[0:00] We got a team together. It's a little after 5:15. Thanks you guys. Um, so

[0:04] let's go ahead and get going. Let's begin with the pledge of Well, first of

[0:08] all, welcome to 2026. I guess we were a little over a month ago when we last

[0:12] met. So, uh, few items to discuss tonight. I hope everybody had great

[0:17] holidays and a happy new year. We plow into it now, huh? See what it has in

[0:23] store for us. >> Yes.

[0:24] » Uh, let's start with the pledge of allegiance. Uh, would you mind leading

[0:28] us?

[0:31] Pledge algiance algiance to the flag of the United

[0:36] States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under

[0:43] God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

[0:48] » Thank you, [clears throat] Jennifer.

[0:52] » Okay. Uh, we can start with the approval of the minutes dated September or

[0:58] December 2nd, 2025. >> I'll make a motion to approve the

[1:02] minutes dated December 2nd, 2025. >> I will second that motion.

[1:08] » Excellent. All in favor? >> I

[1:11] » I motion carries. Uh, items two and three are public hearing items. However,

[1:18] um, they're going to have to be postponed. Is that right, Faith? to uh a

[1:21] little bit future. But is there anybody here from the public that came

[1:26] specifically to address items two and three,

[1:31] which is a general plan amendment and zone change?

[1:37] If not, we do we need to have a public hearing or if if nobody's here,

[1:42] » do we need to open it? >> No, we just want to make sure

[1:44] everybody's they have a chance to talk. >> All right. So, we won't open or close

[1:48] it. Um, and we'll move on to item four, uh, public hearing. It's a zone change

[1:56] from, uh, GC to R3M. Go civil.

[2:04] » Good evening, Dallas Buckner. Go Civil. Um, this is, uh, we recently did another

[2:10] zone change right across the street, and I think I had mentioned that in this

[2:13] meeting. Um, but ironically when we sent out the notice, someone from across the

[2:18] street said, "Hey, I want to do the same thing." So, um, here we are. This is an

[2:22] existing parcel that's zoned general commercial. Um, and we're requesting a

[2:28] zone change to R3. Um the really the the reason for this is just from a lending

[2:36] standpoint on an existing house and trying to get a residential loan on

[2:43] something that's zoned commercial. So

[2:51] » any questions? >> Seems pretty straightforward. Yep.

[2:55] » Yeah. >> City have any problems with it or

[2:59] » No. >> No. No issues.

[3:02] » It is a public hearing. So, let's go ahead and open the public hearing. Is

[3:06] there anybody would like to speak to this? Which

[3:08] » piece of property is again? Was it the one that was highlighted?

[3:11] » If not, we'll turn the sign around and close the public hearing and entertain a

[3:16] motion if anybody would like to. >> Oh, okay.

[3:20] » Anybody? >> Okay. I'll make a motion

[3:24] » um to for the zone change from general commercial to R3M at the property at 491

[3:32] North 400 West. >> I'll second that.

[3:36] » Oh, sorry, Jennifer. You didn't say whether it was a positive or negative.

[3:40] » Oh, a positive recommendation. >> Sorry about that.

[3:47] » Who seconded? Who seconded that? Steve did. All right. Thank you. Um, all in

[3:53] favor? >> I.

[3:54] » Any opposed?

[3:58] » All right. Thank you. Um, public hearing is the next number five, development

[4:04] deferral agreement. Jesse, >> welcome.

[4:12] » Jesse Carter. I'm the owner of this land here. Um, so essentially what we

[4:22] are looking to do is build small single family homes on this

[4:29] portion with a twin home right here. Um, so with the from what I understand the

[4:35] new city ordinance, I can't remember how many feet within a development you have

[4:41] to finish the dedicated road. Um, and so the in talking with Kent,

[4:50] um, the city would want us to either now or in the future finish this

[4:58] portion of Center Street. Um, so what we are wanting to do, all of these homes

[5:06] front 25 North. Um, so there's really not a huge need for finishing this,

[5:14] finishing this road currently. Um, from what I understand, this road will

[5:18] eventually go all the way to West View. So,

[5:23] eventually this will be a pretty heavily traveled road. And we're not saying that

[5:27] we don't want to finish it eventually, but I don't know how many people have

[5:33] driven it, but there's really no one hardly ever driving it. So right now um

[5:40] in this phase just this little 1 acre portion here we're just wanting to defer

[5:46] that to a later phase. >> Help me understand where that is kind of

[5:50] in reference to other places. >> Is it out by Iron West?

[5:54] » So Iron Springs Elementary is here and then this is Mountain Shadows and Iron

[6:00] West is right here. So these are those new Iron Hawk town homes here.

[6:09] So, >> yeah. And this is the new where we're

[6:13] putting in the new soccer fields right down in here. Just one point of

[6:18] clarification if I could, Jesse. What I saw on

[6:22] really we didn't give much of a submittal on this, but what we did get

[6:26] just said to defer improvements west of 4200 West. our understanding of what you

[6:32] were um let me get make sure you get the

[6:35] right map here. What you were wanting to defer because what we were saying is

[6:39] this is all one parcel. You're developing a portion of that parcel. Um

[6:44] you own both sides of the road. Um our interpretation of our ordinance is that

[6:49] you need to fully improve Center Street for that entire length um from Mountain

[6:55] Shadows over to Iron Hawk. And we had understood that it was just this portion

[7:00] west of 4200 West that you were um saying that you wanted to defer

[7:06] um based on what you submitted and and kind of based on our conversations

[7:11] earlier. So are you it sounded like you were saying something different in your

[7:16] presentation though. >> Um no I think that's that's actually

[7:20] what we're trying to do from what I understand. You're also needing us to

[7:25] finish this water line right here. Correct. And so,

[7:28] » yeah, >> from the conversations that

[7:30] » I am aware of, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to not knowing that we need

[7:36] to do that waterline, we may as well finish this portion of Center Street and

[7:41] then um you don't happen to have in red or where exactly

[7:50] how much of this we are trying to defer, right? So my my understanding of this

[7:55] was that um basically over through the intersection you would be building the

[8:02] the full width improvement and then you just taper down to the existing and this

[8:07] portion here is what you wanted to defer until you develop the south side. That

[8:11] was what I had >> understood

[8:12] » which some of that is we don't know exactly where these well likely the road

[8:17] would come in and meet with this intersection and probably this

[8:21] intersection but we don't know exactly how this is all going to play out here

[8:25] and so >> we don't want to build a road that we

[8:28] are then going to have to >> tear up.

[8:32] » Yeah, understood. Yeah, >> especially knowing that this is not

[8:37] really a heavily traveled road quite yet till it

[8:42] » Yeah, it's getting more and more so with the with the school and church over

[8:46] there and lots of people now in Iron West. It's getting more and more all the

[8:50] time. But but yeah, >> is the right side of this road developed

[8:54] there where the the existing homes are? Is that developed? Yeah. So the the

[8:59] north side of the road is developed to here and of course down all all this

[9:04] along here is fully developed. Um >> so it's the

[9:08] » and it's fully developed on the south side here. So it's it they would be

[9:13] already required to do you know of course their frontage and they'll

[9:17] dedicate the the ride of way. Um, but our ordinance allow requires them to do

[9:23] the other side as well since they own it and so it would really require the whole

[9:28] thing. They're asking to defer that western portion

[9:33] » right until >> so I'm not quite understanding they're

[9:36] they have to do the whole thing but they're asking for a referral a

[9:39] deferral. That doesn't make sense to me. >> So the requirement there would be

[9:43] nothing to defer if it were not a requirement. Right. So, our

[9:47] interpretation of the ordinance is that their requirement is to build the of

[9:52] course they'll be building the full roadway

[9:56] um where it's not developed on either side, but then they they do have to

[10:01] improve that southside as well. That's also their frontage,

[10:05] » right? >> That's part of this parcel that they're

[10:07] developing. and um the uh um but yeah, so they're they're they're not um

[10:14] arguing whether they're responsible for that. They're saying that they think

[10:18] this western portion would uh be better done at a later time when they develop

[10:24] that south side of the road. >> I see.

[10:26] » So the north side they're going to when they subdivide for how many lots you're

[10:30] going to have, you're going to develop the north side of of Center Street. So

[10:36] the north side is already finished. It's just this south portion.

[10:40] » Well, little portion that one acre, two acre, whatever it is.

[10:45] » Oh, right. >> Right there. You're going to finish one

[10:48] side of that, >> right? Yep. We will. So, this is a It'll

[10:52] be a PUD. And so, we're actually required to have a fence, I believe, 10

[10:57] feet off of >> Yeah.

[11:00] » um off of the sidewalk, >> which we did want to present. We're not

[11:05] sure if if this is the correct meeting to do so or not, but we wanted to see if

[11:10] we could instead of the full 10 feet um do like a six foot wall off of that

[11:19] [clears throat] um sidewalk so that these backyards could be a little bit

[11:24] deeper. Um, it's going to be a pretty drastic

[11:30] amount because these homes here, their back wall goes all the way to the

[11:35] sidewalk. So, then it's going to jump up 10 ft. And so, we wanted to tailor that

[11:42] down to six um for the drainage swell that we're going to be doing here in the

[11:47] back. And then also some landscaping. What is the structure on the walls and

[11:53] stuff >> on the as I like your your left side

[11:58] those homes right there? What is the >> is the wall against the center?

[12:03] » These actually front center street. I'm not really sure.

[12:06] » Okay. >> How that happened? Because you're not

[12:08] supposed to front a major collector road like this. But these ones back up to it.

[12:15] So they're double frontage with the front being here,

[12:19] » but their back wall is tight with >> So yours are going to back up to it

[12:22] also. >> They'll back up. So they'll come off of

[12:25] 25 north and then we'll just have our fence here.

[12:28] » So if I could just point out some differences, right? Because we've had

[12:30] this come to the board of adjustments before as well.

[12:33] » Um PUDS have a slightly different requirement for where fencing has to go.

[12:38] » So we push them 10 ft off. >> Um those other ones right there are not

[12:42] PUDS. They're standard subdivision if I understand it correctly. So that's why

[12:45] there's a difference. >> Um there are advantages to going with

[12:48] the PUB usually density advantages >> and so in many cases it's a trade-off.

[12:53] » You get some advantages by having PUB density and other things maybe you don't

[12:57] have to put in that you would for normal ones. Um but this is one of the

[13:00] downsides. So typically at least board of adjustments we've tried to keep those

[13:04] together. If you're going to get the advantages of the PUD you're probably

[13:07] going to have to deal with the detriments too.

[13:09] » Um you don't get the best of both worlds is kind of how we've taken it. The other

[13:13] real legal side of this that I struggle with is this isn't in the application.

[13:17] Um, we were aware of it because Mike told me that, but it's in the

[13:22] application. You guys saw it. It's one sentence.

[13:24] » I don't think we can address it. To [clears throat] Randle's point, we would

[13:27] have to notice it correctly and write a summary to to address the fence tonight.

[13:31] » Okay. >> So, I'm wondering if that is something

[13:34] maybe we can encourage from your end if you want both of these because this is I

[13:38] would prefer both these issues be in the same agreement if you're going to do it

[13:41] because annoying when we have to do two for the same property. Um, it might be

[13:46] worth tableabling it and have you guys propose some better language and even

[13:50] maybe sit down with Don or me to actually put it into an agreement. Um,

[13:55] our temp fence goes or the >> well,

[13:58] » all of it to make sure we're clear because you even talked about waterline

[14:01] and you tried to point out different areas. It might be best to have that

[14:04] flushed out a little better. Um, so that we're all on the same page cuz you came

[14:09] in on a different page than Mike was and Mike came in on a different page than

[14:12] what we all expected initially. So, I mean, it's

[14:15] » I have a question for Kent. Center Street, will that be a major feeder

[14:21] road? >> Yes.

[14:22] » Going east and west. How far west is that road going to eventually? Will it

[14:26] go? >> It'll go It'll go all the way to 5700.

[14:29] As far as our property goes through, >> it'll go clear down to who knows where.

[14:34] » Yeah, it's going to be major and it's going to be one of the main paths to get

[14:37] up to the school. >> Key drive is going to go right into

[14:38] Quap, >> right? Oh, that'll be [laughter] good.

[14:41] » So, so >> I'll I'll build a car wash out there.

[14:44] » So, here's where we're talking about right now is this area here. But yes,

[14:48] Center Street would continue all the way to 5700 West that goes down to the

[14:53] interchange at at uh all of a sudden I forgot the name.

[14:57] » So, I have a question. When you get a deferral, what's the trigger? What's the

[15:01] trigger for your obligation to actually fulfill

[15:06] those things? Is it when the homes are built? Is it after they're built? Is it

[15:10] when they're built? What's the trigger? >> I think that's what uh why it would

[15:16] behoove us to bring back some details for you. I think it that's a perfect

[15:20] question. >> Yeah. So, without the

[15:22] » I'm sure Jesse has something in mind. without a a development agreement to

[15:26] defer some of those improvements, it would be that they have to have they

[15:32] have to at least be bonded for all of it before we would even record the plat.

[15:36] Um, and then those improvements would all have to be completed before they

[15:40] could get certificate of occupancy on any of those units. So they're wanting

[15:45] to defer to where the part to the west of 4200 West would have a different

[15:50] trigger that would come when they develop the south side of the property.

[15:54] At least that's the way we understand it and that's what as Randall was talking

[15:58] really needs to be spelled out in the agreement.

[16:00] » Yeah. So I I mean I'm happy to sit down you

[16:04] and Mike and whoever else from Plat and Plat who wants to come in to work

[16:08] through those because those are that that trigger question is an absolute

[16:10] must because the documents are drafted that way to say what's the trigger to

[16:14] kick ahead deferred a deferred improvement in.

[16:18] » Um the fencing one he told me that you guys wanted to set it back a little but

[16:22] not the full 10. I don't know what a little means. So that would be good to

[16:25] have spelled out as well. >> Okay. Um because at this point I don't

[16:29] know what they would be giving a thumbs up to.

[16:31] » It picks [snorts] it up. >> Not everything you want that at least I

[16:34] know. >> Yeah.

[16:37] » I wasn't aware that we weren't talking about the fence today. So

[16:40] » yeah, I was surprised too when we sat down for the meeting we had as staff. I

[16:43] was like where is the fence? [laughter] >> Yep.

[16:46] » It's not there. >> That's the entirety of what we've

[16:48] submitted. So, and that's the unfortunate sometimes we when we do full

[16:52] subdivisions, we make them submit tons of stuff. And this one we don't really

[16:56] have flushed out exactly what's required for submitt. So, sometimes we get a

[16:59] napkin and that's kind of what this was. It's a napkin. Not even a napkin

[17:03] drawing, just a napkin. Um, so that would be my suggestion is you table it,

[17:08] allow us to get a more full submitt so that you can come here with everything

[17:13] you want, not have to come back three months from now because you didn't get

[17:16] something you wanted. >> Yeah. I mean, I don't make any

[17:18] guarantees they give a faucet or the council approves it, but it's going to

[17:21] be a waste of your time if you >> Right. And as far as the water line,

[17:25] that was just something in the construction drawings that we're working

[17:28] through. It wasn't any type of a deferral or

[17:30] » Right. No. And that's >> really didn't even need to be mentioned

[17:32] here other than the fact that that's why we're only asking for a deferral on half

[17:38] of it because it >> just makes sense.

[17:40] » No, it makes sense. But [clears throat] it just be helpful to have all that in

[17:43] place. >> Okay.

[17:51] I'm already deaf. >> Yes. If if the if the planning

[17:55] commission wishes because this was published correctly, right?

[17:58] » But not the fence. >> But not Oh, yeah. The fence is not. So,

[18:01] the fence would require us to republish it.

[18:04] » For how long? >> Um,

[18:05] » 10 days. >> 10 days.

[18:07] » Please state your name into the microphone.

[18:08] » Sorry about that. [laughter] >> Okay.

[18:11] » So, yeah, it it is possible. Can we do it that quickly for the next meeting?

[18:14] » So, we would have to have We'd have to have the notices and this

[18:19] discussion and the summaries ready by Friday to get it out the door.

[18:24] » I think that gives us 10 days, right? >> So, I'm hearing just somebody from your

[18:28] guys' office bring in Jesse, too, to make sure we're getting everything

[18:31] you're expecting and sit down in time to be able to get that to them because,

[18:35] yeah, state law now requires when we do public notices to give a summary of what

[18:38] we're doing. And so, we can't just do only a oneliner vague sentence. We have

[18:43] to have the details to summarize it. Um, but yeah, I'm here this the rest this

[18:47] week. So, >> perfect.

[18:52] » Thank you. >> All right. Well,

[18:53] » okay. I'll make a motion that we table this

[18:58] until the January 20th meeting. >> There is a public hearing part of it, so

[19:03] we may need to >> Yes. I was going to ask, do we need to

[19:05] do that? Is anybody here to speak to this? We'll open the public hearing.

[19:08] » Oh, just kidding. >> Close it.

[19:11] » Now, we can go back on your mark. Hey, I'm just trying to move things along

[19:14] with people. Doing well. >> So, I'm doing my very best here on the

[19:18] limited brain cells that I have left. [laughter]

[19:22] » Ah, and sleep. Limited sleep. Um, so I'll make a positive re or a

[19:27] recommendation that we table this item until um our next commission meeting,

[19:33] January 20th, 2026. >> I will second that.

[19:38] » A motion and a second. All in favor? I >> I'll warn you, we if they don't get it

[19:43] to us soon enough, we may push it for another meeting.

[19:47] » Yeah, >> if as long as you're okay with that,

[19:48] » that's on them. >> We are totally fine.

[19:50] » Correct. >> Thank you, Jennifer and others. Um,

[19:54] okay. Uh, item number six, transportation master plan amendment,

[19:59] velocity builders. >> I don't think so.

[20:03] [clears throat] >> You're going to do that? I'm I'm going

[20:04] to go ahead and speak to this and let me jump over to that on our uh master plan.

[20:11] What we're looking at on this we have in our street master plan uh you know this

[20:17] is where the terribles is now second east right loves out by the north

[20:23] interchange. We have on our master plan this minor collector roadway running

[20:29] between Canyon Ranch Drive and uh Wedgewood Lane here. Um as this issue

[20:37] has been pursued with UD do get their approval to be able to connect the road

[20:43] to Main Street to State Highway 130 right there. um they have uh considered

[20:49] it and and denied the request to have that new connection to to State Route

[20:56] 130. And so with that being being the case, it doesn't make any sense for us

[21:02] to have that on our master plan. um the master planned road there. Having that

[21:07] on our plan kind of creates an encumbrance there that really can't be

[21:12] fulfilled because they uh they can't build the intersection onto SR130. So

[21:18] what Velocity had requested um and what's your item six on your agenda is

[21:25] vacating this portion here. Um, and they only requested that because that's the

[21:30] side of the road that they that they uh where they own property and would be the

[21:35] ones affected. We looked at that and said while we're doing that, let's go

[21:39] ahead and address both sides. Um, and so that's item seven is for this other

[21:45] side, but it's really all the same thing for both of those um uh those two items.

[21:52] So, and uh um Tyler Meling with Velocity would have been here tonight. Uh he had

[21:59] a conflict. He called talked to me. I told him, "Don't worry about it. I'll

[22:03] I'll cover both sides of Main Street in in in my discussion." So, that's why

[22:07] he's not here if you're wondering on that. [clears throat]

[22:10] Any questions for me?

[22:15] » It's pretty straightforward. So, basically what you're saying is that

[22:18] cannot happen. >> It can't happen. Yeah. So, let's get it

[22:21] off the map. get rid of that encumbrance.

[22:23] » I think that's do. >> Thank you. [clears throat] Any

[22:25] questions? >> Is it just too close to that other

[22:29] » um >> Yeah, but between this intersection and

[22:32] that intersection, there's not enough space to to meet their access spacing

[22:37] requirement. The other concern they had in in considering whether they could,

[22:43] you know, make an exception on the distance is especially being on the

[22:47] inside of that curve, they're really worried about the sight distance there.

[22:51] And so that was uh but we we had a lot of discussion with them. At one point it

[22:55] looked like we might get there and then uh as they kind of ran it up through

[23:00] their leadership. Uh it was they came back and said we we can't do it. We're

[23:05] not going to approve that. >> You have a stop light at Canyon Center

[23:10] Drive and a stop light at the Canyon Ranch Drive.

[23:15] » So there's there's a there is a traffic signal here. There's not one here yet.

[23:19] There is at Nichols Canyon right down here.

[23:22] » Um this is >> plans for a stoplight there.

[23:25] » Um there's there is will potentially be a stoplight there. Yes. In our um

[23:31] agreement with UD do where it's laid out what intersections would be candidates

[23:36] for a stop uh for a s traffic signal if it's justified by the traffic volumes.

[23:42] this is one that's on the list that it that they have already agreed could be

[23:47] allowed um you know with the windco that's proposed here and and other

[23:52] development in the area with there's a traffic study that's about to happen

[23:57] that will look at that and I I I think we're pretty sure that that traffic

[24:01] study is going to project enough traffic utilizing this for all of this

[24:05] development that it will end up justifying it. So, we're anticipating

[24:09] that there will be one there.

[24:13] [clears throat]

[24:16] » Thank you, Ken. >> Yes. I'll open the public hearing for

[24:20] six and seven. I think we can do those together given that.

[24:23] » Yeah, these are together. >> Say your name. N name.

[24:25] » Dan Roberts and thanks Dan. JMT owns the property on the east side of Main

[24:30] Street. We asked DOT to let us have a right turn in and a right turn out. and

[24:37] we were just flat told no, okay, by DOT. So, we were trying to eliminate all the

[24:44] congestion that is going to take place up there on the Terribles intersection,

[24:50] but uh DOT can they control all that, you know, back to that intersection. So,

[24:57] anyway, so we're okay vacating it. Uh and that's item number seven.

[25:02] » Thanks. >> Wow, easy.

[25:05] » Thank you.

[25:09] all the extra land. >> Any other comments?

[25:13] » If not, we'll close the public hearing and

[25:16] be willing to entertain a recommendation.

[25:22] » You go. You go. I can. >> Okay. I'll make a positive

[25:25] recommendation on 2500 North Main Street

[25:31] that the transportation master plan be amended to eliminate the previously

[25:37] proposed road. >> Thank you.

[25:41] » I'll second >> motion in a second. All in favor? I

[25:47] » Thank you. All right. Ordinance text amendment.

[25:52] Amber Ray.

[26:01] » All right. Amber Ray planning. Um so many moons ago there was the general

[26:09] commercial zone and that was rescended. Um however, so it was rescended in our

[26:14] ordinance. However, there are still areas of the city that are zoned general

[26:19] commercial. Um, so if someone is in the general

[26:25] commercial and they want to develop, they have to ask us where this general

[26:29] commercial zone is and we have to go and dig out this dusty copy and give it to

[26:36] them. So um, the general commercial zone is very similar to the central

[26:42] commercial zone. So, in an effort to make the zoning specifications easily

[26:46] accessible to the public, we are proposing a text amendment. Um, this is

[26:51] what it currently says in the ordinance under the general commercial zone. And

[26:56] we would, um, suggest removing what is red and

[27:02] crossed out and adding in what is green.

[27:11] » [laughter] >> Will that make your life easier?

[27:14] » This would actually make my life easier and I think it would actually be very

[27:19] clear and easy for the public instead of this.

[27:22] » What will you do with that free time? >> Well, [laughter] I don't know yet.

[27:27] » We have plenty of work for it. Don't worry about that.

[27:29] » We got more band-aids Netflix. I don't know. Just just so you know from the

[27:33] legal side, the reason why I'm in favor of this um is we have no ability to

[27:38] change the general commercials requirements right now because it's it's

[27:42] basically deleted ordinance. So it is fixed and for over 10 years now we have

[27:47] not been able to change what's allowed or not allowed in the general commercial

[27:51] zone. But we've been changing something about every other zone during that time

[27:54] frame. This allows the council with your recommendation of course to make changes

[28:00] if we don't like something whether prohibitive or allowing in a general

[28:04] commercial zone without having to dust off the old one and bring it back and

[28:09] figure out what 12 changes we've made in between that we should make. This is

[28:13] just a simpler way to handle the same situation.

[28:16] » Right. >> Any [clears throat] other questions?

[28:21] If not, it's a public hearing. So, we'll open the public hearing.

[28:26] » Carter Wilkey, I just have a quick question. Um, so I guess in this

[28:29] situation then with this now people there would be no need to change the

[28:33] zone then because a lot of times people come in and reszone from general

[28:36] commercial to central commercial. They could just leave it as general

[28:39] commercial and under >> they could do that now, right?

[28:42] » But there's only just a what we what you guys find like a dozen if even that

[28:47] differences. >> There were like five uses.

[28:50] » Gotcha. that were different between the two zones. Um, so most of the time they

[28:54] weren't changing the zone. They just stuck with general commercial. It just

[28:57] took us a while to dust off the old version.

[29:00] » Right. >> Thank you, Carter.

[29:04] Any others like to speak to this? If not, we'll close the public hearing and

[29:09] be willing to entertain a motion. >> I'll get my glasses this time. Okay.

[29:17] I'll make a positive recommendation for the ordinance text amendment pertaining

[29:23] to the repealed general commercial zone. >> Seconded.

[29:29] » We have a recommendation positive recommendation and a second. All in

[29:32] favor? >> I.

[29:33] » Any opposed? No. [clears throat] Looks like that concludes our start in

[29:38] the for 2026

Cedar City Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2026

Transcript