Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

It's not an action item. It's just a report. So, okay. I don't believe there would be any conflict of interest. Okay. Okay. Noted. Any other declarations? Seeing none, we'll move to public comment section of the meeting. Uh the floor is open to anyone in the public. We'd be happy to hear from you. You'll be timed, given three minutes. If you would like to say something just throw that mic across the room. If you'd like to say something, you can come up to the podium and please state your name and where you from. Hopefully you're from Tron and Jack will be the timer. I've got it. Oh, Mike is going to time. Okay, we traded roll. I got you. Got me. Thank you. And Mike will time you. Worse than fast and testimony meeting. Okay. Going once, twice. Public comment section is closed. Now move to the public hearing 4 A to receive public input on reszoning of parcel 05-068-0075. [Music] Thanks D.

Great work. Okay. Rocket Road and West Iowa Street. That's the um underpass right there by the where Rocker Road ends. Isn't this where the blue roofed house? Right next to it. Yeah. Right next to it. To the south of it. So, anyone from the public like to give their input? We'll give you three minutes. Again, would you come to the podium and we'll please state your name. Okay, seeing none, we'll go on to the public hearing section 4B to receive public input on reszoning of parcel 05- 060-0088. Is it this one? Yes. Um, okay. Any other any other comments? What's it mean reszoned to? We'll have that conversation. Christy Bokeut, it's easier to give comment if we know exactly what we're giving comments on, where it's at, what you're doing, what the intent is, and so if we could find that out before we ask for public comment, that helps everyone. Does that make sense? Yeah.

Okay. That's just a suggestion. Yeah. So, is this located next to that other one? No, this is um it's north of it. A few like 10 blocks or so. It's right right behind the Main Street parcels. Yep. So, the Golden West credit or not Golden West um Members First Credit Union is right there and Ron Keller Tires just to the north. Can you go to the other one as well just so I got drag that down like Yeah. So what's the proposed zoning on both of them? Um for 75 it's RM16 and for 88 it's R110. Okay. Oh yeah. Okay, let's just move on. We'll just go to the new business and have the discussion. We'll go to 5A, discussion and consideration of reszoning of parcel 05-068-0075. So that's the little corner lot there. So the proposal is you said R 116. Yeah. the the landowner believed they could get um three fourplexes in here um with the setbacks even with the I'm I haven't seen a drawing yet, but I'm curious how the arrangement would be for the I think the site's going to be constrained by its general geometry and by traffic safety. So, I don't think

we're going to get up to maximizing what the density is for RM16. I think we'll probably be looking at nine um nine maybe 10 units. Um just by the time you get the um the setbacks and the parking and the other requirements, I don't feel like we're going to actually get to the the 16 units per acre. So, just because there's not a lot of room there on the west half, where would they access off Rocket Road? Um, we would probably do a private lane that accesses off of the cold sack 960. Yeah. So, so I would minimize if not just try just with the the curve there on the road and with the other intersection being that close. Well, both intersections both for what road is that 850 West. Um, so I think we'd look at just trying to have a private lane with a hammerhead for a turnaround on those um for how many whatever units can fit in there. If they're asking for an RM1 or RM16 and it's not necessarily feasible, what would your recommendation be that it be zone reszone to? Well, I think we end up doing the RM16 so we can um we can get there. The RM8 limits what I mean there is there is an I think we end up at the same unit count whether it's RM16 or RM8 um with the current layout that the land owner is proposing. So just on his application he said RM16. So that's what I'm bringing. So either way, I like I said, I think

the site geometry is end up going to be what kind of constrains us here for um what what how many units we can get in. So how big is it? Like an acre? Barely over an acre. Is it everything in yellow up here that we're talking about or just that corner parcel? The one that has R110 in it, right? triangular shaped. Um, I mean, I've I've been looking at the long-term land use map a lot. been wondering how much how how how committed are we as a commission and city council to go off of this particular map and projection versus uh like the the things that come at us. You know how and then should we look at the very long term and start building into that or should we kind of give grace for that long term for someone else or should we just say sorry no we got to stick to the the vision. So that's a good question Jeff if you don't mind. Thanks. um the the future land use map as a portion of the general plan and the integrated land use plan um it's it's intended to be aspirational. So in 20 30 50 years what do we want the city to look like? Well that this future land use map is an attempt to kind of fill in those gaps and help to make that ultimate goal a reality. This is kind of

what we think we'd like it to look like. It's intended to be aspirational and not prescriptive. And there could be intermediate steps in the meantime to get you towards that goal. But it should be in the back of our minds the direction we're headed with each of these decisions. So that as we make decisions in whatever area, if it's leading towards this future land use map, even if it's not all the way right to it, it pointed that direction, that could be a good thing to do. Um, at the end of the day, we make decisions and actually you guys make recommendations to the city council who makes the decisions. We make decisions based on um what we and and broad discretion is given to planning commissions and city councils to make these decisions based on what we feel like and is rationally um desirable in this area. One of the criteria for a rational, reasonable decision is the future land use map. So you could look at that and say this doesn't meet the goals as outlined in the future land use map. So we're going to recommend denial or it does or is in furtherance of or gets us closer to so we're going to recommend approval. And that's defensible. That's legally defensible. You can someone might disagree with that decision and you could go to court and the courts have found repeatedly that that's a perfectly normal, reasonable, logical way to do things and it's defensible. It would hold up in court. Um, conversely, if you made decisions against the future land use map, you should have a a real prevailing kind of reason for doing that. If it's not in furtherance of the goals as stated in the future land use map or the general plan or the integrated land use plan, um you should

have another good reason for doing that. One of which could be, you know, it it looks like there was a mistake made in the general plan. We still feel like the zoning should go forward. Um it furthers X, Y, and Z goals of the city and um that's why we feel like it's a good idea. And and again, broad discretion is given to planning commissions and city councils on those kinds of decisions to say, "Yeah, this looks good," or, "No, we don't want it. Just has to be reasonable." That that being said, what are what are what's the I'd like to hear the commission's thoughts, council's thoughts on going that direction for the future. I mean, it's easily laid out, justifiable, easy for and kind of one of the things we've one of the reasons we went the PUD route, if I'm not mistaken, Jeff, too, is to make things more consistent and understandable to contractors, developers. Yeah. The hard part is the PD starts at 5 acres or larger. And so where this is really an infill piece that is infill development really is something that our code doesn't have a lot of um regulations for. I know some cities like Logan that are experiencing a lot more infill development of creative chapters of code for those guidelines and what can be in it. Um really once you get down into the, you know, 3 acres or less space, you really get constrained on accessibility setbacks. Um what you can generally end up being able

to develop with your property because of just the general size. There's not a lot of flexibility you can do with a, you know, an acre or two in terms of, you know, one house, sure, three houses, not as much. Town homes, even less. So, um, that's a piece if if the planning commission would like, I can add that as part of a as one of my to-do list items is maybe creating a code that would help guide the planning commission for with infill decisions like this because I they will continue to come as we as we grow out. I like the idea of using the the general plan that's already been spent a lot of time on it. uh use that as a guide. Um in the case of this particular property, those are all single family homes in that area except for the Isn't there a duplex on Rocket Road? Um that backs that Yeah, just right next to it. Right next to that. Yeah. There's even a small apartment complex that I think has 24 units that's just touches right there. Actually, the gold space there right on the edge. Oh, on the edge. Um, that was my question is what what are we doing with the neighborhood nonprofit piece? Aren't they going to come in and ask for some kind of adjustment to theirs which is just um when I spoke to them they've um with the changes of the um in fact I this might be a broad brush but I don't know of any group that's probably been more impacted by the changes to grant funding um than neighborhood has been. And when I spoke to them a few months ago, they were really focused on trying to get other projects in one in Smithfield and one in Hyum um closer to done before they came over. So I think they'll be here probably in the next five or so years, but

um we their acreage here is not um not at the top of their priority list currently, but I'm sure they'll be coming in for a reason. thoughts on that? It seems like if they built on this like really skinny piece that it could obstruct the view of driving. Yeah. And we've got um uh landscape and sight triangle guidelines that they'll have to meet to protect that intersection. Um I think that's a pretty rough intersection now. UD dot didn't, you know, take that into consideration when they put the overpass in. Well, and that's the biggest thing in my mind is that I lived on just a couple blocks north of there and it's the freeway traffic noise right there with that overramp. It's like the you got you can hear it from my house. Yeah. So, and that's what I was I could hear it. I was like three blocks north or four blocks north of here. So, this particular spot right on the corner of Rocket Road and the freeway, uh, you know, I personally think it's, uh, it would be a good buffer area between that and the residential spot, but depending on, I guess, how they're situated. Yeah, like I said, between the intersection and side triangles at the on the west end, I really think you'll end up just seeing a cluster of um units, whether it was single family or if it was multif family that really just accesses off of off the culde-sac. Um um I like I said, I don't I don't know. There isn't a very large developable window and I don't think it's a spot

that somebody would really want to build a house that end that exits onto rock that has Rocket Road in the backyard and Iowa String is the sideyard. Does UD do own that piece? I guess that's across the street to the south. I assume it must be U DOT that owns that because I seen them do something. I was actually looking at that on the um parcel viewer and I was surprised they they must own it because there's not even a parcel boundary um that you know shows that like Tmont City might have right away. It looks like all the way from that property line to the southside I15 is all U dot. So, so when you're when you discuss infill or when you're talking about making infill use, you know, plans, what I mean, what are what are the features? What are the drawbacks? um when I've seen infill regulations, it's really just to help support um you know that that and I haven't read through Logan Cities in a while, but they had guidelines for like parking reductions or they had guidelines um for walkability standards um depending on proximity, how to tie into adjacent properties. Um, one example that I can think of though where those standards took place is um the Jo-Ann's there that's on South Main Street. Um, all those apartments and um came in and and that was part of an infill those met the infill guidelines that Logan City has. So um I could look

into it a little bit more if you guys would like and and have that be part of our residential code going forward. Um, and it might help govern some of as we get redevelopment or as we get um, like I said, just kind of weird odd and end pieces that want to grow. So, more of that just coming from my thoughts of this map and and maybe I'm too married to this map and that could be something that's debated, but um if it if it's coming down to what do we what do we want to concern ourselves with in a long-term view? Um like like the sections that are on here that say, you know, residential to remain like those are things that would be respected, right? and then pieces that are, you know, mapped out as a neighborhood center or industrial, we'd want to plan that out that way and give it its so well. The hard thing about this plan is when we put it in place, it didn't contemplate massive inflation and interest rates tripling or doubling. And so that's a real factor that I think if you redid this plan now, I think it would have to modify because it's just not going to work over the long run. You know what I'm saying? I don't I don't I mean I know that I mean I don't know the feature like the intricacies of how it affects development, right? But I understand inflation. I understand high cost of of things. Um, as far as you know what we plan though, I don't know if that how that should affect. I don't know how

that should change this. And if it does change it, maybe we re, you know, it's a that's an uglier thing to imagine, right? But go back to that map and and set it in stone more. But I think you as soon as you do that, as soon as you put something on paper, it's outdated, right? I know. Well, that's the hard part as far as I guess what I'm trying to say is how do we how do we fix on a vision that we want to maintain so that we can use that as the bull work when things are hot in here because we know that that happens and if people know hey that goes to from developers to to citizens of of Tmont this is the plan this is the vision go by This this is where we're going to sit. Yeah. Okay. There's going to be like a one-off. Like this is where the infill comes in. These weird parcels that we're talking about like this is kind of an odd shape. It's in a weird place. Okay. Maybe we revisit that one. But maybe we don't. Also, maybe we're just like, "No, sorry. We're sticking to it because that's what we've we've already prepared for It's it's an interesting philosophical kind of conversation where you're trying to decide if the values that were espoused when the general plan was adopted are still relevant given the changes. So over time and and as we go through um different upheavalss both in the market as well as um you know just the way the city has grown. Um I I would say it would help I was just saying just real quick. It would help developers know which areas to target. Yeah, absolutely. And that's the idea is that when the developer comes in, they've either looked at the general plan and the future land use map or we give that to them and say, "Are you considering this parcel?" Because if you are, this is what the city has

anticipated for this parcel. Not I want I'm a I'm a residential developer. I want to put a bunch of houses on this property. and they look at the general plan and it says no that's industrial that's kind of their answer. Yeah. Um so they could either sell it to an industrial developer or they can you know pass on it or whatever but the the uh main consideration should always be what did the general plan say because if the general plan is a reflection of at least the people who gave input on it then that's your safest course of action. The general plan says do thus and such. We're doing this in keeping with that. When was this general plan map developed? How how long ago? So the general plan itself was adopted in 2012. I want to say 02 02. It's been a minute. The integrated land use plan was in 23. But the land use plan has been updated for land use. The land use portion. I think it took us three years to do it prior. I think we started it in COVID era and it eventually got passed in 23. So that's a lot more that was a revision of the general plan. No, it was a land use plan. It was just the land use portion of the general plan. Okay. Which are we involved in the general plan? We are. Yes. And and I think you should be more in the future. Yes. Well, sorry. Um, there probably ought to be a something written in somewhere that says we ought to revisit the general plan every so often, maybe every 5 years. I mean, it's been 20. Um, revisit that so that you know, and maybe we don't make changes, but review it and uh see if there ought to be changes at least maybe every five years. Agree. The best general plans have that written into them. So,

well, and if you look at this map, this is the big hard part for me is um so if you look at this map, this is supposed to be what, a 50-year plan or something. If you look at this map, there's not one single planned multifamily area in the entire city that already wasn't in process at the time this plan was put into place. There's not even one. And and so we've seen double inflation. We got costs going through the roof. and we don't even have a single plan for a multif family unit beyond what was already planned at this time. Uh I just think it's poor oversight in my mind. But it's even worse now that inflation has doubled and the costs have doubled or if not tripled just because it's not like to get to some of these outlying areas like if you look at some of these south parts that say single family medium to high density like it's going to cost I don't know 10 20 million in lift pumps and infrastructure that's not even possible in the next 20 years probably to even physically get it done. That's the hard part for me is like in the downtown areas where we have sewer, where we have water, we've got to provide, you know, some affordable housing for our own children to be able to live and be able to work and stay here. And this plan is really tough for that. Like, can you even find one? So, it's the dark brown multifamily. I cannot find one single parcel that doesn't already exist. doesn't that's not already in in planning when this document was put into place or already exists. It's like all of that on 350 North the piece next to the tracks Jay was going to do. Aspen Ridges was already done. The piece Jay was going to do is done. Uh River's Edge was already done. What? Uh so there's not one we don't even have

one parcel planned where we can put multif family. This is this is a good this is a good conversation. I I actually really like this conversation. Um, and I know that we're kind of going off the rails a little bit, so pardon on the discussion here, but um, as it relates to this, I I I agree that we should be considering all the all the factors in the land use plan and then the future plan. So I want to I want to have that discussion. But would you say if we have that discussion that we would apply the same ideas of this is it this is the this is the code. This is what we're going on sort of thing. And moving on from there basically that's your answer, right? Like these these parcels right here, this one would already have an answer. I would say it's already residential the way it is. It remains or whatever we decide when we discuss and that's that's the thing I'm leading to here is like if we if we want to maintain that same mentality I think we have to start it somewhere. We have to be able to say okay that's going to be our our code we're going to follow. Well unless I'm mistaken that fits the the general plan as it was written right this property. So you are, you know, going off on this other discussion, but I agree with you that we ought to revisit that general plan map and use it for guidance when these issues come up. And I think it would to dovetail into the infill planning really well just so that we can say like this property has been sitting here for

a decade or more. Like this one specifically. I think it's been there since I moved here. Been there since Tremont City annexed it in. So it's it's the same property. It's not been moved. It's not been developed. That's something that we do want. We want development to happen there. Because it doesn't I mean nobody wants just dead land, landlocked, nothing. Um so let's make it look good. Let's make it profitable and let's make it usable. But we also need a standard. We also need to say developer this is what you have to work with those types of things. So well and Brigham City has kind of done this a lot. So they've put together a plan and they've basically stuck to it. And that is what has killed their entire thing because like trying to fit a plan with like a landowner and a developer is really tough, you know, because usually either the land owner won't sell or the developer doesn't want to build what the plan said. You know what I mean? So then it like that's why a uh a lot of the 1400 South in Brigham they put in that whole intersection and hardly anything has happened only just that recent car dealership. It's been in for like what 10 years and nobody's developed anything on a brand new intersection in a perfectly high area because they want a specific type of commercial right now. talking about on the other side. They're probably waiting for I think 1100 South the rail to come in the rental the rail the the uh not tracks but what's it called? Oh yeah. Well, they canceled that whole plan, right? So I don't think that's really a thing now. But I uh but you know what I mean? Like if you're not a little bit flexible with what the developer wants, then basically you're just stuck in this stalemate with who's willing to sell the pieces that are zoned what the developer wants to build. Does that make sense? Which is why Tmont has done well is because we've

been a little flexible and tried to allow uh different things that the builders are willing to invest, which is why things are going well and we have a positive vibe on Main Street and we have positive things happening. I mean, there's a lot of Yeah. I mean, I don't know. I mean, there's a lot of things not happening on Main Street. Like there's a lot of and that's what what I'm getting at is there's corridors that we don't have, right? There's there's there's pieces to our town too that like we need in order for it to push past the next 10 years really. I mean we you have to have people or your city dies, right? So I get the argument for multif family. I get the argument for small and affordable homes. I mean, but how do you get across town? Where do you go when you're here? You know, that's Anyway, those are those are other parts of the discussion I want to have with the infield with the new plan. Uh, as far as this one goes, what are your thoughts? What do you guys want to do? I'd like to recommend that we go ahead and approve the I've got one question. recommendation. Go ahead and ask your question. My question, so if if we're saying that we're zoning for RM16, but they really probably could only build RM8, why don't we just give them RM8? I think that's really a good point. Like, and do they have to resubmit? We have to come back and say, "We'd rather give you RM8. Please apply for that." Or what's the protocol? We can just make an a an amended motion to cap it in the development agreement. Are you going to do it as a overlay or are you going to do it as a development

agreement? Going to have it meet the what um whatever the recommended zoning is from the planning commission. So I wasn't planning on a on a development agreement or anything um because we haven't seen what the site layout actually looks like. We haven't received any engineering drawings yet because they don't know if they're going to get the zoning. Um I was just going with what the application had said if the planning commit, like I said, I just using my judgment having done site design. I don't know if we're going to fit, you know, what the maximum number of units are. I think RM8 and you might run into a buffer where the zoning then restricts how many units and there's nothing wrong with that. It's just I've I think with the site con the sight constraints here we're already going to be limited on how many of our units can fit in and you know RM8 um and this is a little over an acre so we or this is a little over an acre so we could get up to nine units which is also something feasible. So if the planning commission would like to have RM8 there and and that's what we end up that's one of the um constraints we have on the site then it's still more than what was going to come out of R110. So I don't think there's anything wrong with that. That just is I'm just trying to if I may. Um, one of the things that you need to think about when you allow a zone change like this is what is currently allowed by the code under an R16 or an R18 or whatever, whether it comes to uses or setbacks or height restrictions or anything like that. And you have to think, and if you'll forgive the way that this sounds, but you have to think the worstc case scenario. If the code allows for something based on the zoning that you give it the property, that's what will

go in. Now, the developer may come in and promise the moon, but we have to understand that if we allow this zoning, that's what you'll get on the property. Now, Jeff has said that there are some constraints on this property due to setbacks and the geometry and geography and whatever else on the property. That's as may be and but as far as our purposes here tonight, you have to think if you give them and how many acres is this? A little over one. It's like one and a rounding error decimal. Yeah. So, it's one acre and and R16 allows for what? 16 units per acre. Is that Yeah, RM16 is allows for that. So you could get up to this is RM not R1 RM 16 um allows for up to 16 units per acre. You could see a total of 16 units on this property if they can make it happen. Now if they can't like Jeff is saying there are other constraints on the property with setbacks and things but um they could come in and ask for a variance because of the geometry that's there on the property. They could ask for which would allow for relaxed setbacks. They could um allow for a variance to height restrictions to say we we're entitled to get 16 units on this acre. We need to go higher in order to meet the rest of the geometry. So they'll get five stories tall apartment complex instead of just one or two. So that's what you have to think. You have to think of those kinds of scenarios. And again, uh, the developer owns this property and knows what the current zoning is and it has value at that zoning. You're not changing that value. You're only enhancing the value and the the uh development potential for the property by doing a zone change. The other thing I wanted to say, and this is more of a procedural thing, if you want

to recommend to the applicant that they go with R18 or RM8, please don't vote on that. Please say we're voting on this application which is for RM16 and we're recommending denial or approval. But don't say please come back with whatever because that seems to give the developer an idea that at that point you may or may not uh vote in favor of that. Yeah. So it's just from a procedural standpoint, just give them a straight up or down vote on this particular application and you can make a recommendation after that's done that you might be more amendable to an RM8 zone and he would work with Jeff on a revised application. We probably wouldn't charge a fee for that revised application if that's the direction you guys gave us and the developer. But um just from in the motion, don't say we're recommending that you come back or because the application is specific and explicit for a particular zone. Okay. As a a part of the application because I'm not familiar with that part of the process. how what what is submitted with the application to translate their rationale like how do they justify their request? Um normally uh I can't I shouldn't know this off the top of my head. Um it's on the forms. Um normally there's a I just did it. It's pretty easy. Like it's online. You have to explain like what your vision is and why you think it's good and pay the fee and submit it through the online system essentially. And are there like general drawings like

you went on paint and showed like if it was RM8 it would look like this. If it was the same thing then I could only do this. Yeah. No, because you really don't know if it's going to be approved before you spend thousands of dollars on engineering and design. Well, right. I'm not saying engineer. I mean, even like a No, that's who does those drawings. So, napkin drawing. Nothing. Napkins don't work because you got to spend hours going through the code to identify all the things he's talking about, the setbacks and all the things that tie into the site plan. Even if you know it's R110, well, it or you know, you know the code like that's out there. You know what the setbacks are supposed to be. You know what the it's just a dream, right? until somebody that knows how to do it does it. But if you have the plan, you know your numbers, you're going to budget the way you're going to you're going to try to draw it out the best way possible, right? Potentially. But we're limited on what we can request or require that a developer bring in at this stage of the game because once they put money in, whether it's a few hundred or a few thousand, then they have an investmentbacked expectation of return, which means that they put skin in the game and the city then assumes some sort of kind of responsibility to approve. And so there's a balance there between getting enough information to make a good informed decision and requiring too much of the developer that they've invested so much in this outcome and then to have them say sorry we're not going to vote for you even though you've given us thousands and thousands of dollars worth of uh information. We really didn't like it anyway. So there's a balance there. But do you guys know what we did? So, we had this exact same conversation on Aspen Ridges. So, Aspen Ridges came in, they wanted RM16, but they said the basically the same thing is their site design would would max them out at 10 units per acre, you know, like what they wanted to build because they wanted to

do like the nice garages, like the front entry garages and all that. And so we put a whole development agreement together that was signed as part of we we reszoned at RM16 with the development agreement signed at the same time that their max was 10. And I I don't know why we couldn't do that again. But essentially Sean put a whole bunch of things in there originally that just said, "Okay, fine. and we'll give you the RM16, but you're maxed at 10 units to the acre and you have to put in that there was a fence on the canal and a fence on the railroad tracks and a few other things that was required like they had to do the clubhouse and the pool and some of those things to get like that much but and isn't that where we'd run into the PUD standard we wanted to but the PUD's got to be five acres so it's not going to apply in this situation. So in this case it would be infill just a parcel PUD doesn't apply right but we don't so I'm saying is the infill plan infill land use plan I don't know what am I even saying that right just infill development infill development thank you would would have those provisions right it could I mean I just looked up Logan cities and they have provisions on they've combined both infill with flag lots. Um so they have requirements of of how you do how to design a shared alleyway and and um how to tie into um adjacent properties and they also have definitions for what defines infill development um landscape buffer that you'd have to have. So, like I said, Logan's the only one I know of off the top of my head that has an infill requirement, but I'm sure there are other municipalities if in Utah definitely and generally probably in the country increases your probability of saying that there's got to be other requirements out there. I mean, what do you mean by infill requirement

require? Infill is just I mean, it's this like you've got a random parcel that hasn't developed. Everything else around it has. So, Logan City has some specific design requirements for Oh, design requirements for how infill has to function because they've I mean, the joy of the grid system is that you get flag lots or you get landlocked lots. Like, honestly, the one we're going to look at next is a great example for what infield development is. It's got one road in, it's two acres. I mean, what can you really do out of it? So, and same with this one. you're on a corner. It's two busy roads in Tremont and you got poor visibility at the west. There's only so much we can really just muster out of an out of a site. So, um yeah, it's um yeah, I I think it's I think the amount of in general I think the amount of reszone requests um right now really shows that Tmont city's zoning overall is not sensitive to the amount of economic changes we've seen since co I mean houses in 2010 2015 were 100, 200, 300,000. Now they're five, six, 700,000. The only way to create affordable things is with density. And that's why we get reszone request after resoners are trying to come in and make it work for them. But, you know, $100,000 an acre, mother. Like, son of a How do you make that pencil? And you haven't put any concrete asphalt or improvements in. I mean, so it's not our job necessarily to make sure that the developer gets a return on their investment. The developer should have a proforma before going in to um have contingencies and and other plans in case this kind of thing which

is not in the control of the developer necessarily in case they don't go the way the developer expected. Um, however, you know, there is some investment and they've got some definite skin in the game and that just the very fact that the developers coming in and wanting to participate in this process shows that they're invested in the community as well, not just their property and and getting a a financial return. Um, and that's a good thing. As you pointed out, this is a corner that's been vacant for a number of years. And, uh, seeing something happen on this corner in a creative and and, uh, useful useful way. Yeah, that's that's that benefit that benefits everybody. So, um, again, these are all things that, yeah, just looking, excuse me, looking at the neighborhood there and taking into consideration that in all likelihood it would be an access off that culde-sac, uh, those four residents that are in that culde-sac, culde-sac now, I can imagine they wouldn't be too happy to have 16 units in that area coming through front yard all the time and obviously with the access that's the most logical access so it doesn't impact Rocket Road or Iowa String. So um or just encumber on the the property because once you have roads going in you have to have all the corner setbacks. You have to have all the right. So just eat up anything on this side. So you well and I would like to recommend that we deny the request for an RM16. We're looking at the culdeac now. I'm not sure there's enough width actually right there to finish. Okay. I'm sorry. There's been a motion. Yeah. Is there a second? I will second that motion. It's been

moved and seconded that we deny or not not recommend denial because we don't deny. City council denies. We recommend denial of the reszoning of parcel 05-068- 0075. But are you are you wanting to deny it because you don't want 16, but you're okay with the 10 units or 10 units to the acre or whatever or you just don't want to do it? Like can we would it be better to just try to say fine, we'll reszone it, but you got to put limitations on what it is. The current zoning allows how many? Who did? We don't want to put any specifications. just put it in and then come back develop back and and go through the process again. They can. But if we put anything in there like that, we give them a false hope that they can move forward and we've got to avoid that expectation. And the reasoning behind it is could be as simple as it doesn't meet the parameters of the general plan and that could be your reasoning and that's totally valid and solid. Well, I mean, if we're going to deny it all together, I agree. But if we're just making him jump through the hoops and come back for to ask the same question, why why why do it twice? Let's just tell him what the what it is. You know what I mean? Why can't because we did this with we've done this with almost every project lately where we've said, "Okay, fine. You're asking for this and we don't like that, but if you'll limit or you'll do this or you'll provide this." The same PUD conversation, you know, really just going to deny him. That's why the PUD conversation started was so that we get away from the specific developments in every single request, right? That's what it was all about was we don't want to be making promises, different promises to every single developer that comes in here. That puts the city council in such a predicament when we do development agreements. Yeah. Well, yeah, but you put you put the

hands hold on. So, my understanding, correct me if I'm wrong, but every project is going to have a development agreement and probably an overlay is what we had So this kind especially this kind of smaller development where it's just a oneacre thing, the straight zoning requirements could and probably should apply and if we um have robust and good quality um requirements and specifications in the code with regard to the development of these properties, there's no need for an overlay. The overlay is for properties that have unique characteristics or qualities that allow for some flexibility. And it should be done, as uh council member Rodie points out, it should be done with an eye toward protecting the interests of the city and ensuring and guaranteeing the needs and uh entitlements of the developer. Those are the two main constraints and and concerns of any development agreement. protect the interests of the city and protect the entitlements of the developer so that everybody knows what to expect and everybody knows what they're getting into in this kind of development where it's just a oneacre piece. They want a particular zone. It may or may not fit the requirements of the general plan and it sounds like uh at least there's a motion that it doesn't. Then that's your answer. It's pretty straightforward. Um we can continue the conversation though. We're not we're not saying especially because we recognize that this is part of that process. We want to avoid that. Well, I don't know that we do. The recirculating and re-washing of old laundry is not what we're process too is is if you follow it, you've got a motion. You've got a second. It's time for a vote. The the comments were over once we did the the motions. Oh, that's never been true. We can still have discussion. We can still have discussion, but I think that

the whole the whole vision of it is though that Sean back in the day and has used the development agreements essentially to protect the city by saying you can't this and you can't that and you have to this and you have to that and if we we don't do any of that essentially the development agreement is mostly holding the developer to the fire. If you read the development agreements that have happened over the past 10 years, they've all been in the benefit of the city generally. I mean, they're they've put the screws to the developers bad, which isn't necessarily good. Well, it's it it protects the city by saying you have to do this and like right now, but the if the contractor has an has a has a direct line, they know if they do A plus B, they get C, that's with infill plans, that's with PUDs. Like that's that's in stone. they can go with that and run with it and not have the which he he already has that. He already knows that. But that's why he's asking for the RM16, but we don't have infill. We don't have that kind of overlay for this size of a property. No. So, let's let's do this one and then we'll move on. All those in favor of not recommending the resoning to the city council, please say a yes or yes. Yes. Yes. Those in those not in favor? No. So the motion passes. So the motion passes. Correct. 5B. Discussion and consideration of reszoning of parcel 05- 060-0088, which is the big one in the RR1. It's the northeast green square in the RR1. Um, so they're looking to reszone to

R110 to match the rest of the residential development to the west east. Um, so there's a house in the norththeast corner of that that will look to have its own lot and then everything will be developed under the R1 10 guidelines unless the planning commission approves an overlay zone down the road. But at two acres there's um not enough um acreage to do PD. Yeah. Some guy thought he needed two acres for horses. And I just say that because he's right in the back of the room. So by changing that to an to the new zone. Do they forfeit their animal rights? Yes. Well, I mean, he's he's trying to forfeit them because he wants to move to St. Pete County. So, Okay. So, I I just know that they have animal rights now there. And so, yeah. So, if if someone came in and bought it and wanted to keep it in its current use would be grandfathered in perpetuity. It's only if and when there was someone that came in that with that wanted to develop it develop it out into cute little houses or they stopped using animals for a year. Right. Technically potentially. Yeah. Any agricultural use? Yeah. On your general on your land layout and your general plan. Does that fall within that? So again, it's I think if I'm looking at this piece correctly,

that odd shaped corner, I think it's the same as the last one. residential to remain. So, this goes back to that infill piece. That's a huge piece, right? Two acres right behind Main Street. I think it was this house. Yeah. Yeah. So, that house will remain and then they'll stay put a couple more houses in. Maybe three houses. Basically, the end of a culde-sac and another house on the side. And it's as we're asking for R110, which is what those are? Yeah. The neighboring lots, you mean? Yeah. Well, the neighbors to the left are RR1, right? And the neighbors to the north are commercial. Commercial. I'll go back to that zoning map. I thought they were RR1, too. Oh, there's they're commercial. Yeah. So, south everywhere around it is RR1 except for to the right. Then you got commercial on the north. The one above that the piece above it. Commercial. Oh, might not be commercial use, but it's commercial. So, that's different than on this land

use map because that says it's residential above that piece. I think it's just because that's the way it was being used at that time. Most time when you start making long-term land use plans, you're not focused on what is currently existing. You're trying to get out to the peripherals and try to like have a plan for what Sprawl is. I mean, you're talking about this is almost right next I mean, it's right behind Main Street, right? I think it's a tough place between the new grocery store, the Maverick, the commercial frontage, and we have like these farm lots right in the center of the downtown. You know what I mean? Like better use would be residential. Well, it it is residential now, but I mean, smaller lot. Yeah. Yeah. R 110. Put some homes in there for sure. Well, I mean, it it's just weird. feels like, you know, you got all your commercial main street and then you got like a horse pasture right behind the tire shop, you know, which is good. I mean, I think it's bad, but it's just unique. So, it looks like there's a road coming in from the south, too. Would that That's a different lot. It would have worked if the current house on there had not built almost where the road needs to go. Yeah. First house. Yeah, but someday if they change their vision, then you could bend it to the right a little bit. Probably it's hard just to try and get curves to match the MUTCD standards to get a curve. Anyway, yeah, we've I've looked at all four acres of that together and tried to figure out how to plan some connectivity and get away from Culax, but um it's also the south half of Tmont

and all we've ever liked down there apparently is culach and nothing connecting. I when I drove school bus, I drove through that area and it's a nightmare. So, is is there plenty of egress if they use if we put 10 houses in there? I figured he could only put eight and technically what we've allowed 44 off of a dead end road technically. Yeah, I mean 30 off of us one single grass before you get over fire code. So, it it's going to work. So the question will be is if we want to try and have a stub come out to have 110 continue through and you just build on the north and south side of it and and see if we were going to have that connect to Main Street or what we want to do for connectivity stuff. Um, I think you could end up still getting two or three homes, but you know, maybe see if that stuff ever is able to connect to 1,000 West just as a relief from um what is that? 800 West. Yeah. But 225 goes through. So stubbing this one right there so close to the intersection is probably not really critical. So it doesn't go through to anywhere. It only goes through to 800 West and then really stops and then goes back to 225. South side of Tmont looks like it needs a chiropractic adjustment just to get all the roads to kind of line up with where they could have been. You're such an engineer. 225. You got 225 then 275 and then it jumps back up to 225. But 225 on the east end is a c dead end culde-sac because they didn't punch it through to 500 west. Like I didn't say you were wrong. Just look at the You just got to feel better that we moved the road by Crump. So it's straight now and then you'll ease your engineering mind.

Except when you try to make a left turn onto that street and there's one road right here that's parked cars on that side and you're like, "Okay, I'm basically parked. We're driving down the left side of the road." So, so any other discussion? Okay, I'll uh take a motion to something. I'll make a motion to recommend that we uh recommend to to take it to R110. So, it's been moved. I'll second it. Seconded that we recommend to the city council the reszoning of parcel 05- 060- 0088 to R 110. All in favor? Yes. Yes. Any opposed? Motion passes. 5C. Discussion and consideration of chapter 1.08 commercial and industrial zones. I made PowerPoint. Yes. I will take a nap. Fantastic. It's not that long of a PowerPoint. Um, so this is an item that we've been trying to get to, but it can has continued to be tabled for I think we're going on about three months now. Um, so just a quick outline. Um, I was just going to try to get everyone up to speed with where we've been. um what the kind of uh work timeline looks like for the staff and then get into the code a little bit and then open it up for some questions. So um a general recap is Dront's expecting some industrial growth here in in the short term and overall in the long term. Currently the inland port has about 250

acres ready to be used for industrial and overall the city still has about 630 some which has been developed and most honestly which hasn't. Um so the purpose of bringing it to the planning commission is obviously to start a discussion um with the changes that we've put in place. Um we've tried to put these changes in in in um we've worked it through a few times in house um between Sam at Landmark and me and Bill about and and so we feel like it's ready to come to the planning commission for consideration. Um if you don't mind going the next one. Um so the first part that um and this was a point we ended up discussing a little bit more last time was um what uses in the new in the MF, the M1 and the M2 zones do we really want to have as permitted versus conditional? Um having gone through this table a couple times, I'm pretty comfortable with where they're sitting. Um, one one I topic we talked about last time was um what do we really want to do with that um MFB zone which is supposed to be kind of a flex business park um less about you know heavy industrial stuff and more about um you know commercial or commercial industrial blended space. Um, if you don't mind going on, can you send us that and the proposed map of where those zones are going to be proposed? Yeah. Because I'd love to go physically look and see what you're visualizing as far as what is going to be proposed where, as far as which zone, and what's allowed in that zone. Yeah. Um, yeah. So um the other and the large change to the industrial code for martyr

what where it was to what we're proposing as a staff is um a section about how to report your infrastructure impact or your um what did I call it infrastructure demand report just quantified um water usage wastewater generation storm water practices um you know transportation demand trips per stuff. So, just to to help the DRC be able to have a kind of a summary of what we can expect as industrial growth comes. Um that way if we feel like there's going to be a high water usage that we can start working on some mitigation plans with the proposed industrial group. Um and then the other section 035 included is just some parameters around conditional uses and and bulk and specific things like bulk storage. So if you're going to have large um you know material piles out back what we do in terms of screening or in terms of um accessibility and dust control off of those piles. So, um, so yeah, that's that was a summary. Um, if you don't mind pulling up the code now and we'll just kind of go through it. Um, yes, I can send a map out. Um, I think Sam sent one as well a while back, but I will go dig it up and send it again. Um, somehow this Tuesday just u kind of jumped on to me. Um, surprised me. Um, so yeah, we changed the definitions. Like I said, the MFB right there, if you don't mind scrolling up to F right there and I believe a little higher. There we go. So, Flex Industrial Business Park. This is um

this is some lower um get there. Um Sam and I thought that we would try to create this as kind of a buffer zoning between current commercial spaces and heavier industrial. So for instance, trying to create a a transition between like the commercial that's on Main Street back to West Liberty Food. So it isn't such an abrupt change going from what's now um commercial that fronts main street going straight into heavy industrial that that creates quite a contrast and and doesn't really ease you into kind of our industrial area around the 1000 North interchange. Um and then M1 and M2, we just wanted to be able to clarify what's light manufacturing versus what's heavy manufacturing. Um, so we can have those parameters. Um, going down to the use table that's in I am loving whatever is going on with screen right now that we have that. Yeah, I don't know either. Um, oh, focus. Um, my son says that word and it doesn't sound like focus. Um, these this is the changed use table from what it was and and I'm happy to send out the current version versus this so you guys can kind of do some compare contrast. I looked at sending out the colored copy, but there's so many colors and outlines I thought it was harder to read than just seeing what's being proposed. Um, like I said, we in this update, we're really focused on just what's happening on the on the right side of the columns. um with conditional versus permitted uses. If you don't mind scrolling down, Tiff. Um one spot we kind of uh got stuck at the last session is there in the

manufacturing assembly versus industrial versus SL-heavy light is um what do we want to have in terms of of permitted versus conditional in in those areas? um knowing that that's really our primary uses in these zones or hopefully the primary uses. Um so yeah, then if you keep going down, did we have a conversation about the difference between peritional uses? Yeah, we have. Don't need to rehash. Um same thing. This is uh if you don't mind going down to eight uh 8.030 030. Um, yeah. So right here, if you don't scroll up a little bit, um, so this is the summary of where the report is. Um, that if you're in the M12 one, if you're in the M1 or M2 zones, this is the summary of the report you'd have to put as part of your DRC submitt, plan submitt, that would help quantify uh, the water use, wastewater generation, uh, transportation impact study, storm water, air quality, although they would really have to meet the state standards for air quality. Um, and I think one more down there's noise pollution. Yeah. And so this they just be able to have a report that would come into the DRC and and the hope is that it would really help summarize what kind of impact the industrial use would have user would have on the city infrastructure. And then just going down a little bit more. And then here's the conditional uses. So it kind of walks through what the conditional use process approval process is. Um and then like I said the natural resource of bulk storage. So that um there's some there's some guidelines on how you can just store material in you know onsite for whatever

they do. Not pointing this is not to point fingers but like one example of where these guidelines could help is valley view granite has those pretty goodsized piles that you can see from a thousand north. And I mean the bigger stuff sure probably doesn't accumulate dust, but as much as they might turn up dust and stuff down there, it'd be nice to have that was the hope was to just have some regulations so someone's backyard isn't just a granite pile. Um if if your neighboring resident existing residential. So um those are the changes. I'm happy to just kind of open it up for questions and stuff. Um, like I said, I I expected I was hoping to have a little bit more time for this, but I can send this out as as part of the items for next meeting. This is only for going forward. Like if somebody everything's grandfathered in what it currently is, but knowing that we're um that new industrial growth is coming in, that's why we're trying to get this passed so that if we had an application now for a new industrial park, this is part of the approval process. know if there's a possibility of doing things like tax incentives for existing businesses that put up walls or put up barriers and fences for such types things. There may be we something that we'd need to discuss as the city council um try to find ways to incentivize people to do things like that. Mostly um what we would do is set up a standard so that if a if a property owner needed to replace a fence, it would be upgraded to the new standard. So otherwise, you can just carry on with whatever fence you've got until it needs to be upgraded. Any

questions? Any other questions? Any I know it's a lot of fun information. Are there any existing applications or businesses that are looking at require needing this requirement at the present? No, that's why we can be a little um we can take our time. I mean, I don't want to take an ample amount of time, but we can be patient with this, you know, this review and and approval process. So, um, but it is something I would like to have in place. Like I said, I don't know if if the inland port triggered something, I'd like to have this in place beforehand. Um, I've tried to talk to some property owners that are looking at industrial stuff and getting their feedback because I I mean I think it's always beneficial from somebody that has to actually follow the code that it makes sense and that it's, you know, affordable. Um, I'm all for design standards, but I also don't want to write code that, you know, cost somebody an extra two or$3 million per building to come in and put in because the building code's doing that well enough right now. construction costs. Yeah. I was talking to one of the um corporate officials for IFA today and I don't know if anyone's been to their building on 12th Street in Ogden that's it's a long way to go for a store that's you know right in town but he was actually telling me today that that building even as new as it is um would not meet current building codes and it would have cost him an extra three or four million just to build a building of that size. And I'm like, that is it's a lot a lot. So, I'm as as we're proving this, like I said, I'm trying to we're trying to make standards that'll help protect the city's interests, but standards that also are make sense. Well, many of you are industrial developers that I didn't know about when

we, you know, talked earlier. So, speaking of 2300 West and that interface with whatever we do in the future, um what's going in there behind um USDA? Right behind or right next to north? North of USDA. West or north or north? West. Yeah. Along 2300 corner. Not on the corner. That's the tire shop that's going in there on the corner. Right. But what's north of that? um that ground that site work that's being done. Is that just a um drain or what is it? They were gonna do storage facility there. Yeah, it's a storage facility. Um the there's um two parcels. There's two parcels there. the the parcel that actually fronted Main Street had approval to be um to it was for like a trucking company to come in and and and uh I think prep and get loads ready to go to like hit the interstate and then behind that in the flag lot was storage units. So I think it's the storage units right now that are constructing um if you're going by but I just can't tell right now which one it is because they shared a drive approach. Oh yeah. So, okay. Yeah, I was just looking at that pile of Valley View granite stuff. That's huge. Yeah, I I've always thought that was the leftover from the fire at West Liberty. They stacked it up. But yeah, that's Valley View granite. All right. Hear that all the time. Do they truck it out? Um, currently they've been using some of it as as landscaping material, but I don't know what they do with the bigger pieces out there that I mean those would be heavy enough to take a few grown men just to pick one up or it's, you know, a forklift, but um, yeah, I know they've been doing some of it.

Why can't they can't sell them as normal? They're just odd shapes and odd They could grind it up and make it Well, and two of the piles are that. I mean, they're one of them's about a/2 inch minus kind of a a really fine material and the other stuff's about a inch and a half plus um granite chunk. Um I can tell you it looks pretty good in yards. But uh yeah, that the big chunk the big pile there that's just got odd and end pieces from whatever countertops they've just finished. Thank goodness it's off the street, you know, on that canal. But but that one house probably isn't too happy. So I Yeah, I mean that's that's one of the the reasons for having the bulk storage stuff in there so that if if people are going to be bringing in or if part of their byproduct is material storage. I mean if you've ever gone and seen how much um how much slag New produces in a day. I mean, I bet that as big as Valley View Granite's piles are, that would be a whole different kind of sight obstruction if their slag piles ended up behind your house. They were supposed to put up a fence there, too. They never did. Oh, were they? Yeah. Originally. So, are we just going to propose to table this and Yeah, probably at this point we can review it and you can send us the details and we can bring I make a motion we table it for the next meeting. Been moved. Second. that we table 5C for when 5C yep 5C 5C for a specific date or generally we'll just sell he can send us the details we can review and bring it back okay till the next meeting all in favor yes yes yes opposed okay motion passes 5D discussion of Tree Mountain Center community development

project area report. This report is this report is submitted to the planning commission yearly for your review regarding uh the status of the um community development project area. It's a requirement uh per our contract with the governor's office of economic development go that we submit this report. So we've given you the numbers there. Um nothing really new to report this year just an extension of what happened last year short the uh RDA the CDA area is doing really well and uh it's growing better than we had anticipated which is good and uh the work is being completed and is should be paid off sooner rather than later which is good for the RDA because that will mean we have some additional money in our coffers. Um, I'm here for questions if you've got them. Was that additional covering of the canal on the city or the developer? No, on the RDA. The developer who's in the room um completed the work and then was reimbursed by the RDA or will be reimbursed by the RDA through like taxes or something. So the way the RDA works is, and this is very simple layman terms. So if you have additional follow-up questions, please let me know. But you have a base year that establishes what the value is at a certain period of time. Okay? As the value changes either due to market conditions and just the way things get more expensive and or investment in the property by the property owners, um that value changes. Those changes in taxes minus the base year goes to the RDA to

help pay for infrastructure and other projects in the RDA area. The RDA area is in the map at the end of the report. So you can have a look at that there if you're curious. Um so in the development in the RDA agreement, the developer proposed several projects and um one of the big ones obviously is piping the canal there along Main Street, but there are other things that are eligible for RDA funds and uh those have been identified and we're going to explore all of those going forward in the next few years. So, how far west does the what's it called? Town center. The CDA. It goes just to the west of the project there. There's a map in there in the drawing in the paperwork. I can show it to you right here. Right here. You can see here's Tmont Center. So, it essentially just cuts off right there and goes almost. Yeah, there it is. Yeah. So it just goes to the property the east property line of the east side of town. Yeah. So enco encompasses the entire main. Okay. Basically the downtown. So that west border is what uh that existing business there. The RV park or whatever. Y has any of that area being proposed for additional apartments? Not that we've seen so far. No, I don't want I didn't want to do additional apartments. We want to have Oh, is that yours? Mat's. Well, I don't know. Math. I own the dirt, but I used to, but I sold them. But that's all the apartments we wanted to do. You own the rest of the dirt. All the front is commercial. Okay. I wanted it to be.

Looks like it's working out financially very well, right? Yeah, it's doing great. Yeah. So, next year it'll be fully paid off on the canel side. And then there should be at least what 350 I think we figured 350,000 that can go towards reimbursing the city for some projects they've already spent. Um and then the rest ultimately can be used for whatever the RDA board decides to use it for. The current estimate is about two and a half million out the door when this when it comes to maturity in 20 32 32. So, we got about seven years left of potential growth. And uh Curtis, who's our financial guru, uh indicated, yeah, we're looking at, if things go the way they are, conservatively speaking, uh we're looking at two and a half million that we can invest in this RDA area. Seven years. So, it ends it eventually ends in seven years. Yeah. So, but that doesn't that's just the tax collection period. Um, the RDA would continue until the funds are are completely used up. So, we don't have to use them all, okay, within the seven-year period. If we've got projects and things we're working on along the way and or if new projects come up, then we'll fund those as well. They have to be in this area, right? They do have to be within this area. That's right. Is there anything like that that can do uh sewer lines in the the residential areas? Not in residential areas. It's it's for commercial development specifically targeted and has to be used for uh development towards enhancing uh businesses in the area. So, one of the things we're considering, for example, could be facade grants and we could set up a like a fund that we could pay that pay

for those facade grants out of like interest going forward. Um, that's something that we could consider. So, so the this is coming from the the state funds. No, this this is funds. These are tax dollars that would have gone to the city and the school district and uh the county mostly. There's there's some other smaller taxing entities that contribute just a little bit. Um they would have been going to those areas, but instead of going there, they're redirected to the RDA. The vision when we did this was if we put a project together that would work um that we could essentially use the funds to rebuild the cosmetic part of Main Street was the vision which is why I tried to accelerate and get the apartments and some of that stuff done with other people who could do it faster than me. Uh you know what I mean? And just the apartments alone this year were assessed at 77 million. just the apartments, there's like 443,000 in taxes per year, which is more than the entire downtown generally. I mean, it's so after seven years, those taxes are then reortioned to the city where they belong. Yep. Well, it reverts back to the proportionate share of wherever it came from partially. So technically it was 2575. So right now 25% of the increase still goes to the city taxing entities all of them. The 75% will go to them when the max is paid which will be before the end date because we're already exceeded. Does that make sense? We're going to we're going to fully fund it before the end of it. Yeah. Part of that's because they extended it for two years during CO and then after the seven years it's

75 or 100% 100%. Right now it's 2575, but ultimately once it's maxed out at 4.3 millionish, then it all of it will go to the taxing entities, which was the whole purpose for them saying, "Okay, hey, if you can build it and develop it, then they're going to they got a benefit of 25% all the way along and then they'll get the whole amount ultimately." And this started in 2014. Yeah, it's the base year. Let's do more RDAs, more restaurants. Hard to sell than you think. But yeah, I agree. Well, and really the sooner we can get it funded too, the the more it benefits the city. So we should well and really the vision is in my mind is we need to come together as a city and as a downtown body and figure out how to use every dollar that is going to be created from this to put a dollar into a project that will get us 10 back in economic value ultimately. You know what I Like there's some things we can do like we can put a dollar into a sewer line that nobody's ever going to see and nobody gives a crap about or we can put a dollar into a building that we're going to be like, "Oh my gosh, the whole downtown is new. It feels good. It's a Jackson Hole feel a down, you know, a walkable, you know." Yeah. And if all of the businesses come together with this amount of money and the city comes together, the city's already been saving money, you know, for some time to get to this point. And if we put all of that together, we can totally change Main Street with a real real plan, like real get stuff done, not like the last plan that nobody's ever seen. So, is the facelift to the sidewalks and

things like that, is that coming from those funds or is that something else? I don't know. I hope it could. It could. I hope not just because the sidewalks are so freaking expensive. That's a put a dollar in, get zero out in my opinion. But, you know, I want to see things like, you know, jellyfish lighting and cosmetic things that are going to change the whole downtown, not things that nobody's even going to notice. Micah's opinion. You'd be surprised how many people notice the bad sidewalks. Yeah, but I bet you if you go if you go and change some sidewalks and you worse sidewalks, put out a poll and say, "Hey, did did anybody notice the city for a minute, you'll see bad sidewalks. The sidewalks aren't that bad. There's a couple places that need work." And we can fix those, but as far as like tearing them all out and replacing the entire sidewalk, I think it's a waste of money, but that's just When do the trees come back? The trees may not ever come back. Like there's going to be some trees, right? There's going to be some vegetation. Yes. But no trees. Maybe not. Sad. Trees do a lot of good things for a downtown area, but they also do some less desirable things for a downtown. And you're talking to a guy who loves trees. Um I uh actually did the the tree ordinance in Wever County when I was there. So, I I love trees, but there is a a place for them. And um the because of the size of the sidewalks that we have and the constraints that we have due to the width of the roadway and the planter boxes that the trees could sit in, they're just it's tough for them. Too small. It's too small. So, we're we're looking at other kinds of vegetation to give it the feel of green and and uh living stuff down

there, but trees may uh may be a tough one. It looks like a main street again. It does look like that. And you know, the uh the the concerns that we've had and the interest that we've had in it have kind of come in both sides. One is, wow, it looks great. It looks cleaner and tidier. And then other folks like you maybe that are saying, "Hey, what happened to the trees? They created some nice shade and it they looked good in the summertime." Those trees in particular needed to come out for a whole host of reasons. They were in pretty tough shape. Um, so those those participant, but if we could find something that would go in and and uh not be disruptive to the sidewalks and would do well with salt and with uh everything else that needs to happen on a roadway like that, we it's the door's still open, but um it's it's a very narrow kind of opening in that door. Well, I like the idea of the city gaining more tax revenue from existing but not increasing taxes. That's nice. So, looking forward to that. more that we talked about school district concerns for a while in other conversations and I don't know if that applies if we we divert some of that once it's over to school districts but I don't know is that what are you what are you talking about you're talking about when they're when the when the thing is fully funded and then the 100% goes to the city I mean I'm assuming that some of that gets to it goes back to the school district go to schools and the bulk of it actually Tmont only gets 10% % the school district gets%. Really? Yeah. It's good. That's why when Jack's had more RDAs and it's a tough sell because the school

district has to they're the biggest group you kind of have to convince that it's a worthwhile investment is the tax deferment. But now that it's gone good, would they be more willing? Well, it hasn't gone good for them. I mean, they they they haven't seen it yet. Yeah, I guess. But it's on its way. Yeah. I mean, well, it has gone good for them because they've still got 25% more from the increment than they would have had had we done nothing, right? It has gone good for them and ultimately it will go really good for them just like Walmart did and West Liberty did and some of those ones that have come off now and that are paying full freight. You know, that's why you do it in the first place. And that's the incentive for a a school district or a city to defer some of that income that they could have been getting in the interest of pushing forward an investment in the area and which will ultimately lead to um more tax dollars for him on the other end. But yeah, it's a tough sale. um if if you knew that you could potentially get additional money in the future um versus what you stand to gain right now. Sometimes a bird in the hand and all that, but um it's not a it's not an impossible cell. Obviously, we got it in the first place. So, cool. Okay. Uh any further discussion? Seeing none, move to planning and commission. Planning commission comments and reports. Anything to comment or report? Um, I know it's early, but they're already advertising it, so I'm going to advertise it. But ULCT, which is the Utah League of Cities and Towns, and the Utah chapter of the American Planning Association have announced their fall conferences. Uh, both are in Salt Lake. One's at the Salt Palace, one is at the

Gateway. Um and they're at the beginning of October. So um normally they have discount I mean they have discounted tickets for city um not city planners but citizen planners. So if any of you are interested in going down um APA's already published a draft of their agenda. ULCD has not. Sometimes ulc doesn't publish a draft of their agenda till like 3 days before the conference anyway. Um, but just uh something to look out. I'll put it in as part of the email with everything else, but um I know Karen send us the dates and details. Yeah, one of them is October 1st and 2nd and then the other ones the next week, the um October 9th and 10th. The lead conference is geared more towards city council members. Um and then the planning conference obviously would be geared more towards planning commissioners. So if you had to choose between the two, my recommendation would be to focus on the planning conference. But both are very insightful. So, do you feel like it gives you a big picture like just more information is helpful when it feeds into being able to make decisions? Well, and I like Bill said, I think APA definitely I mean APA obviously influence is more geared towards planning. So, I think there's a lot um more emphasis on land use topics, not just through um the state, but also from other municipalities and kind of what they're seeing. It gives you a chance to collaborate with them. Um it's where I've met most of my other planning associates, cohorts that I've tried to network with. Now, were you able to look into that missing sidewalk? I did. And then we're actually uh public works is going to go out and fix it next week or so. So Pete, um I wondered if we could at a future meeting review the off- premise sign. I

noticed Visionary has been putting up these signs all over the place. Yeah. Just wondered what the legality as we were talking about. I can't remember talking about political signs. I'm not talking about any other type. Not political. I just can't remember what we did for There's our expert right there. What's the What's the code on those? It's 706. I think we'll table this one. We'll bring it up in the next meeting. Let's bring it back at a future meeting or maybe send us the details. We can review it. I don't I don't remember. You've approved each one of those signs, right? Oh. Oh, no. If they're if they're if they're not legal signs, we need to get them down. We need to act on them. Well, that's my thought. Yeah. The hard part is if they're in private property, then that's where it becomes kind of a true hard part is we can't I wanted to review what we what we ended up passing because I can't I know we talked about a thousand different things and I can't remember where it ended like with with what. So let's review that at a future meeting. Got it. I make a motion to adjurnn. Somebody been moved that we journal. Any all in favor? Yes. Yes. Passes had to go. So there's two signs on the canal. Normally I would like them property, aren't they? During the comments. Okay. Okay.