Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay. Call the meeting to order at 5:30. Um, one, approval of the agenda. Is there anyone who'd like to make amendments or changes to the agenda? I'd like to propose a small amendment just that maybe we have Jeff or somebody give a brief okay uh history or lineup of the public hearings prior to the public hearings so then people have the opportunity to speak about them you know after they've heard the discussion or at least the explanation. Okay.

But otherwise would make a motion to approve the agenda as modified. So, it's been moved that we modify the agenda to include more from Jeff. A brief summary of the two public hearings. Brief summary of the two public hearings um before number five and yeah, prior to the public hearings. Yeah, prior to number five. I would also like to make a motion. We'll do that next. We'll go on this one and then we'll go to that one. Okay. So, we're amending it once. Um all in favor of amendment as stated say yes. Yes.

Yes. All oppose. Okay. Seeing no opposed then the agenda stands amended as as stated. Any other business? I would like to make a motion to move number three, the public comments to between 6 and 7 so that we can have the public hearing where we have we hear we hear from you and then we can move the public comments to after our discussion so that you can still tell us if there's other feedback after our discussion as well. It's been moved. Is there a second? I'll second. Well, if we do that, they won't vote and you won't hear from them. That it's we're actually not going to hear from them until after we decide public hearing. We still have the public hearing.

Maybe we do it from the public. Yeah, you could do that. But really, we're hearing from them as that's what the public hearing is. Yeah. So, that's why I was saying moving just the public comments. Then we also have our discussion and then they would have comments about our discussion, I think, is the is that the order you're talking about? That's what I was saying. Yeah, we can do that. But we've already decided. Yeah. Just so that they know that. Okay. Do you hear them? Okay. It's been so been proposed. Uh was there a second? Yes. Yes. And seconded that we move the public comment section number three to between section six and seven. All in favor say yes.

Yes. All opposed. Seeing none opposed then the motion passes. The agenda stands amended as such. Any other business before we move to point two. Okay. Uh I'd also accept an amendment or a motion to approve the agenda as amended. I'll make such a movement to approve the agenda as amended. It's been moved. Second and seconded that we approve the agenda as amended. All those in favor? Yes. Yes,

I'll pose. Seeing none, we'll move to point two, a declaration of conflict of interest. Any members of the commission who have conflict of interest in the dis the points to follow under in the agenda are welcome to declare so now. Okay, seeing none.

I just had one point. Uh, I was just reviewing the minutes earlier and it we had a big discussion about the conflict of interest on February 25th, but I don't know that we ever finalized the rebuttal back as far as where we left it was. We had no idea what the definition of direct benefit is and we were going to regroup on some of the questions we had there. I just was going to bring it up since we're talking about that now. We we probably would be worth readressing that at some or having a briefing on that at some future point. Okay. And we're we're also um pretty clear though that the declaration of the conflict of interest is all that is required in order to be able to do business. In the code, there's a conflict of interest statement that states that if you or your family will benefit financially from the decision, then you need to recruit recluse yourself from the conversation.

Okay? So, which which is really tough because like like for you, you you almost can't vote on anything if your daughter does any signs for the city then then I would need to. But you see what I'm saying? If if I were to benefit financially from it, but I don't own the store or anything. it's you or your family. So technically, you would have to go sit down over there if any financial number was voted on. Period. So that's why I think there's some question as to why the the council even changed it. You know what I mean? Because it's really the language, the way it's written is messy. You know what I'm saying? But that's the language right now,

right? And that's what we need to quantify because it's different than the state code. It's much different. And we need to really really understand it because it's so different. No other city is doing this. So we need to understand how exactly it applies and the definition specifically. Does that make sense?

Mhm. Okay. So see no declarations of conflict of interest. We move to four, approval of the minutes in of June 24th, 2025 and July 8th, 2025. I will entertain a motion or can I move, I guess. Is that what we're saying? Oh, now I can I'll make a motion to approve the minutes. I can just vote. Go ahead. I can make a motion to approve the minutes. No second. and seconded that we approve the minutes as stated on the agenda. All in favor? Yes.

All opposed? Seeing none. Okay, the motion passes. Sorry, that we approve the minutes. Um, moving to uh number five, the public hearing 5A U to Let's have Jeff do his explanation. That's right. Thank you. Um, did you could you pull up the So, we're saying like a brief history of Yeah. Like what we're doing, what what what's actually and what we're doing now. Yeah. What's going to be talked about on the public hearing.

Um, so this parcel um outlined in red is uh um submitted a reszone application for RM8. Uh we just discussed this application um once before and uh for RM16 and and after some discussion the planning commission uh denied the application. So uh for clarity he came back for RM8 which just off to the right there on the page um is an apartment complex that matches this density. um when reviewing it further with the property owner, the ability to access off that culde-sac is not there. They just don't have the frontage with the property line to actually have an access off that road. So, it'll have its own drive uh one single driveway um from the concept plan that he shared. It was was one driveway um more towards the east side of the property line and then just clustering what units he could based on the zoning in the part in the kind of eastern half.

So that that one um don't know if you have question that one was going for RM16.

Yeah, Senate was denied. So he's now requesting RM8. Um, this is the overlook. We talked about this one back in May. Um, the planning commission approved the application for R18 to help them with the base density that they were going for with some of the infrastructure needs. Um, the council denied it. Uh, so they came back asking now just to go from R12 to R110, which would give them about 100 extra units from what the base density is now with R12. Um, in the concept plan that they shared with me this morning, all of the density is over on the western part of the um, the more dense housing I should say is over on the western half um, and tied to the main access they have with um, a lot more single family lots or smaller lots um, buffering kind of the existing development that's up there on the east side of the photo or the right Any any questions?

Thank you. Thank you for that. So now we'll move to 5A to receive public input of proposed zoning to RM8 for parcel 05-068-0075. This is the one on Rocket and Iowa String just south of the overpass. You want me to pass? Yes. Yes, please. Mic. There will be a timer. You'll have three minutes at the podium if just for this partial, right? Just for this partial at this point. Yeah, we we'll receive public input for both.

This one's first. Anybody feel ready to go? Want to go? Going once, twice. Okay, I'll go on this one. Okay. Perfect.

Okay, I'm going to go on this one because mine is kind of a general comment. Um, my name is Christine Eping.

Um, mine's kind of a general comment and I don't want it to be applied to just one specific area because that's where I live. Um, in the in the past I have claimed that infrastructure should drive development and I've humbly been corrected on that that infrastructure doesn't ever really drive development because that's not how things always work. But I do stand to say that infrastructure should be taken into consideration when considering development. Um in the land use plan in in appendix C and when it talks zoning in the current land use plan it says note that when considering new zoning or annexations the zoning proposals from land owners that the city and land owners should review the proposed land use and consider the city's ability to provide sufficient infrastructure for the services. So when you're considering this land with the multifamilies, what is the infrastructure going to look like? And that's going to be a common theme that I feel like residents have in any development that's coming way. Uh we actually had a meeting last night, a neighborhood meeting that went really really well where we discussed a more unified plan, a more unified vision where we as citizens could work with the city in order to create something that's that's better when um uh and so I wanted to put out there that reszoning things should should be able to have uh I appreciate the opportunity to comment on them, but I feel like there is a discrepancy between what's being proposed and the current land use plan that there we are growing at a faster rate than what the current land use plans and there it states and there needs to be some updates in that process. So with this particular zoning and keeping on topic with this zoning I would I'm not as knowledgeable on what the current zoning is in this area but I would ask you as a committee to say do we have the infrastructure for it right there? Are there sidewalks where those kids can get to Maverick easier? Is there sidewalks along that that bank? Is there is there proper um access to the

businesses and and um different things that that that area needs? And I do feel like that there is a lacking infrastructure right there all the way to to Maverick. There there aren't sidewalks for the current homes. And so how do we bridge that gap? And and it would be really nice to work with you as a planning committee to be able to do that. So when you're looking at this, please take that into consideration that infrastructure. No, it doesn't drive development, but it really should guide it and should be taken consideration so that it be it comes as as a balanced um usage. We have a rural infrastructure throughout the entire city. It is hard to take and create an urban society with a rural infrastructure without overt taxing the citizens. So please take that into considerations when you are considering putting multifamily housing in this. Does it match the current land use plan? And then it or does it need to be addressed in a bigger vision and do we can we combine that together and maybe pause on what needs to be put forward before so that we can get a better sync plan. Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, Christy Bokeet. One question I have is in May at the city council meeting, it was stated that, you know, we maybe we should slow things down a little bit until we get the general plan revised. That hasn't happened. I feel like right now we are throwing everything out there that we can just to say we've got it done. It's a checkbox. Okay, this this developer come in. We're going to check it off. Okay. And this week I received a phone call from someone in Salt Lake and it had to do with a meeting that was held that talked about water use and part of the meeting was you know Bear River City you need to do this. Yes. Remember and they talked through the process that Bear River City was in. Filling you're behind the ball but you're working on it. Tree Mountain you better hope like heck there's not a fire because every one of you are going to burn up. You do not have the water. You are not listening to what's going on. We don't have the water. We know we don't have the water until the infrastructure is in place. Things need to be stopped because we are not in a good place. Just a suggestion.

Thank you. My name's Lisa Christensen and that was exactly what I wanted to comment on was the water. Um I don't know and I'm not knowledgeable enough to know is there enough water to sustain an extra hundred homes in that area, water and the the sewer and all that kind of thing. So that's my my biggest concern is water, sewer, sidewalks and things like that. Russell Scott. I live up on uh Radio Hill up where we're talking about that other one to go from R R12 to R10. Um to talk about water and everybody's brought it up, so I'll bring it up. Uh EPA average per person, 82 gallons per day. That's indoor use. um that's about 10,000 gallons in 30 days over a year, that's 120,000 gallons. You add a 100 homes, that's a lot of water going in. You also have water coming out. I know we have not updated uh our sewer system here, the the stirer station down there to take care of that many homes with that much water coming in with and I know it's more than 100 homes that are going to go up in there. Um in 2021, Tremont put out 434 building permits. 22 214. The average is about 134 building permits per year. If that development goes up there, I know it's going to be way more than 134. That infrastructure up there, we don't have the water. I know at my

house, you can't build any higher than my neighbor because at my house and at their house, we're on a good day 35 pounds of pressure. You can't run two units in your house. You cannot run your washing machine and a dishwasher. You cannot shower and run a dishwasher at the same time. There is not enough pressure and not enough water. When we had the fire up on the hill and they tried to take care of it, when they hooked up the fire engine to it and tried to pull from that, you could hear the water being pulled from the homes because there was not pressure up there. They had to run the hose all the way down to the h end bottom of the hill to bring it up. We got problems with water and it still hasn't been addressed. The road going up there. The last time we talked about the road, we were told we were going to be placated to get done up to what is it 2650. They did that and now we've been forgotten. going with that. I don't think we should change that from R12 to an R10. That's too many homes up there and not enough water.

Are we still on A or are we on B? I wasn't really planning on speaking, but in 2021, he brought up something and I remember because that's the year I

Oh, Debbie Bratner, I thought I said that. Okay. 2021. I remember that cuz that's when I sold my house and that building across from Family Dollar, I don't know what it, Homegr something, uh, caught on fire and there was a water shortage after that because they ran out of water because they used most of it on putting that fire out and they so they put us on restrictions. I remember that. So all this building and they keep telling us that we have plenty of water but hey cut down on water because you know that fire took a lot of our water. So that also brings me up to something else because we h don't have enough water for all these homes being built. But where I live on 800 West in Tmont, seems like once a month they're coming and pumping out the sewer at my place. Why is that? Is it old sewer things? And for some reason, somebody is having sewer problems. I'm not. But maybe that should be getting looked at too before I have an issue or somebody else because of all those new houses behind my house before you start building more houses.

Thank you. And if you're worried about not having time for the other section, we just remember we're going to have more time for that just plot. So if we can focus on this one for the time being, that would help us move along so we can keep But go ahead.

So I'm Heather Flood and I live up on Mountain Road. um and coming out of the neighborhood on multiple occasions, couple times a month at least. I'm almost hit by the current amount of traffic that's coming off of the hill. They're moving too fast and there's too many of them. And if we put extra homes or more and more homes up there, is there an intent to reduce the speed limit? Is there an intent to relook at the area and say maybe this needs to be 25 mph zone or whatever? like um traffic is already a consideration in the area and if we add that many more vehicles on the road like what what are we doing about making sure that we're all safe that our kids are safe on the roads things or on the streets things like that. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other comments on this one? Okay, seeing none, we'll close close the public hearing for A and and open it for 5B to receive public input of proposed resoning from R112 to R110 for the overlook development parcel 06-059-0082 and 05-175-0030. Hello, my name is Tiffany Purcell and I live in that area and it's beautiful and I love it and I have great neighbors and there are so many neighbors and we have enjoyed getting to know them. But like everyone has brought up there aren't sidewalks. Like everyone has brought up that road is not safe. Like everybody has brought up there's a lot of traffic. Um, in January I went down to the bus stop with my children because even though they're teenagers, I know they're dumb. I took a picture of five teenagers dressed in black in the middle of the street looking for the bus. People are going to get hurt. We don't need to add more traffic. I understand it's zoned for houses. I understand that we should be able to build. I also understand we don't need to increase the density. Growth is good. We need to have growth in order to build our city in order to grow. We don't need to build to have more and more houses. I think one reason that we are struggling with homeownership and town homes is because

we are building so many lowincome housing, we're forgetting that median income. Why don't we build these single family starter homes so that then the town homes aren't going for $500,000? Let's build more of these homes in a residential area with yards and with places that they have someplace to go. So, all of the sudden, our whole city isn't apartment complexes. We have so many multif family dwelling homes right now. That's fantastic. Let's focus on something else. Let's keep the zoning like the land view says. Let's still invite neighbors and get to know people. Let's not see how many people we can build in an acre to see how much road or traffic we can increase. Let's just slow it down. That's all I ask.

Thank you. Just a quick question. Even though we made our comments on A, it applies to B. Yeah. Okay. Yeah.

David Jones, I live right up there, right next to what's going on. I live on 10,000 North. There's no sidewalks. The road is narrow. And right now with the traffic because the bridge is closed. There's a lot of times I can't even get out of my driveway for a while. I have to just sit there and watch the traffic go by. Now, if we put another 800 homes or more on the hill and everybody has two cars, that's 1,600 cars. And that road is not wide enough to take the traffic. let alone there's no sidewalks or anything else. Kids are on the road with their bicycles. People are walking and jogging along the side of the road and you have to move over. Are you going to hit them? So, I think before we do anything, we ought to look at how we going to get it cuz everything on that hill will go right down to 1,00 north. There's no other place to collect it. And so it's going to impact that whole road. And so if we continue to build like it's like crazy, nobody can do anything. Thank you.

Thank you.

Sorry, Russell again. Uh quick additional comment. See the road right next to 0058? That is the only entrance and exit for that subdivision off to the side there and our subdivision. Couple years ago, they dug up a natural gas line. People were stuck outside and inside. Nobody could go in or out. The mayor and the council told us they were working on a plan. That was what was it 12 13 years ago. It was 2019 because I was very pregnant and could not climb a fence. 2019

and they said we're working on it. So you got all those kids, families, and everything. One way in, one way out. That's a problem. Christine Epan again I live up in this area like I said to with I echo what Tik Tony says it's a beautiful wonderful area and I have studied the land use plan and in the LAN use plan there are three different maps um maps uh map 24 map 25 and in appendix C map one that says that that this section of land is currently zoned appropriately that there's no reason to change the zoning. However, I do understand there's a bigger vision. I understand that you do want to have other roads so that 1000 North isn't the only there there will be parallel roads up the hill. I understand there's a bigger view and a bigger picture. I don't want to limit ourselves on what the current land use plan is because I do I've I've learned it is it is not adequate for the growth that we have. So I would like to echo to pause that pause any resoning until we can have some more cohesive direction on where we want to go. But if you're going to use a current Yan use plan, it is already zoned to where it should be where it should be used. Um, in our meeting last night, we created a survey that we plan to hand out to all of the citizens in that area so that we can help and present to the city and to you as a council what we would like as citizens and what we would we would like you to listen to us on and how we can be involved and not a a problem but part of the solution. When we when I collected those surveys, there were qu the question was asked on a scale of one to five, how confident are your are you on the current city planning process that it reflects your values as residents?

Almost 100% of the surveys we received so far which is around 50 put put a one, four put a two and one person put a three. No one has let's change that. Let's change that. Let's go ahead and let's let's pause what we are doing. Let's not do any reasonzoning. help us as a neighborhood to give us some time so that we can put together a vision, present it to you and then you guys can go over it, look at the leg legalities of it and see how it can work as a better vision for the entire community. Um the infrastructure, the traffic, everything needs to be taken into consideration so that we can grow together and we can move forward together without constantly having to come and and and and for lack of better words fight over what what we want as citizens. So, thank you so much.

Thank you,

Lisa Christensen. Again, and I just had a question. You on the last one, you uh gave us a number that it would increase the homes by about 100. Do you know how many homes it would increase on this one by changing the zoning? That was this one. The other one wouldn't increase it by 100 houses. The other the other zoning was only like an acre. It was not a lot. They wanted R8 on the other one. So that and they specifically said for that particular one would increase by 100. How many homes will this increase if we change this to R10 110? So it'll be less than 100

for that much property. I don't know exactly how much less because if it's if it's R1 if it's R18 you're going to have more houses. Right. Right. So then if we have 100 houses at R18 I on a different on a smaller plot and this is three times the size. Right. But Jeff mentioned earlier it could potentially be 100. But anyway, we don't need to answer the questions right now.

Okay. I just wondered if anybody had done that. Thank you. Okay. I'm Laura Wear. I also live up on Radio Hill. Um, honestly, I don't want to be here. I already came to the city council meeting when you guys tried to reszone it or when we were trying to reszone it to an R8. So, I would like the Hill to remain single family homes. And honestly, a change from R12 to R10, I might not even be opposed to. What I am opposed to is I feel like as you change make this change from R12 to R10, it's going to open up a pathway to do a PUD. I believe that's the correct term. Um, and then it will allow for multif family housing. It will allow for commercial up there on that hill. And I don't want that. And everyone I've talked to in my neighborhood, nobody wants that up there. We all want it to remain single family homes. We understand that there is a need for more affordable housing. Um, but we see that there are town homes going up all over Tillon. We we up there would like more, you know, more just more single family homes, more medium incomes. If you are going to do starter homes, give them a little plot of land. But the main reason I'm opposed to this is because I feel like it's it's going to be used as a way around the zone, like as a way to put in a PE and I don't want to see that happen up there. Thanks.

Thank you.

I'm Gerlyn Tesh. Uh my biggest concern about increasing the density of safety. Our kids currently walk to 1000 North to get on the bus. Currently four to add 450 more homes. So I did some numbers. Okay. And this is just the addition, not what's already up there. 450 homes. The average home in Utah has three children. 32% of the homes have in Utah have children. So you take 450, you do the math, 30%, that's 350 homes, 315 * 3 children is 970. Oh, sorry. Unlock my phone. 945 children. That's a lot of children to be walking and crossing all these streets to get to a bus stop. I also have concerns about the number of egresses. As was mentioned before, if you naturally pick a home up there, you're going to head into town. You're going to head east. All that traffic is going east. And we only have one egress. We current we need another egress for sure. We with this kind of development, we need way more than just two, I would argue. Um I looked at some of the other subdivisions in town, Homer, East Homegr, they don't have anywhere near these kind of numbers. East Homer is already getting a third egress. Um I think Homegrren was the biggest and I I didn't I don't have the numbers anymore. It was like 150 homes or something. Anyway, the biggest one, the biggest subdivision that has two egresses, like 150 homes. And you want to put that up there? That's a concern for me for only two egresses. Thank you.

Thank you. can. Yep.

I'm Michelle Maro. I live on 1000 North. And um I just want to add on to what she said about um my concern is infrastructure and roads into town. There's one road 10,00 north. And you know, I've heard, well, we're going to build a road here and here and here and here. And they all funnel down. What this piece of property sits between two freeways. It sits between two freeways. There is no way to make an additional east west road unless you go over a freeway. And who's who's going to pay for that? So that's that's my concern is you can have all the roads you want coming north and south out of here. They are all going to funnel down onto one 1000 North to get into town and that's into Bar High School, Bar Middle School, Barc Harris, Garland Elementary, North Park Elementary, Jeanie Stevens Park, anything that you do in town, all of those homes are going to go down 1000 North. And also on 1000 North, you have Stokes Trucking. Right behind 1000 North, you have West Liberty Foods. Trucks are going all the time. 2000 West onto one 10 1 1000 on to 1000 North. All the time trucks are coming in and out. I live right across the street from Stro Stokes Trucking. I've I've been out there a few times uh in the last couple of weeks counting trucks. They're averaging about 12 an hour coming coming in and out of Stokes Trucking. and it just it slows traffic down. And I I am very concerned about having gridlock on 1000 North um if we allow too many homes up there unless somebody builds another east west road which will require over a freeway

because it's landlocked between two freeways. Thank you. Thank you.

I'm Eric Richardson. I live up in uh Spring Acres and I've been this town for almost 10 years now. Most of my children are born here. They go to were delivered at Tremont Hospital here in town. We like being here and there has been rapid growth in that period of time. There's been I mean I helped take down I helped people get back into the neighborhood after that single inlet and outlet of road was was blocked by a natural gas leak. We had people in our ward that had oxygen tanks that were running out. So they took down fences so they could drive through yards so we could get families back to their homes. It was a big deal. And I know you're going to say, "Okay, here's what we're going to do. We're going to give you another eress inlet and outlet. we're going to do all these things. You're missing the point. The point is we love our city the way it is. This area of the city the way it is. Don't change it to an R110. Don't change it to an R12. I propose going to an R120. So, put that in your book and start looking at those numbers. This is it's the wrong way. The part that I don't understand as a citizen here is I don't understand why everything's trying to go higher density. It doesn't make sense. We don't want Tmont to grow the way that it's been proposed and the way it's feeling for us as residents. We're all for growth and the city's been zoned for growth in certain areas. And the city council met last month on they were going to put together another um oh, I forgot what the phrase was, but they're going to put together a new plan. You know, the the city growth plan is is a little outdated. And so they're going to be working on that. In the meantime, leave this section alone. Leave it as an R12. That's what the voice of the people are saying. If you want us to go doortodoor and petition, we will bring in more people. We had 120 people here

last time at the city council meeting. If you want us to fill this room, we will come out in the masses. But please listen to us. We're the ones that are here as partners with you guys and gals to come to a a sensible solution and that sensible solution is leave it as an R112. Thank you.

Thank you. [Music] My name is Ben Greener and I also live up on the hill and uh I just want to express my same opinion that I I think this should stay R12. If developers bought it as that, they can develop it as that. I'm all for growth up there. I mean, as long as it's done right, and I'm counting on you guys to help make sure that that's done right. plenty of water, water reserves up there, plenty of correct roads, sidewalks, all of it because it's it I've lived further to the east and it's like living in an island up there to get down to the main roads. You have to walk in the road and it's just it's just dangerous. And uh I don't know why Tmont builds all these little islands all over the place and that that's what they are. They see people on wheelchairs going down roads to get to McDonald's. It's just crazy. So, I'm just asking you to be responsible and figure out the best way to do this. This is what you're you've chosen to do. You're on this planning commission and figure out the best way to serve our citizens and to make this this development work for for our advantage. And though everybody has legitimate concerns, 10,000 is very busy. And uh it's just crazy up there. We get a partially new road that I waited 17 years or was promised a new road for 17 years and finally coming. It's great. We love it. that it it ends at about I don't know 2700 2,800 west and it just goes back to a narrow road. So please consider what the people are asking. Like like they said we could get a lot more people up here if we need to. It's just crazy. Please do it right. Thank you.

My name's Michelle Stryley. I too live up on this hill. Um just kind of a new resident as of the last three years. Um but I searched for a long time for years to find, you know, a good spot to to put down some roots and this was it. I got thinking that there

I too I agree with everyone who has made their statements here today. Um I was at the meeting last night. Um they're all very legitimate concerns, infrastructure, water, all those kinds of things. Growth, we've got to embrace it in some way, shape, or form. But you guys plea, I'm pleading with you to really think things through before you grant permissions to reszone. I am opposed to the resoning at this point in the game for this plot and I just wanted to make make that known. You Thank you.

All right. I'm Molly Teasdale. I'm also new. Uh we both live up on the hill together. Um, I run 1000 North every day and it's scary. I'm jumping off the road that's not even a road just to get out of the way from semis. So, um, my thing is is is understanding what everybody has said in the last 24 hours. If you can't commit to sidewalks here and can't keep these commitments with the water, what kind of commitments are you going to make to them up there? and how are you gonna keep those commitments to them? And that's all I got. Thanks.

Thank you. How we feeling? Ready to go? Let's go.

Okay. Thank you. We're going to we're going to close step five. Moving to 6. New business. Okay. discussion and consideration of proposed reszoning to RM8 for parcel 05-068-0075.

Okay. So, I think this will I mean it would go from being like maybe two homes to being a couple town homes. Is that what we're looking at? Probably nine town homes. Nine town homes. Okay. So, like I mean that's an awkward corner as it is, right? Right by the freeway. This is right by the freeway. I don't think people are really going to want to build houses there, right? I And with the current setbacks, I think you could get maybe two lots. That's what I was thinking. Um, and it's awkward. Like, this is how my neighborhood is with that awkward corner there. It's not It's not a nice lot. Um, so I'm fine with it going to R

eight. What is it? RM8 to get a couple town houses. What were the proposed entryways that they said they had to where were they? One controlled access shared drive onto Rock onto Rocket Road. Onto Rocket Road. Oh, so on the west south. So Iowa String is Iowa String is west. Rocket is south. Rockets this way. This that one that curves Rocket Road 1200. That's so cool. That one that curves is rocket. It goes on both sides of the freeway and then it jaunts right this way. You can't you can't have actual road numbers on here. We're in Tmont. You need to write on there what the road is item. Um

also start putting historical landmarks that no one knows there 20 years ago. There's that one down. That's what I've known it as blue roof. Yeah. I think this is one of the easy things that like that we can make it a town homes. I don't think that that's a big deal. people. I mean, especially and we we live by the freeway over here. People don't want to have big homes and all that. It's loud. It's loud. It's a nice place to have. This is going back to our discussion about infill design, right? Same kind of thing. Like,

yeah, this would be an empty space already in the city limits that has some designation. What's the best use for it? That's I think I think it's the best use. I agree. Yeah. Any other thoughts or can I make a motion? Mic's quiet on propose a motion to Yeah, propose a motion at this point. What do you want to do? I'll make a motion to approve for recommendation the proposed resoning to RM8 for this parcel.

It's been moved. Is there a second? I'll second. Moved and seconded that parcel 05-068-0075 be be reszoned or rather recommended to be reszoned to RM8 to the city council. All those in favor say yes. Yes. Yes.

All opposed. No. Okay. Uh 6B discussion consideration of proposed reszoning from R12 to R110 for the overlook development partial 06-059-000082 and 05-175-0030. Okay. Question from the maps, the drawing in maps on our website. There are a couple maps on here from Jones and Associates for the transportation master plan for this section. Do we know when those were? We just updated the TMP this winter and it was adopted in May. Okay.

I don't know if they updated I don't know if Jones updated that link, but the TMP that's on the city's website is is the most recent one. Okay. So, this one on here, I don't know if we can pull it up or not, but it really doesn't have another proposed road coming out of here from this master plan. Um, and it has like one other I guess there's there's like I actually can't tell if that's an intersection about the land use plan. No, the it's the transportation master plan. Oh, so this is that section. Does that make sense? Yep. So the dotted line is the boundaries, whatever. And then these other little dotted lines are like

supposed roads, whatever. And one of the main concerns that I'm hearing is that there's not going to be multiple entrances and exits right from this neighborhood. Um, but there is like if if they do like I think this is a proposed road right there. So that would create the Does that make sense? You guys see what I'm saying? That would create that other across road there.

My my question comes down to that thousand north like is what what has to legitimately be or logistically be performed to make that road more infra like infrastructure ready I guess. Yeah. Um so asterisks to all this conversation. The developer was hoping to be here tonight but called me this afternoon and had something come up. So they were hoping in general we could table this decision until they can come here in September. That being said, I just still wanted to be able to have the discussion with you guys tonight. Mhm.

Uh currently we're working on three new egresses onto 1,000 north with different developers that would span all the way from 2000 west to this one. Um and a connector road that would be able to go from 2000 west over to this as well. So there would be connectivity into all all of the developments up there um that are currently um that we are looking or that the city's reviewing. So, um to answer your question on a thousand north, the um in speaking with the developer for the overlook today, they were um interested in entertaining the idea of participating with widening a thousand north and doing that with the city. Um we've had these agreements before with like the BR Mountain Road over by Hine McDonald's where you end up just coming to an agreement. their first and the only real question we have with them is um that they have to help share these cost these off-site costs that are getting rooftops so that their products still meet the price range and the market demand um because so I mean

so is it right now is it a 66 foot wide road um I don't know what I think it's supposed to be a 72 80 Let me look. Yeah, sorry. On here it just says 66 wide road used on minor arterial arterial where row acquisition would prevent an 80 in. Yeah. So I didn't know if it was 66 now and it was planning to go to 80 foot not inch. Oh yeah. See she's got it. Tiffany's got me. That's the old one though. Yeah, this is the old one.

Seriously. Okay, this is the one that's on the website. There is another one, but it doesn't have all that stuff on it. It just says like that it should be a 93 foot offset. Um, and that one is the go to the city website overlay zone district

that uh browse government section. Sorry. Okay. Okay. Community development. Then you can see our transportation master plan 2825. What happens when I Google stuff? Yeah, I know. I'm looking at it right now. It's on. Keep going. Let's see here. Right there. Functional class. Yeah, I think it's existing functional class. Is that existing? says existing. Yeah, existing. Okay, collector road. That's the one.

So, this is like the green would be the like planned collector. Oh, is it? Yeah. So, it's supposed to be a minor arterial, which is only 66. Where' that table go? minor arterial is an 80 foot right away. Okay, that's what I remember. Okay, so that so the 80 foot would be for a thou for 10,00 right?

So there's there's if I may there's a couple of things that um would drive the improvements up on this road. Um first obviously the level of service would have to diminish to the point where the city has to take action on it. Um it's less desirable because the level of service deteriorating means that the road is not functioning like it should. Um so we need to work with developers and development in the area to help them pay for some of the costs of the impact that they will have on this existing roadway. um that would be done through a traffic study and it would be based largely on the density that's proposed on the development. So obviously more density means more car trips, but that also means that the road would have to change more to accommodate those additional car trips. Um it also means that the developer can anticipate greater profits from the development of the property. We're not interested in profits necessarily for the developer, but then we can put proportionate exactions on the developer to say you have to participate to the amount per rata amount of the impact that you're having on the existing infrastructure. And that means everything from roads to water, sewer, um storm drain, all of the above. And

that is what is the order of operations there when it comes to project management? They I'm assuming they do infrastructure stuff first since you're excavating. Correct. Yeah. You're not you the road would have to be brought up to whatever standard is required prior to any lots going in and any um any new homes going in because the impact starts as soon as you build the first house. Yeah. So you would want the all of the infrastructure in place before you start selling houses. So that includes the water tank

potentially. Now there are some that is some development up here that is at an elevation that could be serviced by the existing water line. The the question about uh the pressure that's available up there is a valid question. It's not a question of capacity. It's a question of pressure. We have plenty of water. We just don't have the pressure to service above a certain elevation.

Where does the water currently come from? The water comes from wells and uh basically our our whole system. It's all integrated into one big system. Um, there are tanks that are up on the hill that service the water and provide the pressure, but we need to work with developers and we we met with them earlier today to uh work out a a schedule um to get additional tanks built up further up on the hill and um make that pressure available and the capacity available for the additional development that we're anticipating in the area. Would it help existing people that already live up there to have better pressure? Yeah, 100%.

And these are the underground water tanks, right? Not the cute ones with T Mountain City written on them. Yeah, there'll be much. You'll see the secondary reservoirs and they're next to them, but no, we are not putting culinary tanks out in the daylight. Fine. So, they're going to help me. It's wells up on the hill or is it wells under the bottom that we're pumping? from Deweyville. Yeah. And the Bear River. Oh, we don't pull water out of the Bear River. You can drink that if there's a well on the Bear River. There's one close to the Bear River. That's right. And that it's over in close to Deweyville.

And there are well other wells other places. Um we're actually working with u conservancy district to pull water from the bot well pocket. And we're also looking at potentially acquiring other wells in the area potentially. Um but those the water quality as you move to this area the water quality diminishes fairly rapidly. There's a lot more dissolved solids and and mineral content. So pulling water out of the bath well pocket is problematic. You can put our good water in with that and it brings it down to a level where it's acceptable. But, um, that's again, these are solutions that are expensive and and more long-term kinds of things.

Okay. If we put roundabouts on either side of this road, the trucks aren't going to be able to go through there. That'd be great. Just saying. I I had a question about that. I don't think the trucks are even allowed on that section. They're not supposed to be, but with the I thought that they weren't supposed to be, but they they are not supposed to be. as I work for a trucking company in Tmont. They are not supposed to be going on that road. The employ but maybe we could even just go and connect the dots and put some signage right as you get off the freeway that says do not turn right or left depending on which way you're coming from

in this spot because this is like a residential neighborhood like you got to go down to the next exit and flip come back around. That's going to be on you do though. Well, if we put it on the city street though and make them turn around at the road shed or something, you know, or at the at the hill. I mean, even if we just tell Stokes to put a sign out on there, do they have a sign up there saying no right turns? There used to be one that was up there, but I don't It's really more of an enforcement question. Our police have been up there and aware of it and they're trying to keep tab. No, they're not, but they're pulled in a lot of different directions and so they're never there. or

so from my previous question, this is the idea, right, for exits from that development and to resolve traffic on that 1,00 hour is to expand the road and have sidewalks put in.

Right. So, we would work with the developer to put in some of those off-site improvements on 1000 North as and it would be a prorish air. the city would be on the hook for some because that's an existing road and the development because of the impact of the potential development um we would require them to put in some of those improvements as well. So we'd work together on it and with more impact than it has obviously that we can require more from them exactions is what it's called.

That makes sense. Well, and really the moral of the story, I guess, of the vision is it seems like it's a lot of traffic, but when you actually do the study on it, um, I'm betting that it can take a lot more than it seems like it can. And the traffic study goes through and basically parses out and says, "Okay, which ones are turning right? Which ones are turning left?" Because some are going to go to the freeway, some are going the other direction. But so really, our job is really to let the code do that. like the traffic study is what they're going to analyze and let the professionals tell us what really the code allows on a road of that scope. Uh because it's really hard to like guess from this angle where we don't even know exactly what's going to be built at this stage. All we know is it could range from 50 homes to I just calculated it up to 486. Well, 585 if we changed the zoning, 486 if we didn't as far as max capacity on the PUD setup, you know. So, until we actually have a design and, you know, can quantify that plus all the other existing development with a traffic study, the traffic is hard to analyze from our angle. You know what I mean?

With that note, if

it's one of I'm sorry. It's one of the reasons why we don't discuss a lot of the specifics at this point in the the question because um there are constraints that are brought to bear. You have to assume that the maximum number of lots will go in on the property when you make these kinds of decisions. That's the assumption that you should start at. And I don't mean to call it the worst case scenario, but that's that's what it is. If if it is allowed by the code, what you're saying is when changing the zone that this is acceptable and we will work with you up to this point as allowed by the code. If you don't want that, that's your choice. But that's what the developer is asking for on the property. And again, there's all once the zoning is allowed, then all of the rest of the constraints come in, including topography, um, storm water capacity, water availability, road capacity, all of the other infrastructure concerns come into play. But until that point, the developers don't know what to plan for because the zoning is currently what it is, and they're asking for something different.

Yeah. Well, and we probably should clean up a bunch of the comments that were made earlier just because there's a whole bunch of uh fallacies and things that are not true that we probably should clean up. The biggest one being uh the PUD is already currently allowed at the R112 zone. I just looked it up. Uh so currently in its current zone it would allow up to 486 units and it does allow multif family technically in the in the PUB if if they choose that route

if they chose that and they have to meet the points and that was going to be part of my conversation was I wondered if we should even and maybe it's in conjunction with your conversation but maybe we should have the conversation of what if we allow them to have points to help us improve improve sidewalks and the roads and stuff that really isn't necessarily their requirement. Cuz really, I mean, if it's really that big of a demand, it should have been the requirement of the subdivisions that already came in to pay for those things. You know what I'm saying? I mean, if the road if the problem already exists, it's not necessarily all born by a future development necessarily.

But it is it is also a dynamic relationship, right? There's as as things change, other things change with it. And so you're kind of like, well, now we need to readjust. Yeah. Infrastructure wise or or every

But it may make sense for us and the city to say, hey, you know, work out an arrangement like the proposal would could potentially be. My personal opinion is a development of this scope will fix almost all of those problems that they mentioned because they're going to have to put in water tanks and they're going to have to prove pressures. They're going to have to put in multiple additional accesses that's going to fix the fire. You know what I mean? They're going to have multiple ways to get in so that we don't have a disaster like the gas line issue. Um, it's also going to fix the sidewalk problem because as you know, we've changed the code over the years that we now require sidewalks, but when their subdivisions went in, the sidewalks weren't required.

Required. Yeah. And so, you know, now it's essentially born on the city that all of us that already paid for our sidewalks now have to pay for their sidewalks in the future, which is unfortunate, but the code is now different and will require them to meet all of these things in order to develop. Uh, you know, which I understand nobody wants develop in their backyard. I get it. Um, but they also the people next door didn't want them there either. You know what I mean? like we all have to work together somewhat. Um there was a few other things I think we should address. The sidewalks will have to be added in the new development of course. Um water pressure. Is that not a code requirement?

Yes. Yeah, of course it is. So when they come I thought it was but so when they come in in order to put a development they've got to prove that they're not going to further diminish the existing pressure problem and they're also going to have to add tanks and everything in order to go above the line. Correct. So the line um it's the you're not seeing the property outline but it it's roughly the middle east and west in the middle and it's a big red line and you can't build above that line. And you guys are familiar with it because Yeah. You see that where the development already goes is the max pressure line. That's right. Yeah. That's where fire flow and all kinds of other good things and Yeah. Yeah.

But like the person, you know, where I've been on the fire department and we've had when I've been up on there, we've had to use multiple pumpers that pump up to the pumper that is actually discharging the water from a lower elevation. And so we're laying out a lot of line and each foot, you know, as each foot go in height, we're losing so much percentage and it takes a lot. So yeah, and connectivity within the pressure systems will help that. So as we get roads connected in and those water lines connect into each other, you're going to be able to pull water from multiple directions where right now up

each road, you're going one source. So you're in one tank, you're going one line, you're you're as bottlenecked as can. So with this development, you'll be able to have some redundancy in the pressure systems that will help not only with the pressure, but the serviceability in emergencies. What's what's the requirement for those water tanks when as far as capacity goes? The city engineer will judge that based on the densities in the units and and what the service area he's anticipating in terms of erus are. Are those usually like I mean what's wrong on the topic? If fires happen is that in the equation or is that separate

part of it? So they they try to bake into that there's a balance between requiring too much of the developer and getting everything that we want out of the developer, right? Um because if but it's also I mean we don't want them to burn down, right? 100%. like and if if everybody's taking a shower and somebody house starts on fire, it's like, well, sorry, you know, that's not ideal. But really, the situation is that's an existing problem. The problem is already there. This development is actually going to be required to fix that problem because they're not going to be able to make it worse. Like they've got to make they've got to prove with the engineering that whatever they're going to do is going to help not make it worse, you know? and and really the other important

but if help is meet the bare minimum requirement for your faucet but it doesn't cover the requirement for a semi decent scale fire in a development this big just fall apart round numbers you're looking at a 2 million gallon tank I would guess um between this and the other development that's anticipated up on the hill we want to be able to service all of the homes that are planned for up there um just for example And for reference, the one that's up there now, I believe, is a half million gallon tank. So 500,000 gallons. And on a fire, I mean, you're burning through that quick. Oh, wow. Why didn't they require more?

Well, I don't know. And to be completely honest, I don't know how any of this got through as a planner. This is the kind of thing that keeps me up at night literally and figuratively. Um, I I don't I don't know. This is really, really bad planning. Is it old? Really old. No. Uh, some of these homes are relatively new and I don't I honestly don't know how it got approved the way it is. There was a lot of rough planning during that time. A lot going on in Tmont during that time. There's a little Our neighborhood has some issues like that, too. Yeah, it's it's it's Yeah.

Well, we should talk about a few things like that. So, I've been working on a development where we've had to prove all of this because we're putting in tanks up in Idaho in a project. So that a huge dramatic fire, you know, on a home would be 100,000 150,000 gallons. So we're not talking like like if you if you if you had a 2 million gallon tank and you put 2 million gallons on a fire, that whole side is flooded. Like it's a disaster. So like 500,000 gallons is more than you think. And like on the project we're doing, we're putting in a couple hundred homes and those are going to require 150,000 gallons available for any fire, which is way more than the code even requires at that particular That's 150 for the whole 100 homes.

Yes. Because you can't you can't store enough water to burn up, you know, the whole subdivision. Normally you have a fire, you got to put out a home or maybe it spreads to another one, but um but we have do you know how much how many gallons we have now in storage? Altogether, I think it was about three million throughout the whole city. For the whole city. It's kind of what I was thinking. Like if you have a downtown fire like that commercial building that is raging and we put a couple hundred thousand gallons on it. Uh you know, Yeah. It's like a drop in a bucket.

Yeah. I mean, yeah. We want to limit because they're draining those tanks. And if we if the whole main street starts on fire, which is probably why they said, "Hey, we need to control and limit because we might need all four million gallons to put that whole Main Street out because it was a mess." But but in a normal house fire, I mean, 150,000 gallons is is a lot and generally is still going to flood multiple neighbors. Is this is this considered secondary? No, this is separate from secondary. Yeah, the secondary is different, but the other time we use secondary is if there's no water resource and there's a pond or whatever, then we'll drop a hose in and draft from there. But

yeah, I would like as far as the infrastructure, they're they're going to have different sources of water watering their grass versus what they're using for the fire. the secondary I think wasn't the developer looking at putting retention basin ponds up there too to hold they'll have to they have to meet all the code all the secondary requirements the secondary piping all that stuff to be able to water the lawns and the really important point here and I know everybody's brought it up but when we do this when we do the zone even when we do the subdivision we're not guaranteeing any of these people that there will be any water period at all

like we're just saying hey if you were to build on And if you submit a building permit, then we'll allocate the water. So the zoning and even the subdivision and even all of that doesn't necessarily allocate any water from the city at at all. So like if the city ran out of water, there was a moratorum, all those homes would not get water unless they have an active approved building permit prior to the moratorium in place. Does that make sense? So we're not we're not here to decide whether there's water or not. That's for the higher-ups to decide and the engineers to quantify. You know what I mean? They've got to decide, okay, do we have enough water? And it's more than just water. It's like, do we have the fire flow? Do we have fire hydrants? Do we, you know, like the fire department has to approve all these plans. It all has to go through the engineers and quantify. So really, all of those questions are not necessarily brought up at this stage of the game traditionally. But it's like we can't help all these people unless we have someone to bring in some money. Like the city's not can't afford to give them a bigger water tank and help their water pressure and widen the road. There are definitely competing interests in in this kind of uh situation where the developer has the right to develop and that right is guaranteed by ordinance and by state statute and by all kinds of like the constitution of the United States and all of those things the the property owners have rights and if we have zoned the property and we have he's requesting a change to the zone but he can develop according to the current zoning right now. is um and we have to meet somewhere in the middle, right? The the people have expressed concerns about uh traffic and sidewalks and safety and water flow and the city wants to respond to those. If I may be so bold to I don't speak for the city

council, but um cities are are set up to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their residents, businesses, and um homeowners. And we we need to protect that health, safety, and welfare. And the way to do that is through uh levying taxes and to use those taxes to make sure that those three things, health, safety, and welfare are being addressed. Um, if the road is unsafe, we've heard that. The question is, how do we make sure that it is more safe? How do we get there? And one of the best and easiest solutions is to work with developers to come to an equitable solution where they put in a little bit, the city puts in a little bit, and we all get what we need and want out of that new roadway. Bill, if I can to further tag on to that, this is this is the importance of code and this is the importance of writing code and keeping on top of code. Now, I can't speak for what happened prior, but this is the importance of the foundation that we have now for the implementation of things that are in place for the existing code. And so, that's where you get these requirements for lighting, street lights, sidewalks, different things of this nature. And you know, so this is another thing that's important, another way that we deal with the health and safety within the community. I make a motion we table the proposal and go back to the developers and ask them to bring forth any ideas they have to address some of these major concerns that we would have adding up to 99 potential units you know including traffic water pressure you know the things that I'm sure they've already been working on and maybe even bring a proposed uh sketch plan of what they may develop if approved and also So what

they could potentially offer if we were to bend on the bonus points to address some of the other concerns that really aren't their problem completely. That's a big motion. I'm sorry. It's a bit. Uh I'll second that motion and moved. Can you repeat it? No, I can't.

We're tableabling it. That's a That's what it is. There you go. And seconded that we table 6B, the discussion and consideration proposed reszoning from R12 to R110 for the overlook development um with the caveat to bring the developer in and basically have the contingency. Yeah, we're kind of asking for the cart before the horse somewhat, but maybe if they've got far enough along, they might be able to help us feel a little bit better about the difference between the the density, you know, what are we what what is the city and the neighbors and everybody going to get to allow them to have 99 additional units max. Does that make sense? That's what I'm looking for. And you're you're just saying from going from R112 to R110, not also what it would look like if it stayed R12.

Well, I'm saying if it stays R1 plans for R112, bring those. And if they have plans for R110, bring those and then they can or no. Oh, if they have them. Yeah. Whatever they've got. I mean, I think we got to ask them. It helps to show context, too. Like we have discussed a number of pros that I think everyone in this room would probably say yes to widening widening the roads increasing water pressure sidewalks sidewalks. I mean we'll have we'll we'll we'll I'm glad to hear your comments about this, but just thinking it out loud like this doesn't this isn't a zero sum scenario from what it sounds like. I mean, if there's problems that exist and they're willing to solve those problems, that's a bonus.

Well, and then it doesn't include. So, go ahead. One other thing, it might even be a pattern that we might can work together if there's multiple other potential developments that are going to connect the dots. It's it's almost it's going to need to be addressed between all the developers and the city in all of that kind of at the same time where it could be an opportunity to fix the problems that are previously approved as problems. You know, as part of the future development as it comes. We literally met with uh three of the major property owners up there earlier today about these exact issues. So yes, you're 100% correct.

Okay. So moved and seconded. All of that. Yep. Those in favor? Yes. Those opposed? Okay. The motion is or the business 6B is tabled. Uh comment. Public comment three after 6. Okay. Same rules, three minutes and all that jazz.

Okay. Christine, again, thank you. I want to thank you for tableabling it. I like the strategy of moving forward and working with the developers to get a better generalized plan. As you are working with the developers as a city and as a a committee, please take our suggestions as well and we will work on our side to give you our perspective and our view as citizens so that you can have all the information in September. So, thank you for that question that I did have is um the PUD on R12 zoning. How I did not was not aware that it's already approved with a PUD. How do I find that information? And can you give me more information on how that there I thought it was just a zoned as R12, but it's already zoned as an R12 with an additional PUD. To my understanding, PUDS had to be done separately. So, can you expound upon that?

Yeah, if you just Google PUD Tremont City ordinance, it's chapter 1.33. Okay. But basically, the PUD is allowed on any parcel. Is that So, it's not an overlay, just a PUD. There's a general PUD that applies to all. I was I thought that once there was a zoning change, then they had to apply for a separate PUD. No, because what what we were doing, we we had the issue that the city and everybody was upset of these overlay zones that things were happening between city and developer without the public's knowledge. So, we went and said, "Okay, if we're going to allow it, you know, we're going to have it for everybody." Yes. It's going to be for everybody. So, it's like a big overlay and it and it has to meet requirements

kind of. There's a whole bunch of like points. They have to meet a point system and it's basically and that's all in chapter 1.33. Yes. And it goes through it very clearly on what they have to do to meet the points and they have to give there's a whole ton of options there. Okay. So, so any Okay, that that is great information that I did not have. So, thank you so much. I think it still does need to be approved. Does it still need to be approved with the with their plans if that makes sense? Is it approved at the same time that you change the zoning then? No. No. No. So, it's a separate thing. It's it's just it just makes the process longer than it sounds like. But, but if they meet it, if they meet what it says, we have to But but it's good. It's good because it allows for more dialogue, right? Helps developers to understand, oh, if we want to have more houses here, we

then they then they already understand because there's a PUD there, but they they have to get their development approved and then they have to get the PUD approved for that specific development. It's together. It's together. It's all one. Yeah. One. But but the reasoning for it, we were realizing every time we were doing a a different change in zoning or a developer was coming in, there were specific like contracts being set for every single developer. Gotcha. And some of those were talking in different directions. They were doing different and and it was like not fair. Really wasn't fair one. And and probably not it was a better this is a better way. This is a more even and fair way to do it for everybody.

So, so go through and read the chapter 1.33. Then I can understand the PUB over the PUDS. We're reducing city liability all while trying to make it okay. The one thing keep in mind as you go through that we we really set up a base standard for any PUD in the city. Okay. So when you read that, understand that these are the minimum requirements for a PUD. Okay. And if you they're going to be governed by a development agreement. I think that's one of the first points is that there is a development agreement that's required between the developer and the city. Okay.

And it protects the rights of the of the property owner, but also protects the interests of the city and allows for a more flexible application of certain standards in the code. Okay. So the minimum standards are there but other things that could be more flexible such as if you give us open space we'll give you kind of the points that he was saying yes in this area then we will give you that they have to sacrifice something if you do smaller lot sizes and you have smaller yards on the land a bonus to developer that's a bonus to developer they have to sacrifice somewhere else doing something

so as a community and as a neighborhood if we put together a plan and say hey these are things that we want when you're discussing with them. We would these these points we want we want like a walking trail or different things so that they they know that maybe we would we would sacrifice on certain areas on our viewpoints as well. That's something that we could work at as a community. Right. Yes. I'm sure. Yes. The only thing caution is that we're limited as to what we can require. I agree. Yeah. It needs to be it's called in the legal term it's called a rough proportionality.

Okay. between the the anticipated benefit to the city and what is being required of the developer and the costs that are is tied up in that. So it needs to be a rough proportionality balance between the what's being required and what's the benefit is and it's all based on the zone. It's based on this negotiation. The negotiation but each the individual contract that you have development. The development that's what I meant the development agreement. Okay. I'm learning. Thank you. Thank you. Question

further public comment. So I have a question. One of the things you're consider that could be a consideration is widening. You say you'd say your name real quick. Michelle Martino. Sorry. Widening 1000 North. Correct. Um is that what is the legal requirement for a house to be sitting how far away from the road? Because if you're going to widen that very far, you're going to have to take out houses on one side or the other because both sides of the roads are houses are right built up already to the road. M. So that means you're going to require houses to be bought out.

And then is that really feasible because who has the money to pay to buy out all those houses all the way up the road on one side or the other to widen the road? Good question. Well, it partially depends on the traffic study because the traffic study may say my gut is that it's not even close to widening the road. Uh just because that road can handle a lot more traffic than you think. It might not be comfortable, but Yeah. I I I I understand, but I live on that road and there are times of the day that I cannot get out of

I have a great big giant uh driveway and I can't get out of it because cars are streaming down the road down the radio hill and there are cars coming off of 2300 West as fast as they can to beat the traffic down the road and there's no way that all those people can get out of their driveways. So the traffic study that's what it counts is it does peak hour traffic. So, and they'll actually come out there and count the people and they'll count all the movements and then they'll put it all together. They have a model that a computer will say, "Okay, based on this, this road is going to fail at this stage." And then the developer then would be required to make it not fail and work it out with the city. And

and and I I know you say, you know, I mean, that's one of the proposals to widen the road and you're saying, well, that's probably we're probably way far away from that, but addressing it as an infrastructure issue is really the main thing we're meaning, right? Right. If if that is honestly going to be one of your reasons to address, you need to you know there need it needs to be feasible. Yeah. That that it really can happen. Well, that's what they have to have the engineers help us prove because we can't make them widen the road if the road is adequate.

I mean, the road is adequate. In fact, the road traffic now if it's if it's a lot, the city would have to bear that cost as of today. and then any additional traffic. So if it was they're adding 20%, the city would have to pony up 80 and the developer would have to pony up 20 for their proportionality. And and when you look at, you know, and you look at the road and you you know, you're you're out there. I'm not sure exactly what the but you're out there 3,500 west or whatever. You know, there's not that much traffic. But as you get closer and closer and closer and you get to 2,300 west, and then everything filters in,

filters in to 2300 west. And between 2,300 west and 1,000 west, you're going to have a whole heck of a lot of traffic. And then you've still got homes on the one side and businesses on the other that you're going to have to buy out if when that and and is that who's going to pay for that? Who who's going to pay to buy out those houses to widen that road?

Well, and usually I mean some of it's going to go to the freeway. Some of it's going to go to the next road up that would be north that'll connect all these developments together, you know. So the traffic will have to give us one second. Give us one second. Hold on. We're going to continue the public comment section. If you do want to come up, come. Go ahead. More than happy to hear you. That's what it's like living on Main Street. Yeah. Times on Main Street. It's been

Go ahead, Russell Scott. Again, uh just going back to the road up there that they uh fixed in between McDonald's Road and up to about 2700. Uh they did widen it. Uh they put the two lanes and then they put the the suicide lane in the middle and then sorry that's what I call it. Um but they only put sidewalk on one side curb gutter and sidewalk on one side because they don't have the room. So when you saw that plan that said 66t wide

that's the hope and it's not what's up there. So, and then another question to all y'all. How many of you have driven up there? During the day when all this is going on? Oh, yeah. Yeah. Like you said, I work I work with a fire department. I've been on ambulance, fire trucks. Yeah. Yes. I know what you're talking about. You you could see what it's like. Yes. And then

how many of you have been up there during the day when the kids are in school? That's the other thing to really look for. Um during school times and that when I come out, I head to the road sheds to get on the freeway because I don't want to drive down that way with all the kids.

Thank you. Any further public comments? David Jones again. One of the things I don't think you're addressing is the difference between R10 and R12 and the additional 100 homes plus 200 more cars. And we're talking about just traffic. But every every home causes more problems and more in infrastructure. And that's the what we're we would like to develop and we're we're for progress, but we don't want to overdo. We would like to remain kind of a rural city and an extra extra more smaller lots, more congestion. it. We would like to to see it done uh with a good plan involved and not just pack everything in as much as we can get in in that area. So, I would encourage you to uh keep it as R12. Thank you.

Thank you,

Jamie Pleton. And I really wasn't going to say anything tonight about any of this that's going on, but something just popped into my head when chairman Kate or sorry when when Micah asked for the drawings and some of the information to come back to have it be tabled till that discussion can can go further. Is there a way to also include in some of that what amount these homes are going to cost? If we're dealing with all of this as a whole for the community for extra development, for extra homes, are affordable housing homes going to fit into this? Is that going to be part of a requirement? And again, what are part of those affordable housing numbers? We know what they are. We know some people can't afford them because some people don't make the amounts they need to make to afford a home. So when that information is given to you, in my opinion, I believe from the developer, that could be a little bit of useful information to come along with that. And it's just a thought. So thank you.

Thank you. Question. Are you making a comment as a member of the public? I just wanted to respond to that because I think that's a great comment and a good question. Is everybody else done with their comments real quick? You don't have to be not trying to show you out the door, but seeing that we're kind of wrapping up, we're going to close,

right? He's going to be part of the planning commission's comments and reports part. We're going to close com public comment three and move to 7 comments and reports. Bill,

um well, first off to address Jaime's comment, which I think was a spot-on, wonderful, benevolent kind of comment to think about people in um how we can help people who are in need of affordable housing to uh find a place to stay in Tmont. I think that's wonderful. Then um we have baked into the PUD ordinance a one of the points that you can get is uh for affordable housing. What's the percentage?

20 20% additional bonus density if it's a deed restricted affordable uh housing unit. And um that's defined by state code, not by our local ordinance. But um that they can get all of those units up to 20% basically for free. It doesn't count against their other their other density. Entitled units. What? It doesn't count towards their entitled unit. Yeah. So if if you're entitled for 400 units, you get up to 20% of those additional units if they are restricted as affordable housing. So

80 more. It's pretty hard to meet that number though. It is hard to meet that number. That's an upper limit, but it's also something that uh we put in there as as an incentive hopefully for developers to at least explore the idea of putting in affordable homes. And there's a number of ways that they can do it. We've been working with Pleasant Homes on some different ideas that they're using um provide affordable or attainable housing and they're not having to go the the deed restricted route. They're just finding that they can build smaller homes at a a reasonable price and they sold out what within a week.

All of the units that they had available in this affordable housing bracket sold out in a week. So where is this? It's in It's JDC Ranch. It's in between Plain City and Far West in North Weaver County. Um really a very attractive product product. If you're ever in the area, uh I would highly recommend just drive through there. It's it's you wouldn't think that these are affordable housing units, but they really are. And it's uh it's an amazing kind of uh creative product. So, Bill, we should clarify one word. Technically, it's considered moderate income rather than affordable. Thank you. Okay.

Just because affordable is technically a little bit different animal than moderate income technically. Thank you. Fair point, Bill. What is affordable housing? Affordable housing is housing that is affordable. What is the cost of a home? Oh. Um, so if the area median income is around $80,000, I think that's pretty close. 73.

Um then, and I'm just using round numbers, so forgive me if I'm not down to the penny on it, but around $80,000. Um then affordable would be 80% of that, which is around $64,000. And then again, the simple math when it comes to how much house you can afford based on your income is you take your yearly and triple it, and that's how much home you can afford as affordable housing. Moderate income is a little bit different. It stretches between 80 to 120% of area median income. So like that triple 80,000

you triple 80,000 and you get um 240,000 that's what the median income earning household in our area can afford. And again if you know of a house like that let me know. So well that's what I was going to say. It's not even possible to build anything affordable these days. Well, well, that's not to that definition.

We've we've had I mean, and I I I kind of wish that the gentleman who who uh made his comment about the R120 zone had stayed because I I would like to have a conversation with him about it. I think most people when you start talking I I didn't before I was even, you know, on the planning commission, I didn't understand what R1 blah blah blah blah blah blah blah after that meant. And since then, I've tried to translate it and make it make sense. But my house is an R18. That's what I've learned. Three-bedroom, two bath house. Like that is basically what you'd consider to be a starter home in this market that we exist. And I was talking to Micah before, we're talking about dynamic scenarios, right? Like we're living through history. We're all in this weird time of of history where things that were the way they were are not there anymore.

Yeah. I I the house that I'm in would reasonably go for about 360 to 380. And that's probably if I just didn't do a single thing and didn't even try. And that would probably go tomorrow if I did. If I was like, well, let's see, you know, played the market, it it'd probably go for four, but that's a starter home. It's a heavy lift, I'll tell you right now, to do that. Well, then you add current interest rates,

and that's R18. So, if you go to R110, which is a quarter, less than a quarter of an acre still, but are closer to a quarter of an acre lot, the houses tend to get bigger. You know, you're you're going further. I mean, I'm just looking up on Utah real estate. I mean, a quarter acre about 570. That's a three bed, two bath house, 3,400 square ft. There's three houses in my in Chhattas going for that much on a quarter acre lot. And what what lots are they? They're R18. R18, right? Yeah.

So, still R18s and it's still almost without with, you know, outside of reach of a of a new homeowner. Yeah. you know, I'm qualifying people. I I do I do that and that's just the truth. You need two incomes and they've got to be making bank. Don't don't expect mom to stay home with kids very long cuz it's just not going to happen. So the the question for why high density is a loaded question. What is high density? You know, we talk every I think people when they say high density or think high density, they think it's going to be

20 20 town homes. when we're talking about R18, that is not 20 town homes. But that's what we're discussing when we're saying, you know, if it's R18, yeah, it's going to be smaller lots, but they're they're going to be homes that people will be proud of and they'll be happy to live in.

R110 similar, right? Um, so just to keep that in in perspective, I I need to I need to do that. And then the Y high density. I heard questions about water cost, infrastructure needs. All of those are actually partially not not completely but partially addressed when you can have developers sell more homes. I mean, we can try. I mean, and that's like I think tableabling it was a great idea tonight cuz we can we can go to the developer and we can say, "Okay, what does it look like if this, you know, like for example, the gentleman, if we were to make this R120, what would it look like? What would it look like in your financials? What would it look like in our project? What we need as a city? What things could be resolved?" I think that's a wise path forward. I think it's a good perspective to have. Um, but I think we would come to find real quick that the quote unquote high density numbers, which is still again a standard single family home for the most part, uh, the things that we're wanting, the things that we're needing are actually they're helped out quite a bit. If it's not resolved, man, I don't know how I would hate to say I don't want I say I don't want to pay taxes for anything extra personally.

Anybody I don't think anybody wants to pay taxes for it. The fastest fast. It's been moved to wejourn. Second. All in favor? Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Thank you for a nice name.