I believe that there are more ways to connect with the community than the 20 people who can go to the meetings. I want all residents of South Weber to feel involved and know what is going on in the city. I want to increase communication, transparency and understanding between officials and residents. I believe I can do better at getting information to the residents, as I have in this blog. I am an official registered candidate, a vote for me will count! #swmorethan20
Trying something new this recap, live video! Feel free to watch the full meeting down below. Check out the minutes and the packet for more information.
Hello South Weberites! A hot item right now is underway regarding the hash-marked properties on the general plan. Some quick backstory - the hash marked properties have been on the plan since 2014 and stated it was areas where commercial could be mixed with a high density of residential. After the 2020 plan surveys returned, it was clear the citizens did not favor this. The hashmarks were revisited by a committee of council members and planning commissioners.
The idea of master planning these properties (requiring the entire parcel to be developed as one cohesive project) was still favored by many because the properties are so large and many preferred a cohesive complete project over splitting parcels. While some favored removing any concept of residential, others worried it could remove the potential of a great development. The compromise was to allow a developer to present a commercial + residential project if they wanted, but there was no legal requirement for council to approve it. In order for a developer to proceed, it would need to first get approval of a development agreement passed successfully through council.
As I have heard from many of you, I realize this process needs more clarity. While original feedback regarding residential was against higher densities, I have heard from some residential would be acceptable on these properties within reason if it brings a valuable commercial project to the city. I would like to get more info from you, my constituents, regarding these hashmarked properties - particularly the Poll property (10 acres) west of Highmark and the Stephens property (17 acres) at the corner of 475 E and Old Fort Road near I84.
I would like to hear from you on the following options:
A. No residential regardless of the density. Commercial only that is master planned.
B. Residential could be allowed as long as the portion that is residential does not exceed 7 units per acre. (If 6 acres is residential, than 42 units).
C. Residential could be allowed and based off of the entire parcel size at R7 zoning. (If the property is 10 acres, 70 units regardless how much of the property is actual residential.)
D. Higher densities up to a certain point (for example, no more than 10 units per acre) could be considered and calculated off the entire parcel area.
D. Remove the requirement of master planning and development agreement and only allow commercial and follow regular zoning processes.
I am happy to have you leave your responses below, but not all council members will see it. Feel free to send us an email at publiccomment@southwebercity.com to relay your thoughts.
Here is the recap for city council meeting for March 9th of 2021! You can watch the entire meeting by clicking below. If you need more information, be sure to check out the packet and the minutes.
<
•YCC Logo: The YCC has created a logo for the Youth City Council. To date, the YCC has never had their own independent logo and felt they needed to be able to stand out and decipher themselves apart. They created their own logo and brought it forth to the council for approval, which passed unanimously.
•Poll Property Proposal: I have gotten a lot of questions, texts and phone calls on this property so I want to take a little more time with this. I will also attach a picture of the proposal below. This proposal came before the planning commission late last year and the council last month and is coming back again after further feedback. They are proposing approximately 15,000 sq ft of commercial space fronting South Weber Drive with 100 townhomes in the back/south part of the property – removing the apartments that were previously presented and lowering the units from 172 to 100. They are presenting three phases with both residential and commercial. This property requires a development agreement because it is cross hatched on the general plan, which indicates the property must be master planned -meaning the whole property must be developed in one uniformed piece rather than in pieces to ensure uniformity. Because there is no code or ordinances, the council is to create a development agreement that will address many items usually within a zone such as density allowed, percentage of commercial and others. Staff will work with the council to create a development agreement which will then move to the planning commission to review for a recommendation. The council in this instance has the ability to legislate what this area will look like with regards to many items that are typically within the zone. The council deliberated at length regarding the amount of commercial and specifically residential that should be allowed. The council had difficulty as roughly 2 acres of the parcel are not developable due to the slope and deliberated if acreage on undevelopable land should be included in the density calculation. After much deliberation, 3 council members agreed to allowing 100% of the parcel being included to calculate for an R7 zone (75 units). Two council members felt that only the portion that is residential should be included in the calculation of R7 and the percentage of residential needed to be addressed. Councilwoman Alberts requested that the development agreement be worked on without developers present and with staff only for all future meetings. The development agreement will be tied to the concept plan.
The next steps in this process is for the committee members (Councilwoman Petty and Councilman Halverson) to work with staff to create a development agreement that includes among other things; the amount of allowed residential, the amount of property allowed to calculate residential, the amount of commercial and other standards. Once that step is completed, it will come to the council for review and vote. If the development agreement passes, the process will then begin again in Planning Commission for a recommendation, using the development agreement and concept plan as a reference point. Staff is currently working on when the most appropriate time for public hearings would be. At this time, it is anticipated one will happen when/if the development agreement comes for a vote before the council and then again at the planning commission preliminary plan. I will keep you all posted of course.
•Paramedic Interlocal Agreement: This agreement has been in the workings for a couple of years now and was finally able to be signed by all communities in Davis County. This will transfer the paramedic license from the county to South Weber City. This agreement will mean a truth in taxation will happen at the city level August of 2021, but it *will not* mean an increase of taxes for our citizens. It will allow the funds that currently go to the county for paramedic services to come to the city instead. Ken Letham with Davis County praised the work of all the communities involved and everyone is looking forward to an easy transition. The city will also be actively working to receive grants to help us with this process.
•RV Park Development Agreement Amendment: The owner of the RV park came before the council requesting to amend the original development agreement on 2 fronts. One was regarding the cable wire fencing we required of the park along I-84. UDOT informed the owner that the cable wire would not be required. The owner is requesting to instead install an 8’ solid concrete wall in its place. The owner also requested changes to the landscaping plan of the park to make it more water efficient and to save money on water as they are hooked up to culinary only. The council disagreed with the changes as it would lower the quality of the park when so much grass is replaced with gravel. The council was in agreement of the solid wall.
•Digital Sign Update: The public safety committee was tasked to review the safety and measure of the city’s digital sign on the east side of town. The city has the ability to use CARES funds to replace the screen in the sign but the committee determined there was not enough time to use CARES funds to move the sign. The committee recommended that the city utilize the CARES funds to replace the screen which can be removed if the sign is to be moved. The public safety committee will continue to review the options available regarding moving the sign and the details and bring back to the council their findings. The committee also recommended dropping the speed limit in the area of Highmark to the Interstate to 35 mph as speeding and the amount of traffic has become concerning. The council agreed the best option was to have UDOT perform a speed study on the road and report their findings for the council to take direction from.
New Business:
Staff will be actively working to ensure all applicable items that passed the legislature will be addressed and accommodated and any changes or processes that need to be changed will be done.
Reports:
•Mayor Jo: Councilwomen Petty and Alberts were able to attend a meeting with the Wasatch Regional Front Council in regard to removing the connection to Layton from the WFRC map. The process will be to submit an amendment to the WFRC. The letter signed by the council was also sent to the representatives of the WFRC regarding this removal.
Councilwoman Petty: Reported that the Parks and Rec requested funds from the budget to be allocated for maintenance of trails. They also met with WFRC regarding the trailhead on Cottonwood Drive. WFRC was optimistic about widening the shoulder of the road and creating a parking lot for the traffic of the trail.
Councilmen Soderquist: Met with the gravel pits and reported they donated $80,000 this year in funds to the rec programs as part of their agreement with the city. All committees budget proposals are being reviewed as well as moving sales tax revenues to certain budgets that currently do not get any.
Councilman Winsor: The code committee is forwarding definitions on to the Planning Commission which will begin to review them in smaller bites. The committee is in the process of making plans for the future regarding getting information to the public.
