Nibley City planning staff presented a draft revision to the city’s open-space (conservation) subdivision rules, proposing larger setbacks where new lots adjoin existing residential property, a requirement for variation in lot sizes in larger subdivisions, and a minimum buildable area designed to ensure lots can accommodate dwellings.

City planner Levi summarized the staff draft and said the first proposed change was straightforward: "Side yards would increase to 10 feet and rear yards would increase to 25 feet," he told the commission. Levi said the rear-yard figure aligns with typical setback requirements in the underlying R‑2A zone. The draft would apply the increased setbacks where a new subdivision abuts property with residential zoning that already requires the greater setbacks.

The draft would also require variation in lot sizes for subdivisions with 40 or more lots: no more than 40% of lots could fall within a 1,500-square-foot range, which staff said would effectively force at least three different lot-size bands in large developments. To allow flexibility, the draft proposes removing minimum lot-size and frontage requirements while establishing a minimum buildable area of 1,500 square feet so lots remain feasible to develop given setback constraints.

Commissioners debated process and public input. Several commissioners, including Nick and Brett, said the current administrative approval pathway makes open-space subdivisions easier for applicants and therefore more common. Brett argued that the city should consider the balance between encouraging open-space subdivisions and adding procedural barriers. "If we add that extra layer of process, I feel like some developers, property owners would shy away from it," he said. Others asked whether the designation should be an overlay or a separate zone so that the legislative body and the public have a chance to weigh in. Anthony said he favored keeping the item administrative but including the proposed constraints; he added public feedback would be appropriate on some provisions.

Commissioners discussed practical impacts on an example subdivision the commission had reviewied previously. Staff explained that the proposed setbacks would increase buildable footprints for adjacent lots in some locations and might require designers to either shrink footprints or increase lot size. Levi illustrated with a hypothetical: on a 10-acre net site in R‑2A the density formula would still constrain the number of lots; the draft would change lot configuration, not gross density.

The commission also discussed how the city currently treats dedication of open space. Staff said if an applicant dedicates open space to the city, that transfer must be approved by city council because of maintenance and cost implications; planning commission approval would not automatically transfer maintenance responsibility. Commissioners raised the question of whether conservation easements or restrictions should prohibit future sale or conversion; staff noted that open-space areas recorded as plat reservations or easements could be changed only through additional legal actions and council deliberation.

Next steps: staff will research visual examples of subdivisions that use lot-size variation for the commission to review and will return the draft for a public hearing, likely at the Nov. 13 meeting. Levi said he will also consult planners in other jurisdictions for sample ordinance language and real-world plats. The commission did not adopt a final recommendation at the workshop stage and set follow-up work for staff.