[0:00] Immigration, planning, commission, meeting, Thursday, August 13, 20, 26, the time is 8.32 am. Thank you, Wendy. First, I just want to say thank you all for coming. Because your input is very valuable to everyone involved in every issue that we deal with. Also, thank you. You're very well trained. I mean, right on the dock, you just all planned off. It's very quiet. It's good. My name is Tim Harp.

[0:29] I'm the chair of the planning commission here at the table.

[0:33] We also have Jodie Gerot.

[0:34] She's our vice chair and two other commissioners,

[0:37] Andy Wallace and Dale Bereth.

[0:40] We have a fifth position that we expect

[0:43] to be filled at the next city council meeting.

[0:47] And we'll be introducing that person later

[0:51] in this meeting for those who care to stick around.

[0:57] At this point, what I'd like to do is read the document

[1:00] that we do. We can't hear you. Okay. I'll read a document that we go over before every meeting.

[1:11] And again there are I think there are some more chairs in the back room if anybody wants to

[1:16] pull some out so we've got more people coming in. You can take two of these. We're going to say one

[1:21] but you take two of these. Yeah. Two of these chairs are available.

[1:28] The copy of our agenda is on the

[1:31] table here. We also have a sign-up sheet being passed around. We'd appreciate your

[1:38] signing in so we know who is here. The Planning Commission is a voluntary citizen

[1:44] board. The Commission's function is to hear and decide applications for

[1:50] conditional uses and preliminary subdivision plots to make recommendations to

[1:55] the Immigration and Canyon City Council, preserving changes or changes to

[1:59] ordinances, or journal plans.

[2:02] Our agenda is divided to categories, business items,

[2:06] and public hearing items.

[2:08] We're going to start with the public hearing

[2:12] item of the agenda, which we have one.

[2:15] I'll introduce that shortly.

[2:18] Our meeting is recorded.

[2:20] So when you care to come up and speak

[2:24] after I recognize you, please take a seat at this chair.

[2:27] state your name and address so we have that for the record. We also have we are

[2:36] online. When do we have do we have anybody online of the public? Or is it all

[2:44] staff? It's all staff and then Patrick Nelson the Salt Lake City and then Ryan

[2:50] and we like the public house.

[2:53] Thank you.

[2:54] So we may have some folks online from the public,

[3:00] and we'll hear from that in the public hearing portion

[3:03] of our meeting.

[3:09] Let's see, I think that covers most of it.

[3:13] The way we'll conduct the hearing today is,

[3:16] we'll start with a presentation by our staff,

[3:20] who are present here as well as online, if necessary.

[3:24] We will then have a presentation by the applicant, the

[3:29] property owner, and then I'll open the public hearing for

[3:33] comment.

[3:34] Please raise your hand to be recognized.

[3:36] As I recognize you, would you please come forward, have a seat,

[3:40] state your name and address as I mentioned before, and give us

[3:43] your comments.

[3:45] Now we have had a ton of comments.

[3:48] We have read a lot of letters and emails from you, and we

[3:53] appreciate that input and so what I'd like to suggest is that if someone ahead of you has made

[4:00] your point or points please just point that out to us and that'll save time for more

[4:05] view to make comments as well as after the hearing is closed then we will go to the commission will

[4:12] go into a discussion and deliberation period and that will give us more time to have that discussion.

[4:19] So with that in mind, I think we are ready for the presentation.

[4:25] Let me ask the commissioners.

[4:27] Does anyone have any proposed changes to the agenda that we have before us?

[4:34] Just that our City Council member wants to speak first.

[4:39] Yes, we do have a member of the City Council here who I'll recognize as the first speaker during the public hearing portion.

[4:49] Okay, then we'll we have no changes to the agenda and so I think we're prepared at this point to go ahead with our staff presentation.

[5:01] Thank you, Chair. My name is Claire Gilmore, and I'm with this firm of Smith Park.

[5:07] I represent Immigration Canyon in Matthews Matters.

[5:13] Today, we're going to, the planning commission is going to review

[5:17] the proposed conservation development agreement

[5:21] as between property owner Ryan Mike and Immigration Canyon

[5:27] for a 48-year parcel that he owns in the FR-20 zone

[5:35] which is a forestry and recreational zone under Title 19 of the immigration planning code.

[5:44] As a preliminary matter, I think that it's going to be very important and really effective

[5:53] for us all to get on the same page about what constitutes land use

[6:01] and what the purview of the Planning Commission's authority is today.

[6:10] I'm hoping that it will

[6:11] make for a far less exciting meeting than perhaps we anticipated.

[6:21] Under Utah Code, oh dear.

[6:28] Excuse me. So under Utah Code 1020 and

[6:36] this is under number two of my

[6:38] I present to you today.

[6:40] It fits for the factors that actually constitute

[6:45] municipal land use.

[6:48] According to Title 10-20, these are the factors

[6:54] that a municipality is allowed to regulate under our zoning

[7:01] police power.

[7:02] I

[7:06] would like to take a minute to recognize that we're talking uses, density, open spaces,

[7:17] structures, buildings, energy efficiency, light and air, air quality, transportation and

[7:27] public oral, alternative transportation, infrastructure, street and building orientation,

[7:33] with requirements, public facilities, fundamental fairness, and land use regulation, and consideration

[7:42] of surrounding land uses to balance the foregoing purposes with the landowner's private

[7:48] property interests and associated statutory and constitutional protections.

[7:53] That is set forth as black letters state law.

[7:58] I'd also like to know that immigration canyon is very fortunate in the sense that you have

[8:06] one of the most, if not the most, thoughtful and sophisticated planning commission that I have ever worked with.

[8:17] And they do a great job of taking the very limited review of their authority that's set forth under Utah Code

[8:25] and thinking very critically and analytically about how to apply their limited

[8:34] purview authority to each of the proposed developments that comes before them.

[8:41] I also would like to note that the planning commission is extremely, you have a

[8:47] very ethical planning commission. They go to very great gains to comply with

[8:54] not only the Utah Municipal Employees and Ethics Act,

[8:59] which prevents any kind of rubber stamping

[9:03] or deliberating outside of an open meeting

[9:08] or making any decisions outside and open meeting,

[9:11] but they also do a wonderful job of complying

[9:16] with all of the provisions under the plan

[9:19] that are required by the planning commission under Title 10.

[9:22] And because of other planning commissions throughout the state of Utah, those prohibit

[9:32] their robust provisions regarding making decisions based on personal views, making decisions

[9:40] based on public clamor, and so forth.

[9:44] So you have a very ethical planning commission.

[9:46] And their purview of authority is set forth as set forth in number two by state code.

[9:58] The next kind of preliminary matter that I think will be useful is to know that the

[10:05] planning commission is a recommending body in this process.

[10:11] And they are a recommending body because development agreements are a legislative act.

[10:19] Not an administrative act.

[10:21] So a legislative act in land use, well really in otherwise, can only be finally approved

[10:29] by the legislative body.

[10:32] So that's going to be the city council.

[10:34] So what you'll see today is the planning commission making a recommendation either for approval

[10:40] or for denial and in either case with well certainly probably not denial with

[10:47] conditions but approval with conditions or suggestions for additional language

[10:53] that sort of thing. So just moving forward that's what we're that's the basis of

[11:03] which we're working today and it's pre-limited. So let's talk just for a

[11:08] second now about, oh, I am the master of my own slideshow and I didn't realize it.

[11:16] Okay. Because of the volume of the public comments that we received, which we very much,

[11:28] the city, I very much appreciate all of the input. I have summarized and I may not have

[11:38] I covered every single topic that was addressed in the public concerns, but I did my best

[11:45] to summarize the comments that we received.

[11:52] Overwhelmingly, the comments that we received were related to concerns about fire, danger,

[11:59] fire mitigation, and fire suppression.

[12:02] What I would like to note is getting back to our slide here about land use considerations.

[12:11] The international fire code, the international building code, health and safety codes are

[12:18] not within this group and there is a very good and legitimate reason for that.

[12:24] The good and legitimate reason for that is that the health and safety needs to be determined

[12:36] by the experts in keeping people alive and keeping people healthy.

[12:44] So health and safety codes are determined by the body that interprets

[12:54] and forces and enforces those. So in this case where there are concerns about

[12:58] fire, the body in all developments that will make a determination about what

[13:08] That fire risk there are what compliance with the international fire code looks like will

[13:14] be the fire departments that are that serve that respective development and the reason

[13:24] that that makes sense and just bear with me for a second is that not every planning commission

[13:30] I assure you is as thoughtful and sophisticated as immigration can in.

[13:36] And if land use as a consideration included a planning commission's ability to determine

[13:48] what a fire code means and whether or not it should be applied, then a planning commission

[13:56] would be able to say, I don't think it means that you have to have fire suppression equipment

[14:05] or sprinkling a system.

[14:07] We're not going to make that applicable here

[14:10] because this is a legislative act.

[14:12] And of course, that would not make any sense.

[14:15] And we would not want health and safety regulations

[14:19] to be legislatively made applicable in some way.

[14:24] So that is why the scope is so narrow.

[14:29] Now, it gets confusing because land use

[14:34] does absolutely include requirements to comply with all applicable health and safety codes.

[14:43] But land use is not in and of itself a health and safety code.

[14:50] It is a determination getting back here.

[14:52] According to state law, uses density, the determination of open space structure.

[15:00] Councillors, you know, very much in the urban planning realm. So to that end, please keep that in mind as you're making your comments as to the planning commission's actual ability to address your concerns. And what I would imagine would be a way that would be, you know,

[15:26] They have a limited ability, I guess, is my point, and just kind of going through the

[15:35] rest of the list quickly.

[15:37] We've got environmental protection, ecosystems, native vegetation, the scope of that

[15:44] review is going to be the state in terms of environmental protection that is not regulated

[15:50] by a municipality, building codes.

[15:54] That's going to be the International Building Code.

[15:57] Water source protection and water rights.

[15:59] Again, not regulated by a municipality

[16:04] within the context of the land use.

[16:08] OK, this is a big one.

[16:11] The access rights over private property.

[16:13] there is absolutely no authority of the city through land use to tell anyone to

[16:24] tell any private individual or grant or deny any rights in someone else's

[16:31] property that absolutely is barred. And here again for good reason, private

[16:39] property rights are completely separate and distinct from a municipal municipality to

[16:47] implemented police power to determine where residential houses should be located, where

[16:54] commercial uses should be located, and what all of those types of uses should look like

[17:03] and how they should be oriented and so forth.

[17:06] So to that end, what we will be discussing today absolutely does not grant the property

[17:15] owner any rights other than the uses that are set forth in the agreement, so absolutely

[17:23] no grant of rights on property that he does not own and to that end a denial, a recommendation

[17:32] for denial does not prevent the property owner from pursuing whatever rights he

[17:45] believes to have in private property that he does not own. So that's big

[17:51] clarification and then we have sanitation and there have been a lot of

[17:58] comments about the the problem is prior applications what we will deal with

[18:04] today is exclusively just what's in the agreement the plain language of what's

[18:11] being approved there and and then there was a big concern about sending

[18:15] the precedents and that's just not the way that the development agreements work

[18:20] and and we will talk about just quickly development agreements as a tool the

[18:25] The development agreements are also authorized under state code and basically the mirror of

[18:32] that state code has been implemented in immigration can you code, excuse me, enacted rather.

[18:38] And what a development agreement is, it's a tool that is used by municipalities where

[18:45] you see, we've got the scope of our purview with land views.

[18:50] And just a couple, I can't enter it last year, the year before.

[18:56] I don't recall, but for example, the legislature

[19:00] slashed the municipality's ability

[19:03] to impose design standards on single-family residences.

[19:09] A big blow, right?

[19:12] So what a development agreement has the flexibility to do

[19:17] is to say, okay, we have a developer coming in

[19:21] would like to build something and they need a they are not going to be able to make the setback

[19:29] requirement from the side yard in accordance with our code. It gives the city the ability to say

[19:38] all right on our priority list of of what kind of development we'd like to achieve.

[19:47] Do we have

[19:48] opportunity here to say, you know what, we're going to give you, we're going to allow you to build within the step back whatever that means.

[19:58] But in exchange for that, you're going to implement the following design standards, which we would not otherwise be able to do under our own language regulations.

[20:09] So that's why development agreements are such an important tool for municipalities.

[20:16] This is brand new for immigration union because the city is still in its infancy.

[20:23] We're in our formative years, so to speak, but they are very, very common and very frequently

[20:31] used by all of the other cities in the valley for exactly this reason.

[20:35] So, that is what a development agreement does.

[20:39] Oh, and the development agreement, specifically this development agreement, addresses land use approvals only.

[20:48] So, all it is being approved in this development agreement are the uses that are being proposed.

[20:55] And the additional regulations that we could not require under our existing tone essentially.

[21:09] So let's go through what those are.

[21:15] Well, we've got, I think, the purpose of the course of recreation zones,

[21:19] which I imagine everybody is familiar with.

[21:23] But, we have a forest activity plan that was also posted, and that was prepared by

[21:30] the Department of Natural Resources in the Division of Forestry by our state lands.

[21:38] So the use for this property is being approved as conservation management of forestry.

[21:47] And those uses within the plan, or excuse me, the activities within the plan in terms of fire mitigation practices or soil rejuvenation have already been approved under the property owner's permitted use application.

[22:11] Claremont was out approved last October yes so those and the reason for that is

[22:23] because there's nothing in immigration canyon code that restricts conservation

[22:30] activities and the other reason is that from due guidance from the Utah

[22:37] on budget's office, those activities would not likely constitute development such

[22:45] that the F cause requirements and the rest of our zoning regulations would be triggered.

[22:53] However, we have additional activities that were proposed under the permitted use application

[23:02] that the city did not approve and those additional activities are basically

[23:08] boiled down to non-habitable structures, beekeeping, the installation of a

[23:17] solar array and some biochar operations. The development agreement goes through

[23:25] and addresses the non-habitable structures. In accordance with immigration

[23:30] can be in code.

[23:33] Accessory uses and structures customarily incidental to a permitted use are

[23:39] allowed. So we have the conservation activities as the permitted use and the non-habitable structures

[23:47] are being proposed as an accessory to that use. And we can rule if there's questions about

[23:56] of the concept plan, we can address those,

[23:59] but the, excuse me, from the planning commission,

[24:03] I'm not sure I'll be able to pull it up, I will try.

[24:07] The next is we keeping,

[24:09] and we keeping is actually

[24:11] a completely regulated by the state of Utah.

[24:17] And municipalities are preempted entirely

[24:21] from the regulation of these,

[24:22] except under some very narrow exceptions that here again the immigration

[24:28] canning code does not include. Next we have the solar array and the development

[24:34] agreement addresses a very specific and regulations for the solar array, here

[24:41] again that are not included in our code, as well as the biochar, which I know is

[24:49] the biggest concern, and I'm going to let the applicant talk a little bit more about

[24:55] that, but what I will say right off the bat is that, and I have taken too much time

[25:00] when I apologize, I'm going to go through more quickly now.

[25:03] What I will say about that is that it's limited to three days a year, and that it is very,

[25:08] very heavily regulated by the division of forestry, fire and state lands.

[25:15] As a matter of fact, they have to be on site to supervise, and there are very specific

[25:23] requirements regarding defensible space that's non-clamable, etc., which is addressing

[25:30] the development agreement.

[25:30] All right.

[25:31] I'm really going to hurry now.

[25:32] I am so sorry, Chair.

[25:36] Let's talk about restrictions and regulations for this point forward under this agreement.

[25:45] The property owner is waving his right to commercial logging or lumber processing.

[25:52] That will never occur on this property.

[25:55] Mineral extraction and processing, the keeping or raising of domestic animals or foul,

[26:01] except for household pets or family food production, retail facilities,

[26:07] old year. Sorry, we taught facilities to open a general public multi-family or

[26:13] willing group uses ski resorts and then we still have on the books and I'm

[26:20] not, please don't ask me what it is because I will be able to tell you underground

[26:24] record storage vaults. Moving on, the property owner and here again getting

[26:31] In fact, to our discussion about what land use

[26:35] it comes to.

[26:36] I'm sorry to interrupt, but on that waiver,

[26:39] that waiver is only during the term of this agreement,

[26:42] which can be terminated by the land on a group note.

[26:46] Excuse me, we need to allow the presentation.

[26:50] No, we can't say that it's waived forever.

[26:52] Sir, that's simply incorrect.

[26:54] Please.

[26:55] Can you address that at all?

[26:57] Sure.

[26:58] Yes, that is the language of the agreement

[26:59] where if it is terminated, then it would be released.

[27:04] But there's very specific.

[27:05] So you correct that statement.

[27:06] It's not way through.

[27:07] Right?

[27:07] It's way through.

[27:08] Well, to the subject to the termination provisions, yes.

[27:13] Like the termination provisions are.

[27:17] 7.2.

[27:18] Yes, that's right.

[27:20] And I've got that in here.

[27:26] Right.

[27:28] Which one?

[27:29] survive with the so

[27:38] is it really terminates because there's no vested rights at all except

[27:42] what he's already built he gets a key that's right that's right this is not the public

[27:56] here you can get so you can make that point as well during the public hearing portion please

[28:03] you can make that comment in my hearing the public hearing so she gets an

[28:08] unlimited amount of time to provide this information and I get three minutes to

[28:11] correct it. This isn't important. Just please. He's just wrong about this.

[28:19] We have

[28:20] reviewed revisions to our Title 19 where that is waiting at the City Council

[28:29] a level that has been recommended where we have eliminated the uses that have been set

[28:35] for it. So what that means is when the agreement terminates, all of the vested rights have

[28:41] terminated. We'll terminate with it. And the property under which we subject to then

[28:47] effective ordinances, which given the revisions that we recommended to Title 19 will not include

[28:55] those uses and you're right I should have heard like that and I apologize because that title

[29:02] bank team has not been fully legislated through the city council yet and that was knowledge

[29:09] that I had that you did not have and I apologize for not making that verification.

[29:16] So to the extent that, again, that's the plan is to finish that title of the...

[29:25] Let's not finish.

[29:27] That's true.

[29:28] So you're recommending us executing this agreement and there's a potential that this is

[29:33] going to pass the book to help everyone use it.

[29:37] Why is it there a condition in the agreement?

[29:40] They will be prohibited under the agreement and then prior to the agreement's

[29:47] termination we will have updated Title IX.

[29:50] How do you know that?

[29:51] He can terminate tomorrow.

[29:53] He can terminate the upon written notice to the city.

[29:56] That's what you fundamentally don't understand.

[29:59] Right?

[30:00] So you can terminate it prior to the passage of this tunnel. Sir, I need to ask that you do that during your two minutes later on if you want to pursue that point. We need to continue. We're very difficult time constraint. We have a hard stop at 10.30. We need time to have everybody comment as well as the commission to deliberate on this point. So would you just please continue? We took five minutes to say how ethical the committee is and how great everybody is. We get that time back to talk about the real issues.

[30:30] with respect in my time. I've got a job.

[30:33] Yes, sir. I would be more than happy to talk with you.

[30:37] I called you yesterday and you didn't return my call.

[30:41] Yes, no, I'm sorry. I was dealing with other

[30:46] business for other cities. And I'm sorry that I could not get back to you.

[30:50] But I can, and I will. I just couldn't do it yesterday.

[30:54] I can and I will. And I have to be great.

[30:56] thank you. The next I talked to you about overnight stays with regards to without

[31:06] an approved sanitation plan we have defensible space required for the solar

[31:10] array project structures and accordance with the concept plan and I'm just

[31:18] going to jump now right to and I apologize for the time that I take in the staff

[31:22] recommendation that we approve the

[31:25] conservation development agreement and the

[31:28] reason the reasons for that set forth is from the

[31:33] limited purview of what we can consider under

[31:37] land use under state law. The the intensity of

[31:41] the use is is such that it is actually less than

[31:48] what the other permitted uses are under the

[31:51] forestry zone. It's a it's a minimally intense use and the structures because they will be

[31:58] non habitable are also minimally intense. The agreement will be it recorded against the

[32:06] property and subject to termination. It's recorded against the property and a new property

[32:13] donor would not be able to change the use without coming to amend the development agreement.

[32:21] The agreement includes certain restrictions and enforcement mechanisms also that would

[32:27] be otherwise unavailable to the city and those are incorporated in there.

[32:34] And I appreciate your time and I know that we're going to wait until the end for planning

[32:40] questions but to the extent I'm happy to what it's at the chair's pleasure. Thank you

[32:48] Cliff. I appreciate that. I think in the interest of time we'll move on to the

[32:53] second portion which is the applicant. Mr. Lake we appreciate if you keep your

[32:58] comments to less than 15 minutes so we have more time to discuss and deliver it.

[33:04] Absolutely yes, it's going over here so I can talk both ways.

[33:10] All right, thank you commission for your time today.

[33:14] I know that I've been here presenting this in the past, so I try to make this new information

[33:20] and that repeat would have been done previously.

[33:23] But there is a little bit of overlap just for background for those that are not familiar with the application.

[33:27] So, this is a partial property that I bought approximately six years ago.

[33:32] My interests here are really to operate a permaculture farm, low-impact, and nothing

[33:39] large-scale or industrial in nature.

[33:43] For me, it's a passion of mine, watershed education, as well as agriculture, not going

[33:49] for agriculture family, but also for recreation, right, and that's really what the forest and

[33:53] recreation zones intended for.

[33:55] And so I already allow private recreational use, but I want to be able to show that you

[33:59] can have dual use, that you can use this for productive agricultural use conservation

[34:04] efforts, and that at the management of the land is better than doing nothing at all.

[34:10] So I think there's a lot of shared objectives that are accomplished through this application.

[34:14] These are things that presented in the past, foremost for me is that watershed production.

[34:18] But also the wildfire mitigation risk is very important as well.

[34:24] There are a lot of fuels up there.

[34:25] I know this is a small part of land at the part that I'm talking about developing is

[34:29] even smaller, right?

[34:30] We're really looking at a seminary acre parcel of the full 40 acres.

[34:34] But that is a very sensitive watershed area where a lot of fuels are.

[34:39] And so active management of that part of the property can have some real benefit I believe.

[34:43] At the same time, I want to minimize the impact of that watershed and physical disturbance

[34:49] to the natural landscape.

[34:53] So I think it's important to understand how we got here, right?

[34:55] This is a long time in the process.

[34:58] Back in March of 2021, when I first purchased the property, I submitted a permitted use application.

[35:04] And with permitted use, as the commission is aware, if it meets the requirements, then

[35:10] and it's permitted, you can go through and do that.

[35:13] For agricultural use, which at the time was part of the code

[35:16] as a permitted use.

[35:18] I actually believe still is today the code also said

[35:22] that you didn't even need to use permit

[35:23] in order to do agricultural use,

[35:25] because historically that's what immigration can use use for,

[35:28] including this property for 100 years.

[35:31] In September of 2022,

[35:32] I missed the issue to determination acknowledging that.

[35:36] The agricultural use was exactly the way I used permit review,

[35:38] but that any development in structures must comply with F cause ordinance.

[35:43] And it put me in this really weird position where by state co-agricultural structures don't need a built-in permit.

[35:50] So there's really no process to go through a review forum.

[35:53] Essentially, it was doing an F cause review without needing any built-in permit review.

[35:58] And so we went through years of iterations and multiple, you know, rounds of staff and agency review,

[36:05] You're not just MSD, but all the different agencies that have over sent with the help

[36:09] and safety and fire that Claire had mentioned.

[36:11] And eventually MSD issued a determination that finding that the conservation activities

[36:15] and beekeeping were allowed, but that the structures were not approved.

[36:20] And so that, I appealed that decision in a timely appeal, that's really kind of what brings us

[36:26] to where we're right today.

[36:28] So well, to be, to be accurate, the development agreement is a discretionary approval, right?

[36:33] to say yes or no decision, the planning commission doesn't have any obligation to approve it.

[36:38] However, it's kind of an a raw A or a raw B decision because the appeal is open, and

[36:44] so if the development agreement doesn't go forward, then we essentially just go back to

[36:48] the appeal process.

[36:50] And we leave the decision to a land use hearing officer to apply the plan meeting of the law,

[36:55] which in this case, an under title like team, there isn't a lot of guidance, right?

[36:58] And so both the city and I decided, we want to go through this development agreement process

[37:03] is because we can put conditions in place that as Claire said,

[37:06] don't exist in code, right?

[37:08] There's really kind of a large gap in code

[37:09] when it comes to the existing land use rights

[37:12] and then that gap that's in Title 19

[37:15] because these are permitted,

[37:17] but there really are standards for how they are permitted

[37:19] or how it should be oversaw.

[37:20] We need to have something in place that controls.

[37:23] Because without that, there really isn't a lot of guidance

[37:25] for me to understand what is allowed and what is not allowed.

[37:28] So in trying to implement this,

[37:30] Well, what was it for the city would say we can't do that but there was nowhere for the city to point to say that

[37:36] It couldn't do that because it wasn't in 1019 so for me the development gear would give me clarity to know what is a lot

[37:42] And what is not what it's putting it all in writing so that there's no ambiguity for the city provides conditions

[37:47] That they can oppose on me that wouldn't otherwise be allowed under either encode or

[37:53] Elsewhere, so it really fills the gap to create site specific standards that don't apply to the entire canyon or the entire

[37:59] of our 20 zone, they apply just to this, really this few acres within my land.

[38:07] So, to delete active management benefits, the whole canyon, as we pointed out, this

[38:12] is not my plan, necessarily, but it's a plan that's been developed by the state using

[38:17] federal funds that show how forest should be managed professionally.

[38:23] There's oversight from the state, the state rights the plan by coming on site, looking

[38:26] it the existing conditions and make a recommendation for each stand should be managed and do what

[38:31] densely. The idea here is to keep a healthy forest that doesn't require as much water so the

[38:38] existing trees have enough to be able to stay and resist disease and make them more resilient

[38:44] to fire. So the active fuel reduction reduces risk for neighboring properties. It also protects

[38:50] the drinking water in the watershed. I've done projects for invasive species control while

[38:55] let habitat restoration, water and soil erosion mitigation, those are all parts of the plan

[39:00] that I have funded with federal funds at an employment. And what it does, it's a 10-year

[39:07] forestry plan that's implemented by the state and over-sale by the state with on-site residents.

[39:13] So, as I mentioned, UFA still remains full regulatory authority overall. Structures,

[39:20] this agreement really simplifies the federal code, it doesn't replace it, so we're adding to that.

[39:25] Some of the examples you can see that are in the development agreement are here.

[39:30] Well, it complies with the wooie code.

[39:33] Again, there's a lot of state exemption.

[39:35] And even under wooie, there's exemption for agricultural structures.

[39:38] Or a lot of this wouldn't have to park.

[39:40] Now agricultural structure for that extremely high risk fire danger area

[39:44] should have some kind of restrictions or some kind of compliance.

[39:49] And so those are volatile and put into those development agreements

[39:52] such as the class-wood ignition resets of construction,

[39:54] defensible space that wouldn't otherwise apply.

[39:58] And then there's additional structures,

[40:00] sorry, additional conditions for structures

[40:02] that are over a six-centred square feet

[40:04] that make it even higher, which is the threshold

[40:06] that is set by a whirlwind.

[40:09] So as Claire mentioned, she went through all the different concerns.

[40:12] I categorized them more down into four different concerns

[40:16] are on fire, public safety, water, environmental,

[40:19] neighborhood impacts, and access.

[40:20] We're going to go through all of these and surely hear them from the public.

[40:25] I want to try to address how the development agreement tries to address these concerns.

[40:31] So we already mentioned that the Ruby standards for class wedding

[40:34] initially is construction, defensual space, the plan that's been developed by DFSSL

[40:42] and how they'll be onsite to monitor and supervise the application of any biochar

[40:49] birds and the fire suppression equipment that's required to be stored on site.

[40:54] When it comes to water and environmental, all of the requirements will still need to

[40:58] go through EAD, Division of Water Rights, Health Department, Armored Corps of Engineers,

[41:03] all the existing agencies that have jurisdiction.

[41:07] When it comes to the neighborhood impact, we've highly restricted commercial timber operations

[41:11] animal enterprises, insect retail, and habitable structures to create as minimal of an impact

[41:19] as possible. There's high restrictions on storage of any kind of waste, lighting, and really

[41:26] my goal with all of this is that when you look at the property, you're not going to see anything,

[41:30] right? From any viewpoint of the canyon, this will all be shielded from the structures geographically

[41:36] because it's essentially a big bolt, so there's terrain that's in the way that would impact any of

[41:41] the light pollution or any kind of noticeable development.

[41:46] When it comes to access, as Claire mentioned,

[41:48] this really doesn't address motor vehicle access.

[41:50] What we're trying to do is mitigate the need for it

[41:53] by limiting the intensity and imposing

[41:55] those additional public safety safeguards.

[41:59] And then it doesn't eliminate these concerns,

[42:01] but it kind of converts them into standards, limitations,

[42:04] and agency oversight.

[42:07] So with the staff recommendation that Claire

[42:09] are already mentioned. You know, when I look at this, I think the development agreement

[42:15] is a way to put additional conditions on this property that otherwise can be. And it's

[42:22] really a choice of do we want to go down the road of allowing the land use hearing officer

[42:28] to decide whether this needs existing code without any conditions, or that we can come together

[42:33] and have an agreement that we both agree on

[42:38] that will resolve the concerns.

[42:40] And so while it is a yes or no vote,

[42:43] I know vote means that we essentially just go back

[42:45] to the default process, which is that appeal process.

[42:48] And I did put in here permanent and bold

[42:50] for the same point that Clark pointed out.

[42:52] Yes, this agreement can be terminated,

[42:54] but the plan is to update 10 on 19

[42:57] which you've been working in for three years now.

[42:59] And a lot of these uses, including agriculture use,

[43:03] will be removed. So if this agreement is ever terminated, why don't we just do that

[43:07] a chance to go back to them and we can't do these things. Sir, please, Mr.

[43:12] like how are you going to answer this? Please, that is my kind of order, sir, please. I can't ask

[43:18] you. No, no, no, you don't want to. No, please sit down. Any questions? Just like please,

[43:23] officer. How are you going to access the problem?

[43:26] No, really, how are you going to

[43:27] access the property? Mr. Lee, are you done with your presentation?

[43:30] Thank you very much for using your time more.

[43:36] We are now prepared to go to the public hearing portion of the meeting.

[43:42] Do I have a motion from the planning commission to open the public hearing?

[43:46] I'll make a motion to open the public hearing.

[43:48] Motion, second.

[43:50] Second.

[43:50] Any discussion?

[43:53] Hearing none.

[43:54] Paul, here at PCI.

[43:55] Oh, hang on, hang on.

[43:56] before the public hearing at the beginning of the public hearing.

[44:00] I'll take care.

[44:03] All in favor?

[44:05] Please say aye.

[44:05] Aye.

[44:06] Aye.

[44:07] It passes unanimously.

[44:09] Thank you.

[44:10] All right, for the public hearing, what we'd like to do is limit comments to two minutes

[44:15] because there's such a large crowd here.

[44:18] We do not know what it's up to the chair.

[44:23] Why would you limit it?

[44:24] Please, sir, here are the order at this point.

[44:27] You'll get you two minutes if you wish.

[44:30] What I'd like to do is learn it to two minutes

[44:32] so that we have time to hear as many people as possible.

[44:36] We will need to close the public hearing

[44:39] so that we will have time to have a commission discussion.

[44:43] We have in the audience, a member of our city council,

[44:46] Ren Harris, she has requested to speak first.

[44:51] and I would like to recognize this hair.

[44:56] And while she's coming up, do we have the sign-in sheets?

[45:01] Has everyone had an opportunity to sign in? If not, please do so. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chair, everyone, I'll try to use my now two minutes wisely. I had requested that I be given some consideration as a visiting official. You all know that I am a member of the city council. I did have a statement prepared to address

[45:30] And to support the Planning Commission saying that there have been a lot of rumors insinuating

[45:39] that there is some back room plan dealing going on and I have received so many comments

[45:50] but to synthesize them that this is basically a done deal that is even considered.

[45:56] I have pushed back against that, at every opportunity I am constrained by the fact that I cannot

[46:03] mention the things that Ms. Gilmore mentioned about why this is even being considered.

[46:11] I can't make those statements at this point because of two things that have happened in this.

[46:16] I will say that I do not know any council members who have either knowingly or unwittingly acted

[46:26] in a way to influence the planning commission and that is something you know

[46:31] this this body works so hard they have done such great work. I can't say

[46:37] enough good things about the planning commission. I also welcome Mr.

[46:42] Leib to use his property as immigration king and ordinances provide. I'm in no

[46:49] way trying to say that he can't do that but where two things happen today that

[46:54] Make me look like a little bit of a fool for trying to say that this is being considered

[47:01] in an open and public way.

[47:02] The first is that Ms. Gilmore admitted that the CDA were considering today, which is

[47:07] supposed to take into account the benefit of the community.

[47:12] It's predicated on a modification of our existing ordinances that's going to be considered in an

[47:19] upcoming meeting and that none of the currency counsel people even know about. So that makes

[47:26] it, you know, more challenging for me to accept that there isn't something going on.

[47:31] Ren, your time's up and if we let you go longer, then we have to let everybody else go longer.

[47:35] She can have my time. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that. I will take less than that. Mr.

[47:44] Mr. Light just said that he and the city agreed to this CDA.

[47:47] The City Council has not, all caps there, agreed to anything in either closed or public

[47:54] session.

[47:56] In fact, at our last closed session, we were left with the impression that some of these

[48:02] concepts might be developed further.

[48:06] The litigation attorney reluctantly gave us a paper copy of some of the things that we might

[48:11] consider that we expected to consider further in closed session.

[48:17] Nothing has happened in public session, and I have, up to this point, absolutely

[48:25] resented the implications, but I now understand what are some of this might be

[48:30] coming from, and I am here on this May. I normally would stay for public hearing.

[48:38] You all know I welcome and respect everybody's public opinions.

[48:43] I am leaving now at their recommendation of Mayor David Brems.

[48:47] I spoke with him yesterday on an unrelated matter.

[48:51] He expressed surprise that I was coming to this public hearing.

[48:54] He said, we don't want to give the impression that we are influencing the planning commission.

[49:01] Normally, I would say it's a public hearing.

[49:03] It's my job to hear what people can.

[49:05] And in this case, given the uncertainty and the rumors, in effect the revelations today,

[49:11] I don't want to do anything to enhance that perception that there might, see Council

[49:18] might be attempting to influence the independent and extremely experienced or hard-working planning

[49:23] commission.

[49:24] So I will leave.

[49:25] I promise all of you I will listen to the recording every minute of it.

[49:30] I have already read most of the letters.

[49:33] I expect that most of those letters, same letters, will come to us when we consider it next week, but I will leave now I don't want to.

[49:41] And I thank the planning commission for Lisa for turning your time over to me.

[49:48] Thank you.

[49:48] I look forward to learning of your decision.

[49:52] Thank you.

[49:53] Thank you.

[49:53] Thank you to everybody else here.

[49:56] All right.

[49:56] Now,

[50:00] if anyone would like to speak, please raise your hand, and I'll recognize you,

[50:05] sir.

[50:05] Thank you, members.

[50:07] My name is Matt Stewart.

[50:08] I live at 5290 East Pioneer 4th.

[50:10] Really, and I apologize for interrupting, but there's just a lot of misinformation that this

[50:15] council is operating on.

[50:17] One, this is not a conservation, East vent, or agreement that runs with the land.

[50:23] That's simply correct.

[50:24] I don't care if you record it with a solid account or recorder or not.

[50:27] that does not make it an incumbrance on the land. That's just incorrect. This is an agreement

[50:33] between the parties, if Mr. like sold the property tomorrow, the buyer, the successor and

[50:39] interest, would not be bound by this. That's a fundamental fact. Okay? Second, what do you

[50:48] talk about? You won't even see this? It'll all be shielded? Have you walked up there? Have you?

[50:56] Yeah, you see the trailer and the side by side. You see the tree house. You see the purgola.

[51:03] Did he allegedly walked in from the Miner's Trail?

[51:08] Yes.

[51:09] He dropped all that stuff off trespassing through Pioneer Fort Road and Immigration Oaks.

[51:17] And he hasn't been forthright about that. And he's not to be trusted in this statement after this statement.

[51:24] You look at these recitals, who drafted these recitals, talking about the city

[51:31] agrees that this is conservation and harmony with the protection of the

[51:35] forest. Bullshit!

[51:40] Talks about it reflects their aligned values, promoting

[51:44] conservation, fire mitigation, and responsible man-to-mill property. Where is this

[51:50] side-by-side that is now on the property? Gonna go. It's a trail. It's a trail on a

[51:57] problem. You're a joke. This whole thing is a farce. In the city should not be a party to it.

[52:07] The recital says F. Property owner recognizes the need for motor vehicle access and

[52:15] agrees to certain conditions. That's a two minutes. Could I have something to say?

[52:19] Thank you, Chair.

[52:21] The final slide.

[52:22] And my.

[52:23] Recital Audis has specifically said the, excuse me, recital F specifically says the property

[52:28] owner recognizes the need for motor vehicle access and agrees to certain conditions quote

[52:34] until he has motor vehicle access in quote.

[52:40] Mr. like is quite unlikely to ever have motor vehicle access to this property period.

[52:48] So why are we talking about these things that require motor vehicle access?

[52:54] Why are we entering into this conservation development easement with a landowner who purchased the property knowing it was landlocked that he didn't have access prior to closing on the property,

[53:06] asked for as a joining property owners to grant an access to which they declined and he bought the property anyway.

[53:14] True, right?

[53:22] You're addressing the planning commission, sir, please despite the

[53:26] agreement saying that runs with the land the very clear it does not. I have

[53:33] done dozens of conservation easements that run with the land. I am very

[53:37] familiar with the legal language that is required to make an agreement run with

[53:43] land and this does not. And I caution this planning commission to be relying on legal counsel

[53:52] that now in at least two instances has proven to be incorrect,

[54:00] right? The only benefit the

[54:03] city gets from this is the waiver of these enumerated uses that two things. One, we're

[54:12] to assume Title 19 is going to be adopted, well, if it is, we don't get any extra benefit

[54:18] from this agreement, they're all prohibited uses, right? And second, he can terminate

[54:25] this thing tomorrow with no reason and no fall. That's section 7.2. So I've heard these

[54:33] statements about the benefit to the city. There's no benefit to the city for this agreement.

[54:39] And then how this agreement is going to be used by Mr. Mike?

[54:43] Is he is going to try to bootstrap this with other agencies and say the City of Immigration

[54:49] Canyon bless this and said I am doing good conservation things.

[54:59] And well, so he terminated the agreement and then 7.3 says he gets to keep everything that

[55:06] he put on the property, a barn, a lumber mill, three parking lots. Yet he has no vehicle

[55:17] access. Why are we green? He has three parking lots when he has no vehicle access. What

[55:24] are we doing?

[55:27] This is crazy.

[55:31] I can't believe the city is considering this.

[55:42] I can't believe

[55:42] This agreement was drafted by Mr. Lake or his counsel with very little thoughtful input

[55:49] from the city, and that's a problem.

[55:53] And this whole thing, and this notion that this, as Ren put, this is a done deal.

[56:00] The staff recommends this.

[56:03] This is a good idea.

[56:05] Our values are aligned with the applicant.

[56:09] Well, I can tell you there are a lot of citizens of immigration canyons city who do not believe

[56:15] their values are aligned with the applicant.

[56:17] Thank you very much.

[56:26] Do we have anyone else who would like to speak?

[56:29] Yes, sir.

[56:38] As a reminder, please state your name and address.

[56:43] I want to lighten this up a little bit.

[56:47] You know, I found my name.

[56:51] Oh, Roger McQueen.

[56:53] Thank you.

[56:54] I've found a treasure chest the other day in the mountains worth millions but I

[57:04] just can't find the key to unlock it. I'll share the treasure with you if you

[57:11] can give me some money and I can continue to look for more treasures and then it

[57:19] And then it would be shared, but you need to believe me that I know and I thought that I had found it.

[57:27] But you know what? Last year there were five keys that all didn't work.

[57:36] But I'll keep dreaming in and keep as long as you keep helping me with money and helping me dream.

[57:47] I just hope it comes true, so that's, you know, what we're talking about here.

[57:55] Last, last meeting we had here by things were very, I mean, everything he talked about

[58:08] was there, but everyone was denied by every single area that was in the meetings there.

[58:16] I hope you'll do the same here.

[58:19] Thank you.

[58:23] Thank you very much.

[58:25] Thank you very much.

[58:26] Mr. Nimkin.

[58:28] My

[58:33] name is Dave Nimkin.

[58:35] I live at 6249 East Marathon Lane.

[58:41] Not to underscore some of the things that were said.

[58:45] I want to put the notion of what your role is as a planning commission with some context.

[58:51] I think there needs to be some consideration that it's not a cookie-cutter template, but

[58:57] that context matters.

[58:59] Four years ago, Mr. Lee made a presentation at the Immigration Improvement District when

[59:04] it first became aware of what he's been looking at doing.

[59:07] He's been consistent in trying to find a way to negotiate and move this forward.

[59:14] I have felt that this is a vehicle for him to try to do that, and it doesn't necessarily

[59:20] fit in the public interest. It's like the nose of the camel under the tent, ultimately

[59:27] there will be a need as indicated previously in the recitals that when there is a road

[59:33] he will be able to bring public safety support into the area. I think it's totally consistent

[59:41] with the land use in the area. I don't believe despite what the law says about a forest plan

[59:47] that it is consistent with the nature of what our community is and how it benefits the general public.

[59:54] So I'm also concerned about the exclusions.

[59:58] Exclusions for multi-famil-

[1:00:00] What about a single family residence at some point? There's nothing in here that suggests that. There's an exclusion for city's future laws. I don't even understand what that means. How does that even apply in terms of what we're looking at? There are legitimate concerns. I guess I would caution the planning commission to consider that this is premature, that it should be delayed. The public has not had a chance to fully embrace and understand this.

[1:00:28] It's not a yes or no, I'd say hold off and allow the requirements that Mr.

[1:00:36] Lyck is indicated in this to be dealt with on his terms, on his money, not taxpayer money,

[1:00:43] and that he should come to this group, to the City Council with those things rectified and value.

[1:01:07] I'm John Bird, six, nine, six, don't worry, he'll circle up, thanks, you guys, you're

[1:01:12] volunteers.

[1:01:13] This is a ton of work and a lot of heat for volunteer work, so I just want to put that

[1:01:17] out there.

[1:01:21] Ryan, you should do what the law allows, you know, you have your property.

[1:01:26] The loss, you know, our code says you have a road to develop, no road, no development.

[1:01:34] That should be the end of this discussion.

[1:01:37] Once there is a road established, create, come to the planning commission, let's create

[1:01:42] a plan.

[1:01:44] I could go through this thing line by line, don't have time, the recitals, I would suggest

[1:01:55] this is a positive thing, and it's a great lever if this thing comes back, where the city can't cancel it, but Ryan can, it comes back, and Ryan gets, hey, the city blessed this, they see that this improves fire safety, improves considerations, just all these beautiful things.

[1:02:14] is that makes no sense to us, that's not the situation, actually building roads, bulldozers,

[1:02:23] that tends not to be conservation oriented.

[1:02:27] The agreement itself that can be canceled at his desire, that's great if you're him,

[1:02:35] not so good for the city.

[1:02:36] This is premature,

[1:02:41] get your road approval, which does require taking property rights from

[1:02:46] hundreds of immigration residents to get that road approval, because there is land

[1:02:51] that it would have to cross owned by hundreds of the residents of this community.

[1:02:57] Get your road approval, then talk about a development plan.

[1:03:01] That's all I have to say.

[1:03:08] Anyone else here to make statements?

[1:03:11] Yes sir.

[1:03:17] My name is Chick Beener.

[1:03:19] I live at 402 Old Oak Road.

[1:03:24] I just want to know about access.

[1:03:30] How do you propose to get to your property?

[1:03:35] And like the man said with the oven,

[1:03:38] all that stuff we heard about at the beginning of this meeting,

[1:03:43] is any good unless he can get there and he bought a landlock piece of property. Who else

[1:03:50] has any of you done that? Has anybody bought a landlock property? You don't even need

[1:03:58] to go to kindergarten to know not to do that. And that's all I have to say.

[1:04:13] Just not a

[1:04:13] Do you have anyone else who'd like to speak?

[1:04:19] Yes, sir.

[1:04:25] My name is Ryan Pond.

[1:04:26] I live at 536 North Pioneer Full Road.

[1:04:29] I would like to bring up my concern is that this proposal is being, it's being proposed

[1:04:37] in our watershed area.

[1:04:39] I'm a builder.

[1:04:40] I've seen many of accidents happen in these developments, diesel, hydraulic fluid.

[1:04:46] This is being proposed in the heart of our well protection zone with no way for it to be overseen by officials.

[1:04:57] There's some discussion about flying them in occasionally or having a special allowance for his inspections for this.

[1:05:04] It's easy to, it's hard enough to catch violations when an inspector has consistent and open access to a project.

[1:05:14] But when there is no access for the inspections are being done by the applicant, it is very easy for things to get missed or spills to happen and not get cleaned up if they, if we have a

[1:05:28] large excavator that has a hydraulic hose that breaks, how does that get cleaned up in our well protection zone, and how do we get that out of there?

[1:05:36] How do we even identify that it's happened? It would be on him to do those things until he has that access for the inspectors.

[1:05:44] That's something I haven't heard other people bring up.

[1:05:47] I would like to also, you know, agree with all the previous comments that have been brought

[1:05:54] up today.

[1:05:55] And then this is, I'm not suggesting anything nefarious, but I do not understand the relationship

[1:06:00] between MSD's attorney providing legal counsel for Salt Lake City.

[1:06:06] I'm not asking you to give me answer, but if anybody can help me understand how we're taking

[1:06:11] advice.

[1:06:12] and I'm not saying it's you know I'm not no slight I just don't I can see where

[1:06:17] MSD's goals are not aligned with immigration cities or its residents and so

[1:06:23] I'm on I don't understand the relationship of the legal council we're getting so

[1:06:27] that's it thank you. Thank you miss Paul.

[1:06:35] Anything else? Yes sir? I have one very small comment.

[1:06:38] That was me, you know, on six-eight-seven-war.

[1:06:41] Don El-Circle.

[1:06:42] Did I hear the first name again?

[1:06:45] Ed.

[1:06:46] Ed.

[1:06:47] Ed.

[1:06:49] Ed.

[1:06:49] And so I've heard that part of the reason we're doing this is because we want to avoid legal battle with Mr.

[1:06:57] Lincoln, so I would propose that the members of the community set up our own legal pit bond and start seeing the hell out of him.

[1:07:07] Thank you.

[1:07:13] Yes, ma'am.

[1:07:17] Hello.

[1:07:18] I'm Terry Martin.

[1:07:19] I live at 5604 Pioneer.

[1:07:22] Fork Road.

[1:07:23] And I met Mr. Lyke on the trail, maybe soon after you bought the property.

[1:07:28] And he said, oh, I've just done this thing and not to worry.

[1:07:32] It's going to be accessible.

[1:07:33] And I'm not going to have any impact on the values you care about.

[1:07:38] Well, that was total nonsense since that time there's the structure that's appeared

[1:07:43] there's this weird hosing that's along the trail and now I hear about a double side.

[1:07:50] I mean I'm sorry, but I'm repeating some things other people said, but you bought a piece

[1:07:57] of landlock property.

[1:07:59] You bought it in a very sensitive area.

[1:08:02] You knew people denied you access and now you have this development plan, which when

[1:08:07] And I saw it two days ago, I went, this is tow under the tent.

[1:08:13] And you guys have a responsibility to look at the big picture long-term, not just the

[1:08:19] narrow confined areas that are spelled out.

[1:08:27] I mean, anyone can see what's happening.

[1:08:29] This is a tow under the tent, and eventually tear the tent down.

[1:08:34] You've gotten some approvals that help justify your losses to try and get access and to try and eventually

[1:08:40] Develop this project or sell it at a higher price. I mean I think we all know that's what's going on here

[1:08:50] So you look at this map. There's roads built on the property to its boundaries. What does that tell you?

[1:08:57] Why is something being approved before this guy has road access?

[1:09:01] us, clearly, table this until the access issue is resolved.

[1:09:08] Otherwise, you're just working backwards, and I hope you, I just seem so many playing

[1:09:14] commissions get stuck in a really narrow definition to stay safe of what they can cover.

[1:09:19] But I think your mandate allows you a larger look, and I hope you'll take it because I trust

[1:09:26] that you have a good will of this canyon at your heart.

[1:09:29] Thank you.

[1:09:39] My name is Paul Brown, I live at 696 North Pioneer Fort Broad,

[1:09:47] I've looked over this

[1:09:48] for both agreement, a lot of the boilers, we've talked about fire and we've talked about

[1:09:55] other things in road access, this really should be deferred until you get a real agreement

[1:10:04] in front of you rather than a lot of to be determined things in the agreement.

[1:10:13] The attorney fee shifting boilerplate is a trap for the unwary.

[1:10:21] I suspect that Mr. Bill Moore's billing rate is a small fraction of the billing rate of

[1:10:28] Mr. Light's international law firm that he's been using.

[1:10:32] and should there be any disputes that are resolved in favor of Mr. Light?

[1:10:38] The city will end up paying not just Mrs. Gilmore's fee, but also Mr. Light's fee,

[1:10:44] and that could be a very expensive proposition.

[1:10:47] So if this is being thought to save money, it's not going to work.

[1:10:54] So that is my main comment.

[1:10:56] the other stuff that has been, that I had to say has been said very well by others. I will affirm

[1:11:04] that there is no ongoing litigation between Mr. Light and joining landowners. That lawsuit was

[1:11:13] dismissed earlier this year as not yet been refiled. It was not appeal. There is no ongoing litigation.

[1:11:20] Now, I suspect there will be, but it's not here yet. So that's correction I have. Thank you, Tim.

[1:11:26] appreciate all this volunteer work. Thank you Paul.

[1:11:35] Any others?

[1:11:40] Yeah I'm Jeff Crockett. I'm at

[1:11:43] 652 North Pioneer Fortbrook. Just to echo what Paul said and to build on that. I've got three

[1:11:51] points for the record. First the staff report may rest on a mistaken fact. The port says, as Paul

[1:11:59] just mentioned in the poor states that the applicant is currently in an active dispute

[1:12:03] over access rights. But my understanding is that the 2025 suit against this city, Salt

[1:12:09] Lake City and the Immigration Oaks owners, Property Owners Association was dismissed and has

[1:12:15] not been refiled. Access is the premise of this entire application and the staff's own project

[1:12:21] description says the agreement is requested due to the absence of motor vehicle access.

[1:12:27] So before the Commission recommends anything, I ask the staff confirm the litigation status on the record.

[1:12:35] The application, the second day, is the application is incomplete. There's exhibits A, C, and D. They're not in the packet.

[1:12:43] Staff has marked multiple sections, verification pending, and states those provisions remain subject to review, revision, or removal.

[1:12:53] How can the public meaningfully comment on an agreement whose exhibits don't even exist?

[1:13:00] Finally, the terms are very one-sided.

[1:13:03] Section 7-1 lists the property owner terminated well as we've heard.

[1:13:08] Section 7-2 preserves whatever he has already built.

[1:13:12] Meanwhile, Section 2.2 makes the agreement control over conflicting city ordinances.

[1:13:18] Section 2-3 exempts the project from the city's future laws, Section 3 runs it with the land.

[1:13:25] The city gives up 10 years of regulatory authority that he can walk away at any time and keep the improvements.

[1:13:31] I'm not asking you guys to decide on the merits today, but maybe just defer this until the exhibits are complete and the access question is settled.

[1:13:40] Thank you.

[1:13:41] Do you

[1:13:47] have anyone else who would like to speak?

[1:13:51] Sir.

[1:13:52] Herb and post, 60, 98, and fine, or four.

[1:13:59] This thing just doesn't make sense at all.

[1:14:03] You talk about conservation, which you need a road.

[1:14:06] And if you imagine, if you prevail in court and get access,

[1:14:11] you're going to make our roads public, which you know people don't want.

[1:14:15] But then you're going to build a road up through Freeze Creek

[1:14:18] and destroyed. How the hell can you talk about conservation on your piece of

[1:14:24] property and then destroy freeze-cree? It's just insane.

[1:14:36] Anyone else? Yes sir?

[1:14:46] Brad Barber, 763 north by your foregrowd. Quite a while since I've seen it. It has been long.

[1:14:53] I just want to make not to be difficult, but one of my responsibilities is

[1:15:00] I am the chair of the trails committee for immigration oaths. We maintain the trail and freeze-creek trail and make improvements. And in that job, you've seen over the years the value of this trail corridor to the community. It's where people interact. It's where you meet your neighbors. And it's true. It's obvious that the access that is required to make this happen

[1:15:28] is going to destroy that trail corridor.

[1:15:33] The heart of this community will be impacted

[1:15:37] for generations.

[1:15:40] This corridor is vital to the community of immigration Elks.

[1:15:47] To any consideration to destroy the heart

[1:15:51] of this community is simply not acceptable.

[1:16:02] Thank you, Rhett.

[1:16:02] Thank you.

[1:16:08] Do we have any members of the public online?

[1:16:12] I don't like that one.

[1:16:14] Is that Salt Lake Public Utility or so?

[1:16:17] Yes.

[1:16:17] Right.

[1:16:17] Public Works want to?

[1:16:19] Does anyone online care to make a statement?

[1:16:26] No, you did.

[1:16:27] Did you meet them?

[1:16:28] No, thank you.

[1:16:29] Thank you.

[1:16:30] You made it ourselves.

[1:16:33] Okay.

[1:16:35] Hearing none, I asked for a motion to close the public hearing.

[1:16:40] We'll make the most close to public hearing.

[1:16:43] We have a motion in a second.

[1:16:45] A discussion on the motion.

[1:16:48] Hearing none, all of the data, please be high.

[1:16:50] All right.

[1:16:52] Passes unanimously.

[1:16:53] Thank you.

[1:16:53] Thank you all for your comments.

[1:16:55] We will now go into a planning commission discussion

[1:16:59] on this matter.

[1:17:01] You are certainly welcome to stay, but we will not be taking

[1:17:05] any further input unless we need to ask

[1:17:09] the question of anyone here.

[1:17:11] Okay, I need one clarification for the record.

[1:17:14] If I did not emphasize this properly before,

[1:17:18] the city, this is a legislative decision

[1:17:21] where the city council would make the final termination.

[1:17:28] The,

[1:17:30] is subject to the final approval of the city council

[1:17:33] and if I have been unclear about that,

[1:17:36] I think I shouldn't have been, and secondly, that we have in the text that the agreement

[1:17:47] would not be construed as an approval by any other governmental entity other than the city.

[1:17:55] So to the extent that that clarifies anything I hope it does, and I'm happy to answer any

[1:18:02] questions as a result of the public comment.

[1:18:05] Thank you, Claire.

[1:18:05] Can I address the public before we start?

[1:18:08] Sure.

[1:18:09] Just very briefly, you all have available to you the packet.

[1:18:14] In that packet, there's an explanation of the options that this planning commission

[1:18:21] has.

[1:18:22] So we have a heard your comments, we've read your comments, we're also residents of the

[1:18:31] canyon and we agree with what you're saying. So I just want you to know you're heard

[1:18:40] by this body. But our hands are tied on what we are legally allowed to do. And what

[1:18:47] we are legally allowed to do and what we are required to do at the end of this meeting

[1:18:53] is to make a recommendation to the City Council. That is what has to happen by us at the end

[1:19:00] of this meeting as part of our commission requirements.

[1:19:05] Our options are listed in that packet.

[1:19:08] The first option is approval.

[1:19:10] The second option is approval with changes.

[1:19:14] The third option is denial.

[1:19:16] And there's another option that's not listed here, and that fourth option is to recommend

[1:19:22] tabling it or continuing it.

[1:19:25] So, I just want to make that clear, in case it hasn't been clear, our hands are tied

[1:19:33] and that is all we can do.

[1:19:35] So with that said, let's talk.

[1:19:39] Thank you, Jody.

[1:19:42] Anyone here to lead off?

[1:19:44] Consciousness.

[1:19:45] I'm going to have you talk here.

[1:19:47] Go ahead.

[1:19:49] So, we just got a late set of comments from Salt Lake Park.

[1:19:55] to the public works that I think is worth reading through because I didn't get a chance

[1:20:05] to read through it, but just in reading the first paragraph of it, it summarizes articulately

[1:20:13] all of the comments made by the public.

[1:20:17] I think this is received by Wendy today yesterday.

[1:20:23] Sorry, Salt Lake City Public Utility, yeah. Salt Lake City Public Utilities. So, Salt Lake City Public Utilities,

[1:20:33] respectfully request that the Planning Commission continue the public hearing and make no

[1:20:38] recommendation until a complete final CDA and all incorporated exhibits are publicly available

[1:20:43] and access, wildfire, water-right, and watershed issues identified below have been resolved.

[1:20:50] It's a commission to clients to continue the matter, so I'll see you part of the public

[1:20:54] utilities, request a recommendation from you.

[1:20:57] So it kind of goes on and articulates all of the same concerns, but in a more legal manner.

[1:21:09] So I think with these these late comments that just came in without any time for us to review

[1:21:15] and discuss and deliberate and in consideration of the incomplete nature of the proposed

[1:21:25] development agreement that we either need to deny it or continue it.

[1:21:31] I'm happy to stay for the rest of our time and kind of talk through the issues but

[1:21:36] But that's what I'm recommending at the end of this discussion, that we either

[1:21:41] table it, recommend tabling it, or recommend an aisle.

[1:21:48] So that said, can kind of maybe start to talk through some of the conditions.

[1:21:54] Yeah, I'd like to.

[1:21:55] And through that.

[1:21:57] And I'm sort of exactly what that does to me.

[1:21:59] Yeah.

[1:22:01] So we can either continue to talk, or we can just table it.

[1:22:08] I'm happy it's been another half hour.

[1:22:11] We do have up until 10-30 for discussion.

[1:22:14] Have you had a chance, Claire, to read this particular letter?

[1:22:18] I've been in contact with the Boone Solid City Attorney's Office.

[1:22:23] I'm familiar with their concerns.

[1:22:25] Okay, thank you.

[1:22:28] Do you have some more comments?

[1:22:30] Yeah, so I actually guess I have a question for our council, Claire.

[1:22:35] And I would caution them to get the legal advice being provided that is privileged and the

[1:22:43] opposing party is in the room in the classroom.

[1:22:47] This is an open and public meeting, yeah.

[1:22:49] Matt, okay, but I don't want her to wave.

[1:22:52] We have finished and you don't just get to start talking.

[1:22:55] Well, if you guys are making a fundamental mistake, I think I should.

[1:22:58] The public hearing is closed.

[1:23:00] Sir.

[1:23:01] Okay.

[1:23:01] Don't have your turn to give you advice in front of the opposing council.

[1:23:04] It's a more opposing party.

[1:23:06] Thank you for your question.

[1:23:07] That's actually good.

[1:23:08] Yeah.

[1:23:08] So maybe we make a motion to continue.

[1:23:15] Does anyone else have comments that look to share this point?

[1:23:23] Yeah.

[1:23:23] I still have.

[1:23:25] Okay.

[1:23:25] A lot of questions.

[1:23:27] Yeah.

[1:23:27] It's the need to be addressed.

[1:23:29] The questions can be maybe held with our council in a closed public discussion.

[1:23:34] I'm from the staff and so I can let you know if I feel like the information that you're asking me for is privileged, but there isn't any way for me to know that until I know the question.

[1:23:50] Yeah, so for that reason, but please ask.

[1:23:55] Well, I don't want to ask now. I think that was good advice by Matt Stewart to not talking about the opposing council.

[1:24:12] considering where we are right now, I think we should table it.

[1:24:20] So,

[1:24:23] what are your thoughts

[1:24:24] to him? And yeah, what are your thoughts? I think we should table it. What are your thoughts?

[1:24:34] That works. Okay, so I'm having a make-emotion. Okay, make-emotion and the table is

[1:24:45] I'd like to add to the motion that the reason for

[1:24:50] tabling the discussion is that the development agreement in its current state is incomplete,

[1:24:57] contains conflicting language that goes against the intent of the immigration

[1:25:06] can in general plan in current zoning ordinances.

[1:25:15] Is that even way amendment?

[1:25:17] Yes.

[1:25:19] Are we chivaling it to a date specific?

[1:25:24] Tabling it without any specific type of rain?

[1:25:30] I think the date should be following the completion of the agreement, the draft agreement where

[1:25:42] it doesn't have.

[1:25:43] I don't think that's good.

[1:25:43] Missing information, conflicting language, and notes stating that additional research

[1:25:53] needs to be completed.

[1:25:59] I don't know.

[1:26:00] Do you?

[1:26:01] Yeah.

[1:26:02] All right.

[1:26:03] Okay.

[1:26:03] We have a motion and a second.

[1:26:06] Do you have any discussion on that motion?

[1:26:09] Who's seconded?

[1:26:10] We didn't say.

[1:26:10] I don't know.

[1:26:11] I thought you did.

[1:26:13] No.

[1:26:13] I amended.

[1:26:14] Yeah.

[1:26:15] I'll say it now.

[1:26:15] You got a second any for the discussion here your mountain on favor say aye

[1:26:22] Any opposed passes unanimous sleep. Thank you

Emigration Canyon Planning Commission

Transcript