conserve water in the future. And not making necessarily any predictions about future water rates. That's not necessarily what this plan is is asked to do or required to do is to make recommendations for future water rates, but more to focus just [clears throat] on what the water conservation potential is. But if there is a time in the future when water costs more and folks want to conserve water and save water budget money, then uh there is substantial savings shown here as we build the low water use. Here is a town home landscape with high on the left. More turf grass. the moderate water use. Actually, let's see. Yeah, you see some reduction more in in between the the driveways. There's just

less reliance on especially these small areas between hardcape driveways, sidewalks, etc. Less turf grass used there and more drip line plant beds. And then the low water use concept applies those beds but also starts to introduce other types of grass be turf grass that can is um turf grass that's been developed to require less water use and those varieties are becoming more and more available. And yeah, so there's just some we'll have these described in the in the plan. And here's a more of an urban [clears throat] home development footprint. It's been amenized area with seating, a little bit of a space for updating relaxation. A little hard to detect some of the differences here, but again, you see these small little turf grass patches that become beds. So that's how you see the relative water production between high, moderate to low. Here's the potential for mixed use commercial. Same idea. There's turf grass reduction, more beds. And you see really almost the amount of water needed should go from the high down to the lowest. And you'll see a similar number of trees across each type. And then a multif family. It's important to note that there's recreational space for each of these. The amount of recreational space might be something the city want to study in the future. Sometimes there's a tendency to say a certain minimum percentage of land area is needed for recreation, but sometimes a smaller space with more amenities will be even more useful and use less water, more useful, enjoyable, and use less water, especially if there's a nearby park or

trail to connect to a park. Okay, so those are really valuable [clears throat] perspectives to provide not just in a plan but could be placed on a website could be uh shared and and not just uh reside in a policy document but be the conversation conversation. All right. So, let's look at future potential water use. Taking the rates that were applied to these landscape design concepts and then uh they they're kind of plugged into the assumptions for different future types of development from single family to town homes and mixed use and so forth and applied in the high category. You see the 5-year high about 36 acre feet and all the way to a 25 projection of about 149. Here's the moderate and the low. I'll split these up together for you. So you see on the high end looking out 25 years 150 just under 150 acre feet and the low drops that by a third. It's pretty substantial what type of landscaping approach can achieve and then moderate is just basically in the middle of that. So up to a 35% reduction and 65% basically in thirds that high moderate low projection looks like. And here is the combination of indoor and outdoor water use estimates. So, what I've done is I've applied the high water use indoor plus the high water use outdoor and added them up on the top row, the moderate in outdoor, the second row, and low indoor and outdoor water use.

And you're looking about 19% or 37% potential water reductions. All right. And then this little added graphic down at the bottom is actually the available supply. We're going to meet with your city engineer and with the uh director of the Bruy Water District for outdoor water and make sure that we're looking at the right numbers in your conservation plan as we compare future demand to available supply which is the state code requirement. But this graph shows that there's a lot of available supply. I have questions about what what is uh available [clears throat] in say groundwater form versus actual um available storage above ground ready for use. So those are some of the things we'll be looking at and then outdoor versus indoor. The water conservation plan does target and suggest that there could be potential conservation over time reduced per person demand through different indoor and outdoor awareness and uh maybe incentives or desire to to conserve water. And so this draft plan that you'll be reading next week is very consistent will be quite consistent with the water conservation plan recommendations. So here's the potential goals might be conservation by 2050 25%. So I think there's a lot of potential consistency and um getting a little more into U specific details of how that conservation could occur time. All right. So, I mentioned the public feedback at the October 28 public workshop. Got a lot of great input. I mentioned that we're adjusting the graphics so that there's a consistent number of trees from the high use to medium to low water

use and that the providing of shade and reducing urban heat as is referenced in your current landscape ordinance. That's a very valuable feedback. We appreciate the public including some that are here attending this meeting that came to that workshop. There was a suggestion that when city does different projects whether it be public project or street projects and demonstrate water wise landscaping. I'm going to show some images of the suggestion here. This third bullet is to encourage on-site storm water absorption and that what that can do is [clears throat] detention of what sometimes a very large detention basin. So the more storm water can be absorbed into absorbent landscapes on the site and there's less wasted land and wasted wasted water for these kind of large often not very useful detention areas. Potential to capture rainfall and um use in the landscape, absorb in the landscape, be stored for later use. And then to look at good sources for plant qualities, drought resistancy, hardiness, even looking at some opportunities for microclimates and pollinators. A lot of creative ideas offered workshop. So that would be tree shrubs, low water use turf. There are some good programs that could be referred to stand some of what's recommended through the Weaver Basin Water Conservancy District Master Gardeners and Utah State Extension. and then to understand [clears throat] what and maybe further study what appropriate locations for natural landscapes are. One of the comments the workshop was maybe this taller natural grass isn't a fit for residential landscapes. It might fit some applications but it might be more of a passive recreation or under less utilized public parcels that don't necessarily need to be in turf grass.

[clears throat] fits with that reduce turf grass suggestion from the state. And then uh also received some comments about awareness of invasive species and abatement and removal of of vegetation that might be consuming more water than than is needed. I know that that's a particularly a problem near canals and reservoirs. Um think of the elm trees. Those really grow aggressively, especially near a water source. But even away from a water source, they can they have very expansive roots that can damage pipe infrastructure. And then there were qu questions about future water rates and metering. And I not prepared to talk about that this evening, but there was a suggestion by inter city council meeting what potential water conservation could mean for potential uh financial savings. I'm almost done. Thanks for your patience here and I hope I'm moving as quickly as uh as needed. But all right, so let's look at some of the goals that you you'll see in the draft plan and these came from uh the Utah State program water smart workshops. had parks participating, engineering, public works, planning, might have missed a few, but that was a great collaboration. And so, uh, defining non-functional turf on city- owned properties, everyone might think of something slightly different when it comes to functional versus non-functional turf grass. So that should there should be a focus on that further study to understand and prioritize what is functional versus non less functional or non-functional and then collect data on that and uh maybe apply for some funding to map these areas of city and property and then develop a property conversion plan

and determine what the highest to lowest priority might be for converting landscapes and reducing municipal outdoor irrigation water use. I also added to this list the potential to explore uh potential conversion of turf grass to a lower turf grass water use requirement and that that might be worth exploring as well. And then irrigation uh parks and public works training on irrigation checks the the design and installation and maintenance of an irrigation system and have huge bearing on how efficient a landscape is and the amount of water that's needed. And then exploring potential for smart controller rebates that that read the weather basically don't overwater during abundant rainfall times. And then the other uh bucket, if you will, of recommendation from this growing water smart workshop focused on providing a helpful communication strategy to encourage water conservation. I mentioned earlier that that could be a focus on indoor and outdoor. And so providing landscape options and alternatives for conserving water and we're really pleased that we have these these helpful graphics that that show options and alternatives. And then to increase communications with residents, including online engagement, perhaps uh sharing information at events such as Royy's days or launching a new Royce Water Conservation web page,formational flyers, and then coordinating and linking to Wever Basin Water Conservancy District, Roy Water Conservancy District Education Pro programs. We could probably add USU extension as well. And then just a note that we heard from the council as maybe

look at what what the savings look like for. All right. And then uh basic these are basic outlines of potential. See this this actually should be titled potential landscape ordinance updates to consider in the future. And um anyway, let's see. So this this first bullet has been checked off in 2024 and that was to update the water conservation plan and that will need to be coordinated with this um water preservation element of your general plan as the um the water conservation plan is updated. The state requires that to be updated every five years. So I think it' be important to coordinate between those two plans and look for consistency between them and and help fulfill the different recommendations between them. Uh there is a Weaver Basin Water Conservancy drought response plan that was brought up at the USU water smart planning and the city could adopt its own drought response plan or would refer to Weaver Basins and adopt elements of it or the entire plan. That's something we need to

most of you experienced that. So a couple years ago when Weaver Basin said, "Hey, you're only going to be watering two days a week and it's only going to be for 20 minutes." you kind of understood their drought response plan. So that's what that is is as our reservoirs less and less water we have the more we need to conserve and your outdoor water starts to go away a lot quicker than your indoor water. Right? So yes, there's potential future rate changes and then drought uh scarcity that might be incentives for converting landscapes and the potential landscape ordinance updates. These will be provided to you in more detail as plan recommendations, but um looking at more zones that limit turf grass, especially those that that are related to use development, multif family or town homes. And then uh perhaps exploring a minimum tree shade coverage or number of trees on the site, plant bed coverage, types of plants, what you know, types of tra plants that work best for street trees. And then the storm water absorption. Again, this was a comment we heard in the the public meeting. Here are examples of landscapes that are designed to absorb water. And much of it much of that design occurs under the soil or under the mulch. And so, uh, this building is an example. It's a North Salt Lake City building. And I would not walk by that that planter bed next to the building and know that there's a substrate material under the mulch and in the soil and the the drainage beneath the soil that is very absorbent, more so than typical soil, but it it's very much uh specified and designed to absorb a lot of water and help collect some of the rooftop water. For example, this image that you

see here, you see the water dumping down into what we call a rain garden. So, very absorbent plant beds that help reduce the amount of storm water runoff into parking and picking up pollutants and into a detention basin can help to reduce the the landscape footprint size overall. Just requires more thought and the careful planning and design and maintenance. So these are examples of absorbent landscapes that can help reduce the the footprint overall of landscaping. All right, [sighs and gasps] so that's what you can expect to see in written plan form. I hope this has been helpful and love to hear any ideas or reactions and thoughts.

I think this is my third time hearing. We should have given the presentation. don't have many questions left, but um yeah, I can't really I think you've covered everything in um the stuff you said would be covered in the next public hearing. One thing to note, I I was with another city at that USU um water conservy game.

Oh, okay. um that as we did our tour, our um tour of the campus up there and the the trees actually played kind of a dual role in some situations because the trees can provide shade to help with energy resources, not necessarily water resources, but also energy resources. So an element that they had shared with us up there was it it's good in some instances that it's available for not only the ground cover bright shade stop the evaporation but there's a a shade for um a structure where typically the sun would um heat up a home and require it to use more power to cool it. where trees located in in central locations for bulk purposes allow for the you know the reduction in that need for the additional cooling because it it's got the shape of the tree. So

yeah, an element that was just shared with us when we were up there. Great comment because it's I do recall a few questions in other water trainings I've been to. The question is asked, well, what do you think about trees and they they require water? The answer is yes, they require water, but their benefits are plentiful and diverse and and they also help reduce the the understory loss of water. And the trees because they are deep rooted, they're able to get some of the the deeper water, right, and and use that rather than the surface water that we use for irrigation. So,

yeah. Well, that's why you see like a lot of really old homes have big trees and stuff on because they didn't have air conditioning or any of those. That was kind of how they [clears throat] control the heat in their house for the during the different seasons and they built their homes homes [clears throat] to do that as well. Okay. On your projections that you had from going from today to future, you know, with the moderate um kind of savings, that type of stuff. Um is that predicated on the areas that would grow out or is that if the entire city were to utilize the water wise type landscaping plan?

Thank you for that question. And it is just for, let me just go back to the population projection. It's just for the new yellow growth. And then that yellow growth or the the up to what 5,600 more residents would be projected to grow in these areas of change, these gray color or the white vacant areas. The white being most likely single family residential. The to redevelop or infill develop on say an older underutilized commercial property more expensive typically and demo and site reworking. So it's typically requires a higher intensity use to pencil out that type of development. But that's what your general plan is I believe anticipating some of these more intensive street corridor settings. you know, the conservation, you know, as single family homes start changing from turf to plants or [clears throat] then that just helps us with the with the numbers. So this is like Tim had said this is mainly for the future growth and those that come in to develop now but all the older existing homes you know city can't go and say hey you've got to put in drought tolerant plants but if you guys encourage yourselves to do it I think that's what we basin waters um you not just flip your strip but flip your yard program where they will give you a rebate when you do take your front yard or your park strips and and put them into drought tolerant plants or zeros escaping and those sideyards that are less than 8 ft or what have you, then they have a kind of an incentive program built in there. So, if we can get, you know, just 10% of the

existing residential to decrease their water usage, it only increases our conservation citywide.

Yeah. Yeah. And the reason I asked the question that I did is, you know, it's it's easy to put an ordinance in and saying going forward and, you know, as people develop those lots and that land, it's it's easy to, you know, if there's a plan there for them to follow that. The cost is pretty minimal. Um, but for somebody who is an existing home to change the landscaping, it's really tough financially for most people, even with the flip your strip or things like that, there's still an [clears throat] overly large expense there to be had. And so I just wanted to make sure we were just taking into account that new growth kind of a kind of a thought there. And while there may be other ways there would I think there's going to have to be incentives for people to to flip that more than what there are now because to change that over is

expensive. [clears throat] Yeah. I I think it's it's a great comment and thought that you're sharing and and I think that the thought with the existing development might be more strategy side of this equation whereas future might be more policy side. So I think that's a helpful clarification. That was part of the grant we got from water resources is those images because some of us like I don't know what to do. What can I do? How do I do it? is kind of give you an example. You could do flower beds here rather than because most of us look at it and go what

you know what what can I do and these kind of give you ideas. So that's why we kind of went with that. As long as the ordinance is written in a way like I have no problem you know if we come up with a really good standard of requiring that for new growth but on those existing homes just making it so it's not that they're grandfathered in but not not requiring these standards. if they start to touch their front yard, then they have to meet a certain standard or things like that. That way, they can kind of incrementally over time make some of those adjustments.

I'm recalling a conversation from the public workshop and it was noted that turf grass is resilient. The drought season, it goes yellow, it goes dormant, and then it goes back the next year. And so, for some, that's might be how they want to deal with it. Water year, keep their grass, let it go yellow. when they have lost trout. Well, and I think we talked about it in another meeting that um

that if someone were redoing their whole front yard though, they would have to meet the new code. So, it's a certain percentage like it's already written into our code, but if if you were doing a big project on your house that changed the yard a lot, then you would have to follow the new ordinances. like, but if your yard's already like that and you're changing a flower bed here and there at a time, you know, that's not going to be an interesting thought. I I think of myself going out working on landscaping and usually don't think of needing to go to the city for a permit to change my landscape. But only if it's a significant change, but interesting. But yeah, you wouldn't think a lot of people won't think of it, but granted, there's no permit required to do your landscaping,

right? Um it's just more information Especially if you know you get a side yard that's 8 feet or less, I'd encourage you not to put it in in sod. Yeah. It also might be useful, you know, we're talking about strategizing to if there was some way to somehow track or incentivize with a certain percentage if you could provide that to to residents. you know, if by reducing this amount of turf area in um exchange for, you know, drought resistant plants or zeroscaping,

if there was some way you could track a percentage, you know, you can decrease, you know, your costs by a certain percentage. I know that's hard to do, but that's something people are very interested in. Well, how much am I actually going to save? Yeah. You know, moneywise. Well, until the energy tax. Yeah. Until we know how much the water will be metered for, it's hard guessing. And I know that's hard to track, but I mean it would be a way to to help incentivize that as saying the little little droplets in the corner can't tell you how much water you're saving, but what does that cost until boy water says it's going to cost you x amount amount of money per gallon or allotted, you know, this amount,

right? And with the rates changing, it's hard to track an actual cost, but maybe in a form of a percentage, you know, you may can save 20% on your cost or Yeah. that it might be more substantial in the future than Right. Well, then the whole state's not even metered until Right. And I9 or something and then it starts in 2030. Have a meter. Yeah. So, we won't even But there are places that do have a meter. Yeah. I mean, they have they have a meter. They're not maybe charged at this point based on meter. Maybe not in Roy, but in other places in Roy as well, but they're metered. They're just not being charged by their own. They're just keeping track of what they're they're using.

So they could show you, yeah, percentage of water you're saving, but not money at this point. Not till 2030.

A full discussion. Any other thoughts or feedback I could take back and work into this draft plan that you see next week after next? I just I like the idea that you're going to put more trees in just for the visual so people think of it when they do the low low water use. I know it's a little silly because it's not like it's just a visual thing. It's not really a but I think that when we do show graphs like this, the visual does help and so when you see more trees, you're like, "Oh, I could put more trees in my yard to help with that or whatever." And mention the type of trees will be important. Yeah,

I think I like the idea of the list of native type stuff that if that was I'm sure it's listed on different websites, but if it was on our city one or something, not that you have to use those, but so that people know what to use unless you write it into the code at some point that you do want them to use certain ones. But I think just Do we have a tree street tree schedule here? Now, some cities have it, do we? I was going to say, yeah, some most of them aren't necessarily looking at water conservation. and they're looking at you got a 4ft park strip. So here's a tree that would work and not destroy your sidewalks.

We were basing watery district. They've got a lot of information if you out to their place and all the recommendations and all the you know um options you can put in. I think people though at least if they're busy just want to be able to hire someone to come do. So it's like you can go and look at all those things but unless you're doing it yourself, you know, it's a whole anyway. But yeah, but that's a whole other topic and not really in our

I do think one thing that would help with the graphics, it's great to have like the aerial cartoony kind of a a thing that's really helpful to kind of landscape architect. I think it would also be helpful to have some really good pictures of what it actually looks like from the street of a a residential property because that helps people visualize it more. I mean, it's one thing to look down and be like, "Oh, there's a tree. There's moderate." But if they could see what that looks like at some samples, it's a good idea. That's somewhat what we're going for here. Yeah. Um, but that'd be great. I look at these, I think we could improve on a few of them

or or even less but better quality images. Does that make sense? Because because you look at that, it's pretty small. But if you could see like somebody's backyard, even in a smaller lot, what it actually looks like, you know, do they have an area with a barbecue and a tree and and that kind of stuff. Yeah. Because I I think that's what'll help people visualize things even even more. If you come across some cool images, send them to Steve and myself. I know a couple houses I can go take pictures of with their permission, obviously.

Um, and the library, the local library is a good example. So I think yeah some local ones might be helpful too just because some of our housing here doesn't look anything like this if that makes sense like yeah but again that's just I know I'm just saying for people to visualize the landscaping we're looking at and Anna has a question her little hands up there. Hey Anna

can you hear me? Hello. Oh, perfect. Um, I was just wondering if we have already addressed in this plan the difference between zeroscaping and zeroscaping. One is all rocks and one is a lot more focused on not necessarily just drought hardy but on an awareness of the effect of temperature change in the landscaping. And that's a great comment and I think I will be sure to address that more specifically. What's implied in these pictures is that there should be plant materials. It should not just be rocks and Roundup. It shouldn't just be, you know, a certain percentage of minimum coverage. In fact, that's in part. So, we we've shown it visually, but need to describe and support it with the text. Yeah, that would be fantastic. I've encountered um if somebody hasn't seen the word written, then they don't know that there's two different words being utilized.

And we in fact asked the landscape architect to you see these plant materials drawn in the beds. Initially they were just brown beds. He said, "Please show plant materials in them because that's what their calculations for the water use were including was assumption of certain percent percentage coverage of mature flowage growth." And so he said, "Please show that." Fantastic. I think that that's a great comment. We'll have the text back up to the images there. Okay. Any other comments from the commission? That's it.

Thanks so much for the discussion and your time this evening. I thought it was a long item, but it is a it's a plan element that's due right around the corner. So, I appreciate your your focus on it this evening. Thank you, K. Excellent. Thank you. Um, and we've got that on our we'll have that on our agenda the first meeting we have in December. When can we expect a draft? Because that may be helpful to have a draft and then if we see any get to as quick as we can. Yeah. And I'm not trying to put the cart before the horse, but that's always helpful. There's two days this week that just got in the way. Yeah, I will be working. We don't deserve a holiday, Steve. Right. [laughter] I will [clears throat] be working on it some this weekend, but I'd like to have it to you as early as possible week after next.

And I know you don't want to just reserve all your time the weekend. So, they don't deserve a weekend. Well, how deserve a weekend every other? That kind of came right back at me, didn't it, Steve? [laughter] Awesome. Well, thank you. All right. Next on the agenda is building.

Okay. So, this was kind of a an item we had on July work session. Then my wife went to the hospital and I had to join her there. So, I kind of dumped it on you guys to just kind of table it. And then since we've just had a few other things come up that I haven't been able to bring it back. So, with that, I just wanted to kind of describe the the zones that we're looking at. um March of this past year, we we looked at the downtown. Um so if you remember right when the original mixeduse code was written, it was written for heights or floor stories, not heights. Um and when it got adopted, it was changed to just sto or heights, but how to measure a building height was still in stories, written in stories. So it never really co was cohesive on how to define how I'm measuring building heights. Um so this is really to look at it to convert it back to building heights. Now these suggestions are just what was original in the code when when it was first given to you prior to that change in height from stories to heights. So it's not that I'm just making up because I feel like that's what it should be. It's just this is what original. Now, we can look at changing it. We can look at keeping it. We can do whatever we want, but I wanted to kind of show the zone. So, urban corridor, most of it is on along 3500 West there and Midland Drive. You can kind of see the the diagonal. There are some on 1900. I do have a mouse. Um, [clears throat] business park is more where the America First Credit Union and I Omega building is. The zone does take in good chunk of what the Ogden airport is within Roy, but it will never get developed unless Ogden airport goes away.

So that seems like a big zone, but it is pretty small. Uh station north, which is everything between the railroad tracks and the DNRG trail from Hinckley [clears throat] to 4000. uh station central which is more um you got the the track station and then some UTA property on the east side and then on the west side it's more of that um muffler shop that that property is is in the central and then the station south is you've got a development already occurring with with railrunner and then along the single family residential on on the east side. Um, and then you've got that peach orchard that's that's there as well that could be developed. So, those are the zones we're looking at. I didn't include everything else, but again, as as Tim shown in the map, majority of Roy is single family homes, whether it be 6,000, 7,000, 8,000 foot lots, 10, 15, or 20. So, there's still a good chunk. And this is just represents a small portion. So, I wanted to give an idea. This map will kind of appear a bit so you can kind of look at it. There we go. So, storefront building. And again, in that that zone or that building type, there's only three zones that it's allowed in. The central, the business park, and the urban corridor. Right now in a in the station central it's 60 feet. In the business park it's 80 feet except for if you're on the west side of 19. So where America First Credit Union is now um it is only 60 ft and then urban

corridor is 40T. So just equating 60 with six stories, 80 with eight stories, 40 with four stories, and then again uh item number eight, which is that anything west of 19 in the business park, it could only be 60 ft or six stories. Don't know your thoughts on those numbers. Uh the building height or the ground floor height, um 14 to 24, but if it is over 18 ft, then it counts as two stories. Um, upper stories 9 to 14. Um, I know there's individuals out there that are, you know, concerned that, you know, they could do a 18t ground story and 14 a 14t residential stories for six more stories, but no developer that has submitted plans has a 14 foot um residential story. The only one that did was Woodberry and that was the penthouse. They wanted a little bit more grander area. It could have a bigger price tag, but that that really is the only one that makes sense to go a little bit taller. everything else when you start looking at how much it costs per square foot and all a sudden you're putting it at in height of a of apartment the the rates of of rent or selling just go up you know go out the roof. So, even though it does allow between 9 and 14, developer does have the ability, but 910 is probably what you're really going to get, which, you know, if it was 60 ft, I'm going to do 10ft story, 10 foot level up above. Thoughts, opinions, concerns, comments? These are the same numbers that downtown [clears throat] has.

And how long is it like what's the history of why we decided to say feet instead of stories just because um but we had that one development that came in and was it $900,000 more it would cost them just in their basically plumbing and stuff between for like air conditioning and things like that where if they had a little bit more flexibility between the floors then they could well one of the big concerns was they wanted a larger ground floor because they wanted commercial in doing so they lost a story on the top they lost a residential story is they got half a story. Had four developments thus far come and request a development agreement to increase the heights of buildings. No.

In order to have that higher or taller ground floor in order to keep the same number of levels because again if I have to demo a building, there's, you know, a couple $100,000 just to do that just to get the site prepared, you know, they could already be a half a million dollars into it before they even start. So, but I think it makes sense to have a taller ground floor if you're trying to get more versatility property. That that seems like an the 5200 South one next to Ogden Clinic described it a little bit better than Mhm. Echelon did just you won't get a commercial base if it's 10 foot

ceilings. You need at least 13 14 ft. What are other cities or they management. Um most of the we call it mixed juice use other places call it formbbased code right um these are the same numbers that they're using and they call it stories instead of feed yes yeah that's what I was going to ask too is that when a builder comes in or whatever is that the normal language professional normal language the chapter is written for stories yeah how do you measure it how do you everything is written by stories it was just changed in the the building types to feet.

And how long has it been changed like that? Just three or four or longer? 2021 is when it was first adopted. Oh, okay. And since then, again, we've had four development agreements come through to increase the height. There's only one development that actually is almost ready to to start building that didn't ask for it, but they're in the downtown west zone which allowed for up to six stories and they're doing five story building. Yeah. But I think you hit a key point. There's an economic factor here for developers that

caps that height because like you said, you know, a penthouse kind of a level, that's going to be one thing, but if somebody's building an eight-story building, they're not doing 14 foot floors everywhere in the in the middle floors, floors one and eight, maybe if they want that penthouse. Um, but they're they're certainly not going to do that in the middle.

You can you can go to Logan, Ogden, Salt Lake, Provo. Not every building is 10 stories tall. There there's a range from 10 to to two. So it depends on the site, depends on the developer, what's available, what they're wanting to do. So you're not always going to get every building that's 10 10 stories. Um, I had talked to a developer, um, I won't divulge the name, really good friend of mine, um, to look at the site behind AutoZone, an old barn and stuff that's up for sale. And I says, you know, you can go up to 10 stories. He goes, it still doesn't pencil out. I'm like, why? He says, "Well, to build a garage for parking cost me more an arm and a leg and a leg,

but I'm looking more for surface parking. So, I'd almost need three times more land than that has in order to do a 10-story building. So, they'd have to buy AutoZone, the buildings there, and go on down to almost less Schwab just to have enough land. And you're only getting one building." Yeah. Oh, well that's what I was going to say when the downtown one came up like parking actually limits how high a building. Yeah, they still have to park. That ordinance limits how tall a building

still has to be parked, you know, still has to have the amount of landscaping that's required. It still has to do everything. Um, I think this is just to help those developers that come in not have to go through a development agreement to get the extra 10, 20 feet or whatever they're looking to. This says, "Okay, it's a story. You have the range of doing it." And I think at that point in the council probably say no to development agreements. You can have four four stories and the, you know, ground floor can be 18 feet tall. I don't know. I don't think you need more. Well, I know there's some disagreement, you know, on the mayor and the council with doing development agreements versus good zoning. And I I think good zoning is the way to go over development agreements. And we come up with good solutions that work. Then we're not doing everything oneoff and negotiating everything. It's just kind of here's the here's the standard, here's the guard rails, and then within that they can

there are cities that do development by development agreement and they are slow to develop because that takes three or four more months out of their time schedule to to do something and it's still not guaranteed. So anyway, the storefront uh just general stoop again kind of the same scenario in this building type is allowed in the central the station north the business park and the urban corridor against kind of the same aspects. Um in the station north there is an exception. So six stories or 60 ft right now until you're at 1100 ft south of Hinckley.

Then it needs to go down to 50 ft. But I have here five stories. That was one of the development agreements that came through because one of his buildings was being split by that line and he wanted to keep the building the same height. Yeah. So again, I we can even just eliminate number eight and just allow the whole development to be 60 ft six stories. I don't know if your number just please speak up. Where did the 1100 feet come from? It was just to protect the residents um around 4,000 south because once you start going north the the homes are higher lower.

There is some grade change, but once you get towards 4,000 it does even out. Um on 4,000 city owns the property. It's a detention pond. Even the development, I don't think there's going to be anything on it other than they're taking over the detention pond, right?

Um I haven't seen site plans yet, so but we'll when that comes, we'll see it. But they're taking over the the detention pond, which I think is a win for the city. Give zero money now. They'll be private and they have to pay us. So again, just if you see something, please speak up. So, the only one that I'm concerned about or the most concerned about I should say is I'm I'd have to see the map again because I can't remember what it was called exactly. Do you have the map of the zoning? No, we don't.

I think it's the station central. I just remember that the residents were very strong felt very strongly about that area. So, I just want to be careful about that area. Well, again, right now, 60 feet is is allowed, right?

And it was pretty where that Hooper Water tower is, that's about 60 ft tall. And it was equal to that on the west side of the railroad tracks. Then once you're on the east side, you do have kind of a goes down in a bowl and then goes back up. Um, though you do kind of lose some of it as it goes east. I'm just saying that that's the right that's an area that we had the very most concern on when doing the general I think when the this ordinance was adopted they were very a lot of it was concerned with what around those single family homes. Yeah.

Both on the east and on the west. That's why when you look at where station south is versus the central, central really is a lot of vacant land except for right next to the the tower.

Yeah, I was going to say the other some of that's already being built on so it won't affect that at all really. uh limited bay. Again, these are kind of just has a bay door up front. Garages or um flex space will have those kind of things. Uh only allowed in the in the business park and the urban corridor. Again, the the numbers are about the same. Um general stoop does have a change. I didn't mention it on the ground story height. It only is 18, not 24. Again, a different type of building. The general stoop usually has steps going up versus just grade level entrance. Um limited bay again is just a a grade level entrance. But again it's if that ground story is more than 18 ft it's it counts as two whether or not getting extra

numbers okay still. Yeah, I am curious from Jason mostly just because he has experience in it. Is the typical height for let's say an apartment or something is it about 10 nine to 10? Well, you got floor to ceiling is standard is eight and then you got a foot between stories generally for some go to nine more higher end but I think an 8ft floor to ceiling is pretty standard. So you're you're generally dealing with nine foot stories not 10 right? But you can go to 10, but I I don't know from a cost perspective, a lot of them are looking to do that. So you really it's a it's a nine foot story, not 10.

So it evens out really in the wash when you're talking feet versus stories that way.

It's kind of remember where those zones are. Uh large format buildings, Walmarts, Petco kind of things. We don't have a lot of ground for that kind of stuff. um the vacant area more along 3500 west or next to the Davis clinic or IHC clinic there on 52. Um I don't think you're going to see those, but it is a bill available. Uh the business park and urban corridor again the ground floor could be 18 doesn't allow for anything more. Most Walmarts are a little bit taller than that, but we're not going to get a Walmart, especially with West Haven getting one. Um, they're not going to go in between Clintons and West Havens.

Uh, civic buildings, again, city type buildings, uh, station central, business park, urban corridor. I don't see the city moving anytime soon. In fact, I don't see ever. I mean, they'll probably remodel this building before they they move. Um, yeah. So, I am curious though, how does that play into a fire station because they have the big bays, you know, the host the host tower that could be again the council will be approving that type of stuff. They can always do an agreement. Well, I'm just curious of how that would

work with the 20 tower row buildings, which is mainly your town homes. This is three and a half stories. So, in some cases, like station central and station north, we reduce the the height because no one's going to have a a sixstory town home at that point. They got to have a an elevator. So, cost prohibitives. So, town homes we'd leave at three and a half. Um, the half could be a a half basement or they could do half in the this the roof if they wanted to.

Yeah, I think that makes sense for rural buildings or town homes. But again, town homes are allowed in in all the zones. Yeah. Um, UTA is probably not going to build any in their own property, but it is still allowed if they want that option. So, they're still it would still be allowed in that like for instance the orchard area if that ever they're in station south. That's pretty much it for the building height. I don't know if we had any thoughts concerns with it. [clears throat]

and just a map of where these zones are. So, it's not everywhere. It is for particular locations. Um, some of these orange spaces are already pretty much developed where you got, you know, Winegers or Kent or Windco. Um, they may have a piece of land land that's available, but it's pretty limited. That's what I was going to say. Some of this already has stuff built on it. You're not getting that money redevelop. Someone wants to tear down Wears, rebuild it, and have something above it. Yeah. And there's stuff being built by Wears too already. So, y So, like you said, there's not very much land. No, this would apply to

this is more of a redevelopment. Yeah, it would be redevelopment. That's all I have on that aspect. Any other comments from any of the commissioners? Well, it just seems like nine or 10 would make the most sense just for what people actually build. Yeah, that's what they'll Yeah, they'll gen I don't want to limit it because you never know, but that generally that's what they'll do because you never know. Someone may come in with an off office office complex for some big high-end company that wants to be next to the Hill Air Force Base and want the 14 foot floors, but that'll be downtown, not in these areas.

I think the biggest thing would just be looking at what's right next to houses, too. And well, the ordinance still has a requirement that there's a setback and that the building does step back. So it can only be 35 ft within 20 ft of single family and then it steps back. So even though it may be six stories, it it's in some cases it's not going to be Yeah, it can't be that close to it. So I mean the ordinance does take in account up against single family residential. So well m most of these won't have single family right against them. It will be well some do. Yeah, there's some, but I'm just saying a lot of

the urban corridor is probably more likely to have it. But the way the urban corridor is written, once you're 125 ft back of curb, it could be 100% residential. And most people are building town homes, which would be 30 35 or three and a half stories. That is something on the agreement they just talked about for 4,000, right? Because that was the changing the one. I don't think he's doing town homes, right? He's not doing town homes, but it was Yeah, originally it would have to be so far back.

Okay, that's all I've got for that aspect. Any chickens? How many more times I can talk about chicken? Well, this one, can you explain the background on why this one's back here? Because we just kind of redid that whole chicken

chicken ordinance. What happened is someone within one of these multif family zones in a single family home because again single family homes are allowed in those multif family had chickens and he got cited for it. So the way to get out of that citation is have the ordinance changed. That's kind of where this came from. This is a direction from the council to kind of take a look at it to move forward. I mean, I think it makes sense, but we'll kind of go through it. It really is only if you are a single family home in a multifamily zone,

not if you're a duplex or a triplex. It's just single family homes and they still have to have certain amount of square footage. One of the questions that comes up

because right now 6,000 square feet is the minimum, but um I thought I'd put it in there. Apparently not. Our R4 and R5 zones allows for single family homes at 5,000 and 4,000 square ft. So if I'm in a single family home in an R5 zone on 4,000 square ft, why can't I have chickens? So that's why in the table, do we look at allowing a number for that small of a of a yard up to 5,000 or do we say the second one goes from 8,000 to 15 like the original and anybody between 4,000 and 8,000 or that new number? I would suggest just not going that route. Leave the 8,000 or 6,000 with six. And then but in the R5 zone, we've only got two of them. There is no single family homes to be built in those yet. Um and the site plans that are uh oh, glad it's running out. Fabulous. Um everything is is town home related, so you probably won't have that, but I still want to have the numbers in there. So I don't know what a good number of chickens would be allowed. If you say two, I don't think it's worth it anybody to spend that kind of money to have two chickens.

Well, I don't even know if it's worth it. Under six, is it? I don't know. Or do you lump it in anywhere from four to 15 is six? Question. Oh, go ahead, Anna.

I just want to jump in on the whether it's worth it to have a lower number of chickens. um as someone who grow up who grew up around 4 programs and such, uh the ability to raise even just one or two um chickens for a 4 pro project or program um could be something that I would be taking into account for this especially. Um and then also I live on a lot that is about 8,000 ft. So I went through and looked at what it would look like

to have 4,000 square ft. Is it feasible to have six chickens and the um the outbuilding for it and everything like that? And I think six would be about the max. I talked to a few other people who have raised chickens on various lot sizes and things in other areas. And [clears throat] pretty much across the board, what I heard back was not over six for sure.

Um but up to six would probably be fine. So looking at my property, looking at all the numbers and everything, I would personally be more inclined to go for the 3 to four route, keeping in mind that um even three chickens, the amount of eggs that they can lay at the height of their leg or their egg laying period, that that's still a decent amount. Thank you. Why don't you guys [clears throat] tell me what she said?

Go back and watch the meeting, Steve. No, I'm just kidding. Um, she said basically on her lot, six was kind of the good number on a smaller lot. Maybe somewhere a lower number perhaps. Three to four, I think, is what she said on the smaller smaller lots. I I don't know. I mean, I haven't raised chickens. I have neighbors who do. Like, is there really much of a difference between having three chickens versus four versus six? Because you're going to have the hen house or whatever you want to call it and then the coupe itself and then the the run or the area.

Well, I mean, there's going to be a point where it's just too small of a lot to have chickens. And whether it's three or six, I don't know that that really makes a a difference. If we allow it, then why not just do the six if we mean nothing will change on the the allowance of the size of the run. Nothing will change on the requirement for the size of the coupe. So those would stay the same. Um where it could be located on the property would still stay the same. This is just can someone in an multif family zone have chickens? That's kind of my point. So, so you know if you put four or you put six I don't you know think it'll be different

because for me it's really a question of whether we allow it or not because really I think it's the amount of chickens doesn't matter but the size of the yard's a lot smaller if you talk about where the town houses are right well again a town home would not be able to have No you said near the town homes those yards are so much smaller like you got to have all that stuff. Do you think six chick? That's a lot of chickens cuz we Yeah, but if you're going to have it for four Yeah, it wasn't really an accident on the 6,000 when we had the discussion before. I remember there's a reason we kind of stuck with it because four to six is small. That's a small lot. You're a tenth of an acre? You guys are better with the acreage, but isn't 4,000 basically a tenth of an acre? Yeah.

Six chickens in the backyard and three dogs and a lot of stuff in your yard. I don't know. I'm just looking for guidance to go with six or go with four or I can tell you about a agricultural rural area of familiar that they don't they don't like what we're proposing. They don't do it by zone. They do it by lot size and the amount of the you know that certain animals are allowed on lot sizes but there is a minimum. Oh, can I pause you for a second? It's really hard to hear with you guys talking. We can't hear. So, thank you. Oh, sorry. Thanks.

So, that so they do have a they have a um you know that you know based on acreages and then it goes into square footages for some smaller animals, chickens and rabbits, which um we already have, but they they say, "Okay, at a certain point, you know, there's a a stop point. Their stop point is five 5,000 and no animals at um on any lot that's less than 5,000. um which you know in that city there's quite a few that that qualify into that based on some development out there. So um I'm [clears throat] sorry you're talking about West Haven. I missed that.

You didn't say it's city without a name. City's familiar with city without a name. We're trying to keep it off the record but thank you. Okay. I'm just kidding. Obviously I'm involved in that out there. Um, but again, like I I talked when we've had this discussion before, to me, I feel like it's just about the lot size at all. Um, when we're talking about the ability for people to have eggs, fresh eggs, and do at home, the the biggest restrictions I see on the small lots are, you know, the the setback policy on the coupe and where can it really go. And so when we look at the small lot size, we say, "Okay, they've got to be whatever the setback is."

So I remember the discussion being it just my city is 10 versus six off the property line. Six off property line. So you know how when they people want to put these in, are they going to go and really consume all their backyard and put in a chicken coop? I mean I guess if they want to

if they I guess if they want to. Yeah. Um, so that's I think this thing we when you look at this we got to consider, you know, what is the if anybody's ever raised chickens and I haven't, but I've heard so many horror stories I know I won't. Um, and not that I don't like farm fresh eggs, but um, you know, some areas in my area where I live, we have raccoons and raccoons and chickens don't mix. Um, and so we don't have them in our area for that reason because of those issues. But it it's still that, okay, you still have to have it cooped. We're not talking about freerange chickens here. We got to have cooped chickens. Um, they're able to get out and be in your yard, but they need to be cooped. Um, and so, um, it just comes down to, you know, one, people are asking for it because they do want to produce food that helps save them money. Mhm.

Um which is sometimes debatable depend on what you do with chickens. Um but then um the space and so I I look at 5,000 as a stop a dead stop number because it just by the time you get a single family dwelling on a 5,000 foot um lot you're 10 ft from the back door to the back fence. So 50 by 80 is a 5,000 square foot lot. I don't if I done my math right that's times by or I'm thinking the 4 sorry 4,000. Yeah. Sorry.

But still very small. Um so I I'm I would agree with you know from a certain lot size regardless of zone and then put um a chicken amount based on that. I I know what other cities use as a guideline for determining what that is, but not that I'm going to recommend that because it's that's more of a rural area rather than the scroll that we're in. But I know there could be other thoughts. My thought is I don't care what zone it's allowed in for single family like that isn't right. I mean, it it makes sense to

open this up. I I think we had a pretty robust discussion and kind of my thought is the the 6,000 is a good floor on that. I'm sorry that some people get citations, but we can't just run and reszone and redo everything based off of one citation or one property that's out of compliance. It's good to review those things, but I think we had a pretty pretty robust discussion and and thought process behind the 6,000. Um, if others feel differently, certainly I we could look at 5,000 or or something else, but I'm I'm fine with opening it up to those other zones. I mean, it makes sense if there's a single family lot within a multif family zone.

They they should be able to have chickens there. And that was, you know, we we did open up the chickens to a lot more people. They should or they shouldn't. They should they should be able to. Um, and we we did open that up because before it was a lot more restrictive as far as who could even have chickens in the first place. And I I think that was one of the benefits of the the work that we did the last time we dealt with this is, you know, expanding who could have it because to me a chicken's really no different than a dog. You know, people want dogs everywhere. But I mean, dogs are more of a nuisance to their neighbor than than a chicken is. Oh, I don't think so. All my neighbors have chickens. No. And we get their rats in our yard. I do not I wish nobody had chickens.

We did. I remember we looked at it from a feasibility perspective, too. when you take into account the size of the coupe, you know, the minimum sizes, I think we came to the conclusion it just didn't make a lot of sense to max size of the run with the coupe is 200 square feet. And that's significant on a small little 50 by 100 foot lot. So, right. Are you saying those townhouse the the houses that are in the town houses if they're lots smaller than 6,000, they should be able to have chickens? They should not. Oh, okay. That's what I But people in those zones, if they have a a lot that's at least 6,000 ft and they're within that zone, a multif family zone, then why not let them your thought is don't add the line. Yes. Just change the zones.

They meet that. That's what I say. That's my initial thought. If they're 6,000 or bigger, yes. But the little tinier amount. But if others feel differently like this, I do think I think Anna's point though, if they're if they're doing it for some project or something, two is enough. So I don't know. I mean they would have to choose if that's they want to take that much space. Four and five is a recent change. Yeah. Everything used to be just 6,000 foot lot for a single family home. I think it should stay. Yeah. And I think wasn't the council actually just asking for the 6,000 and up. But I think it should stay the way it is. Okay. So just include the zones.

Yeah, I would definitely square footage as it is. My neighbors say he have to I mean I would be okay with if that's not the popular vote then I don't get it. So So the comment was allow for a couple on the smaller size lots. It's an option. I think if you're going to allow two, you might as well allow the six. I don't think the space that they occupy would be much much different. Well, spacewise [clears throat] I think the coupe is the only thing that changes by a number of chickens, but most coups are in the run. So, you're not doubling everything up. So, if I can have a 10 by 20 run and put my coupe inside

help you. I mean, the thought could be we just change the number from 6 to 15 to 4 to 15 and you get six chickens. Then if someone says, you know, I just can't do it on a 4,000 square foot lot. I only want three. You have that right, too. Because you're saying allow maybe a smaller number on those smaller lots. Just give the option, I guess. Yes. And my thought is if you're going to allow it like that's I mean, I'm okay with that, too. Just give them the six if you're going to go that route. Three laying hands really said it gives you some good eggs. Gives you at least three for a while. One a day per chicken. I don't know. I've only done chickens in a big old field area before. I don't know.

I don't even like section club. That takes you a long time to get the honey that much. They start. So, you're saying to let the smaller lots have three chickens. Where do we say that? I'm just trying to make sure I understand what you said. Yeah, I think I'm saying do that, but I'm saying it's either that or don't allow the small club at all. I do not think Anna want to chime in of those two since she's the one that brought up. She's our resident expert. She can hear us right now.

I uh my expertise is vicarious. So, take that with a grain of salt there. Um, but no, I was saying that I feel like on those smaller lots space-wise, three would be a decent amount, but from what I heard from everyone that I've talked to, they all said that six would be okay. And I also had asked about how many eggs to expect from a chicken, and it varies, but 3 to four a week is a pretty common amount. Um, but at the peak, one a day per hen.

We just lower it down to 4,000 to 15,000. You get six. My preference is still to stay there. Do we do we come back with both for the agenda and we just have time to think about it and pick which which one and that way because I don't want to kill the whole thing if we decide to go forward. I can put both options on there. So let's put both options and then I think I like options. I think for sure the zoning gets a chance to think about more. Yeah. Yeah. And I think in both of those plans we could include the zones. I think we're all kind of in agreement, but just sensing a little bit of

Yeah, I'd want to ask I'd want to ask around to some more people that have smaller amounts of chickens. And this is just a table of uses to change it from not allowed to permit it. So, okay, on to the next item, which I believe is commissioner's minute, but let me look it up. No, I got one more. This is a long one. Regulations chair.

Okay. Discussion of sections of the planning commission rules and regulations. That's one thing. I don't know if you have they'll be on the screen. Oh, okay. Um well, and I I apologize. There was um what we haven't looked at the rules and regulations in over eight years. And go ahead, pull that down.

Um what you want? That's up to you. I didn't see that note. Well, I I just highlighted wrote it as you put and then Oh, no. Wrote it. I was just highlighting things that I wanted to

These are things just really I wanted to look I was looking at personally as far as um some, you know, thoughts and feelings of things that happened since they've been on the commission because this was actually um adopted before I came on. And so the the ones that are highlighted, sorry, Steve, I didn't I threw it on there really quick. I I just felt like it is it worth taking a look at um because it is eight years old and do we want to look at some of the things? One of the things I was kind of surprised of that did you know that there we could appoint a temporary chair if our chair and our vice chair aren't here. We all know that.

So and secretary dudes secretary dudes. I mean, there's just some things on here that kind of surprised me. And then some others, like I said, the highlighted ones are just ones I was just my thought, but I I turn them off without the highlights on specifications. I'd be just interested to know what your thoughts were that motivated you to highlight these particular sections. Well, I for review for me

when I look at um some of the things that have transpired over the last the last few years I've been on there are some things that that I've highlighted I thought okay maybe I need more clarity on or better understanding on um and just to have um a better knowledge of what rules or a response about. And so these are things that were were um brought to my attention by someone that I know um as far as questions. And so I just kind of went through and just said, "Okay, I'm going to I myself we're going to research these things." And so the highlighted ones are just things I want to think about, not necessarily want to discuss tonight. The one thing I did want to talk about is um that part of the organization I'd like to propose that we make a recommendation to the council to include two members of the planning commission on the economic development committee. We've not been part of that, not specifically members of the city council and staff, but I'm wondering if it makes sense for members of the planning commission to be part of the economic development committee where we bring

our perspective as far as our responsibilities to that committee. Um, so it's and it's really a fair Does that committee Hang on a second. I'm trying to turn it off. Sorry. Does that committee meet like during the workday like Yes. 8 to 5? They do. Usually, but it's during the Monday through Friday normal. It's usually right before council meetings. So, it could be like 4 4:30 time frame. Yeah. I don't I I don't [clears throat] go to it. side.

I don't know that we appoint anybody, but we we we ask for the opportunity to have two people that are able to be part of that committee and then as we know they're coming up if if someone who would like to can't that somebody else can step in his place so we have representation. Okay. What I believe is that as they're talking about some of these economic development things that that we have somebody that that knows what's going on, able to give some input and bring some information back, you know, based on what is the committee's thoughts when it comes in front of the planning commission because the council has that advantage now that they know that coming for them by, you know, having those people that have been involved and they're able to share their information before they make decisions. be nice to have that so the planning commission has that same opportunity. And so I don't know what the I was going to ask Patrick um you know is that how would that how would that be um how would we ask for that opportunity?

I can find out from Wilson or Patrick or even Brody. Does that make sense? Yeah. To us that we have somebody on that. My only thing is as long as it's I guess it would depend what they're talking about, right? Exactly. Yeah, that's the thing is sort of budget issues and economics is outside of our purview as opposed to talking about talking about that. Okay. It's strictly just the development, city development. Okay. Yeah. So, I mean, I'm just saying be sure clear on that.

Yeah. I'm I'm sure that they'll be able to come back and tell us how it fits in legally or whatever with just the different rules and regulations, but Yeah. So, but I think it could I mean there's definitely been some disconnect between the groups to un understanding there's been not that they have like that doesn't mean you have to agree on things it just means that there's the process maybe there's been some disconnect about the process

well that that's been pretty frustrating that's one of the things I would like to address is like how do we better communicate what we do because some of the packets the information in the packets of the council are not accurate at all. Right. And and that's really frustrating when there's an issue that we've talked about multiple times, you know, and I I'll give the example of parking, right? Um we've we've addressed that at least five times over just the last couple of years

extensively. Um and yet when I read the packet, it looks nothing like the experience that I had on the planning commission. And that's that's not a healthy thing for the the council to to not have accurate. So I I don't know who writes the packets or how we communicate better the things that we've we've done here and but there there's a gap there and that's at least twice within the last six months that there's a pretty substantial discrepancy between the planning commission and the the great thing though is you have council member elect on your left who had been on this body for the last few years. Yeah. But I won't be in these meetings. I don't think you'll you'll go away. Yeah.

I think you'll be able to bring that knowledge. I know the mayor has has said often that the best experience for someone that wants to be on the council is the planning commission. Be on the planning commission. Yeah. Because you do you understand probably one of the hardest things which is land use. Understand? I mean, land use is is difficult because it has a lot of nuances where someone has never been introduced to a as a a steep disadvantage education. Definitely a learning curve for sure.

And as I understand it, um talking to some resources, um the the agenda for city council is um approved by the mayor. Am I right? Um now the content county commissioners or what do you mean? Well, for the city for the city council agenda for the agenda. The mayor and or council can put items on it, right? Usually look reviewed by the city manager and city. What goes on the agenda? the mayor has the Well, just as much as any city council, I think he can put stuff on,

but he but he I don't know that he has the the authority to um have content added to um somebody's putting an item on there and we want to see, you know, the research and the history and the background behind it. I don't know that he has the ability to say that. anticipation is that we would expect that that um that as [clears throat] a council wanting to have, you know, the full picture, wanting to understand everything and and and sometimes it's just a summary of what was um was said by the planning commission.

Sometimes not necessarily all the minutes because that could take some time. But um but you you would hope that when the count council see something something we know that has been discussed by the planning commission that it would be something they would request. Okay. Can we at least be factual? I mean because the the minute I mean our meetings are recorded they they have the decisions that we've made but at least be factual and not slanted in the packet that's given to the the council. I'm not asking for say in how that's written or anything like that, but just just be factual in what's presented in those packets because that's important. And you know what? We didn't have a meeting Veterans Day and yet that's part of it is that we don't have meetings and things. It's pretty rare that we cancel

cancel meetings and

and and the letter was read into the council meeting of my feelings on the parking as it came through. um they felt like the the packet did not contain enough information for the council if they didn't read all the planning commission minutes which again were not called for and I asked for it to be dispersed and then I think the mayor asked you to send them out or I did one of the two anyway so they were sent out but they were sent out the day before you know and how much time did the council have to read the minutes to understand how much vetting we put into that that um proposal and um and not to have and and not to have you know when they're making a a recommendation above and beyond what was considered in the in the kick I mean to me the the somebody came in and said hey we got cited for this and we want this and rather than petition or you know pay for it to go through the process that was just kicked out by council but have planning commission look at planning commission looked at it and went these safety concerns this and this and this. I mean, we vetted with the fire department. We vetted it, you know, through the safety concerns, parking and police and code enforcement. We vetted it all out and made the and then decided that, you know, based on all the safety concerns, we should make a change. [clears throat] Well, but how much of that information was shared based on that? because all they got was planning commission decided to take no action and so we're going to take action. Well, so don't dismiss everything that we discussed and all the concerns we have for the reason to not take an action on it. And it seemed like that's what happened. And um and that is fully controlled by that body. And so, um, I I I hope that in the

future that if something like this has happened where the planning commission has put the time and effort, research, all that into it, talking to all of those different departments and anybody that would be affected by it, that that would be something they would take in consideration and put in their notes for the council to consider before they make a decision like they did. So, um, it it's not an easy answer on how that happens, but having somebody who's been through that process, which I'm grateful that you're going to be there, is to give some of that respect to the planning commission to say, "Yes, I'd like to see the minutes from the planning commission on this and request that you guys set the agenda."

And maybe we need a more because we used to do, you know, trainings in our work sessions fairly often. Not that we don't do any training. We do still, but um

but maybe that's something that could be someone can bring bring to the meeting sometime and explain how it works like whoever's in charge of it or whatever. But um so that we do understand exactly how that process is going like because it is it has been like well where did all this information like why didn't it end up in the discussion you know so I don't know or maybe they just have heard the discussions and just didn't want to talk about that. I mean I don't know because you're right it wasn't written in the notes. So anyway,

well, and even the public who wants to get in there and look at the the packet information, none of that was in it. And if they didn't attend or even understand that there was other um discussions that were had by it, then they wouldn't have that knowledge when they come to agree or disagree with the decisions made. And and honestly, if it was sent out and it was sent out in time that could members of the or citizens of the city go, okay, I'm going to call my council member and say, hey, I'm really concerned about this safety issue based on what is being considered. And does that information help council members to go, okay, that what we're seeing is not necessarily what um we're wanting to see and and the citizens are having that input, which we want them to have

on on something like this. And and without that information in the packet, it makes it tough. I know there are people that get in and read the packet and they read the material and we don't those packets are so long for city council, but Sure. Yeah. My my biggest frustration is just the inaccuracies and Oh, absolutely. slanted and dismissive and you know, I we're an advisory board and I think we all understand that, right? We make recommendations to council. Take it or leave it. They're free to to do what they want and that's that's part of the process. Why have us if they're not going to use us? Or or why have us if

state required? Well, why why have us why have us if the packets that are given to the council just summarily dismiss the fact that we've had multiple meetings, work sessions, looked at parking for various different things. You know, we we did the overall parking thing on improved surfaces allowing parking behind buildings. We had the IADU discussion, the business license, the inhome businesses in the garage discussion. We had the snow discussion. We had the discussion with the hammerhead. And none of that makes it into the pack and it's just oh they they haven't really done anything with it and oh by the way they just canceled meetings which was Veterans Day. That's where my frustration

with it comes in. So how do we communicate better? I mean obviously they've got or other recommendations from us recently. Everybody on the council should know that we've been addressing the issue and our meeting minutes and things like that. So how do we get more [clears throat] accurate representation in the packets for those items? I guess is the the bigger question I have is how how do we communicate that more effectively? Well, I and and honestly as a citizen because we are still citizens that should bring along the expectation that as we talked about transparency do the citizens have all the information that they have a right to there there wasn't even a reference to the planning commission notes.

Well, maybe they don't know they're there. Well, that's the problem. So, wouldn't that be part of the agenda saying, "Okay, here are the minutes for anyone to read if they want to read it." So, if there is, you know, something they're concerned about and they want to contact a council member before the meeting, have that have that opportunity. But yeah, so maybe Sorry, go I didn't mean to cut you off. May maybe a suggestion future council member is is that if there's an item that comes from the planning commission that the planning commission minutes are required to be part of the packet because then at least there's a documented for each meeting that's been had.

Generally those items when we do make a recommendation to forward something I have I write the staff report and therefore it's usually this is what the planning commission discussed. Here's how they voted. items where we just don't forward something. She's raising her hand. No, that's I don't think that's a hand raise. They're usually yellow. Sorry. You saying like minute should be included in their packet because I mean I've seen them on the meetings. They go those are big packets and you can tell they highlighted and so if they had access to it easily is what I'm hearing you say. Right. Right.

Sorry Steve if you wrote the last packet that time. I I didn't have anything involved with it other than the development agreements that came forward. You saw my staff report in there. Yeah. And whether you had or not, my comments would be the same. But I mean, there's I think there's things we could do. I can bring some options up and what we can do. I mean, like I said, luckily we've got a planning commissioner going to council, so she'll understand. We can No pressure. We'll do the wave in just a minute. Yeah. But they they've been pretty good for the most part, but there's there's this meeting and another one in particular that it's just Yeah. I can't remember frustrating

what the other subject was. It's been a while ago, but I do remember someone in the in the audience even um saying that wasn't what was discussed at all or at least, you know, it was a totally different conversation because they focused on different things, but a lot of the stuff was left out from Well, yeah, we can we can discuss Yeah. what we can do. So, where do you want to go with this, Commissioner Tanner? Or if you have another I didn't mean to other thoughts.

I just thought because it's eight years old and I mean the climate has changed a little bit. Do we just want to review it? Do we see if we want to make some changes adjustments to it? Um just look at it. My my highlights were just my buzzing through it going I want to go back and review this one a little more. You know what it's not I'm not making any recommendations. I'm just saying that it is because it is old and you know things have changed. the landscape has changed a little bit. In my opinion, then it makes sense for us to go back and look at it and possibly see you kind of we want to make some adjustments to it, changes to it. I would like to said add as part of the organization that we do have two people that represent us in the economic development committee and have that part of the rules and regulations as it talks about the organization and and and some of the opportunities that we have in it that we have that as part of that uh as an inclusion but obviously that's with the invitation from the council to have us be part of that. I'm assuming is there going to be an invitation from the council to be in that or is that a thing?

Are you volunteering to do that? You just volunteer. Oh, I'm not. I'll still work. No, I and I right now it's not even who's going to be on it, but can we be a part of it? If we can, then we can look at Let's have Steve ask. And I think the 23rd will probably cancel if we have a work session. December really December. I thought Steve was behind us. Well, we'll just say this. There was a certain attorney we'll name nameless who yelled at me for having this meeting. Okay. So close to Thanksgiving

because I I think that's reasonable um that we would not meet on the 23rd. So, let's let's maybe just take a look at what you gave us. Um Steve, if you'll check with um Matt Wilson and Brody on the economic development part and let's just take a look as commissioners. If we have ideas or suggestions, let's throw that on our January work session. If

it comes back and you all think it's great and I've answered all my own questions, then then the recommendation is just add this opportunity as part of the rules and regulations and and assignments essentially. Can I add to real fast that if this might just be a good thing to go through a section once in a while because when you start on the planning commission, you get so much information thrown at you and I you probably know like you have all the trainings, you have the whole entire book like binder that's like gigantic that Steve gives you. I don't see those anymore.

Oh, okay. Okay. You're lucky you have like felt like a billion things afterward. Every six months my wife will ask me, "Do we really need to keep this?" Yeah. Yes. Yes, we do. Books, there were books. There were all kinds of things. Anyway, and so I just think, you know, going reminding us of these things for trainings would just be a simple quick training, but a reminder. It's what, eight pages? Yeah. whatever it is just to go through. Just so the public knows this rules and rags is on the website, the planning commission's website. You just found it. Yeah. Yeah. The highlights you're considering though. Well, this is again, as you mentioned, these are just his thoughts.

These are my thoughts. I'm I'm not I'm not here to talk about those because these are just things I'm going, okay, do I need to remember these things? Do I need to understand better these things? Those are just me. And so don't take any of the highlights as anything more than Dan Tanner wants to look at these a little closer so I have a better understanding or or is there something we need to adjust? That's me. That's my thoughts. So ignore the highlights. Ignore the highlights because there's nothing to talk about on the highlights and I won't talk about the highlights unless we need to in the next meeting. Okay, with that, let's move on to commissioner's minute. I already said my piece for this meeting. So, anybody else have anything they would like?

So, we're only meeting the first time in December, not the second. That's what I heard you said. Currently, I mean, if you make me mad enough, Sam, I'm going to make you. Well, it's not hard for me to do that. There is a clause where if the chair and vice chair are not present, then the No, I moved it to Taurus's chair. So, you can chair you chair. Okay. Did you I might have a soccer game. [laughter] Yeah. So, and there will be a public hearing as soon on December. Yeah. Yeah. Because ordinance change. So, I like the guy. He did a good job. Tim. Yeah. It was interesting. I need to be better about water.

Well, I mean, it's a topic that no one I mean, we we use it all the time, but do we really understand where it comes from? How much we've got? You know, where does Royy's water come from? Yeah. I need to be better. Um, you know, I've said it before and I'll say it again. When you hear West Haven, because one-third of their water is from us, they buy our our water. So, when you hear Roy is taking back that water, scary. Where does West Haven get it? Yeah. Yeah. It's scary.

Royy's in a great spot for water rights. We do have a lot. our our water is, you know, three or four reservoirs up the hill. So when that water goes down, it's, you know, we're the bottom of Pine View, so we do have quite a bit of good water rights. But again, if if there's a drought, we're hit just as hard as everybody else. So I just thought he was he did a good job. Thanks for having him come. Okay, staff update. That's my staff update. Okay, perfect. All right, final motion is in order. Motion to adjourn. Second. Second. All in favor? I opposed. We are ajourned.

Wow, this was a lot. You see how good I was? But Janelle, I was quiet. I sat still.