[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6479810,"mediaKeyId","5692094-59da1b180b78b4c96c64c7365fdef8dd","parentId",5692094,"title","Planning commission workshops R2A open‑space rules after council denies recent rezone; debate centers on setbacks, lot variety and open‑space size","audioSeconds",3413,"startMs",3600000,"endMs",7013000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5692094-59da1b180b78b4c96c64c7365fdef8dd&start=3600&end=7013","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5692094-59da1b180b78b4c96c64c7365fdef8dd/thumbnail_3600000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6479810/Nibley/Cache-County/Utah/Planning-commission-workshops-R2A-openspace-rules-after-council-denies-recent-rezone-debate-centers-on-setbacks-lot-variety-and-openspace-size","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6479810-8ff29e92875c504ef6b4224712317442/orig.mp4?Expires=1770490091&Signature=i9ZEFF8JvpluiEWihV-IrKuHDDMk8r2eZYv-UdBfBsGbzNufOH6Lg8gMXu-wQBJK~Cw-9BKrgBFwV7H~rKczeRfX3QrgzhvVS4iwVKmHh5bzS1nz8sPDvjfS9JXLXsh1b7Gp9P2MKjiTJNPlFjxOy5FWA9oOZjQN3CAErMHLtYos3D6wcpzGV9AlKVqNnFnzzCr~2kKnmaW5IhM~xlzrMIUZPGfDQWI8LiPBTsl2GBUluEhyI6mXi5NbU5vc7R2iN2ozOmqA7TV9h7mQJheDXZ1GUCDUGNDbsnTCZpdg1B2B~AFXR4mTJtvownzUR-N8y2DW~1Vp0P0IuAT0I7GKPA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Nibley","date","2025-08-29T00:09:43Z","article","Commissioners and city staff spent substantial time Aug. 28 discussing the R2A open‑space subdivision rules after the city council recently denied a proposal that used the R2A open‑space option. Council representation and staff joined the planning commission workshop to debrief concerns raised at council and consider code tweaks.

Commissioner discussion and council comments focused on three main concerns: buffers adjacent to existing neighborhoods, variety of lot sizes (avoidance of “cookie‑cutter” subdivisions), and the quantity and management of required open space.

Councilman Garrett (first name used in the meeting) described council concerns that the eastern edge of the proposed subdivision lacked sufficient setback and buffering from existing homes, a recurring topic among council members. “Some of the major concerns we had … was the side yard setback with the adjoining existing homes,” he said. In response, staff said the developer had offered increased setbacks on lots abutting existing homes (for example, increasing side yards on edge lots from 5 feet to 10 feet and rear yards from 15 to 20 feet in that case), but some council members remained unsatisfied.

Commissioners discussed techniques to produce more variety in lot sizes and frontages. Tom Dickinson described one approach used by another jurisdiction that required minimum percentages of frontage widths (for example, a specified share of 60‑foot, 80‑foot and 100‑foot frontages) to force variety rather than rely only on average lot size. Commissioners suggested other metrics: using the median lot size rather than the average to measure perceived variety, capping the percentage of lots below a threshold (for example, a suggested cap of 50% for lots under 6,000 square feet), or specifying minimum numbers of larger lot types.

Several participants said the current density math and bonus system affects the design outcome. Staff noted the ordinance’s bonus structure had been changed in recent iterations: previously a 40% open‑space dedication produced a 35% density bonus; the code now aligns at 40% open space with a 40% bonus in some calculations. Roberts also discussed net and gross density; staff said the base design produced roughly 3.5 units per acre, and with the density bonus the project reached about 4.2–4.3 units per acre.

Commissioners explored design flexibility options that could create visual variety without eliminating the open‑space objective: allowing limited flag lots or shared driveways to alter frontage patterns, establishing frontage‑mix requirements, or setting setbacks that increase when a new project directly abuts an established residential neighborhood. Several commissioners suggested increasing required setbacks on lots adjacent to existing homes (for example, a 40‑foot rear or side buffer in sensitive locations) to reduce perceived impacts.

The commission discussed whether the open‑space subdivision process should remain an administrative approval or become a discretionary, legislative decision (analogous to an RPUD) so council could review concept plans earlier in the process. Staff noted making the process discretionary could reduce developer uncertainty but would also add a legislative step; conversely, administrative review makes the option more feasible and predictable.

There was no formal vote on code changes. Commissioners asked staff to gather suggested edits (setback rules for abutting development, frontage‑mix or cap percentages for smaller lots, and clarified density math) and return draft language. Staff asked commissioners to submit specific proposed changes by Sept. 11 so staff can prepare redlined code language for a future meeting and for potential joint workshop with council on the general plan and future land use map.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Nibley City Planning Commission","oneSentenceSummary","Commissioners and a council representative discussed the R2A open‑space subdivision model after council denied a recent proposal. Topics included buffer setbacks next to existing homes, whether to require variety in lot frontages or sizes, density math and incentives tied to a 40% open‑space bonus.","taxTitle","Nibley , Cache County, Utah","taxId",7271,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6479814,"Planning commission recommends changes to property boundary rules to match state law, reinstates nonconforming‑lot language",1139,2337000,3476000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5692094-59da1b180b78b4c96c64c7365fdef8dd&start=2337&end=3476","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5692094-59da1b180b78b4c96c64c7365fdef8dd/thumbnail_2337000.jpg","/articles/6479814/Nibley/Cache-County/Utah/Planning-commission-recommends-changes-to-property-boundary-rules-to-match-state-law-reinstates-nonconforminglot-language","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6479814-93893515548e12e5138a872fb6366dc6/orig.mp4?Expires=1770490091&Signature=N6rffnXSpHmIMjnj0JZVv8GEBIc1AM9m8ko22xEoATHPlVO3uNU3fYXXcNy3PAc5v-clFdpHBAtAIOk0qaTRx-GZVY70UDPyOI41fYV4bY6k~pfvcNoDQb1RtqHQkDmyi08k~oxRVFZXIBeD9KlinjByfh9PPVJ78NizKbsQwVWg1Y4ZzOPO~hWXNjTDRo0nDkAjz1ybgEmu~CTysGwl0SxQncgoQ9Yf8dgi1D1eomrSF9yYPS5Q7lyvvDaqI3zID7BjDkfcXrx7cgzcdxdnr2V19Tzo-CZESTQegc0Djd0e4S--d1AAjiZA8NXGgpA9GnA4OEhh9suSlyh3kKkrDQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Nibley City Planning Commission on Aug. 28 voted to recommend approval of Ordinance 25‑30, a code update that aligns city procedures with recent state law changes for property boundary adjustments, boundary establishment, and plat amendment processes.

Lehi Roberts, city planner, summarized the state changes and how the draft ordinance adapts local code. “What’s currently in Nibley City code is parcel boundary adjustments and lot line adjustments. And the state legislature… changed the terminology. So they’re now called property boundary adjustments,” Roberts said. He explained there are two state categories: a simple property boundary adjustment (between two owners with no impacts to easements or public utilities) and a full boundary adjustment, which may require a plat amendment if the property lies within a recorded subdivision.

Roberts said the draft preserves administrative approval by the city planner or city engineer for simple adjustments and adds the recommended option to require a plat amendment for full boundary adjustments in subdivisions, following advice from the county recorder’s office. “They recommended that… it’s a little cleaner and easier to find the documentation through a plat amendment,” Roberts said.

Tom Dickinson clarified that a full boundary adjustment would trigger the plat amendment only if the properties are within an existing recorded subdivision.

Commission discussion also focused on a deleted provision about nonconforming lots. Commissioners said the existing code allowed a lot‑line/parcel adjustment for an existing nonconforming lot provided the change did not worsen conforming status for established standards such as lot size or frontage. Multiple commissioners recommended reinstating that provision to avoid creating a loophole that would make one lot less conforming to gain conformity for another.

Troy moved to recommend approval of Ordinance 25‑30 with an amendment: replace the terms “lot line/parcel boundary” with “property boundary” and restore the nonconforming‑lot provision referenced in the existing code. Claire seconded the motion. The commission voted to recommend approval with that change.

Roberts said the change chiefly updates terminology, preserves staff’s administrative authority for simple adjustments, and clarifies when a plat amendment is required for full adjustments within subdivisions.","The commission recommended approval of Ordinance 25‑30 to align local code with state changes that rename \"lot line adjustments\" to \"property boundary adjustments,\" add boundary‑establishment procedures, and require plat amendments in some subdivision cases. Commissioners moved to reinstate a code provision protecting certain nonconforming lots.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6479819,"Planning commission approves development agreement for 40‑lot Heritage Parkway subdivision",862,1313000,2175000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5692094-59da1b180b78b4c96c64c7365fdef8dd&start=1313&end=2175","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5692094-59da1b180b78b4c96c64c7365fdef8dd/thumbnail_1313000.jpg","/articles/6479819/Nibley/Cache-County/Utah/Planning-commission-approves-development-agreement-for-40lot-Heritage-Parkway-subdivision","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6479819-cc9a77a79b9ca2a8eba8a936962daa21/orig.mp4?Expires=1770490091&Signature=CdARmj9KiBs7UgC7bhfNy995X8aJ-4rxwiNoVQreFduPSdouva8ETcXB1-wD-IpV4tOB-sTl0w6H~CoVAVy8-2Bdbu0VByd9TD~VXuMTYlxcWhe~PVLiBraOs35v2MHPCuZpuIkgy67aRoRpFg6eBT3mC8HJrSjZszwk-XgcUlodbgJW3O53HDJu9EzSOtADERslsY6KRCTzfIpI4aG8Lor4btlG0LHyoBGverM4BP47EthSPLiGXHD5DyO4mBmTAKoiJIPLt3OO9rE206UMPlNa9k5HYEdL0lnttaeACKLZYPSop1LmDkgfU8lvd4vfb~d8iZzq88rx8zEYBuwOtg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Nibley City Planning Commission on Aug. 28 recommended approval of a development agreement for Heritage Parkway Subdivision, a 40‑lot, multi‑phase standard subdivision at approximately 2701 South and 1200 West.

City planner Lehi Roberts told the commission the preliminary plat already was approved by the planning commission and that the development agreement is required because the project will be built in multiple phases. “The only reason this requires a development agreement is because it has multiple phases within the development,” Roberts said, adding most of the agreement’s language is boilerplate from city code.

Commissioners and staff focused discussion on two technical items: protections tied to phasing and the mechanism for installing street trees. Tom Dickinson, city engineer, described the options when developers begin construction before final plat recordation: they may record a final plat with phased infrastructure and provide bonds for remaining improvements, and, if accepted, post a 10% warranty bond. “Once they do get all the work done, they have a couple options. They can finish a portion of the work and decide … to record that. Then they would have to provide a bond for the remaining infrastructure improvements,” Dickinson said.

Roberts explained the development agreement includes a provision on street trees: a developer may install the trees or pay a fee in lieu. The agreement left the fee blank pending contractor bids the developer will provide. “We have an option on whether the developer would put in the street trees or pay the city a fee in lieu of the trees,” Roberts said.

Commissioners pressed staff on how the city verifies tree installation and maintenance when installation is deferred until late phases. Roberts said the city typically requires trees either be included in the developer’s surety/bond or a fee paid for city installation; staff had recently asked developers to submit three bids from landscape contractors to set an appropriate fee amount. Dickinson noted the city code requires maintenance once trees are planted.

Troy moved to recommend approval of the development agreement; Claire seconded the motion. The commission voted to recommend approval; a single opposition was recorded during the vote (speaker not specified in the transcript). The commission’s recommendation is to record the development agreement with the final plat when the developer is ready to record.

The approval does not alter the previously approved preliminary plat. Roberts said construction drawings and final plat technical reviews are complete for the first phase, and the first phase already is under construction at the developer’s risk under state and city procedures.

Staff said the development agreement will be recorded alongside the final plat, and the city will collect any applicable water shares and other development fees before final acceptance. The commission did not add extra conditions beyond standard phasing and surety protections and direction to finalize the missing tree fee once bids are provided.

If the developer records portions of the project before completing all infrastructure, city code requires bonds for incomplete improvements and a 10% warranty bond after final acceptance.","The Nibley City Planning Commission recommended approval of a development agreement for Heritage Parkway, a 40‑lot, multi‑phase standard subdivision at roughly 2701 South and 1200 West. Staff said most terms follow city code; commissioners discussed street‑tree installation and phasing protections.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Planning commission workshops R2A open‑space rules after council denies recent rezone; debate centers on setbacks, lot variety and open‑space size

Planning commission recommends changes to property boundary rules to match state law, reinstates nonconforming‑lot language

Planning commission approves development agreement for 40‑lot Heritage Parkway subdivision