[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