[0:07] How are you?

[0:12] » Don't break it open.

[0:17] » All right. Call our work meeting to order for the city planning commission

[0:22] on August 13th, 2026. First

[0:28] items of business. Um, do we have a volunteer for the

[0:32] pledge for?

[0:43] » Anybody want to pray? >> Hi.

[0:47] » We're gonna have Travis do it one time. Remember, he's going to give us one. He

[0:50] said >> we're just going to regret a pack of

[0:52] lunch. >> Pack of lunch.

[0:56] Paul

[1:00] like you can do it next time if you want or you can do it. Um minutes from

[1:05] previous meeting any corrections that you guys saw

[1:12] » the main

[1:15] then we'll kind of go through that first one was kind of what was we

[1:22] asked him to come back with for the on family and group home

[1:29] stuff. I thought those worked pretty good.

[1:32] » Yeah. >> To send out to

[1:36] anything else that >> Yeah.

[1:38] » needed to. >> So, we should be able to motion that

[1:40] one. >> Yep.

[1:41] » Correct. Um and then this conditional use

[2:01] and you said we're good on that one to take the public hearing.

[2:05] » Well, that's funny. So, I was I was talking with Bryce about that the other

[2:09] day. Bill's like a fourth cousin of mine. I guess He's like he's if I had to

[2:15] do that I wouldn't be able to vote on anything couldn't be here.

[2:18] [clears throat]

[2:21] » And these next ones all might be discussion only items but we can

[2:28] kind of go through them. >> Yeah.

[2:29] » Um any concerns on I'll just go around when go down through

[2:36] and kind of list concerns or issues that you see with each one. So, let's start

[2:42] there with first on Bridger Smith. This is just up the road.

[2:46] » So, that's the one. So, when you look at I'm confused what they're trying to do

[2:51] here because that property is owned by Mike Schultz.

[2:54] » I believe I believe Bridger >> is the son-in-law.

[2:58] » Son-in-law. >> His daughter lives in the house

[3:01] » farthest to the west. He shouldn't be the one asking for question.

[3:06] » I thought it's got to be the property owner. But then I thought, okay, when my

[3:12] kid came to subdivide the one lot

[3:17] subdivision from grandpa, he's the one that presented it. Grandpa never showed

[3:22] up. Same as my daughter. So, but the other house that there's two

[3:28] houses there now. >> Mhm.

[3:31] » And the first one's not even does he want them to do two lots?

[3:36] » You want me to scoot over? You can a big boy chair. We can go around.

[3:40] » No, you're good. You're good. >> Thanksgiving table.

[3:42] » My other question is >> let's say he let's say he gets the

[3:46] resone. Is he >> is he willing to I'm assuming right now

[3:53] Schultz has it in green belt. >> He he takes that out. He's got to pay

[3:58] five years of roll back taxes. Is he prepared to pay?

[4:02] » We'll just be that house >> just for the halfacre roll back, right?

[4:05] Not the 13, >> right? Well, then he has to apply to put

[4:09] the remaining back in Greenville. >> Y,

[4:12] » but there's two homes there. So, is he doing two lots?

[4:15] » Are both of them a part of the same property?

[4:17] » I think it's just the one. >> I think they're separate. I think

[4:20] » the one the one has an existing parcel. >> Okay. So, I think it's just the one

[4:24] that's >> I didn't see that.

[4:30] » Where am I? >> Where are

[4:33] the You are here. >> Yeah, right there. So each

[4:36] » the 5271 it's already exist in >> partial 5271

[4:42] » get it. >> She's aggressive with her zooms.

[4:44] » That's a nice house across the street. >> Is that where you're at?

[4:48] » Oh. >> So he's wanting to he's wanting to do

[4:51] the one acre there >> basically split off that one.

[4:56] » And I mean the idea makes sense to make it so it's done partially can sell it.

[5:00] » Yeah. And so he's only asking for the re the halfacres on that one parcel, right?

[5:05] Not the whole thing. >> So how big's half acre on the house and

[5:08] then the 13 stasis because it's 13.45 right now. So 12.95 and then halfacre

[5:14] » parcel. Yeah. The more parcel info tell us how big.

[5:19] » 13.95. >> 1395. So it' be 1345 remaining.

[5:24] » Yeah. 1345. >> So that now hit the property

[5:28] characteristics. Go to Do you want this one or?

[5:32] » No, I want the small per second. >> Oh, that one.

[5:34] » Yeah, I just want the small one for a second.

[5:36] » And property more partial info and then property characteristics

[5:40] » or the P. Yeah. Or the PDF. >> So the one that he's trying to break off

[5:46] is break off by half. >> Okay.

[5:52] » Right now for an acre right here, right? >> The houses next to him is acres. 5321's

[6:00] an acre. >> I wonder how they got that little one

[6:02] approved for a third of an acre, >> right?

[6:04] » It was probably there to be there before 2000 when we became a

[6:09] city.

[6:13] » And the future land use also is more 3/4 acres here, isn't it?

[6:18] » Is that our R2?

[6:23] » Oh, the R2 is the orange is what you're saying.

[6:26] » Yes.

[6:32] That's in R1. >> Yeah. So he's supposed to be R1.

[6:35] » He's supposed to be one. He wants to go half.

[6:43] » You're thinking. So tell us. >> Well, I I don't even think it's a

[6:46] discussion. I I think it still needs to be one property owner applying. I I get

[6:53] it. might be a son of a but what >> do they sign? Is there something they

[6:57] can sign >> representative of so and so all the time

[7:00] coming in here and present >> what what is the I don't know what the

[7:03] rule is but we that happens >> like I say my my kids

[7:09] » well because I guess even if we approve it they can't record it without the

[7:12] right people >> without a claim deed and everything

[7:15] else. >> Yeah.

[7:19] So, do we ha okay if he wants a reszone, does that mean we have to open the

[7:24] general plan or can we can we recommend a reason without open

[7:29] general plan >> if he's going to half instead of one?

[7:34] » Yeah. Well, especially because I think if it matched the future line use map

[7:38] probably easy thing, but since it it doesn't match, I think you'd have to

[7:42] change the future line use map. >> Yeah.

[7:46] So to make it easy on himself, he should go one

[7:50] » otherwise he's going to have to really fight

[7:51] » or go to 3/4 >> or go to 3/4.

[7:55] » So I think that's >> Yeah.

[7:58] [clears throat] >> Yeah. Do that cute little thing again.

[8:02] You did. >> Well, that's the current zone here.

[8:06] Bring up the future,

[8:14] » right? That's a great website. >> Got you.

[8:18] » I didn't think to play with the overlays like that. I'm not that smart.

[8:22] » I didn't even know that was there. >> I used that

[8:26] the green line or the purple. >> Yeah.

[8:30] » So, yeah. Even the future map doesn't account for what do you want?

[8:33] » Still want.

[8:39] » So, in my mind, I can see you 3/4 an acre.

[8:42] » Yeah. >> At a minimum.

[8:45] Unless they want to >> Well, I don't know if he's on it to

[8:51] » unless he sells it eventually ownership. >> Yeah.

[8:55] » If Mike Schulz remains on the agricultural portion,

[9:02] » I think a question we have for Nick is first, does the applicant have to be the

[9:06] owner or does that even matter? >> Either way, we are not taking any action

[9:10] on this today anyways. >> Well, the question I have Well, sorry.

[9:15] When we have when we've had other people come in as representatives, I think it's

[9:18] still the owner that's on the paperwork >> or has to have like a application

[9:26] » so even if somebody comes in as a representative, it still be listed. You

[9:30] know, Travis is the applicant, his son came in as the spokesperson.

[9:35] » Yes.

[9:38] » I think I think there's paperwork where I mean the same thing this terra

[9:44] one where they don't necessarily own all the property they're doing.

[9:47] » They still go to the original property owners they get something signed from

[9:50] them saying they can represent that. >> So I think so that's what this guy

[9:55] should have done. >> Yeah.

[9:57] » The other question I have is if they peel it off did they have to make

[10:00] improvements because it's a splitting it into a subdivision of a lot like mine

[10:04] was a 10acre lot and I split it into two 5acre lots

[10:08] of my law. >> That's true. including putting $31,896

[10:12] into an escro for >> that's a source.

[10:16] » It never happened because you don't own some of the land.

[10:19] » I really really love it. >> Wait, how much was it again?

[10:23] » I [laughter] know. >> $31,966.

[10:28] » Okay. >> What's

[10:31] » But that's another thing that he may not understand is does he need to do

[10:34] improvements off of a subdivision? If he were to subdivide, yes,

[10:38] » he he's going to make he's going to make a one lot subdivision. He does that.

[10:44] » You're fine. Right. >> No, that's all I

[10:48] » It's minor, but he still got to do escrow and all the

[10:51] » He still has to do all the improvements like I had to do.

[10:56] » I don't know. I wonder if he understands that. If he just thinks it's a split off

[11:00] and see you later, >> that feels more

[11:03] » Well, yeah. And he does that. going to pay five years to roll back

[11:08] and then he's got to reapply for the 134 to go back into green belt.

[11:17] » It's not much, but >> if he can sell that house though.

[11:21] » Yeah, >> it's probably worth it.

[11:23] » Yeah, >> maybe that's what he's trying to do.

[11:25] » That's what he's trying to do.

[11:30] » I was here when it was made in stone.

[11:36] » [clears throat] >> So I think the discussion is he needs to

[11:39] be 75 or one to be on the land use or the future land use

[11:45] I agree >> unless we allow

[11:49] » even if he goes at 0 75 he'd still have to do a reszone

[11:53] » if he wanted a half acre he'd have to do a general plan amendment like ters

[12:03] we talked Yeah, but that'd be a sub, right?

[12:06] » Which he's doing. >> He'd have he would have to

[12:10] » if you wanted to sell parts.

[12:15] » So, side note, how do we feel about existing house causing to do one lot of

[12:21] improvements [snorts] >> for no reason at all?

[12:24] » For no reason at all. >> I wouldn't I wouldn't re I mean, I think

[12:28] we should have the ability as a planning commission to say we recommend this

[12:34] But >> you know on the edge

[12:36] » the line comes in is like well when do we apply that like can that be rolled

[12:40] into more of >> if he was next to if he was next to a

[12:45] subdivision that had curb and gutter I'd say

[12:49] » we either ask or require but they'll never put

[12:53] » I mean never say never but unless you're down by me but

[12:59] I don't think >> where it's an existing home I think

[13:02] that's where we allow the exception. If it was an empty lot and he was trying

[13:05] to split off a half acre to build a house, then I think you say

[13:08] » a good point. >> Okay, we need you to do the upgrades,

[13:10] but it's an existing home that exists as is right now

[13:13] » and we we're living with it. >> So why are we worried because there's an

[13:17] existing home? That's where I think the line is divided.

[13:22] It's interesting. So my in-laws

[13:35] on the entire street.

[13:42] [clears throat] >> Yeah. Doesn't make sense.

[13:44] » Yeah. Kids grow up sidewalk. So if that's it one acre then he doesn't do it

[13:52] » or he could do it. We can approve that. >> We can across

[14:15] the same case.

[14:18] down on 5100 West. >> This is Country Weddings or whatever

[14:23] it's called. >> Yeah. Right next.

[14:27] » It's a nice event center though. >> It is really nice.

[14:30] » 3051. >> So if you go what's the current A2 or

[14:42] » so it's one >> and that's what I think. Her

[14:46] justification was was she brings up Ross Ranch.

[14:49] » What's the future? I'm pretty sure it doesn't call like

[14:52] » that is the future. >> No, this is the current I think future

[14:55] is like the the Yeah, the dark green. >> Oh, no. Dark green is

[15:01] » what part of it? >> Agricultural,

[15:04] » isn't it? >> Yeah, it's that top right corner.

[15:07] » It's the It's the Yeah. So it's that which is the

[15:13] » gosh the flood zone and agriculture. Yeah,

[15:16] » it's agricultural protection area. >> Yeah.

[15:21] [clears throat] >> So somebody put that in the protection.

[15:26] Can you take it out just like a conservation? I don't plan a

[15:31] » yes >> out of conservation. You can do anything

[15:35] you want with a general plan. approved, but I don't know.

[15:40] » Well, she wants to do that. Plus, she wants to

[15:44] » Doesn't she want to do >> It's just

[15:48] the two parcels that I think. >> Yeah.

[15:50] » Where is the highway going to go through there?

[15:52] » Nobody knows. [laughter] >> It's east of it, but it turns right

[15:56] there and goes, I think through the property.

[15:58] » It goes west right there. Goes through the property and bubbles out into the

[16:02] bay. I think it's I think it stayed right on.

[16:06] » Have they I don't think they've come up with Have they come up with anything

[16:08] correct? >> I thought they just stopped at 4,000.

[16:11] » The yellow line is >> on the future plan M future

[16:14] transportation plan map. They show it going to about there and then bubbling

[16:17] out and missing the wedding venue and then going west and connecting over to

[16:22] Smith and Edwards >> cuz ours is well because we at the

[16:26] county we've showed it keep going straight and they want to keep going

[16:31] » north on 51 for a long long time >> but they don't want to because all that

[16:34] wetlands and stuff. >> Yeah.

[16:36] » So they want to go over there. >> I agree. So I don't the last meeting we

[16:41] had with them I think they said they were they had an

[16:46] » we were trying to we had development come we said okay this is the alignment

[16:50] and you all got mad at us saying you can't just kind of force us because the

[16:53] environmental documents is what's going to say where it's at.

[16:58] » So I I'd be curious to see where it is. Anyways, go back to the

[17:03] platmo.

[17:08] » So, there's two parcels there.

[17:14] » Yeah. >> And so, she wants to take the second

[17:16] parcel into >> I think she both of them into R2.

[17:24] » Go from R1. >> Even the even the big

[17:30] That's how I read it. >> Yeah,

[17:32] they're listed as the same partial number.

[17:35] » No, they're different technically when you zoom in. One is like 05 and 04 04

[17:40] and 03.

[17:45] » So, she wants to sell all that frontage. I bought

[17:50] 15. >> I wonder if she's trying to make it so

[17:52] it's more valuable. So, when you do comes through, it's more money as well.

[17:58] That's what I would do if I own it. Try to make it as valuable as possible.

[18:03] I I guess the question that we may need to ask Nick or whatever is if they're

[18:08] doing a reszone, does it need to match the future land use map or current? If

[18:13] it doesn't, then do they have to go through this map amendment, general plan

[18:17] map amendment? >> Because especially that one, this one's

[18:21] I mean it's agricultural like and flood like

[18:25] » can't. >> Yeah. Well, I mean,

[18:27] » was that designation just by the our general plan? I don't think that was a

[18:31] state. >> No. Yeah. Yeah. I don't think it's a I

[18:34] think it's more of a this needs to stay open. I think it's more like we want

[18:37] this to stay open. >> What is the agricultural

[18:43] current and future? >> What does it say the Does it Does it say

[18:46] you can build on that agricultural zone thing?

[18:51] » Yeah. So, that green hatched area What's it called again on the right?

[18:57] What did you say it was? >> Agriculture protection.

[18:59] » Agricultural protection area. So yeah, I'm curious. What does the

[19:05] » I know that's being talked. >> Yeah.

[19:08] » So yeah, what's the is there even can you even build homes on agriculture

[19:12] protection?

[19:15] I mean, it looks like some homes already in it, but [laughter]

[19:24] » you got to be able to cross >> because

[19:30] did it come through before?

[19:37] That's a good question.

[19:43] I wonder when you guys went through the general plan amendment, did they come in

[19:46] and ask for this for that designation? Do you remember?

[19:52] » I don't because that would suck if that property just got plastered on there

[19:57] like that. >> You ask for it if you didn't ask for it.

[20:03] » Well, scroll up just a little bit. Go to um

[20:11] go to about 5100 south 7100 west or 55 scroll up.

[20:23] » So

[20:29] So this is my father-in-law's

[20:35] and there's no way in hell we put agricultural conservation on there.

[20:40] » Yeah. So, I think they're two different teams.

[20:41] » He doesn't have any agricultural conservation on any of its

[20:45] » property. >> Because you'd almost have to apply with

[20:48] that like these people do that walk down and do a conservation.

[20:52] » I think that's just >> whoever did the general plan

[20:57] » said that >> because it was filled at the time or

[21:02] something. >> I think

[21:04] we have any of that on our

[21:20] » So either way that's a same >> that's not just a reason that's like

[21:26] general plan opening requests would have to be different application

[21:31] » I think we should confirm with Nick that's the case to me that's what makes

[21:35] sense Their reason request doesn't match

[21:38] anything current or future.

[21:42] » Yeah,

[21:45] » but you can just resone whatever you want. Doesn't matter.

[21:58] All right. Any other for those do you have the same

[22:03] kind of question that way?

[22:07] Now on to this resone request general plan amendment

[22:14] for the terra LLC. Um

[22:21] this was a large portion of the packet.

[22:28] I'll just share what I thought was like our responsibility

[22:33] this what we're looking at >> as far as the planning commission.

[22:37] » Yeah. As far as planning commission you guys it doesn't this is just my opinion.

[22:42] I could be wrong, but for me, I'm just thinking

[22:48] we look at does this meet future land use potential needs and is it

[22:56] fit into the general plan as far as a land land use legislative

[23:02] decision? If we had concerns with the uh developers agreement or the CRA or

[23:10] those things, I think those could be conditions of why we don't want to

[23:14] approve it or why we want to approve it with as long as these conditions get

[23:19] fleshed out by the city council who has that authority. But I guess that as far

[23:26] as like debating on whether a C I got a lot of emails about a CRA um but I don't

[23:34] feel like that's our wheelhouse to necessarily say yes or no in that

[23:41] aspect. But for the reszone, so let's just talk resone and not the

[23:47] development, but the reason within that reason

[23:56] there's not enough open space. I mean, he's only got our our ordinance

[24:02] claims 40%. He's got about 3 to 5% open space. So

[24:08] that means he takes some doors away and increases the if we agree to the but

[24:16] then now

[24:22] » I think so you bring up a good point there. I think you'd have to I think

[24:26] that's where a recommendation of like we do approve it because of and with this

[24:31] condition on that or we don't like it because of that condition.

[24:36] Does that make sense? >> Yeah.

[24:39] » I also I hesitate to put a my personal opinion a bunch of conditions on the on

[24:46] the request saying we'll let you do this if you do this and if you do this and if

[24:52] you do this because they'll get lost in the

[24:56] you know what I mean? I mean, when we did the we did the drug and alcohol, we

[25:01] had them a laundry list of conditions, and I just think one or two of them

[25:06] bullet points would get missed and just glossed over. But if it was

[25:13] in a developer agreement more so I don't know. That's my

[25:20] » Yeah, I guess are we the ones making the developer agreement at this level or is

[25:24] city council doing it at their level? I think we make recommendations to it,

[25:30] » right? >> But that would be like a a list of

[25:33] things, right? So, >> but yeah, it's going to be perfect.

[25:37] We're not Yeah, we're not having a perfect incentive then.

[25:40] » Thank you. >> We need some conditions.

[25:42] » I know this almost sounds like splitting hairs, but if if this were something

[25:46] that were to be recommended, I don't I don't know if you give them that laundry

[25:50] list of recommendations. It is more as hey, we're making the recommendation to

[25:54] Yes. modify the here are our suggestions that you look at because like so I don't

[26:01] know about you guys but I spent a lot of time going through this packet and

[26:04] there's some stuff in here that's a mile of I can't [snorts] make the decision

[26:09] about lighting right I don't know anything about that I don't know about

[26:12] plants and flower beds right and there's a ton of stuff in here that was almost a

[26:17] mistake to send us this pack it because I I think we're getting caught in the

[26:21] weeds of what our job >> that's but there is there is portions

[26:25] under the development [clears throat] agreement that are

[26:27] » pertinent >> pertinent to us like the open space in

[26:30] there. It says the 40% is we're not going to follow it.

[26:33] » Yeah. No, totally. >> So like that type of stuff needs to be

[26:38] talked about, you know, and I think but I think we also make recommend

[26:42] recommendations as far as or

[26:46] as far as because it's a right any reasonable wants agreement. So they can

[26:51] they're essentially going away from the count the city code, right? So this is

[26:54] the ordinance the development agreement is now going to be essentially the code

[26:57] for this development and I think you can make a recommendation since it's at this

[27:02] level to say you know we don't we wouldn't recommend not using CRA we

[27:07] recommend using just developers money but if it helps this the overall area of

[27:13] the of the city that maybe the city come up with some funds to do the sewer stuff

[27:17] like that I think that's reasonable but once again I think that's just

[27:21] recommendations of the city council that can make the

[27:24] decision. So I think it will be a longer list of things.

[27:27] » Yeah, I think as it's presented today, I think it has to be kind of what it was.

[27:31] » Yeah. >> Um

[27:34] » but yeah, I agree. There's a lot of stuff in there that I didn't feel

[27:38] adequate, but then a lot of stuff that fits right into our wheelhouse of like

[27:42] you look at the future land new map commercials right there. We want

[27:46] something commercial there. Not saying that it won't happen again or

[27:51] if if it doesn't happen this time, but my 12 years and I know that's not a long

[27:57] time, 14 years I've been here, I haven't seen somebody want to come in and do

[28:01] that. Not saying that it's not going to happen in the future. So, I I I would

[28:05] want to give the opportunity to city council to at least explore and start,

[28:10] hey, does this make sense from a standpoint? We have this development,

[28:15] this potential opportunity, and give them the opportunity to

[28:20] use let them who are elected use their kind of wheelhouse to kind of say this

[28:25] is what we need and this is what we want out of it that sort of thing

[28:30] and I just look at the I mean we had a whole study economic development study

[28:35] done on this last year sometime and it came out favorable that it would be a

[28:42] benefit to this to the city. So I think we I think we at least know the

[28:48] president's the due diligence to see it further along than it has gone before.

[28:55] » I guess that's my feel >> as far as like the mixed use and the the

[29:01] residential piece and what they want in there.

[29:07] I think that we can have discussions with but I think that can be built to

[29:11] what we are looking for but again I think city

[29:15] city council wants some input into what is allowed in there what they're asking

[29:20] for the town homes smaller lots I think you go across the street for freedom and

[29:26] all that stuff is essentially right there in Hooker

[29:30] anyways it's not too too far off it is a big ask on the open

[29:37] portion like that's I mean that's what was presented to us last time. That's

[29:41] what a road change from what kind of was presented last time.

[29:45] » Yeah, they just blocked each other in the middle

[29:48] » and I [clears throat] think that's something that we could make

[29:52] recommendations on what we want to see in that park and to service those

[29:57] people. I think that falls under our purview. But those are my feelings. I

[30:03] think a lot of this is I think we have to separate out what we have legislative

[30:09] jurisdiction over and we can >> yeah that would be my question for Nick

[30:14] is how do we separate that out because like yes we want to we want to have

[30:18] input on this but no we don't want to talk about lights or parking lot sales

[30:22] or like I mean there's a million things listed in here right there's there's a

[30:26] lot of blank stuff in here too question marks and x's

[30:32] » so I think that's where I'm not necessarily

[30:36] confused, but I'm concerned is if we're making comments. Are we making comments

[30:41] on this whole whole document or are we just making comments and suggestions on

[30:48] part of it or just the basic land use? That's a good

[30:54] because a lot of it [clears throat] is and that needs to be flushed out before

[30:58] but those are the conditions I would see being able us being able to make a list

[31:02] of saying this is what we need to see to grant you

[31:06] the >> yeah the reszone and land use that was

[31:14] » that's I mean we're talking the land use piece but then we want to do needs and

[31:19] wants I think that gets done as a group with

[31:24] the city council because I right now I think everybody's here or here and what

[31:28] do you think? I don't know. What do you think? I don't know what and look at one

[31:31] big table. Here's what we have. Here's what we need to have. Here's what

[31:36] doesn't matter and and start dialing that stuff in if we move forward with

[31:41] this. [clears throat and cough] >> I think that's

[31:45] » No, we do. We I wish Nick was here because we've got to have that

[31:48] conversation of what can we We can't obvious I don't think we can

[31:52] decide anything tonight, [clears throat] you know, based on

[31:58] I I need

[32:02] I want to know about the noticing versus what we can do versus what order that's

[32:06] got to go in because I read it differently than other people and I want

[32:10] to make sure that we're doing it right.

[32:16] Any

[32:20] other as you read the developer agreement or put through there anything

[32:26] else that was concerned or that you would want to at

[32:31] least be a condition as we address that? >> Well, so yeah, I got sticky notes

[32:38] everywhere. >> So, one of the things that they were

[32:41] talking about like in here's design guideline elements,

[32:44] we [clears throat] don't have any kind of code around design guidelines. Other

[32:48] signage and lighting, right? >> So, that's very basic. So, that would be

[32:51] something we need to recommend to the council that we get some codes in place

[32:55] for that or how do we decide what that's going to look like?

[32:59] » I think that be strictly governed by the >> Yeah, they put it right in there and

[33:03] they just follow that. >> Okay.

[33:05] » Um I did have questions on uh 224. were talking about this flex

[33:12] mixed used area and it's kind of like well

[33:15] » you know commercial's not doing great I want to know is that included in the

[33:20] headcount or the house count already >> talking about impacts to abuing roads

[33:27] what's going to happen with that chunk of 4700 because that ends up being a

[33:31] truck route so how do we improve that road or have them improve that road to

[33:35] withstand that >> because that's not that road's not built

[33:39] for that right now I would think

[33:45] show I this is more the legal reason in it too,

[33:49] but we're also talking about if we do push this through and they make any

[33:56] changes, it wouldn't require any kind of amendment to this agreement. And I don't

[34:01] know how I feel about that, but that might not be in our wheelhouse either.

[34:05] » Yeah. And that I'd want to see I guess Nick's

[34:10] would have an opinion on on that. >> But I have the same thing about the flex

[34:15] space like how does it we got more houses because commercial

[34:19] » yeah who who gets to determine that right like um that was just some stuff

[34:24] what was it parking lot uh the fencing around the outside I had questions on

[34:30] you know they were talking there's different options in here minimum six

[34:33] foot opaque masonry wall screen is that high enough is six foot tall enough and

[34:39] The only reason I asked that, so I think about one of our stores, our West Valley

[34:43] store. We've got a six foot wall behind it and people climb over it all the

[34:46] time. They want to go over it. I don't know if that's anybody else's business

[34:50] or problem, but I don't know if they want any kind of exposure to that kind

[34:54] of stuff. >> Well, and is the six foot high enough to

[34:59] diffuse the light? Yeah. in the back of the building.

[35:07] I've also got questions about quiet hours. I think that's something that,

[35:10] you know, we don't want trucks running at 2 o'clock in the morning, dumpster,

[35:14] you know, we want limit dumpster times, forklift times outside, any of that kind

[35:19] of stuff. I didn't see this in there, but last time we said something about

[35:24] requiring the non-renable or the deep transfer ship to be have to be owner

[35:32] occupied. >> That's some huge

[35:34] » Well, that Yeah, that was um

[35:39] area. Well, I've got questions about are they planning on being an HOA or I see

[35:44] they have CCNRs, but I live in a community with CCNRs and there's nothing

[35:48] there. >> So, is that

[35:51] » Yeah. So, it really means nothing. But yeah, that was the can we put basically

[35:58] why it's not a title lock, but you restriction. Yeah, restriction like and

[36:05] I think it needs to be pretty sizable because if if this were to move forward

[36:09] with any kind of density, nobody wants a neighborhood full of rentals.

[36:14] » Yeah. >> I think you can almost limit that by the

[36:18] the the type of home. >> Like I imagine town homes rent easier

[36:23] than a standalone home. Maybe

[36:28] » that would be something interesting to think about.

[36:31] » I think you

[36:34] a cluster of six. It makes it look more like building just a cluster of four,

[36:40] let's say. >> Yeah.

[36:44] It lends itself more to I just there wasn't a whole ton in there about

[36:51] owner occupied for x amount of years. We had talked about that like they said

[36:57] they they talked about want to encourage that

[37:01] encouraging doesn't >> Yeah. How do we really protect against

[37:05] it? >> Yeah.

[37:06] Have

[37:10] owner can only own one property. >> Yeah. That's all I said here.

[37:13] » But it limits it to two. >> Yeah.

[37:16] » But just create a new LLC. >> Yeah.

[37:19] » You can do that in five seconds.

[37:23] So, you know, some of that's an issue

[37:30] being

[37:40] funding, but again, that's not >> I thought back in the day, I mean, this

[37:45] has been going since 23, but we've all said

[37:50] We just wanted patio homes, you know, all town homes popped up.

[37:55] » One note on that is we did say we like JDC Ranch out there and they went out

[37:59] and looked at that. >> That's home

[38:01] » and that's kind this is kind of what is >> how big how many units?

[38:10] » There's quite a bit. I think there's >> probably six or four. Yeah, really

[38:14] » in in this one. No, >> there's look at the

[38:19] » But what I like about it is there's a row of town homes and then right next to

[38:23] it there's single family dwellings. >> They break it up.

[38:25] » Yeah. It's not just here's this huge cluster of town homes.

[38:28] » And I think they would be willing to do what we want in that area. That was

[38:35] just a representation of what could >> I mean if you can have town home if you

[38:39] go out to there just west of the bluff that's a big town home community

[38:47] » west of bluff >> but it's only there's only max of four

[38:52] » I mean there's two three max

[38:58] » I just think that l [snorts] >> obviously this is like they'd have to

[39:02] change like the parking doesn't make There is no parking

[39:06] » like the one 14ty bitty little parking spot.

[39:09] » So, so that that section I think is >> conceptual.

[39:14] » How many homes was this? 129 >> 115

[39:18] » 115 >> and that's what I think that's what that

[39:22] flex area too. >> Yeah. So that if that So that down there

[39:25] at that bottom left if that ended up being more homes you know how many more

[39:30] things they want to show in there? But one real big you'd have you'd have to

[39:37] change all this because to me the open space doesn't meet the

[39:42] » Yeah, not at all. >> No, that was what is the percentage of

[39:46] the open space compared to just the residential if you take out the

[39:49] commercial portion of it. >> I mean it's still not 40% obviously.

[39:53] » 3% 5% something like that. >> But that was you know because I drove

[39:58] out and looked at that JDC when you guys recommended that the that's broken up.

[40:02] There's a ton of open space in there. There's a lot there's not much in there.

[40:06] » Even between the single family dwelling stuff, there's a ton.

[40:10] » They they walked in one chunk of grass. >> Well, and and the other portion of this

[40:14] is is he's not a residential developer.

[40:19] He's only a commercial. So, he's going to sell this off to a residential

[40:25] developer, a Nilson homes, an Ivy Homes, Castle Creek or whatever.

[40:31] You know, so really without him being the residential developer,

[40:38] how many does he really how many doors does he really think he's got to have to

[40:44] » Yeah, I think this is more conceptual for us to see is like, hey, potentially

[40:48] this is what it could be. >> I I really just have a hard problem time

[40:53] with it because of the open space requirement. Well, that's so let's say

[40:58] we did commit to this. They sell off that background to a home builder and

[41:03] they come in and say, "No, none of this works." So, we start back over at square

[41:06] one and then where we at? >> I think we'd have to see kind of what

[41:11] their response to that is and then how that would be addressed in the developer

[41:16] agreement. how if what what they would have to do to make sure that

[41:24] » we if we need input or the mainly the city council input and directs that

[41:28] development to the standards that they want. The lots to the west are third

[41:34] acre north >> all the way around the way and the west

[41:40] » they're showing 40 foot >> rightways

[41:44] » there's crosssection >> that I don't know if fire will even be

[41:48] happy like >> you have to be I think Taylor was saying

[41:51] that needs to be there. >> Yeah. So obviously I know this is just

[41:55] the >> conceptual but it would change a lot.

[41:59] Yeah, >> you have to you have to move things

[42:00] around. >> Yeah, green space and parking. So I

[42:03] think that would be like a condition or something that they might want to

[42:07] address in that that either the through the developer agreement on this back

[42:11] piece to whoever this got sold to that >> would meet some obviously the city

[42:16] standards that's in there and Jared and public works

[42:22] » input on the homes fire all that would have to come into play there and then

[42:27] city council will be able to give their input on what they want to

[42:31] [clears throat] see as far as homes or what we wanted to see within

[42:35] that PB development that way.

[42:49] Um, so I something else we may want to

[42:54] consider too is I have a feeling there's going to be some people here that want

[42:58] to say something >> and I think that's awesome.

[43:02] Do we want to move citizen comment up in front of our discussion

[43:06] » since we're not going to open up a public meeting?

[43:12] » Well, if we can't do that, I would just say we go through our discussion. It

[43:16] should be >> You're not going to move to

[43:19] » Yeah, we're going to respond to their comments anyways.

[43:22] » No, >> but yeah,

[43:24] » but you want to let them be. >> Yes.

[43:27] Things we're going to action on tonight, right? No, just yes, Amy. Yes.

[43:34] » And the rest will be here. We can ask him a few

[43:39] questions we have. >> Correct.

[43:40] » So maybe Yes. I guess it wouldn't hurt to leave that at the end. We just take

[43:44] good notes and take away from >> Yeah.

[43:51] [clears throat]

[43:56] Just maybe make sure you mention why we're not doing opening up the public

[44:00] com.

[44:08] So

[44:13] » I'd be sure to mention obviously all the emails we got.

[44:18] It's really interesting because I don't any of them necessarily say they

[44:22] don't want the Smiths. It's just they don't want the the high density.

[44:26] » I guess what is what is what I guess the my biggest thing I think people's

[44:30] definition of high density is drastically

[44:36] » I don't think anybody wants apartments. There's not there's none of those on

[44:41] there, >> right?

[44:45] » Yeah. The other concern that the general public doesn't know a ton about is us

[44:50] needing to find a way to get affordable housing in Hopper

[44:54] » or I guess get housing in Hooper or be mandated

[44:59] » or or be >> we either can choose or the state's

[45:02] going to tell us where to put it. >> Well, then the general plan even needs

[45:05] like talks about getting affordable homes and houses for younger people or

[45:09] older people and the retired farmers. Like it talks about that and this is how

[45:13] you would do it. >> Yeah. Unfortunately, it has to happen at

[45:16] some point in some way.

[45:20] some of that kind of goes back to Commissioner Se

[45:24] » earlier when he was talking when they first pitched this there was like

[45:31] senior living and you know that that was a big push so that as folks age out

[45:40] » they're not

[45:44] » or a half acre or an acre Well, it's just the other thing too is

[45:51] » do like if I mean if there was a third or quarter acre lot for sale right there

[45:56] » behind a Smith >> you're not going to get

[46:00] » people aren't going to buy them. >> People would go after a patio home a

[46:04] town home in that situation. So to me that kind of makes sense.

[46:08] » How many patio? >> There's logical placement.

[46:10] » Yes, >> I agree.

[46:13] » No, it's like how many How many that's the how you home cross

[46:18] the >> 5500

[46:20] » is it like 38 something like that >> say that again sorry

[46:23] » the 55 >> right across from my house

[46:28] » yeah pickle ball >> court

[46:34] weird >> what is there

[46:44] » I got 38 36.

[46:48] » So, there's [snorts] no reason you go right now. There's no reason we couldn't

[46:54] suggest something like 15 or 20 of those at least in there

[46:59] » for senior living. >> And I think they're open to that based I

[47:05] think that was more conceptual of like they're trying to model a JDC ranch and

[47:11] if we ask for patio homes I think they >> this what they submitted here and again

[47:17] it is conceptual that's a lot tighter than JDBC

[47:21] » and granted JDBC's how many acres though >> huge yeah

[47:25] » yeah it's not 46 >> yeah and they mentioned developer

[47:30] mentioned that last week it's like obviously it's different

[47:34] » the same >> yeah but the same the same time like we

[47:37] want 40% open space like that's how you're going to do it [snorts] is doing

[47:41] it that

[47:45] It needs a lot more open space than what's on there.

[47:49] Well, that's something else. You know, I don't know if we talk about that now or

[47:52] later, but what what goes in that? We don't need another. We don't need

[48:00] another playground. How many big parks

[48:05] » too soon?

[48:09] » I mean, is that something we push for like an event center?

[48:12] » I think wanted something like that, but that's

[48:17] going to come on condition of the city contributing some of that.

[48:20] » Yeah, the hard part is the size of what they've got.92 acres. If you look at

[48:26] that one in Green Ranch, it's 2.92.

[48:31] And that one has pickle ball court for it's a

[48:33] » playground farm is one in West Haven

[48:37] » about 4,000 south right there. >> Yeah. With the pond and everything

[48:40] » getting kind of dizzy.

[48:46] » You're doing good. >> You're doing awesome.

[48:49] » No matter what they say about you, Morgan, I think you're still pretty

[48:51] good. >> I'm going to tell him that.

[48:53] » It's on to his face. >> Yeah. See, it has a lot of green space

[48:56] out in the back. It's just not that's unused. I feel like that's something

[49:01] you could address in the development agreement and city council could have

[49:05] their input as well into into that. I >> mean that would require the city to

[49:09] contribute quite a bit too. >> But I think at that point that's that's

[49:13] a that's a betterment to the city. Obviously don't [clears throat] want to

[49:17] ask for too much. I I guess that's where I'm at as far as this infrastructure

[49:21] financing is like if it's something that will benefit the city the area then the

[49:26] city should contribute a little bit. If it's just strictly for the development,

[49:29] the city should not. And I don't think they should.

[49:31] » Like and the future taxpayers shouldn't make them pay for it. I don't think

[49:35] » agreed. We're not there to pay for curb gutter.

[49:38] » Yeah. >> We're not there to pay for parking.

[49:40] » The other thing, too, is like the whole thing of we need tax revenue. I don't

[49:45] like I don't love the the idea of the tax financing because then you're not

[49:49] seeing that tax revenue for 10, 15 years, whatever it is. It's like, what's

[49:52] the point? Might as well just keep it. >> Well, yeah. Because what'll happen is

[49:55] » you'll still get the Yeah, the sales tax will come through.

[49:59] » Yeah, >> you defer that and then you put in 100

[50:03] houses, you get 50 kids, school district still has to service those kids

[50:08] » and they got to do it with less money. >> Yeah.

[50:16] » Well, [laughter] [clears throat]

[50:20] they'll they'll see that and say, "Well, now we got to do another mill levy bond

[50:24] for another 60 million bucks." pay for it anyway.

[50:34] » And I personally think they're getting to the point where they're going to say,

[50:39] you know what, we're done. We've got so much money out there, 20 plus 20 plus

[50:46] million that we're not seeing this benefit yet for another 15 years or 10

[50:50] years, whatever it is. I mean, the one up on Powder Mountain

[50:55] started 1996 and it's not it's coming due this year finally that CR

[51:05] » that's ridiculous. >> That's like if you never ask for it, you

[51:08] never know if they want to participate though.

[51:10] » Huh? >> If you never ask them, you never know if

[51:12] they want to participate. >> Oh, but the the other thing to me is

[51:18] we've got all these developments going on.

[51:21] One of the developers past or been afforded the opportunity

[51:29] to [snorts] they're all paying for their own

[51:31] infrastructure. >> Not one of them has brought a dismiss

[51:33] either. >> That's true.

[51:36] » That's true. >> You can play devil's advocate on both

[51:38] sides. >> Both sides of that, right? Like it's dra

[51:40] this is this isn't the same as any development that we have seen in the

[51:46] last ever ever like there's never been there's never been this.

[51:52] I think that's the only reason that I would you want to further it down the

[51:56] road and at least explore it because of that, not because it's like a here

[52:00] here's another 100 homes that are going in that we just want another 100 homes.

[52:06] » Give it an opportunity to see where it goes.

[52:09] » That's that's

[52:15] um anything else or >> No, just

[52:20] » we didn't really bring it up in Sorry. Go ahead, Blake. The agricultural

[52:23] protection area is basically the use and enjoyment of this pro is

[52:30] expressly conditioned on acceptance of any annoyance or any inconvenience. So

[52:35] if you build in one of them areas, it's your fault because if you complain about

[52:41] tractors, you complain about >> but what's the density though? Where is

[52:45] there density? Doesn't say >> just says that there's going to be that

[52:48] kind of stuff in the area. That's what the

[52:52] » don't complain about smells. So it doesn't really address the

[52:56] density. >> No, it just says it's in which normal

[53:00] agriculture uses have been the highest priority.

[53:04] So, if you're going to build next,

[53:09] » the only thing I was going to add real quick was

[53:12] » Tucker specifically mentioned the CRA potential with a lift station and if we

[53:17] needed to have a bigger lift station, >> having that be as part of a CRA that

[53:22] might be able to >> would pay its portion and those other

[53:27] because there's like two or three properties that are going to develop

[53:30] once I

[53:34] side of it. >> Yeah, we're a or the city fronts it

[53:37] » either the city fronts it or you just do an agreement with the developer saying

[53:40] when these connect you get your you get your money back for that.

[53:45] » I I think that's a I think you I would like to I don't want to handcuff the

[53:50] city council into >> Yeah.

[53:52] » pigeon hole them into something but that would be something I would want them to

[53:56] explore >> in that in that instance. So

[54:00] » I agree. Dumb. Well, I don't know. It's a dumb

[54:04] question. Might be brilliant. So, if they did do a CFA in there and somebody

[54:09] starts to develop on style side of 51, can can you pay that debt off early?

[54:13] » You mean 55? should be able to add >> like hey you're going to need to get

[54:18] called an impact fee or whatever but it goes directly to pay that off because I

[54:22] think I think there's people waiting >> and I'm not I don't think the CRA has

[54:27] dismissing case though they was extremely successful

[54:32] » yeah they have >> yeah I agree

[54:38] » which is I don't think it should come out of the city's pocket or the future

[54:45] homeowners have to pay for >> as far as like a

[54:47] » PI just because I mean unless you're to say okay you can't have to get the limit

[54:53] your lot sell because they're going to be paying for it all just because

[54:57] they're they're not going to bring their lot the price of the lot down. They're

[55:00] still going to sell market value and their taxes are way higher compared to

[55:03] everyone else.

[55:07] The hard part about doing it is like if they if they have to front it,

[55:11] » is there some kind of a timeline gap lapse on there so that they're only tied

[55:15] in for 10 years or 20 years or you know you can't just say indefinitely if this

[55:20] land ever develops into 50 years from now your money's tied

[55:23] » up 10 15 max >> that's what our curb and gutter escrow

[55:28] is

[55:32] » how many more years you got >> about eight years.

[55:36] » How many days? How many hours? >> How much money was it getting?

[55:41] » Thank you guys for your support. Appreciate it.

[55:44] Good luck, guys. >> Hey, I need to take off. You want to do

[55:47] something? >> Me, too.

[55:50] » Sorry, Nate. Boys practice.

[56:10] Sorry.

[56:42] That's perfect.

[57:08] Okay. >> Yes.

[58:10] Let's

[58:27] do

[58:32] that.

[58:38] Either

[58:45] way. Either way.

[58:58] The ones

[59:15] button. Another

[59:39] » recording in progress.

[59:56] We don't have

[1:00:26] Good evening, Her residents. Thank you for coming to our planning commission. I

[1:00:31] want to call our meeting to order for the August 13, 2026 Hooper City Planning

[1:00:36] Commission meeting. I'm Commissioner McCormack and I'll be conducting the

[1:00:40] meeting. To begin our meeting, we'll have a

[1:00:44] pledge led by Commissioner White and a prayer given by myself.

[1:00:56] » To the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it

[1:01:02] stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice

[1:01:09] for all.

[1:01:18] » Our father in heaven, we're grateful for the opportunity we had to gather

[1:01:21] together here as citizens of Hooper to help discuss the needs of the city. We

[1:01:27] ask that the spirit will be with us today. We're grateful for the soldiers

[1:01:31] who fight for our freedom. from us to please be with them and be with their

[1:01:34] families as they provide us a great opportunity to enjoy our lives. We're

[1:01:39] grateful for the rain that we have received um to help the farmers with

[1:01:43] their crops. We ask that thou will please continue to give us the rain that

[1:01:47] we need. We say these things in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.

[1:01:53] » Thank you, Commissioner Wake. Um, for the first item of consent, there

[1:02:00] is the approval of the minutes dated July 9th, 2026. As we discussed in the

[1:02:05] work meeting, there didn't nobody saw any corrections to those. So, I'll

[1:02:09] entertain a motion to approve those minutes.

[1:02:11] » Motion to approve. >> Second.

[1:02:14] » A motion to approve from Commissioner B, Commissioner Bates, and a second from

[1:02:19] Commissioner Seing. All in favor? >> I.

[1:02:22] » I. >> Okay. Now, we'll turn some time over to

[1:02:25] our attorney for an announcement. >> So, I would imagine many of you were

[1:02:30] here not to see us approve the minutes tonight, but for other items on the

[1:02:35] agenda, items C, D, and E were not appropriately noticed. So, those items

[1:02:40] will be tabled tonight. The commission is not going to take any action on those

[1:02:45] to approve deny anything other than tableing them. Um, we're not going to

[1:02:50] take we're not going to open a public hearing on those, but you. We recognize

[1:02:54] that you're here tonight and that you might not be available when that item

[1:02:59] comes up in the future. So, if you want to speak on those items, CD, D, and E,

[1:03:05] we would love to hear that during our uh citizen comment portion of the meeting.

[1:03:10] We anticipate potentially holding a special planning commission meeting on

[1:03:14] the 27th or the first regularly scheduled meeting in September, but we

[1:03:20] know that that won't necessarily work for all of your schedule and we do want

[1:03:24] to hear from you. The commission does want to hear from you on this item if it

[1:03:28] if it's important to you. So, just wanted to make you aware that there

[1:03:32] won't be any action on those items, but you can still comment on them and th

[1:03:36] those comments will be taken into consideration.

[1:03:41] Thank you. >> Thank you.

[1:03:44] Um on to the first item of business was a motion to recommend the approval of

[1:03:49] modifications to Den 10-1A 1 and 10-2B-6.

[1:03:57] Um we discussed this in our work meeting. These are amendments that

[1:04:02] clarify our definition of a family and clean up some structure um regarding

[1:04:08] living conditions and things like that. And as we discussed in work reading

[1:04:12] everything book any comments from commission members

[1:04:18] included like group homes and assisted right?

[1:04:21] » Y

[1:04:25] we talked about a few times now but I I feel comfortable making a motion to

[1:04:29] recommend the approval of modifications to those sections of code.

[1:04:35] » I'll second. >> We have a motion from Commissioner White

[1:04:38] and a second from Commissioner Whittison. All in favor?

[1:04:41] » I I motion passes. The second is a conditional use permit request for

[1:04:48] William East for an oversized structure located at 6250 West 5700 South. The

[1:04:54] request is for a 37 37 3720 square foot and a 24 height um building. At this

[1:05:03] time, we'll turn some time over to staff to give a presentation on that and then

[1:05:09] we'll head into our public comment. >> Okay, thank you. Um so this is his

[1:05:16] application that he filled out. Again, his total square footage is 3,720 ft

[1:05:22] with a height of 24. Says he'll be using it for storage and shop. No um plumbing

[1:05:28] or business use on the structure, but possible electricity in the future. Off

[1:05:33] to the right, it's just a site plan of what that building will look like. A

[1:05:37] three bay garage with the lane two off to the side. Um, and then a site plan

[1:05:42] here. You can see the home facing 5700 South with his proposed shop in the back

[1:05:47] where that star is located.

[1:05:53] » Is there a representative or Mr. William East here to come forward

[1:05:59] and kind of explain to the commission what the building will be

[1:06:04] used for and answer any questions that they might have?

[1:06:11] Uh yes, good evening. My William East, where everyone's looking to to build

[1:06:15] this shop. Um it's been in the plan for us for years since we built the home. Uh

[1:06:20] ran out of money when we built the home, so we had to wait a few years. But uh

[1:06:24] anyway, we've got plans finally in place to do this shop. It's basically a pole

[1:06:28] barn. Uh we've got a fifth wheel we'd like to ply cent, get it out of the

[1:06:31] weather during the winter. I got a couple tractors, get everything out out

[1:06:36] of the winter, just shop have art things. So, I don't know if there's any

[1:06:42] other questions or anything that you guys may have or

[1:06:48] nothing special, nothing fancy, just a pole bar

[1:06:52] to use for our work. So, any questions for Mr. East?

[1:06:59] Thank you. At this time, I'll [clears throat]

[1:07:03] entertain a motion to enter a public hearing for the condition. use permit

[1:07:08] for William East.

[1:07:12] » I'll make a motion to enter public hearing for the condition

[1:07:17] for William East oversized structure. >> Second.

[1:07:22] » I have a motion from Commissioner Wait, a second from Commissioner Bates. All in

[1:07:26] favor? Hi. Okay, you now have time to come

[1:07:30] forward and express any concerns that you might have about this building. Um,

[1:07:38] please state your name if you're resident of Hooper and then keep your

[1:07:41] comments to three minutes. Jamie will be your

[1:07:46] kind of help you stay on track. So, if there is

[1:07:51] any public comment, um, please feel free to come forward.

[1:07:58] Seeing no public comment, I'll entertain a motion and turn just

[1:08:04] uh Trevor Christensen. I'm the property owner just north of Bill. I was just

[1:08:10] curious see it was kind of hard to see from back there what the uh actual

[1:08:15] dimensions were because 50 by 60 doesn't actually add up to 3720

[1:08:20] uh as far as square footage. I was trying to get some more clarification on

[1:08:23] that. Did they did they include the lean two

[1:08:27] on the side? >> Yes.

[1:08:31] » Hard reading that maybe. >> So if you add the lean to

[1:08:37] » the wing on that 62 wide 60 deep then

[1:08:44] » with the lean too.

[1:08:48] And then I didn't I also didn't see any uh

[1:08:52] property offset dimensions >> in the uh off the off the property

[1:08:58] lines. >> Sorry, it's really hard to read on this

[1:09:02] projector screen, but it looks like it's 36 or 35 ft from the back property.

[1:09:07] » Okay. >> And then he's got property cleared to

[1:09:09] the opposite side.

[1:09:14] » Okay. Was trying to get some clarification on that. make sure it was

[1:09:17] within the setback >> and he's below our maximum height of 25

[1:09:21] ft. So >> yeah, it's just the just the conditions

[1:09:24] just the size. >> Correct.

[1:09:26] » Okay. >> Thank you.

[1:09:30] » Any other citizen comment? Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion to

[1:09:37] close citizen comment and return to our regular meeting.

[1:09:40] » So moved. >> Second. I have a motion from

[1:09:43] Commissioner Bates, second from Commissioner Wson. All in favor?

[1:09:46] » I >> I

[1:09:48] bring it back to Commission for discussion and a motion.

[1:09:56] » I'll make a motion that we approve the conditional use permit for William East

[1:10:01] for an oversight structure at 6252 West 5700 South.

[1:10:09] » Second. We have a motion from Commissioner Seing

[1:10:12] and a second from Commissioner Whittison. All in favor?

[1:10:15] » I. >> I.

[1:10:19] Okay. Now we'll move to our citizen comments portion of the meeting. Um

[1:10:27] kind of same rules apply. You'll be allotted three minutes here. Please come

[1:10:31] forward, state your name, your resident of Hooper,

[1:10:35] of resident of Hooper. Um, and then just watch Jane and she'll kind of guide you

[1:10:40] with how much time you have have left. And we look forward to hearing from you.

[1:10:54] » Hello, my name is Wilfred Deart. We live uh 5100 South and 3,000 miles just

[1:10:59] outside of boundaries. Um, but I'm here on the uh the R2. Uh, excuse me. I don't

[1:11:07] know what I know number is.

[1:11:12] » It's about changing the parcel from R1 to R2.

[1:11:17] » Yes, sir. >> Um, when we say R2, are we talking about

[1:11:21] high density housing like apartment complexes or is this going to be an

[1:11:26] additional residential area? >> Yeah. So R2 is just Hooper's halfacre

[1:11:33] zone. So the it' be a halfacre lots. So R1 is

[1:11:38] acre, R2 is halfacre. So that that was what that request.

[1:11:42] » Okay. So we're not talking about putting in apartment complexes in there.

[1:11:47] » No, that wasn't No. >> Okay. That was my question. Thank you.

[1:11:51] Appreciate you.

[1:12:04] I'm Amy Kristofferson um from 5274 West 5900 South um regarding the um reszone

[1:12:14] request and general plan amendment for uh Terara Strada and Steuart Adams. Um,

[1:12:20] I did send this email to the city council and to the planning commission

[1:12:24] earlier today, but I'm just going to read it. Um, express how I feel. Um, I'm

[1:12:30] writing to you today as a deeply concerned Hooper resident to express my

[1:12:34] vehement opposition to any proposal that would open up our general plan to allow

[1:12:40] for multifamily highdensity housing within our city. Our community chooses

[1:12:45] to live in Hooper because of its unique rural character, open cases and

[1:12:50] lowdensity neighborhoods. Introducing highdensity multifamily housing directly

[1:12:54] threatens the safety, infrastructure, and peaceful way of life that define our

[1:12:59] town. Our roads, schools, and utility systems

[1:13:03] are not built to handle this type of rapid, dense growth. And I urge you to

[1:13:07] stand firm and protect the integrity of our existing general plan. In addition

[1:13:12] to rejecting highdensity zoning, I strongly oppose Hooker City establishing

[1:13:17] a community reinvestment area, CRA, public infrastructure district, PID, or

[1:13:22] any other form of tax increment financing.

[1:13:26] While proponents paint these corporate welfare mechanisms as innovative tools

[1:13:30] to finance development, the reality is far more damaging. These programs were

[1:13:35] created by self-serving legislators to shift the financial burdens and risks of

[1:13:39] private infrastructure directly onto the backs of local citizens. Corporate

[1:13:44] subsidies like CRAAS and pits force everyday taxpayers to pick up the tab

[1:13:49] for developer costs saddling our community with long-term debt while

[1:13:53] developers walk away with the profits. Hooper residents should not be forced to

[1:13:58] subsidize private business ventures. Furthermore, I want to voice my

[1:14:02] strongest possible opposition to allowing Stuart Adams or any of his

[1:14:07] associated business entities and partners to develop anywhere within

[1:14:11] Hipper City boundaries. It is deeply concerning to see a career politician

[1:14:15] use decades of legislative influence at the state level to rewrite tax and

[1:14:20] zoning laws for personal financial gain and the benefit of developer associates.

[1:14:25] Her should not open its doors to individuals who prioritize private

[1:14:29] profit over the explicit will, financial health, and well-being of local

[1:14:33] communities. Please do your duty to protect our city from predatory

[1:14:37] development, corporate tax schemes, and political influence. I ask that you

[1:14:42] formally reject any amendments to the general plan regarding highdensity

[1:14:45] housing, refuse to establish any CRA, PID, or TIFF districts, and deny any

[1:14:50] development applications tied to Steuart Adams.

[1:14:55] Thank you,

[1:15:02] » Amber. So, I was given a statement by Stacy Judkins resident that she wanted

[1:15:07] read tonight and so I'm here in herstead. Once we start giving up our

[1:15:11] open land to developers, highdensity housing, and more commercial growth, we

[1:15:15] lose more than acreage. We lose the space, character, and breathing room

[1:15:19] that make Hooker feel like Cooper. We've all heard the line, "They paved our dice

[1:15:24] and put up a parking lot." We shouldn't have to look around our own community

[1:15:28] one day and realize we let that happen here. This isn't about being against

[1:15:32] growth. It's about asking what kind of growth we

[1:15:36] want and what we are willing to lose to get it. Please help us preserve Hooker.

[1:15:41] Help protect our parks, open spaces, neighborhoods, and small town way of

[1:15:45] life. Our land, our parks, and our community are worth protecting. Once

[1:15:50] it's developed, we don't get it back. Let's keep Cooper a community, not just

[1:15:55] filled, not just another place filled with subdivisions, traffic, and parking

[1:16:01] lots. Thank you, Stacy Judkins.

[1:16:07] » Thank you.

[1:16:11] Another

[1:16:15] [clears throat]

[1:16:20] this is very hastily put together so forgive me if it's not perfect. When the

[1:16:25] general plan update was done, there was a great effort made to get input from

[1:16:28] the members of the community. There were focus groups, open houses, and surveys

[1:16:32] done. A strong majority of the community conveyed they do not want town homes and

[1:16:36] highdensity housing in Hooker. The majority of Hooker residents voiced that

[1:16:40] they want to keep Hooker small town and rural. When the planning commission

[1:16:44] reviewed this project last year, a recommendation was made to approve some

[1:16:47] commercial development. The recommendation was made that the

[1:16:50] highdensity housing in either a patio zone or PUD zone would be used for a

[1:16:55] senior living community. This would allow our aging residents to stay in

[1:16:58] Hooker. Statistically, these types of communities have lower crime rates and

[1:17:02] residents generally stay there the rest of their lives. Our senior citizens

[1:17:06] would be within walking distance or a short drive to a grocery store and a

[1:17:10] financial institution. This would also result in less traffic on our roads.

[1:17:14] This option would also be a benefit to the developer by increasing the density

[1:17:17] of this project. This would also discourage the homes becoming rentals,

[1:17:21] which so often happens with town homes. Even if a deed restriction is put in

[1:17:25] place, that just pushes the issues that come with rentals down the road. When

[1:17:29] you have a more transient community where people are not putting down roots,

[1:17:33] community connections suffer and crime rises. If the goal is to complete a

[1:17:36] project that is beneficial to Hooper, putting in housing that will end up

[1:17:40] increasing public safety and other costs is not the answer. I would also like to

[1:17:44] reiterate my views that a CRA or any other form of tax increment financing is

[1:17:47] not the answer for this project. The location of this project with the new

[1:17:52] highway coming through makes this prime real estate.

[1:17:55] It will be, this will not be the only offer for commercial development that

[1:17:59] Hooper receives. Hoper should not settle nor compromise the best interest of the

[1:18:03] community, including limiting future tax revenue and fostering increased property

[1:18:07] taxes from the taxing entities that participate in the CRA. I am not opposed

[1:18:12] to some commercial development. It's what's being proposed with it that I am

[1:18:15] against. I've taught my children that a smart person learns from their mistakes.

[1:18:19] A wise person learns from the mistakes of others. Please learn from other

[1:18:22] communities who have put in highdensity housing such as town homes and

[1:18:26] apartments as well as the negative effects that have been experienced from

[1:18:29] the use of tax increment financing. I'm asking that you please honor the wishes

[1:18:33] of this community and not sacrifice what's in the best interest for the

[1:18:37] first carrot that's dangled in front of us. Thank you.

[1:18:45] Any

[1:18:51] other citizen comment?

[1:19:00] » Okay. So, mine was a action item. It was going to be the reason request.

[1:19:06] » Please state your state. >> Bridgetger Smith. Sorry.

[1:19:11] I live at 5271 West 4600 South. Um, just to clarify, if I can't make it to the

[1:19:17] next meeting, I'm just trying to We're on a 13 acre parcel. We're just trying

[1:19:22] to make it our house a half acre parcel. It's all in one right now. So, we're

[1:19:28] just trying to basically make it our own deal. And yeah, no plans to do anything

[1:19:33] with the field. Just keep agriculture. And yeah, that's it. Thank you.

[1:19:39] » Thank you.

[1:19:53] Hello everyone. My name is Brian Mor, a resident and I am an exact opposite of

[1:20:00] all the the last three people that have talked against Terara Strada. Um I did

[1:20:05] send an email for everyone u multiple city council everyone today saying in

[1:20:09] support I mean we have as a city we denied and we blocked other commercial

[1:20:15] in there. It's funny how people don't own the property but they want to

[1:20:19] control how it it's impacted and used for other people. It's like I don't

[1:20:22] think they should have a say so in it. We did do a general plan. What they're

[1:20:26] doing is so I'll go ahead and read this. I think that we need a commercial base

[1:20:32] and we've lost gas stations that we could be getting money on. So, everyone

[1:20:36] is there's a there's a small group that's very loud in this community and

[1:20:40] they seem to always come up and want to block everything. So, their their their

[1:20:44] idea is let's just shut down this project. They do it one at a time, but

[1:20:48] nothing ever comes out of it other than screwing up every deal. So, I I said my

[1:20:52] name is Brian. I'm here tonight because I strongly

[1:20:55] support bringing Smith and the development with it. Um, I love Hooper

[1:20:59] and I understand why people want to protect the character of the community.

[1:21:03] I want that, too. But protecting Hooper doesn't mean we can ignore the reality

[1:21:07] of growth or the financial challenges our city faces. Hooper operates on a

[1:21:12] tight budget and we have real infrastructure needs ahead of us. Water,

[1:21:16] well, pump stations, road public safety, and other services. Those things have to

[1:21:21] be paid for and we cannot continually expect homeowners to carry all that

[1:21:25] burden. That's why I believe Smith and the Harris water development is

[1:21:29] important to the city. This isn't just about getting a grocery store. It's a

[1:21:34] quality ankle store that can generate tax revenue, attract other good

[1:21:38] businesses, help participate in infrastructure improvements that Hooker

[1:21:42] is going to need anyway. We also know that the new highway is coming. That

[1:21:47] means more traffic that will be coming through our area whether we approve

[1:21:51] Smith or not. So the question is, do we simply want the traffic and wear and

[1:21:56] tear on our roads while those people spend their money somewhere else or do

[1:22:01] we want to capture some of that economic activity and put those tax dollars to

[1:22:05] work for Hooper? I respect those that oppose the project and their concerns,

[1:22:11] but opposition to change cannot become our long-term growth strategy. I do want

[1:22:17] commercial development. Um I don't want commercial development everywhere. What

[1:22:21] I want is smart growth and the right business at the right location under the

[1:22:26] right conditions. And I believe Smith is one of those opportunities. Growth is

[1:22:31] coming. We can either react to it or we can plan for it and make it work for our

[1:22:35] community. I encourage you to support Smith and make the decision with

[1:22:39] Hooker's next 20-year vision in mind when you decide.

[1:22:44] » Thank you. Thank you.

[1:23:10] My name is Bruce Taylor.

[1:23:15] I'm here to talk about the Terara Strada project. Terara Strada Steuart Adams

[1:23:20] said over a year ago he is not paying for the lift station. Now he is still

[1:23:25] refusing to pay a penny towards it a year and a half later. All the money he

[1:23:30] will make and he will not pay towards the lift station. If you go back to the

[1:23:34] city council work meeting last month on July 16th,

[1:23:40] every one of the council members had a comment that we as Hooker should not be

[1:23:46] paying for a lift station that will benefit Steuart Adams. For example,

[1:23:52] David Craig had many concerns about this one. One thing that he said was, "I feel

[1:23:58] we are giving our future earnings away to pay for a lift station. And it should

[1:24:02] be Steuart Adams. Del said, "So who's paid for this in the

[1:24:08] past? What developer did sold an improve sold an improved lot?" Which means he

[1:24:15] the developer has already paid for the infrastructure for the property that is

[1:24:20] being bought. Brian Hills comments. Quote, "So I mean

[1:24:25] there's other developers that are going to benefit from this lift station on

[1:24:29] 4700 West." Doug Hamlin is still chomping at the bit waiting for us to

[1:24:34] pay for a lift station so he can take advantage of it. It's like why don't we

[1:24:39] go to these developers and say you need to buy in, you need to buy in and you

[1:24:43] need to buy in so we can build this and then you'll profit from the benefits of

[1:24:47] it rather than us paying for it and then they get all the benefits. End of quote.

[1:24:56] Now, I'm going to direct my comments towards the mayor just because this

[1:25:00] keeps coming up.

[1:25:04] This keeps coming up in meetings. She says, quote, "But we have residents

[1:25:08] along 4700 that have been paying for a sewer system now for a couple of

[1:25:13] decades, and it has never came. The sewer sewer has been here for over 20

[1:25:18] years in Hooker now, and they've been paying because they hooked up to it."

[1:25:23] End of quote. To be clear, 20 years ago, we were

[1:25:27] offered a reduced price if we would hook up rather than pay later. That fee was

[1:25:32] $89 a house. The mayor keeps saying that in many meetings, this makes it sound

[1:25:38] like we are paying a monthly fee to flush our toilets and this is why we

[1:25:42] need a lift station. That is not true. We did pay $89 one

[1:25:48] time if we chose to in hopes that it would be cheaper when we are hooked up.

[1:25:53] We do not pay a monthly fee on 4,700 West to flush our toilets. We have

[1:25:57] septic tanks. I think that comment's deceiving.

[1:26:04] All the risk on this development should be on Terra Strada, not on Hoper City.

[1:26:12] » Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

[1:26:19] Any

[1:26:30] other citiz

[1:26:43] I'm one of a I guess small minority that's got big mouths.

[1:26:49] I am not against growth. I'm not against all the I've been to a lot of the

[1:26:54] planning meetings, a lot of the city council meetings. Um we had a developer

[1:26:59] a few years ago that came that shown us what he wanted and I thought it was a

[1:27:03] great idea, but we we didn't the the city council didn't approve it. My thing

[1:27:09] with Smiths is show me what it's all going to look like, but you don't. So,

[1:27:16] what's you know, we we get it approved. What's it going to look like? You know,

[1:27:21] we talk about nope, nope, nope, we're not having apartments. Commercial, if

[1:27:26] you look on the internet, not everything on the internet is true, but if you look

[1:27:30] on the internet, commercial is five units or more. So, if we give them

[1:27:36] permission and say yes, we can't stop them from building apartments because we

[1:27:42] already gave them permission to do that. So, I would like to Show me all of it.

[1:27:47] Be transparent. Show me all the houses. Show me the town homes.

[1:27:51] » Show me what it's going to look like.

[1:27:55] » It's available. >> Okay. I didn't know that.

[1:27:59] » Put it up on the screen. >> Okay. Perfect. Okay. Thank you.

[1:28:03] » I didn't mean to cut you off. >> No, that's okay.

[1:28:05] » You still have 60 seconds. Okay.

[1:28:32] My name is Nate Denny, 5176 West, 4000 South. Um, there's been a lot of horror

[1:28:38] stories described about how low or high density subdivisions ruin

[1:28:45] communities and bring crime and all those things. So I just wanted to paint

[1:28:48] a picture of how high density helped my family and helped the community that I

[1:28:53] live in. So I grew up in Leighton I when I lived there wasn't an opportunity for

[1:28:59] me to to buy a home there when I started my family. So me and my wife moved to

[1:29:04] West Haven in a home on 1000 acres, very high density neighborhood. Um that

[1:29:10] provided us with an opportunity to fall in love with the area with Hooper, West

[1:29:15] Haven, Taylor, the whole area. Um, from there, because we were able to fall in

[1:29:19] love with the area, um, it allowed us an opportunity to then find other

[1:29:25] opportunity here to stay in the area, uh, to buy a permanent residence that'll

[1:29:29] hopefully be our forever home and what I feel like hopefully is a positive impact

[1:29:32] on my community. So yes, there is a potential that of some

[1:29:38] crime that might come from a high density, but there also could be an

[1:29:41] offsetting positive influence that comes into the community that allows

[1:29:45] opportunity for young families to fall in love with the community. We we fell

[1:29:48] in love with Hopper for certain reasons. And I think that there's an opportunity

[1:29:52] when anything like this is developed for small families to build and fall in love

[1:29:57] with Hopper and provide positive impact on the community.

[1:30:11] If you had the whole par

[1:30:20] as long as the chair's the chair's meeting, so as long as he's okay, uh we

[1:30:25] just won't we just won't take any action on it. But you can certainly explain it.

[1:30:32] for those of you >> for those of you who are looking

[1:30:35] obviously this is the property that's in question. Um they have the larger

[1:30:40] commercial piece. The big building there is a retail ger um with a fuel center at

[1:30:46] the bottom and then you have pads in Lshape some along 4700 commercial pads

[1:30:52] in Lshape along 4700 that go down along 5500 south. Um right there this is a

[1:31:00] conceptual drawing. Um their UD do's going to have input on where the roads

[1:31:05] can go. This is what they have presented this way. The portion behind the

[1:31:10] commercial piece is what is considered as the PUD. Also conceptual um as the

[1:31:17] developer put something up there as we deced similar to JDBC Ranch that is out

[1:31:24] in Plane City Far West area. Um so that was their rendering there.

[1:31:31] Nothing on this is final as of what would actually happen there and it would

[1:31:38] still come through the TRC and the development process where the planning

[1:31:42] commission would all get to to see it and overview and city council will be

[1:31:47] able to make their suggestions with that uh development piece. Um so that's kind

[1:31:53] of the project in that has been presented here

[1:31:58] in this way as a planning commission. Our role is to make land use decisions.

[1:32:04] That's our legislative power. And so they have they were coming for a request

[1:32:10] for a reasonzoning to open up the general plan to create that PUD and the

[1:32:15] commercial area which commercial coincides where we want the commercial

[1:32:20] in the future land use. So that's kind of high level overview of

[1:32:26] what the project was and that. So

[1:32:32] now back to citizen comment. that I'd like to

[1:32:49] any other citizen.

[1:32:53] I I failed to mention this at the beginning of the meeting, but we do

[1:32:55] appreciate your emails taking the time. Appreciate taking the time coming out

[1:32:59] here tonight and expressing your views. I always believe that I don't disagree.

[1:33:05] I I disagree with a lot of people, especially with the people that I do

[1:33:09] business with. And when I do disagree, it always seems that we get to the best

[1:33:13] decision for um the business that we or the decision

[1:33:18] we're trying to make is when that disagreement happens and can have that

[1:33:22] conversation back and forth. I think that's where the best out output comes.

[1:33:27] So, I appreciate that you were cordial in your emails

[1:33:31] and and shared your opinion that way as we're just obviously up here

[1:33:35] volunteering our time as you're volunteering your time tonight to come

[1:33:38] here to try to get what is best for the city. So, I do appreciate appreciate you

[1:33:44] doing that. Um, if there is no other citizen comment, I

[1:33:50] will entertain a motion to adjourn the meeting.

[1:33:56] take a motion to >> wait discussion. Are we adjourning or

[1:34:02] are we going to discuss these >> amongst us?

[1:34:09] » Yeah, I think the the most prudent approach is to table it and not take any

[1:34:14] discussion on it tonight and then have it either the uh special planning

[1:34:18] commission meeting on the 27th or that first meeting in September for CB.

[1:34:25] Item C, D, and E. >> Correct. Okay.

[1:34:29] » Sorry. >> So, would the special meeting just be a

[1:34:32] discussion or an action? >> No, we hope we hope if if if the

[1:34:37] commission's available and if if the commission chooses to do that uh on the

[1:34:41] 27th, I think we could have it properly noticed and you could take action on it.

[1:34:47] A full meeting with public a public hearing and everything.

[1:34:50] » Yes, absolutely. We would have a public hearing. So anybody that was here

[1:34:54] tonight could come back and and speak to it. Even if they spoke tonight, they

[1:34:58] could come back and speak and anybody new could come and speak.

[1:35:03] » We need to make a motion to table these these three items.

[1:35:09] » You can just and we'll notice it and we'll just

[1:35:14] presume or act as notice for the first

[1:35:28] So, a second to [laughter]

[1:35:32] » we have a motion to adjourn from Commissioner Wood and a second from

[1:35:36] Commissioner White. All in favor? >> I

August 13, 2026 - Planning Commission Meeting

Transcript