Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Decorations of interest. Based on items, okay. Seeing none, move to minutes. Suggested that we table because they're not totally done yet.

We'll make a motion to table the minutes for July 14th.

I move that we table the approval of the minutes of July 14th, 2026. Second. And seconded. Those in favor say yes. Yes.

Those opposed? Motion passes. Approval of the minutes is tabled.

Okay, public meeting and public hearings.

Mr. Jeremy Lance. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Item 4A of the agenda is the Livestock and Chippewas Code Text Amendment. In Chapter 1.07, which contains the residential standards, use standards, all of the setback requirements, all of that, there are three sections in a row regarding animals and livestock. Namely, those are large livestock, that's Chapter 1.07.25, 1.07.30 is the keeping of chickens for the purpose of family food production. And then 1.07.35, keeping animals for Vauxhalla County forage and FFA in the Tremont City Code. The staff is looking to simplify the standards for keeping animals within the Tremont City limits. There are permitting requirements for each one of those sub-chapters. Staff would look to remove the requirement for permitting keep the standards, allow the land use right to persist, and allow the property right to prevail and allow people to keep animals within the city limits. If issues should arise, allow the code enforcement measures that we have in place and the code enforcement official to deal with any issues should there be disputes between neighbors or complaints. So we're just looking to get rid of an entire requirement for a land use application. Admittedly, it does seem strange to regulate that sort of thing. The code calls for asking us to regulate setbacks of such structures devoted to such livestock and chickens. This is a rural city with a rural background and history. We'd rather not waste any time regulating that, allow, again, a complaint-based uh system to to regulate that sort of thing uh one thing i do need to point out is that this looks to simplify the standards in the staff report um looking at most of the requirements i'll actually go through them now 1.07.25 large livestock there's two changes in that section and it's uh strikethroughs only are looking to strike the permitting requirements um later on it talks about revoking the permit no need to keep that if there's no Okay, in your stack report, there is the strikethrough section in the proposed text. In the attachment, it has a chart that talks about amending the numbers of certain species for large livestock. This was actually admitted into the staff report mistakenly. We had intended to bring forth only language that struck permitting requirements. we had gone we had discussed internally as staff back and forth whether we should amend these numbers or not and so in your motion tonight and your discussion would want to actually have your feedback if these numbers should be amended so i'm looking at the livestock sure yeah the idea being is this we didn't fill out staff we should be the ones determining this this chart so if it's in in the proposal we

we didn't mean to have the numbers changed in there. And we wanted your feedback on that and maybe save that for a different discussion. The purpose of tonight's is just to strike the permitting language. And then everything else to this, we felt it more prudent that we receive feedback from the planning commission on if you want to change any of the permitted uses or the quantities and things like that because of the animals.

And so we are just, Now I'll go through the chart. This is the livestock per acre for R01 and R20 chart. Again, it's in the attachment A of the report. So it proposes to increase the number in the non-irrigated section from one pig, goat, and llama allowed to just a simple understanding of staff is that those are social animals. It seems a little silly to regulate it to just one. Furthermore, geese, pigeon, peacocks, guinea hens, and rabbits, they're limited to five. That number seemed pretty low. Looked to increase that number for both the non-irrigated and irrigated accessions. Okay, going into 1.07.30, keeping chickens. One change was that the armor-worn six zone seemed to be a zone in the city at some point, but it's not currently or today. So we look to just strike that section through and just talk about single family instead. The next change, and that's in B of that section. Subsection C1 talks about roosters. Again, there's the R16 mentioned, so we're striking that. And including language that says, and I quote, roosters are prohibited in all zones except the RR1 and R120 zones. So we would like to have feedback on that specifically, Mr. Chair. I hope that's a point of discussion. We'd like to hear anything. for the commission about that. Okay, then going on to, and then the same strike throughs for permitting requirements starting at F1 going down to five, and then we'd have to change the numbering for F enforcement. Okay, 1.07 is keeping animals for Bucks River County for which FFA. One strange thing I wanted to say is it maintains small animals. This is the only reference to small animals in these three sub chapters. um look to keep it consistent and talk about large livestock like it's as a defining in the prior sub chapter and then again so it's striking any reference to applicants in that section and then subsection c is revoking permit we're looking to strike that as well okay thank you mr chair

What's the history or the background, any idea, on the development of that chart? Why differentiate irrigated and non-irrigated, and who came up with the original numbers per acre?

That was a previous question. specifically so the the pretty stuff of those and then i don't exactly i can't exactly answer the question about irrigated versus non-irrigated i do admit that standard is strange so it's a strange way to regulate that but that was what that's what made it into the chart i can answer that okay so originally this was submitted to be in all single family zones

mostly for the i mean the chickens have always been there for a long time you know on the whole city basically and essentially there was a this was originally started a planning commission as a essentially for the 4-h sfa program you can have a goat on whatever but that's why they had the permits was because the vision was if you have you know you're in three dollars heights or whatever it is and you know you basically had to prove that it was really a yeah it was just three months of the year it was just for the fair you had to have actually enrolled and it was designed you had to have a permit and make sure that you had met all the rules and the permit was part of the rules and so but then ultimately i guess when i went to the city council they changed it to just the rr1 and r120 zones which is why all this extra plus is in there yeah because it's really not it was already allowed in the r1 rr1 and r120 zones generally because the forces were already allowed at both of those zones so i'm not sure why it got changed yeah it got changed and kind of morphed into something it wasn't really intended and why why are we why are we incriminating everybody that owns an animal you know we're not having a permit so the reason for that is if there is a permit issue then help us to know how to

execute it in a more efficient way i think the issue with the permit is that like i didn't know i did a permit for chickens that aren't 4-h right like that was not ever when we had talked about it two years ago yeah that wasn't the plan no the permit was just for the 4-h for those lambs and that was how it was changed yeah um it's more typical to see uh

permit within perhaps animal control and that permit would ask for maybe species and quantity and a couple of other things but this is a land use permit so i would have to require a site plan you have to read in between the lines a little bit of that for that though so 1.7.30 d1 chickens and enclosures whose must be in the rear yard and at least 20 feet from the neighboring dwellings how do i regulate that i need a site plan um or they're out there with the tape measure or whatever but it's but again the site plan is a customary way to review that and that's a common practice for land use permits so if a permit ever returns uh i would hope it would take the form of the animal control dog license or by extension chicken license or something instead of the land use standards so do we michael would you be opposed to just removing the permit altogether for 4-h and just trusting that

people are gonna do it for 4-H or 4-H? Or re-do it back to the...

In this case, where it only hits RR1 and R120 zones, there is like very few acres, like less than 50 acres in the whole city. That's why you're not gonna see applications because those people already have animals and the likelihood of someone developing those two zones in the future are very, very slim because they just don't pencil. And so I think it's a mute point. I think you could take this entire code and chuck it. just my opinion i think you could erase the whole thing because the whole purpose of this again originally was just to allow and we i think i swear don't you don't you remember i swear we did not allow pigs because we were visualizing this working in like a small lot environment where it was just for 4-h animals we're an agricultural community yet we don't allow agriculture on any lots that are in the city generally and That was the whole purpose.

It's like the 0.25 for large livestock. That's just for RR1 and RR12, right? So there's that for like the amendment A, whatever.

Yeah, but the chickens have always been a lot in the whole city.

But then if you go down to 35.035, that's talking about 4-H. Is that also talking about just those two zones or is that for everywhere? It's not clear.

Yeah, we're looking at it for everywhere. Yeah, they kind of just cut pieces out and must have changed it because I never saw this.

Yeah, me neither. We're not looking to fix any existential issues with this code, just looking for the permit requirements. I do repeat, though, if you would like to play with the numbers of the charts, though, there is a suggestion from us having discussed it internally. So, again, curious about if those numbers should be changed or if we should just remove print.

I'm fine with changing the numbers too. It's just increasing them, right? It's not... Yeah.

One more question or comment. So on the... I think it's a good idea not to have roosters. Absolutely. But no, they're allowed. Only in the R1. But not in the residential.

No, they are residential. In those large residential zones. Yes. Not the... But what's the difference?

So you're saying between a quarter... Those higher residential zones are still next door to people. And roosters are annoying. They are loud. Well, that's what I'm saying. I don't know what the difference is.

There are rights of farm laws, though, so be careful with that. If the roosters are already in those zones, in the R1 and R120 zones...

I would have to have my garland today if they ban all roosters in all their zones.

Then the development that comes in after

you know forgive me but don't do chickens not crow only roosters and then one final thing on the you mentioned that instead of having permits required to just be a code enforcement issue when complaints arise

someone can go to this code and see what they can and can't do, how many chickens they can.

Right. And do we have enough staff in code enforcement? That's the harder to get enough. To manage that.

That's if every person who has an animal comes in to get a comment.

No, I guess what I'm saying is if there are complaints, do we have adequate staff and code enforcement to follow up on those complaints?

Yeah, those we do.

Okay.

So if you look at the actual zone, so the animals are already in the actual zone. Which I guess is the same thing, just plugged out. I guess this is just a piece of that rather than the whole thing. Yeah, I thought this was like a separate, but it must just be a piece of the zoning. Like it doesn't include everything else, but it must just be the bottom. It doesn't show in here that it's an attachment A, I mean, in the actual zone. So maybe it's just duplicated. But again, to me, it's like, I mean, I guess we need to regulate the chickens. But like all the large animal stuff could just stay in here. Yeah, in there, not even be in this area of it.

but we added the 4a channels into this because we were meaning for it to be like on all residential areas that they could have limited the assumption is a temporary basis and i think that's well understood yeah well that's because we wanted to instead of it being a zone specific thing where you could say oh well i can have a goat and i'm an r18

yeah then you know you have to you need a permit for that why is there all your proportions for the fair well and we wanted to do that because we wanted them to submit that they wouldn't be allowed at that so we said please permit this for the smaller that makes sense um so you want to keep that but the question still governs do we want this in land use or do we want it over in code enforcement too like the permit should be permitted through like a dog licensee or do you want it here in the land use it sounds like to me that the better to put it with code enforcement than land use because of the complexity of a land use application it's also the people that they're most likely going to be working with is some type of enforcement if it's if it's going to removing an animal if it's not allowed or

on knowing what is allowed by certain standards i think enforcement would be logical but i think it depends on i guess what we're talking about we're talking about changing it to be allowed in the other zones and i think that's a different problem you know we need to have some of these checks and balances and the permits and like make them i think we may do the site plan to make sure they can even fit But if we're just talking about weed and the animals in the R120 and the RR1, it's completely irrelevant because they were generally already allowed in there anyway. They shouldn't even have to meet all those rules.

Did it allow roosters in the land use? No. Because that's new to me, that rooster thing. I thought it was always disallowed. That's what I thought.

No, they weren't allowed before.

They were not allowed at all before. But you didn't have the R1 and the R1. 20 listed so reverse it and you would say yes they are allowed in r1 that would be the change i don't think we should have roosters in my bottom line roosters are allowed nowhere yeah i don't care if you're on you know 100 acres they're still laughing a lot of these you're still going to have a house 100 feet from you even on that r120 it's only a half acre line

yeah you know and if there's an rr1 is was that happening here yeah no an rr1 is 120 which is perfect could be yeah barely yeah so it's yeah basically yeah an acre lot is substantial i mean for that sort of project if somebody wanted to on society like yeah i could sell a dozen actual chicks yes compete with ifa

that you're not supposed to be having a business on your on this this is for personal use food production exactly that's what's even titled yeah i think so yeah sorry i mean you're not out producing stuff commercially commercially this is for personal use you know people well then that the extra enforcement issue where somebody complains that they're running a

hatchery business or a pig business out of their backyard, then code enforcement would get involved and decide if they were in violation.

So I guess the business. This all comes back to what roosters are. Because you can have hens. We buy hens. If you end up with a rooster, you're supposed to get rid of it, but the rest of us won't reach on these codes.

Yeah, because sometimes if you buy them, you don't know. You don't know. I get it. I still don't know if I own any roosters.

but I'm just a farm boy. I'm telling you, roosters are allowed.

And if they get loose, they can be vicious. Well, and like, so I live on a couple acres. If I had a rooster, all my neighbors would definitely know.

Even if I'm on an acre. That's my point. I just don't think, in the city limits, it should be allowed. And I've looked at other, Brigham City, I can find Brigham City, but Garland definitely, none of their farms allow roosters.

Question, my God. page nine it says for the 4-h stuff it has the parcel size and square foot and like how many small fowl or rabbits and goats and lambs how that six thousand square feet what lot size is that a bigger parcel size six thousand that was supposed to be the r of six yeah so six thousand square feet which we really the only ones we have are like the newest ones the visionary are the only ones that are that size yeah

So it's quite small. I mean, depending on the size of your house. Let me go back to 0.030.

And you've got some requirements in here. The droppings have to be kept within 20 feet. A lot of the other city codes still had the structure itself had to be so far from buildings. And I think those were all health issues, health reasons. Brigham City just listed a pamphlet from... University. University on how to raise chicken, you know, the requirements, something like that. So, I mean, you're kind of hitting some of them, but not all of them in what you're doing here. Removing dead birds. That was probably kind of hit or miss, I guess, about getting that. Either have a research what the university says you do to raise chickens and have all those requirements. Or drop some of these, I don't know. these are just kind of a few of them yeah there's also crowing chickens pardon there's chickens that can crow i don't know not general not like a rooster there might be some but they're not traditionally right out of the munchies that i've ever seen or heard and that meant that roosters crow only in the morning Sometimes they get their timetable screwed up. I want to go to a more comment on 030. I want to jump down back to the 035, keep an animal box over there. I was surprised like Michelle Martin, I've seen her drive by, I thought she was going to come by in here. But we do have some residents that like donate their barn and they're going to have a lot more animals They have a club. I think they turned it over to somebody else that runs it. But I don't know, they probably have 50 lands in there, at least. We're not allowed.

That's true.

Well, that was the whole purpose of why we did this originally, was to say, hey, we don't want animals to be generally everywhere in the city, except for if they're there temporarily, they're not there in the winter, and under all those circumstances, which is why we put

the permits and they gotta be you know so many people from everywhere and all that i guess this really doesn't show how many but i don't know what else does that is that still something you need a permit so people know that this is just they're just doing it for three months or four months whatever they do lambs and goats well so technically it does show how many so like sheep you can have six if it's irrigated per half acre but they're weighing on that so if you look by that that table

yeah and i'm guessing there are at least well but but i guess it doesn't even matter if they're have an anchor if they're not on the rr1 zone that's true technically yeah so essentially i think yep it's r and funny you're right right five and six that's your ring yeah well that's why to me it's like i don't know i mean what if it was like conditional use well that was the whole person of the permit essentially the same thing right

under services under certain circumstances i guess a cover statement a permitted livestock that's already you know for their represented show season on residential long things that would cover marketing too well it does but it still is limited by the numbers above and it only qualifies in the r120 and the r1 it's going to signal yeah six six sheet irrigate yes

Oh, and in that case, he'd want to keep the last sentence of the first paragraph of 025, where it says request to keep additional animals on larger parcels of lands may be considered on application to the Planning Commission for a conditional use permit. Yeah, I agree. The correction in your motion could be to just not touch that and keep it.

So that then they can request.

What was that, Matt? Oh, okay. So 1.7.25 is the last sentence of the first paragraph before the chart.

So then we would keep that sentence as a...

It's a way to get more animals. It's reviewed case by case by a body market and stuff.

because I think the biggest thing is we don't want to take anything away from anyone with this. Like with this code.

I should probably say DRC instead of planning commission. It's an administrative thing. What do you mean take away?

We don't want to have this code change and be more strict for people who are already doing these things, right?

Well, so the way that works is so technically if they're allowed to do it and then we change it, they're a legal non-conforming use and they can keep doing that as long as they don't stop. yes but if somebody else wanted to do it in their in their home in their home yeah like we just don't want to get more well my understanding is they can the people coming behind them the people coming behind them still have that legal non-conforming use unless they stop using it for a year or more that's my understanding so like if martineau sold their home and they've had 20 sheep there or whatever the people coming into that 20 sheep as long as they don't remove them and they'd be a legal non-conforming use.

Technically. Yes, so Christine and I aren't lawyers, so we won't use the legal non-conforming term. So the assumption is if they don't have a permit that they're illegal, we don't want to get into that. We'd rather get rid of the permitting requirement. Sure.

But technically, they have them before the permits were required.

I would say that describes probably the most

sure in which case I'm not sure how that works I think there's still legal non-conforming uses technically but really in my mind that we only keep the permit if we're going to propose the smaller lots could have these limited number of animals if we're not I mean but I didn't want to at all but we do want to have it i think it's just yeah just like it says there if they want to have if martinos want to have 50 sheep then great they can come in and just plead their case to us and we can say yeah that works for them i don't think it's a bad idea other than it could be a significant number because almost everybody would have more than one or more than two because you know most of the most of the lots would be non-irrigated probably some of them may be irrigated but most of them probably at least in the future especially will be would probably be not irrigated but i don't know okay so at this point we are agreeing with the

amendment a the attachment a except for in 025 the request to keep additional animals that sentence we want to keep right instead of getting rid of it but the rest of it we're all okay with except for probably ben's point of banning the roosters in the r120 and rr1 zones because we could probably just

take that out but roosters are prohibited at all sums and take out the except the rr1 and r120 zones i don't think that's a bad idea i mean if they're not doing it for commercial use they really don't for food production they don't necessarily need that and it's probably not worth upsetting the residents that live nearby them for them to have the ability to break the rules commercially okay

is there any adjustments to these numbers do you want to keep these that was one thing they said as well is they weren't planning on these numbers being adjusted per se but we could i think that determination well my opinion also is for me like i would want a pig or a pup that would be near me in any of the zone unless it's a 4-h project in there for a few months

just mike his personal opinion but i totally agree when we had this originally the vision was again this was we were allowing pigs i don't think we allowed them in the planning commission do you remember i think we said you could have like a sheep or a goat in like the small the small animal stuff for 4-h we didn't but in the bigger zones we did i mean because well for 4-h we never even said anything about pigs that's what i said but i think these bigger zones you've got to let them

going out well no not even that like when we're not talking about 4-h like having if you have an acre lot i don't think we can say yeah that makes it true i think that's well i think we can but i i just i guess if it if there is there language in here that if it smells or is a nuisance to the area that we can revoke their ability to have them no that's just where the complaint they

And so what's the complaint based on though? So my neighbor, he calls and says that I have a pig and the pig is fine, but what is the complaint based on? Just somebody's upset. My experience hasn't been anything related to the animals. It's related to personal disputes.

That's really hard to regulate. We have noise ordinance that talks about certain decibel levels. I don't know what smell levels would look like.

They actually have smell

there's a different there's a different term for it but but that's why i don't know my brother-in-law keeps pigs so like for me i'm like oh but they like bring them down from you know and then sell them and so like that's something in the city limits and they're not here but i just look at it like it's not as like if you have a lot of pigs yeah it's going to be a lot right it's going to smell and all that but they have two pigs like that's not that

too big smell yeah it's a big smell but you can you can do things to make them not sure as much right like and so that's where i'm like for some people like having a big is beneath a year an acre is still bigger than people imagine walking walking the square footage of an acre will take you a significant amount of time Even though, you know, size-wise in our mind, an acre is just one. It's a lot of square feet, and one pig takes about 10 square feet.

Yeah, but you're talking on that plot, though, it has a house, it has driveways, and a yard, and I mean, that does take quite a bit away from that acre.

It's not like you just have a whole acre for an animal, one animal. I mean, if you have an acre, like, around the acre, and a few feet is another home another lot that may or may not be an acre and it could be it may not be that far away yeah if you have a neighbor that's a hundred feet away i guess i'm too used to the pig smell i mean i guess i got pigs and cows and and you know feed them onions and ice cream and whatever baby's kind of Well, I think there's an application where it works fine if they're taken care of properly. If they're just out there wallowing in this disaster.

Well, it does say that they have to be maintained, the best practices of the industry. Underneath of this chart, it does say that it has to be humane treatment, protect human health, protect the environment. So you can't have it just be a pigsty.

You were just saying that we don't regulate odor, but in the next one we're going to discuss, it has a statement. Let me get to it here. All uses shall be free from objection due to odor, dust, smoke, noise, vibration, and other causes. So we do regulate odor, and that's a thing.

That's probably our question.

So we're going to read it next thing. So odor is a thing that you...

Sure, but so based on that paragraph, do we feel like the enforcement folks have enough to be able to make sure that if you have a wallowing pig that upsets a neighbor, that that's sufficient grounds to say, hey, you've got to clean this up or remove them or whatever. As long as that is inferred or required here, then I guess it doesn't matter if they're allowed in the R01.

20 or the rr1 zone technically i mean i don't want any other other zones but it's big um there is no odor in here we could add something to that if you wanted to do that i would just at least make it kind of match the one that applies to a business why wouldn't that apply to a neighborhood it's not yeah yeah well i think the

enforcement officers could walk up and he could smell if it's like a disaster for the poor neighbor that has you know whatever they're got going on yeah you want to make that motion

I want to make a motion to close the staff presentation and commission discussion over the public hearing.

Moved and seconded that we close the staff presentation and commission discussion over the public hearing. Those in favor say yes. Yes.

Motion passes.

Passed. 6-10.

My name is Lane Wilding, and I do have a couple comments relative to this ordinance. My first question is, as long as we're redoing and revising it, maybe we should consider a few other things that ought to change as well. One I would question is, any restrictions on the number of roosters? I appreciate the comment, but what about male peacocks? They make as much noise as a rooster does, probably a lot more. So you may want to think about male peacocks because peacocks are loud. Are there other animals in there that we ought to consider about noise restriction or even restrict roosters? Just a thought. Why are the livestock limits being increased? I think you guys addressed that and I appreciate that. I did not see anywhere in the staff report that there was any indication of a justification as to why that was there and why the increase was being done. I'll put that in the staff report when we go to take over the city council with this. Next one is, can I have more than 12 hands if I'm raising them for meat and they're not egg layers? Because this is written specifically as looking at chickens as egg layers and producing eggs. I have a son and a daughter who raise meat chickens. And they will raise more than 12, because they bring them in, they raise them for three months, and then they slaughter them. Okay, are we gonna just be restricted to egg layers or can I do more than 12 if they're not egg layers? Just a question. You have an ordinance in part of this ordinance, you have a requirement that a dead bird shall be removed from the city limits within 10 hours of death. And my question is, who's tracking that? And where do I take a dead bird if it dies? Normally I just throw it in the trash. but that's still within the city limits and it's within regardless of picked up once a week so where do i take the dead bird and then the other question is if we're gonna if we're gonna be prejudiced to dead birds why aren't we doing the same thing for goats and cats and dogs and cows and lambs and all the other animals that we have around here do we not have to have the same ordinance and be equal to everybody so that everybody gets the opportunity to say hey you got 10 hours should this be a 24-hour rule instead of 10 hours 10 hours seems to be kind of a silly thing. Maybe 24 hours could make a lot more sense. And next question is, what about the 4-H requirement and the show animals not being permitted to stay year-round? I know a lot of people who raise 4-H animals, chickens for one, and they stick around more than a year. So on 4-H animals, chickens specifically, and rabbits, are we going to require them to give birth to their chickens that they bring to a 4-H for the county fair? And now the county fair's over, so I have to get rid of my chickens. They're my egg layers. I brought them in, they're 4H, I did them for 4H. What am I gonna do with those chickens? I have a requirement in this ordinance that says I gotta get rid of them if they're considered 4H. So I would think that maybe we'll rethink that statistic here. And then the last one is, what's the difference between a small fowl and a big fowl? I'm talking a honey bird versus an emu or an ostrich. because 4-h animals it says small fowl i have no idea what small fowl is is that a chicken is that a turkey uh do we need to find that better as to what a small fowl might be in this ordinance so i would suggest as long as we're making changes to the ordinance then maybe i'll take a look at some of these other items as well and see if we need to fix them at the same time we're making this change thank you pretty much

No, there's more. Ducks.

Oh, yeah, they have turkeys.

Probably ducks. Pheasants.

I don't know about these pretty much.

But I think small fowl is kind of the definition from 4-H or from the fair. Like when you put it in, you put it in as a small fowl.

Yeah.

Anyway, I guess, is there anybody else?

I think we should finish it up here and then we can just go. Yeah, sorry.

Okay.

Make a motion to close the public hearing and open our discussion. Consideration and decision. Move to close the public hearing and open the consideration decision.

All those in favor say yes. Yes. Those passes at 6.15 p.m. Okay.

Do you think that's a good point about the egg production? It doesn't, it says like family food production at 0.030, but then it does say in number A, or letter A, that it's the purpose of producing eggs. With that being said though, I think 12 chickens is plenty for meat chickens. have two acres so then you would be part of the bigger so i can have if you're going to have 25 chickens but i'm still restricted to 12.

15 to 25 if it's irrigated or not um yeah but i think just like i don't know where the 12 come once again i think garland says four so i i travel how we what we

I mean, they're all producing 12 eggs.

It's a ton of eggs.

I thought we only have six.

Yeah, I didn't either. And then until I read this before today, I was like, oh, I guess you can have 12. Watch it.

So I think as long as we update that page or that letter A in .030, just to say for the purpose of producing eggs or meat, I think that would clarify that. And then they can have those for, if they have a non-irrigated, they can have 15. If they have irrigated, they can have 25. In these zones. In those zones. I mean, if you're only going to have them for three months, then you just get another 25, right? Or you can submit an application to do more if you want, right? Because we're also keeping that.

Yes. They can permit for more.

Yeah. And then I think the dead bird. I think that is kind of weird.

Where does that come from? We could just say we love dead animal. Just call it dead animal. Just because I'm sure some people don't have a dead bird. But I think it's fine to put them in the garbage, put them in a bag, put them in the garbage.

It's just one.

If it's one, then you're looking at quite the... Well, the dump has an animal burial area. So if you have a cow or some large animal, you're not going to try to teep it into the dumpster. No.

yeah but also i can't drive in the dump because my chicken died like well yeah well yeah the chicken i don't think it's a big deal you put it in a little kenneth's bag probably yeah so it says from the city so how can we change that just city limits yeah that's dumb but it's just disposed of just say it must be disposed of within 24 hours because you shouldn't be able to bury it in your backyard too if you want hey if you get your dog guys by golly

So dispose of would be a catch-all.

For the record, my girls really want to .

You decide.

I don't lie. It's really weird. We have a bird and a centipede every day, and it's a very, very sad time. That was the promise we made.

Is there a memorial? We would have a memorial.

We need a permit for a memorial on our property.

So as long as they're disposed of, then we're good. We did not leave it up there.

that's where i think these conversations really go it's like can we just oh can we just be yeah i think all of those things are pretty good right yeah and everything oh that number five i mean if they as long as they're they meet the allowed numbers and they want to keep their 4-h bird why not i mean as long as they're below the numbers right but we're inside yeah yes on the public comment uh you know even though the for the fair is over and they want to they've made this bird their pet they want to keep it more than you know why not if they're as long as they're within the allowed limits animals especially with chicken laying eggs

The chicken was again, I think this is kind of more because the chickens are always allowed year round. But then this kind of changed because we were trying to allow like someone to have their goat for the fair, but we didn't necessarily, but if we're going to allow that on a 10,000, 8,000 square foot lot, we didn't necessarily want it to be year round. We want it to be just for the 4-H FFA period only.

Should we define 4-H animals more, particularly as ones that are going to auction?

It only matters if we're going to allow it in the smaller zones. And we're not going to allow it. It's irrelevant anyway, because the bigger zones always allow animals to go around anyway. So in my mind, it's totally fine.

Yeah, because really, small fowl and rabbits are the ones that wouldn't go to auction. And those are the ones that are already permitted

within as long as they have well in any zone actually they're permitted yes yeah so that should be right and the bigger animals are only allowed in the r120 or the rr1 zone which they were already allowed into anyway and whether it's 4-h project or not is irrelevant for those we just wanted it to be that originally because we were hoping

my neighbor has a goat in his backyard totally fine and the city limits in the r110 though i mean it'd be great

Well, yeah, they kill all the weeds and they clean it all up. Yeah, that's fine. They jump on everything.

Are we ready for questions? One thing I'd like to do is 35, keeping animals for Gosselaugher County 4-HB says, number 4-H and FFA livestock will be permitted based on the parcel size of the outland camp. Parcel owners are not permitted to simultaneously have multiple varieties of show livestock. So in the chart, we propose bumping up the numbers. We were thinking about the families where Johnny wants to do a goat and Jane wants to do a rabbit, and I just, that limits that completely, and so maybe consider striking that as well.

Yeah, let's take that out.

Agreed? I didn't even see that part. The sentence, the first sentence I read almost hints at a permit again. Well, it will be permitted.

I think it's because of the because the chart is on that next page. It's at the top of that next page.

Yeah, so yeah.

So I would say we strike that sentence. Carousel owners are not permitted to sign utilities. Yeah, I would like to make a motion if I did.

Wait, wait, let's read that. Maybe I'm totally misunderstanding this.

What are you misunderstanding?

Well, is this 35 saying what we originally passed yeah that's what we originally asked okay well maybe i'm confused then because he wants to keep the application process for just 35. well that's what i'm kind of thinking because because if they have passed it because i guess this looks like they've that it's so the 4-h animals are allowed in any zone yeah based on this yeah right any residential yes but you can technically only have

one goat or one lamb unless you have a bigger lot in which case then you can have two which i think was fine i think that's what we submitted before the question is do you want to chair mr chair do we want to keep the app the permitting process with this or just still have it as a code enforcement because the standards still are the same so that would be it would say the same whether and we can keep the permitting off the permitting option for 4-h and then striking the other part of the code or we can do whatever is what is wanted. That's a good distinction.

So I think that was what we were thinking, right? So we keep the code in force. It's the one to permit that for 4-H. And then all the rest of it, we get rid of the permits.

i'm not even sure i guess if we need a permit as long as we have correct enforcement procedures if one of these causes a problem which i'm glad it doesn't allow you know the pigs and all the things we're talking about horses yeah which is what i remembered that we had done originally but i don't i guess if we remove the permit and we just make them have to apply with 4-h or ffa i still like not having them permitted year round because it is a lot harder to take care of those animals in the winter than the summers you know what i'm saying and i don't think we want them there for like breeding purposes and for like any most anyone who's doing like i would bet what 90 plus percent of the animals going to the fair are going there to be sold they're not going there to to be brought back home you know what i mean there are some people who do buy them back and take the other shows and things but that's not really what i think we're talking about here so yeah i don't know if we want to maybe leave that that won't so if we remove the permitting would code enforcement still be able to

like check on it and everything?

It says, show animals will not be permitted to stay around. That's still in there. That's still in there. So that would be- Will not be permitted to what? Stay here. They should not be permitted. And then it says, permitted lights off the following animals are permitted to stay for their respective show seasons on residential lots. But to answer question number five for Lane, I do think that within, it can still be implied that within, they can still keep the chickens, even if they enter into the fair, they can still, as long as they're under the minimum amount, they can still keep them on their lot. They just can't have excess amounts. And this is a lot of excess. So I think you can enforce both of them.

Okay. I make a motion. I move that we recommend the approval to the City Council of the Livestock and Chicken Code text amendment, amending chapters 1.07.025, large livestock, 1.07.025, 1.030, keeping chickens for the purpose of family food production. And 1.07.035, keeping animals to the box of the county fair, for age and at bay. Two of the main permitting requirements for keeping the livestock and chickens within the residential areas, throughout city limits, based on the findings listed in the memorandum, with the corrections that we listed of keeping the, in 0.025, request to keep additional animals may be considered upon application. And in 0.030, removing the, for roosters, except the RR1 and RR1-20 zones, so that roosters are prohibited in all zones, or are prohibited, prohibited in all zones. that was it 35 b last sentence oh yeah oh yeah and 35 parcel owners oh yeah 35 b the parcel owners are not permitted to simultaneously have multiple very varieties of show livestock removing that sentence as well okay can we talk about that yeah yeah for a second

two or like any of them and small fowl or rabbits but but i guess i didn't want it to be like all these livestock somebody has like two cows two horses six sheep they won't they won't they won't because this is that's only for each and it's only for goats lambs small fowl and rabbits Okay, because it's only applying to chapter 35.

It's only applying to that section, yes. I'm not remaking that motion.

I guess that's true. It's pretty limited based on that.

And those are also, if I'm not mistaken, you can't stack. You can only do two horses, and you can't add.

Yeah, there's no horses. But what you're saying is you could have a goat and a lamb, essentially, or a goat and a chicken or a goat and a rabbit.

Because if siblings were going to enter different animals, they could still maintain them.

We almost thought it was going towards two per kid, and then you think about Utah and large families, and that really exploded pretty quickly. That's what we were expecting, yeah. Okay, I thank you for your motion. Thank you. Okay, it's been moved and seconded.

And we recommend to the City Council these changes as communicated and discussed. Motion passes, 629.

Oh my gosh, they're a whole hour.

Point B. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Point B is misuse requirements code text amendment. Simply enough, you have 1.07 regulating residential zoning types, 1.08 regulates commercial types, and then you have 1.09 And this is meant to regulate mixed-use developments. The problem is that there's not a standard to hold anyone to either choose this zone or rezone to it, where when they rezone to the mixed-use zone, there's nothing saying that they can't go all residential or all commercial, so it seemingly defeats the purpose of the mixed-use zone. So we're looking at instituting a minimum commercial requirement The number we've chosen is 35%. That would hold someone in the mixed use zone to provide a true mixed use.

We're basically saying we require you to have at least 35% in one other.

Because if they're going to go all residential, they may as well just be regulated by 108.

Where did you come up with the 35%?

I'm trying to envision what that might be like.

in large cities for example the ground floor is all commercial and then residential above for example would that meet that requirement if they were to do a say a multi-level building and have the ground floor be the commercial yeah but in our city it would be more likely to be standalone businesses within that area

a little behind like they have some like that that are commercial on the base or in residential above with that one on that that one target facility they're going to have pretty sure they have apartments apartments that haven't been built yet and on the site but um do we have any i think requiring there to be some but it's hard to know what number.

One thing that just came to mind is this doesn't regulate it the other way.

I guess they could go all residential or all commercial.

That's what I mean, thank you. So maybe have a mirrored statement regulating it the other way. To force them to have residential? If it's going to be mixed use.

Then just have them go to commercial. Well, in my mind, if you look at the actual places that we had zoned, mixed use. No, it's like basically half the main street is mixed use and all of this down here and all of this over here. So in my mind, out here, why would we want 35% commercial out there?

zone is the way it is because we don't want 35 commercial out by mcdonald's out in the back residential area no and to force them i guess to do it um would just make them have to rezone it so with that being said that by is that the highway you're talking about excuse isn't by by mcdonald's yeah it's all right it's right by that little section all around i just talked yeah i

It's right around Asheville, and he's planned multifamily there. Where's mixed use? It's just the gray one over there.

Yeah, the MU right there. It's kind of a gruesome gray and blue, but all of those areas.

So I guess, what if you go south and over, like right there, was that mixed use so that there was commercial and manufacturing?

was that the purpose of those i don't know why they zoned them the way they did but it is what it is i mean that was before all of our time but if you go on the east side of main street you know up there up in front of my house and all that i mean all of that main street i mean i don't think we want to force them to have multi-family on main street i mean my god but i think it's fine if like you said they do like a commercial with like a

with a main or a apartment above it i think was the intent for another way to regulate that are and the term is live work dwelling units lwd use um so christine christine and i already discussed that that could be a feature of this or the commercial code but that speaks to your scenario exactly i think this is just somebody who's driving this just to try to

put another jab at multifamily just to try to make it harder for multifamily. And I don't know who it is, but I'd love to know who proposed this. Because what it will do is it will limit the multifamily development because you can't provide 35% commercial in most of these areas. Like out by where Jay's talking, out there by McDonald's, what are you going to put that's non-residential right out there by the city park, right by all multifamily, and right, I mean, what would you put there that's non-residential, 35%?

This is coming from the staff looking at the code. and seeing that the code requires mixed use and it's not looking at what's currently out there just trying to define the code and the code just seems they should use the appropriate zoning for the code so so it's not it's not coming from as a job but anyways just looking at the code mix use code and there's no requirement for mixed use why not have it have to have them use the commercial the products that we have as a city and offering them to the to the developer.

Originally when it was proposed, it was saying, hey, you can do commercial or residential in those zones, multifamily. That was the way it was originally designed. Because they tried to do that, but it's like, how do you do that? How do you make them? I mean, if you do that, then we would have to rezone a bunch of parts of the city if you're going to do that. well I mean in my mind like on on some of the zones like you you don't want any of the commercial there what would you put there and in my mind if we're not producing code that matches our actual zoning map then we're going to get sideways with it and we're going to upset a whole bunch of people because I mean like those ones right there like as an example right there by Asheville what would you put there that is non-residential of any percentage i don't know how big that is but i'm just saying that it's it's decent size i can pull it up they're right there where the mixed use zone is right there next to the park that little that's one of the storage facilities

Like, to me, it all matters how big it is because 35% of 20 acres is a significant amount of space to use for commercial.

Chair, I'm confused as to why we're discussing changing our code to match the zoning maps when our codes, they should be rezoned.

Right. That's what Ben was saying. And I think that's ultimately where it is. we will end up doing. I think you're right to say we need to identify and identify what mixed use is.

The whole chapter is really short.

But if that's what we do, then we need to do that first before we just go through this. Because I guarantee you, none of those people know this is happening because it's a text amendment. And so we're not taking their input. If anything, we should reach out to everyone who's in the mixed use zone and say, hey, we want it to be a true mixed use. If you don't want to do commercial there, then let's rezone you and let's clean that up before we just, I mean, if we just throw this on them and their plan, like Jay Stocking that owns a piece next to Asheville, I'm sure he's planning multifamily there. And if we do 35%, it just screws up the whole project.

If they already have it zoned that way and we change the code, does that mean that they get it based on the previous code that it was zoned out?

Only if they have an application.

properties with the intent to use them the way they saw fit and if you just go change them without even notifying them I don't know I like the idea that we have something in place for the future I like that idea but yeah I see the encumbrance there but we already have how that could change that

industrial and then residential zone or residential and industrial zone right now if we got an application there's nothing to preclude them from us from review or that mixed use property or zone does it say industrial or commercial it says mixed use so in mixed use now they can put whatever they want is that correct

As long as it's approved. So, we're receiving feedback from staff that maybe take this back and inform the property owners that we're updating the mixed-use code and then get some feedback from them. We could even workshop it or do an MPI meeting, but from a staff's point of view, we need to have a better guideline than what a mixed-use code is. And that's where this is coming from, not any type of preconditioned proceed notion to to do anything for multi-family housing that's not where it's coming from at all so and it looks like we're happy to take it back to the table and we're happy to to inform the landowners i think that's a great idea a great point and to see if we can get input on them on how we update we just need a better process moving forward on what the mixed use code is really for yeah and if we look at east main street where all that mixed use is

wouldn't that be better served the commercial? I mean, some commercial rather than mixed use. So that unless you intend maybe in the future to have some of that mixed use with the 35% commercial,

Yeah, well, I think that was really the vision of it is essentially what we did We essentially changed the CV zone to allow so you can have multifamily above the commercial or in the commercial zone but really I think that's the only place where this should apply and I mean, I don't think it's a bad idea to force commercial if it's on Main Street. I mean, that's a different animal than like half of all the others on it. But back to your point, Jeremy, though, the code is very specific. It says, use requirements. The stores, shops, and businesses allowed in this chapter shall be permitted only under the small conditions. Such businesses shall be conducted within a business code building. All products, whether primary or incidental, shall be vibration or causes no big-box retail wholesale or warehouse is allowed I mean and then it gives an actual table for what the permitted uses are that don't allow any of that kind of stuff that you're talking about would be terrible I mean this is really detailed and anything not in the chapter is not allowed correct I mean, so it allows like banks and bookstores and clothing stores, but it doesn't allow industrial. It doesn't allow industrial.

You're right.

It doesn't allow a warehouse. It doesn't allow Walmart. It doesn't allow a big box of any kind. He's got one of these. What is that?

A little big box. Yeah. Retail.

Looking at the future land use plan, it does look like we have like for the long-term stuff, on Main Street there, it has that existing commercial to remain. So in our long-term master plan there, we actually have that mixed use as commercial.

Right?

Well, and the mixed use allows all the commercial things. Yeah, yeah. But in the other places that we have it currently zoned at mixed use is not actually what we have planned for the future. Yeah, I agree. And so I think that's where we did it, reaching out to those people and saying, hey, what's your plan for this? this is what our future plan looks like. This is what we would like to rezone it as. What are your plans? What's your thoughts on this? And then maybe like having a, cause like right now, like our zones don't really match for our future land use plan. Like they don't really align. Does that make sense? Like the mixed use zone, there's not really a mixed use in the future land use plan. And so having some sort of, like alignment on those things to make sure that we have either like a neighborhood if this is like a neighbor maybe not like an actual zone but like listing which zones are considered each area does that make sense in our master plan okay well i mean really i guess if we notify all the people that are zone mixed use of you know what we're proposing and let hear what they have to say maybe they think differently than i do but

So the only proposal, I think, is that we would put some type of requirement for some type of commercial element.

But again, back to my question. Yeah. Go out by Asheville, what non-residential would you put there?

We're looking at the code. And so that would have to be something that we're looking at the code.

Well, I know it. So say I own it. Yes. What would you like to see by Asheville in the middle of a multi-family residential area?

But you have a menu that you can choose from.

you can choose child care you can choose well you could choose but you're we're saying now that we're forcing them to have to use these it's administrative we can't tell you what you should do well you can if you force the percentage that's what i'm saying if you force the percentage that we're saying you have to use one of these in that zone which we may not want and then he's done our future land use plan we don't have that so for that is zone for presidential right

multi-family residential right there.

That's what I mean.

Yes, a SWIG could go there, but in my mind, you put a SWIG there, and it just adds a whole other layer of complexity.

Then it should be rezoned.

Yeah, and ask for that. If he owns this property, and it's MU, and it doesn't match what he wants to do with it, isn't that the first thing they do anyway? Come in and ask for a rezone to what they want to do?

We see that every time. Or we should just Or we change it and rezone it with all of this if that's what we want there. Rather than making them go through that whole process. Because you know what will happen if they come and try to rezone that whole thing.

That's the whole thing.

Why force all these people to go through that if that wasn't their intent when they bought this property? but I guess we have to see what they have to say and see if they are even thinking the same way I am because I don't know that answer but my gut is in most of these the Main Street area I mean I think that could totally work and I think that was probably the intent of it is you have commercial main residential above which is a good use because they the city wanted to keep that two-story you know viability continuing Main Street which is hard to do in a commercial environment sometimes just because ADA and elevators and all that sort of stuff is really complicated. I mean, it's possible, it just doesn't make financial sense sometimes. But the residential can go upstairs, there's no problem.

Yeah.

The role that I've seen for mixed use zones is in your town's core. And so the 35% requirement, again, that could be a different number of different jurisdictions, but if one property owner needs a 35% commercial in a portion of their property, Mixed use that I've seen elsewhere means that two property owners could take their 35% requirements and cluster them in one area and meet the requirements, especially if you have access or circulation issues or something like that. There's no way to allow for that with this code here. So the standards are light. It doesn't define a ton. I was just telling Christine here, I suppose if it truly is mixed use, then you could have a home that has a drive-through right on it it's nothing keeping them keeping us from telling them no it's mixed use it's strange i don't see we're probably doing this change for him and if the owner who owns mixed use wants to get his own change that just happens that just sounds like a lot of work

to make them go through when it's completely unnecessary.

But I get their point. They're just strictly looking at the code. Yeah, but we should do that. We should be looking at how it actually applies and how these people are affected. Well, that's a different operation. What we want this to mean, this NU to mean,

And yeah, if it doesn't match our master plan, that should be changed at a different time. So then we just make all these owners just go pay all this money and play all these games, going rezoning, going through all these meetings, all these hurdles that are completely unnecessary. I think it's, I don't know. It's a process. Yeah, I don't like it. I mean, at the very least, we should take their input. We definitely shouldn't do it without... Notifying them of what we're proposing to do. So how would you how would you go about? Fixing code Well, if anything what I'd do is I'd say hey if your property is on mixed-use and you're on Main Street the 35% applies if you're not on Main Street and your zone mixed-use doesn't apply Can we that's just can we separate the mixed-use zone out?

So that you like we have our downtown mixed-use which is what it says in our future life use plan is the downtown mixed use, which would be your main street corridor, all of those things that we want to have that 35%. But these other areas that are zoned mixed use in our current zoning doesn't actually work with that.

But moving forward, why would we want that mixed use right there? How would we define that? Exactly.

Well, if that's the case, then we should propose to change it

rm16 or something that we want it to be we shouldn't just change the code on them and make them be in like this island where they have to fight out of it you know and they can actually which is mainly a timing it's just a timing consideration well it's much more than timing but not if not if what we're saying is if we change it to what the what the owner is already planning and it doesn't affect them financially then we go to the mvu policy and then we adjust it and say this is what we want you to be for the from here on out that's what i mean by timing it's it's a step step by step process is what we're trying to what will what will help this situation is the step-by-step process not sure like you said change it change it right all at once i understand what what you're saying I think we can accomplish both.

So, Mr. Chair, I can make a proposal moving forward from what I'm hearing from the Planning Commission. As more of a policy, an internal policy, if we as staff make a change on a zone in text amendments, because I don't feel like this should be an isolated incident. This is going to have to be a policy change here out, that if we make a change to property owners, like we rezone an area or we change some of their land use abilities, then we would send out a, kind of like you do with the zone change for people around 300 feet. We send out something saying, here's the text amendments, this is what we're proposing, you can come and you can voice your opinions to the Planning Commission. And we could do that as an internal policy versus making all these changes and not letting them know, which I think is a valid point. That would be a policy thing that would come from within the city. Is that something that, would that resolve this issue?

I mean, I'm not sure if that actually resolved the issue, but at least we have input from the people that are on the dirt. Because in my mind, we should be very careful about just randomly taking people's rights away from the property that they bought for a specific reason without some really good communication. Because all it'll do is just upset them all and have everybody all upset. I mean, I know what you're trying to accomplish, and that's good.

But can we just write into it beginning at this date? I have reservations. Then you can maintain the MU status as it currently sits and as they have operated under as owners of the property. Oh, yeah. Then you can, after the fact, any MU is considered this definition.

Yeah. Okay, so staff is trying to actually implement the purpose of this and this might not negate. So the purpose of the mixed use zone is to provide areas in the city for mixed use development with a diversity of residential office and low impact commercial uses. What we have identified is this code does not allow us to actually implement what the purpose is. And so the purpose is to provide a mixed use area. And so because we can't hold them It has the ability to provide only a residential area. And that is something that is not the purpose of the mixed use. And therefore, if they want only a residential area, it should be changed. The zoning should be changed to a residential zone. And so that is, so what we're actually trying to do is not taking away any rights. It's actually helping us to enforce what the purpose of the code says right there. And so that's kind of where we, I remember that discussion when we came up with it. If it's not, we're not taking away rights, we're trying to be able to actually administer what the purpose of the code was.

Well, you're not understanding what I'm saying. That property, if we change this right there, he cannot do what he was proposing to do. You absolutely took it.

I have no intent. I have no idea what his intent for that property is. I don't know what his intent is. But that should come into this discussion. discussion is what should what how can we as staff do what is proposed in the purpose of this mixed-use code the mixed-use post is to provide if it doesn't provide a variety then that's not that's not the purpose of the code and then therefore the property should be rezoned for what it should is intended for and then we should make that result well and can we

using the future land use plan as a guide look at that and say we need to rezone it because we don't want and don't bring them into the discussion and say we are proposing that we rezone this mixed use zone to a residential zone we want your input well and i'd love to just notify them and say hey we're gonna we're changing the mixed use zone if you're not okay with this

speak up and let's have a conversation because we're changing. Yeah, that's the other step, but yeah.

This is functionally a little bit different. Getting their involvement, their input.

With the mixed-use zone currently, if they submitted an application to build apartments just like it was RM16, would it pass based on that zoning?

Would it pass? It would have to go to DRC. As long as they set within the requirements of the mixed-use zone, and then it would go, it wouldn't come here, it would go to DRC. Yeah, so someone, like if they did put apartments in there with no commercial, nothing, right now. Without, yeah, because we don't have a permission, DRC doesn't have a way to say you have to have commercial.

So technically, at this point, that landowner, or any landowner that has land that is mixed use, could build multifamily housing without coming and getting it rezoned, which I think that's where Mike is coming from. Right now we're having a hard time approving multi-family housing zone changes.

But if the purpose of the mixed-use zone is to provide the city of a variety of options, that's not accomplishing the purpose.

So yeah. I just think it's just going to cause more problems for us down the road because right now they could submit an application today and say, this is what I want to build is these apartments in this mixed-use zone and they would be approved. And you have apartments on Main Street? Yeah. Without any commercial? Without any commercial. They could get that approved, right? if we made this change right now and said, oh, you have to have 35% commercial, then they now cannot do that. They have to do a zone change, which I understand, it should be a zone change anyways. But right now with our current, what would you say? Tone of Tree Mountain, people are really against mixed use or multi-family housing. And so when we have approved multi-family housing as fast, It has been more pushed.

This is kind of a test for you, though, because you're, I mean.

But in the city, we're.

I was going to say, assuming we know that the person is trying to build this multifamily under the rules of mixed use right now, then what we're saying is that it's already contrary to what the flavor and appetite of the city

But it is based on our future land use plan.

That is the plan. Right. It does seem muddy. It seems like if we want to have the future land use plan to be justified, leverage it. That's my opinion. Right. And then you say, guess what? We're going to give you what you want, which happens to be our M16 or our whatever you're doing. Yeah. but it's also consistent with what we have claimed and said we are going to work towards, which is the land use plan. No one should really be upset by that.

But the land use plan, they were invoked for the mixed use zone. The land use plan shouldn't be invoked for the mixed use zone properties because they were rezoned and they have the entitlements as said in Chapter 1.09. And so we're not bringing it in at that point.

comes before this proposal it gets reviewed and goes to drc and it's approved and that's it no land use plan that's a legislative thing that's for reasons if we don't change the zone right just it's just a reason right exactly yeah that's what we were saying it doesn't require it now in order for us to actually define mixed use which is the goal of what we're trying to do today is that right yes it's been defined or we're

It's been defined. It doesn't achieve the purpose, yeah.

Well, just like Jeremy mentioned, he mentioned that you could take two properties, have one do residential and one do commercial. In my mind, the use has been somewhat used that way. It has been diverse. There's been a bunch of commercial that's built in that zone, and there's been some residential that's been built in that zone. I mean, not a lot. It's probably, what, three, four plexes or something? That's even done there, but... Think we just really ought to make sure that the landowners if the landowners that own those pieces All of them are good with this proposal. I really feel really good about it All of them that are zoned mixed use should be notified that we're talking about changing the property that they purchased for a specific reason if they're good with that change we should modify it if they're not okay then we should make them rezone it we should simultaneously with this propose a rezone to to fix yeah to remove them out of the mixed use zone and then it's not even an issue yeah i agree because i think most of this on on main street is a good move i mean i think it's fine i think we don't i don't i don't personally want the ton of multi-family right solely

I think we'd rather have them do them.

They do. But a lot of them have, like, you know, four stories. Like, the ones they're building in Ogden, they got a little bit of commercial on the main level. Then they got multifamily, four stories high. Six deep. Six deep. And that's great. I mean, I think that's fantastic. That's exactly what we should do. But I just get really, I guess... and these people don't know, and I don't know what their intent is, but I feel like we should at least notify them. But I think I don't necessarily agree with notifying everyone And we can't notify the whole city every time we want to make a minor change.

That's exactly why that's why our code says we give a public notice for text things. We already give that out.

I noticed one already. One is mailing to the affected property or within 300 feet of the subject property. Another one is on the state board, which is available to everyone. Sure. What you would want to do is you'd want to go onto the state board, you'd want to choose county government, city government, school district, whatever, you just pick what you want. You filter down to Tremont and then you say, email me. And then you're emailed on everything that goes to the planning commission or the school board or whatever. So it does kind of go the other way as well.

It does, but the situation is you live in Salt Lake and you own this piece of property and you get this notification that says what this notification is. There's no links. no documentation to even what you know what we can see with the actual what you said the staff report they have no clue that this affects them or not and usually it's really hard I mean they find out about it years later when they go to submit an application you know not what's happening so I think we should just you know be mindful of you know members that try to work with them instead of against them as far as making sure that they're aware of the changes that we're making and make sure that we you know touch base with them especially if we're taking their rights away

Well, I would like to say the staff does work with the owners and we don't take away their rights, so.

Well, that's on record. Because you know that. It's on record.

Can I have a clarification of when we annexed the southern one? Down a little bit. Why was that put as mixed use? Or do we know why that was put as a mixed use?

It was all before our time.

So we have no idea why those exist.

We don't even know why they created the zone to begin with.

That's so confusing. That's such a weird spot to have mixed use.

Probably because it's right next to the freeway.

So on the future land use, it has residential within that little freeway thing, whatever, and then industrial, and then a commercial center. So weird. And so I'm like, maybe that's why they did it.

This is where going back to the future land use plan makes sense. all the difference and why i think it's important that we have these conversations about about because i know that there was actually a transit technically planned throughout that entire area so that we could actually get from one end down to the other without using main street but that has that has gone by the wayside i'm gonna figure something else out so again the case being made for we should be leveraging our plan we should be making that our bible that's that's my my reasoning for why we should send out that notification to the owner we're going to we want to change your piece to rm16 because that's what's on our future land use plan will that change your your problem or whatever have them come in do the public hearing do all that and once those things are changed then we can address the mu uh i agree so if there's anything that's currently mu that's not already developed like on main street that already has it's it's set then we yeah we go through the process of rezoning it the way we want it instead of reacting to oh this is what it is well we've just got to we just got to do it that way no we have the plan it's already shown that there's a difference in what we want versus what's there let's and there's nothing there right now right like there's nothing

So why not do it before somebody tries to build something? Right?

Best for the city council to maintain a policy that if they're going to rezone properties on the property owner's behalf to do so with a broad brush and not single people out.

Sure. So wouldn't a broad brush be all mixed use that is not on main street is getting rezoned?

Yeah, we can do that.

What if we just say we want to we're trying to marry reality to our future land use plan. So that's the reason. Not because, oh, you're in mixed use. We want to single you out and change it up. It's like, no. The future land use plan was created under all the assumptions that we already know and we want to get cohesive with that. So that's why we're changing this mixed use, that mixed use. We're keeping Main Street because that's the way our future land use plan already is. So I think that's the direction we should go.

Now we have been discussing, too, the freeway locked mixed use area. The owners have approached us already to consider a residential development in that area. We got to keep that in mind too. They've already started something based on a mixed use zone. So just be aware of that.

And that would be residential there. Right.

That's what they want to put in there. And so maybe that makes sense to follow the future use plan and make it residential instead of mixed use.

I think that's why our forefathers designed the zone.

extension whatever with the old residential and other people are going to go full commercial but you know what we want on the road but the purpose stuff like that like we just the city needs the plan the way we designed it you know whether the owner bought it for that purpose or not, I think the feature land use plan should be able to be our guide and say, look, you purchased it. This is where we're trying to go. And in order for us to do that, the only way we can make a case is if we actually have the zone set. Which I think is fine.

And I guess if they're OK with it, then that's fine. I mean, people who are annexed in here.

We still have to have public hearings. Oh, we still have?

Yeah.

So moved and seconded that we close the staff presentation and submission discussion of the Mixed-U Zone Code Text Amendment in public hearing. Those in favor say yes. Yes. Opposed? Motion passes.

My name is Wayne Wilding and I do have a comment on this proposal. My main comment here is the proposal is for 35% and there's been a lot of discussion about that and I appreciate that, but if you're going to have a minimum, you ought to have a maximum. You can't just have one and not the other. i think you ought to have both um you know i can do 100 commercial i could do 100 residential the way we're trying to set this up is we're going to require you to do some of one and we're saying the minimum but we're not saying the maximum so therefore i can do all of the other if i want to and so my comment is if you're going to do them in you probably ought to do a max and i think that would be fair here and that would be my my comment you're welcome to discuss that

My name is Marie L. Wood. So by December, there seems to be kind of a game plan on potential data centers in the city with the 180. By the county being lifted, especially with gaps in coding, where data centers or AI centers could fall under warehouses, offices for warehouses. So I also have to make sure that if it is mixed use that it's not a data center or an art park with apartments like on top or like a small AI data center in general that somehow could finally pull it without it being a business. I think it's also important to the committee to update current codes which might lack specific standards on the differentiation between one of the data centers or AI centers with massive energy draws and emissions with like the warehouse and ensure that those are made over near schools. There's been reports on how helpful it is to children. So like five months away. And that is all I have to say.

Thank you. I'll be worried. Don't worry. I've been watching online. Three minutes. Three minutes. I know. I only got three minutes. So that works for me. Amanda Jones. I've been listening online. I just came in late. I do agree that we need to let those landowners know what's coming because just like with all the residential things that we've been doing and we've been notifying people around there, I think we do need to do that too for the commercial and for those who want to do that. I also agree with needing some sort of more detail within that mixed-use zone so that there is clarification as to needing that mixed-use and then being able to enforce it. once it is designated that so I like I really like the discussion I like that we should apply them talk come to some sort of agreement and get some sort of direction added to that mixed use zone so that we know exactly what needs to be there and be able to enforce it thank you I make a motion to close the public hearing and open

of our consideration and decision for the mixed-use zone code text event.

It's been moved. Is there a second?

All for it. And seconded. Have it closed the public hearing and open the consideration and decision for the mixed-use zone code text event.

Those in favor say yes.

Yes.

one of these times i'm just going to wail on it we're not supposed to table something but what if we're not ready to approve it so let me just deny it and then you can spray it back later to the city council with your comments oh yeah yeah i don't think there's anything stopping us from tabling something especially if we want to notify the owners and let them have a voice here just because

just don't think that they even have any clue what we're proposing to do today i mean the motion also doesn't have to be anything involving the actual text amendment itself really this this brought up something else completely which was you know we want to notify the And so you could say I move that we recommend to the city council that we notify that we will be making changes. So you say we notify owners of the currently zone to mixed use property owners that deviate from the future land use plan. The fact that we're going to change, we're going to be making changes to their zoning definition or there will be changes being made and see what happens.

Do we need to wait for

attorney to come back and give us clarification on if we're allowed to do that or to notify to or to recommend to make zoning changes based on the future land use plan yeah

I think I'm sure we can do that. I think we have a fairly broad authority. I just think we want to limit upsetting people if we can. I think we can. But I think I want them to come back here. I want to hear, before we recommend anything to the city council, I want them to come here to a future meeting and say, okay, how do you guys feel about this?

You own these properties. Do actions that we make, like inviting members to come to public hearing, have to go through the city council?

I mean, honestly, the conversation seems like it's turning towards denial. I would say, make your recommendation, and then we can take efforts between the Planning Commission and the City Council to reach out to those business owners specifically and bring your comments plus, ideally, the business owners' comments to the City Council. What if we're not ready for it to go to the City Council? That's not the scope of the Planning Commission.

discuss about happens tonight but if we're still brought to discuss it later once we have a better plan we can just deny it at this point but then it still goes to the City Council correct without the information that they need yes so that the City Council could just approve it without these people knowing anything we don't are we supposed to be approving or denying things before they go to City Council you recommend Yeah, so we recommend step four, but the city council, we don't recommend anything.

Which is why I need to recommend denial if you want to.

Or we table it until the next meeting.

I strongly recommend against that. Why? Because you don't get to keep the council.

This is an item of business for the city council.

Is that correct? Yeah, they're the ones who will approve it.

They can approve it without us.

It's that critical. And it has nothing to do

They can vote without us. I don't think we're gatekeeping anything. owners who will be dramatically affected by this to at least be able to understand and at least hear their input on this, which in my mind, I mean, Brother Wilding back here ought to be jumping up and down, like freaking out that we're talking about just wham, bam, slam, whether we deny it or approve it without like any of the comments from the people who own these properties.

I just, I don't know. That feels wrong to me.

I mean, yeah. Yeah, I don't like it at all.

I mean, not because then we're... I mean, nothing changes if we deny it.

Yeah, it does. But that's wrong. If we don't recommend anything, the city council won't discuss it.

Well, we can deny it with the... We give them all the information that we're talking about. And this is why we deny it. With the recommendation that we do these steps. We recommend denial based on these reasons. We want people to know

that the text code amendment is being made that has not happened yes so then tomorrow they could get a check a letter whatever email saying this is going now to the city council you don't have anything you can't give any input on this because it's already been a planning commission we didn't notify you that the change is being made planning question did recommend a denial but next week it's going to be at city council and they could approve it it's true

Well, and the only reason why this would be such a time gatekeeping situation is if there's really a project on the table that staff or someone else is trying to specifically change the rules.

I'm not going to allow.

I just don't understand why we're pushing it.

Please, please. keep keep it to the scope of what we're trying to accomplish today yeah i may come but i don't but one for a future meeting after i would i would highly suggest we recommend denial based on these reasons and or only approve no we can't approve at all we can't do that and we can't do with corrections

We have never had an issue tabling things in the past. I don't know why this is now an issue to table things. And that's a good point. That's what planning commissions do and city councils, to table things until the public can be notified and we can make sure that this is done the right way. And we've done that before. And that's never been an issue before. I do not feel uncomfortable sending this to the city council with our approval or denial without making sure that the citizens are notified.

What's your motion? I made a motion to table it until the next meeting that the landowners who have the mixed-use zone can be notified prior to the meeting. I second that motion.

It's been moved and seconded that we table this mixed-use zone code text amendment until the next meeting.

The table means to kill, never to see the light of counsel. But continuous means that you don't have to notify it by a specific date.

It must be brought back.

That's a good chance.

Yeah, I just said until the next meeting after everybody's been notified. Then we want, yeah. Then a motion to continue. Is that what we're saying? Yeah. Continue discussion.

So you're saying everyone that has an MU, that owns property in an MU will be notified to come prior to the meeting. So they have enough time to come in.

And I would add that it's just the ones that deviate from the future land use plan. And those are which ones for sure? These ones that we were showing.

The two, the west end of town and the south end. Nothing on Main Street.

Well, I think on Main Street it still deviates because it was on commercial technically. So it deviates as well.

All of it deviates. yeah we should notify them all yeah yeah i think that that would be seen as selective if we only notify a few i think they all should be notified property okay so it's been motioned and seconded that we continue well that was that we not that we did you micah did you uh

Continue? Motion to continue? Or motion to table? I motion to table, but that's what I'm researching right now.

I have never heard that there's any table difference between that. I mean, I don't know that a table ends at a table. It's like a table. Like, you put it on the table, you're going to bring it back to a future meeting.

According to the Alaska Board of School Boards, tabling is within the same meeting. Postponing is for a future meeting. Reconsider is within 24 hours. And rescind is no action at all.

Well, so which one is it to continue to the next meeting? To postpone. Postpone. Continue. Postpone decision. Yep. Okay. I make motion we postpone and continue until the next meeting after all of the MU owners have been notified of the proposed change. I'll second that one as well. Date certain, please.

August 29th. What did he say? We'll need a date certain to continue.

Yeah, the date is certain. As soon as the meeting after, everybody has been notified. Let's say a date is certain. I don't know when you can notify them. Let's say it's 30 days. Is that enough time to get the notice out, though? Yeah. Are you sure?

Oh, yeah. Yeah, so not within a month, after a month. Usually 10 days or seven days just to post public meetings.

September 8th. So we are postponing this until September 8th?

I amend my motion to make a motion to postpone slash continue this discussion until after all the MU owners have been notified and bring it back on the 8th of September, 2026.

A motion was made to table that should either die or succeed. I amended it.

I amended it.

That one, we'll say that that one died for lack of support. Reflected on the record.

And then I'll be glad to say that I amended it because we had support.

He said, yeah, but it was the support Wayne when you decided to amend it. So, so yeah, that's what we're going to go with as well.

Technically you can have us a vote.

on the first motion. That's true. And we would all vote against it. Yes. But I'm amending all of my motions to be the last one. And I'm going to make sure that we cinch this up before 730. So we're going to do it this way. OK, wrap it up for us. Continuous. By September 8, after all MDU owners have been notified of the text change, text amendment proposal. sorry i'm just chopping things up slowly those in favor say yes yes those opposed motion passes unanimously 7 23 p.m public comment section

I appreciate your willingness to notify those owners of that property and do the right thing. We're proud of you. Good choice. It's sometimes very difficult to do that and sometimes we want to push things through in spite of what is the right choice. But taking time to notify people and make people aware of what's happening will save us a lot of problems in the long run, in my opinion. I think that's been part of the challenges that we've had as we've had in the past year, is that things have happened and we have not taken the time to really vet and talk about and to learn and to work together. And so I applaud your choice on this matter. Thank you.

Thank you.

those public comments section as any business or staff thank you I feel like you got lashed out we got quite the beating today but we appreciate all you do cross teams dies and make sure that each try to weigh things importance as well as work with people I appreciate the staff. They work hard and really do. Thanks for the commenting and discussion.

This is a lot more delightful than rezoning owner of property without them knowing and then them getting in here and freaking out. Well, it wasn't rezoning.

It wasn't a rezone. It's the same thing. But I understand what you're saying. Okay. I'll make a motion that we adjourn. It's been moved and seconded that we adjourn. Those in favor say yes. Yes. Yes. Motion passes at 725. Move to be known before 730.