[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