[0:13] Hey, what are you drinking?

[0:15] >> It's called a zip fizz.

[0:17] >> Zip fizz.

[0:18] >> Basically just kind of like an energy

[0:20] drink, but I already had a monster

[0:22] today, so

[0:25] do Oh, nice.

[0:26] >> G vitamin supposed to give you energy.

[0:28] Better drinking water.

[0:32] Looks really fun.

[0:53] All

[1:03] right. Call our staff meeting to

[1:09] for June 11th,

[1:11] 2026 planning commission meeting.

[1:18] First thing

[1:21] to do.

[1:24] » Yeah.

[1:58] and then

[2:00] this

[2:03] one. So the first conditional use permit

[2:06] request for Mr.

[2:10] There's been

[2:12] letters went out. They didn't get to

[2:14] res.

[2:19] So we have some resending

[2:23] litigation

[2:25] over property line. It seems

[2:31] I don't know. So we might want to hear

[2:33] the public comment and maybe depending

[2:36] on what the concerns that might be so

[2:43] resction.

[2:50] » Better safe than sorry.

[2:52] >> Yeah.

[2:56] » And I'll I'll resend out if that's the

[3:00] route you choose to go. I'll resend the

[3:01] letters out for July so that they have

[3:04] that updated date. If that's the right

[3:15] » they're saying the fence is in the wrong

[3:17] spot and so

[3:18] >> the fence does this the whole way down

[3:23] in the wrong spot.

[3:26] Well, that's he's also that's too tall,

[3:29] isn't it?

[3:32] >> Half a foot too tall.

[3:34] >> Yeah.

[3:39] » So, it

[3:44] zone that it's

[3:53] We can still hear the

[3:56] public.

[4:08] » I agree.

[4:09] >> Alan Car said he'd be here for the

[4:11] homeowner, so he'll come and speak on I

[4:13] had called him and he said, "Well, we'll

[4:14] still be there to hear what's going on."

[4:17] So, they'll be here as well.

[4:25] and then next. So any other questions if

[4:29] we table that does anybody have any

[4:32] concerns

[4:47] Next one is just

[4:57] I didn't see

[5:12] » this is by our new

[5:16] >> that's

[5:19] We change that ordinance next month.

[5:39] » All right. And then this seems to be the

[5:42] big one today with a lot of packet

[5:45] information.

[5:49] Everybody have a chance to review that?

[5:52] Any comments or

[5:55] things they want to discuss about

[6:00] 31 regarding the elevation?

[6:05] So, I I made a couple of phone calls

[6:07] today.

[6:10] I I looked up Weaver County. Weber at

[6:13] 264

[6:17] 2614

[6:19] >> 42

[6:19] >> excuse me 42 16 sorry

[6:25] um it's been a long day I called

[6:28] Syracuse

[6:30] talked to their planning zoning they

[6:31] don't use an elevation metric they use

[6:34] some different standards where depending

[6:36] on where you're at bluff

[6:39] pass on the west side and

[6:42] You have to do a six month water study,

[6:45] have the Army Corps of Engineers sign

[6:46] off on it, and if it's below a certain

[6:49] level by the Army Corps standards, you

[6:52] have to pay for a lift station for the

[6:54] sewer. That pretty much shuts everybody

[6:57] down. Then they call Farmington.

[7:00] right now is 42

[7:05] and they're moving to 4220.

[7:13] And those, you know, when when I looked

[7:15] through that letter, a couple from the

[7:18] attorney, some of the cities they put on

[7:19] there, like Summit County, I think there

[7:23] >> How's that helpful? They're totally

[7:24] different than us anyway.

[7:26] >> Yeah. So, that's why I wanted to call a

[7:28] couple that were right.

[7:34] » I think West Point was

[7:42] based off

[7:47] the guy in Farmington, his name's L was

[7:50] really helpful and he was talking about

[7:55] a couple feet above that

[7:58] discussing up to 42

[8:03] different I don't know what's changing

[8:06] but they're more concerned the water

[8:07] comes So, I don't know. This was kind of

[8:09] a tough one.

[8:13] You were on

[8:16] 4220

[8:31] prepared for a short version.

[8:35] You want to kind

[8:39] of twice?

[8:40] >> No, I think it give everybody good

[8:42] context.

[8:53] » One thing that's a little different from

[8:54] Farmington and West Point is our biggest

[8:58] risk of flooding is the south fork of

[9:00] the Weaver River before it gets to the

[9:04] lake.

[9:05] elevation probably won't flood us

[9:09] at all

[9:12] and I think unless I mean

[9:15] you work there at le county but the

[9:18] ordinance I read does call that

[9:20] elevation you said but then they have a

[9:22] three foot wave action and so they're

[9:24] really higher than that

[9:25] >> there's a few yeah

[9:28] depends who you talk to them see so we

[9:30] have something in ordinance like the

[9:31] 4215 or 16 I can't remember exactly

[9:33] which

[9:34] Then we should go back. We need to be

[9:36] two foot above that sometime. So

[9:40] >> 18.

[9:41] >> Yeah. But really we always have them go

[9:44] back to like a geo technical study or

[9:46] engineering study and it kind of depends

[9:49] where they're at too. So it's we kind of

[9:51] code is not necessarily like it's good

[9:53] but it's not good at the same time. I

[9:54] don't know.

[9:57] >> Yeah. I'm trying to find

[9:58] >> it has flexibility.

[9:59] >> Yeah. A little bit. And I kind of like

[10:01] that a little bit, but at the same time,

[10:03] you almost kind of want to cut the sand.

[10:05] But

[10:07] >> you said you had the code for the

[10:08] county.

[10:09] >> Oh, yeah.

[10:09] >> What section is it? I was going to bring

[10:10] you up.

[10:11] >> What's that?

[10:12] >> What's the section?

[10:13] >> Oh, this is really old, but it's the one

[10:15] that they sent the attorney

[10:19] in 1986.

[10:20] >> Oh, yeah.

[10:22] >> It's old.

[10:23] >> Actually, it might be the same one,

[10:25] actually.

[10:29] » Yeah. 16.

[10:33] » That's what they all said today.

[10:35] >> Yeah. 4 through15. And then Yeah. We see

[10:39] >> what was how finished floor.

[10:40] >> I think the biggest thing probably if

[10:42] you want to go through like the example

[10:45] slide

[10:46] that that's kind of what I'm getting at.

[10:49] And as I read the attorney's letter

[10:52] reviewed those other things, I don't

[10:54] think we're near as far apart on on

[10:56] agreeing on what we need as all the

[11:00] drama has kind of come out to be. But

[11:02] this basically explains what I'm talking

[11:05] about and I'm requesting that we make

[11:08] happen. If you build

[11:11] uh the houses right at 4215

[11:15] and we happen to have another gear that

[11:17] that's the flood

[11:19] anything that supports the house you got

[11:21] your road section curb and gutter water

[11:23] meter drain boxes storm drain is

[11:27] inundated. It isn't going to drain their

[11:29] subdivision. If we move the house up to

[11:33] 4220, that gives us a little bit that

[11:36] five feet gives us room to put this

[11:38] infrastructure in the ground. If the

[11:42] flood comes up to our 4215 line, we can

[11:45] still drain out. Everything still works

[11:47] and it's not saturated. That's really

[11:50] the whole point of why we changed it to

[11:54] 4220. Now we can change verbiage or as

[11:57] long as we achieve that I'm happy. But

[12:00] that's the real reason that the whole

[12:02] thing occurred and then switch one more

[12:06] two more. So this is real world things

[12:10] we're looking at as we speak. So if you

[12:12] go over to Austin Ranch, these are the

[12:15] Austin Ranch lots. And back when Roger

[12:18] farmed that, there was a I don't know if

[12:20] it was natural or he scraped the ground

[12:22] and made it, but there's a big bluff

[12:24] right here.

[12:26] Below that is pasture and wetlands and

[12:29] ponds.

[12:31] So this the ordinance that's in now

[12:34] wasn't in place when they developed, but

[12:37] it just made sense. It was the only way

[12:39] it worked. And so that's why Tracy and I

[12:43] decided we should probably get some

[12:45] clarification on this. Let me explain

[12:47] the importance of this. So these they're

[12:50] hard to see. These are 4219 and change.

[12:53] the back of these lots. That's roughly

[12:55] the 4220 line. The bottom of this pond

[12:59] is 4215.

[13:01] The bank is 4218.

[13:04] This is our detention basin. The bottom

[13:07] of it is 4215 as well.

[13:11] And then on this side, you can see it in

[13:14] this document. There's a 42 in storm

[13:17] drain line that comes down and dumps

[13:18] into that pond. That's this pond.

[13:23] drains a significant portion of West

[13:25] Haven and our city. That's a big pipe

[13:29] for a storm rain pipe. So, if we come

[13:31] down here and dump it into this pond at

[13:34] 4215's the bottom of it, I don't know

[13:37] why we would ever want lots down equal

[13:39] to the bottom of the pond.

[13:42] So, it kind of is like we stumble around

[13:45] over these numbers, but it really only

[13:47] makes sense to build it that way. And if

[13:50] you go over there and look at it in real

[13:51] life, it makes sense. I don't know who'd

[13:54] want their house down equal with that.

[13:57] When you look at, you know, so this is

[13:59] the a proposal for the land, the Tori

[14:02] property coming in. They can still get

[14:05] their lots. They just need to move this

[14:07] road up a little bit and bring them

[14:09] along like Rosson's did. But getting

[14:12] them clear out in here, I mean, this is

[14:14] a pond as well. 4215 is clear down here

[14:18] in the neck where it drains out.

[14:20] >> I can't imagine we'd want lots down that

[14:22] well.

[14:24] >> And I can't make the storm drain work

[14:26] when it gets that low, right?

[14:29] >> So, honestly, half the time the design

[14:32] of the subdivision would push everything

[14:34] up anyways.

[14:35] >> Yeah. And I mean, like just thinking

[14:38] about this from their standpoint and

[14:41] fairness and I'm happy if we want to

[14:43] rewrite the ordinance and say we 4215's

[14:46] still the number because it really is

[14:48] the basis of our number anyway.

[14:51] >> Yeah,

[14:51] >> we start there with our utilities and

[14:54] work our way up. Wherever they end up

[14:56] with their lots is where they end up.

[15:00] >> So, I just think this is either going to

[15:02] be a great question or really dumb. And

[15:05] I'll take it either way because I still

[15:06] want the answer. So, if they're below

[15:08] that grade, you either can't build on it

[15:11] or you have to bring in Phil to bring it

[15:13] up. certain percentage of the fill.

[15:17] >> And right now there's a there's a caveat

[15:20] in there about how much filling that

[15:22] could be written better than it is.

[15:24] >> So let me tell you our thought process

[15:27] >> about the fill. So to just keep filling

[15:30] out and filling out I don't think that's

[15:33] very

[15:34] >> wise. The 10% they talked about is

[15:37] things like this. There's little things

[15:39] that come up into the ground that is

[15:41] suitable and it just needs a little bit

[15:43] of fill in it. We allowed that and I

[15:46] think the ordinance says up to 10%.

[15:49] But to just keep filling out, I think

[15:52] there's a number of problems and you can

[15:54] probably weigh in on this. One thing I

[15:57] see with the geotech reports, they're

[15:59] like, "Yeah, you can fill it, but that

[16:01] 4T of fill is on mush."

[16:04] >> Yeah. So, like the one for the birds out

[16:06] there, I I don't quote me on this, but I

[16:09] believe the geotech says you can build

[16:11] that up, but you need to X out 20 ft and

[16:13] put granular fill in in order to support

[16:17] that. And I'm just like, why do we even

[16:19] want to go there?

[16:21] >> And the other problem that I see with

[16:23] fill is people, it's expensive. If you

[16:26] buy

[16:27] >> compactable granular fill, it's going to

[16:30] cost you more than a lot. But they start

[16:32] hauling in dirt. other jobs and it

[16:35] doesn't ever match. You can't get a

[16:37] proctor to compaction test it. You got

[16:40] these geotech problems underneath. I

[16:43] think it's probably just a good thing to

[16:45] avoid.

[16:48] » I

[16:50] Yeah, the biggest thing is making storm

[16:52] drain work. I mean, you don't want pumps

[16:54] for storm drain.

[16:55] >> No, never.

[16:56] >> And so that's going to kind of naturally

[16:57] bring stuff up anyways the further you

[16:59] get out west.

[17:01] And it does change a little bit as you

[17:03] come across town like the like when you

[17:05] get to West Point. They're more

[17:07] endangered by the lake or the slooh.

[17:09] >> Sure.

[17:10] >> Ours is the way from the other

[17:12] direction.

[17:15] » So I'm not opposed to some clarification

[17:18] or some change. I just those are the key

[17:20] things that are important to us that the

[17:23] drought we're in, you probably could go

[17:24] build a house out there and be just fine

[17:26] for but one day you won't be according

[17:28] to the people that this. So

[17:33] >> that's I think a crucial point of it too

[17:35] is like we don't want to make drastic

[17:36] changes in a dry year and think oh we're

[17:39] going to be fine and then 10 years from

[17:40] now the weather changes and now we're

[17:43] already up against it

[17:50] » from a legal standpoint on their side

[17:54] with the case law

[17:57] I guess does that open us up we do

[18:00] Are we at risk? It seems like if we do

[18:02] nothing, we're at risk that way. Is

[18:04] there some middle ground that like Jared

[18:08] was saying that gets us some of that

[18:10] language in there and still gets Jared

[18:13] his

[18:16] requirements that

[18:18] to make the water drain system work

[18:23] along those lines and doesn't expose us

[18:25] to the risk of those

[18:29] saw that they mentioned that the other

[18:35] is there.

[18:46] » Yeah. And I I wonder too if maybe the

[18:48] suitability suitability

[18:51] part of our ordinance isn't the place

[18:52] for that. Maybe we need a standalone

[18:54] ordinance about elevation

[18:57] rather than including it. suitability.

[19:01] It really deals with a whole bunch of

[19:03] other stuff.

[19:14] » He said he was.

[19:20] » Another question I have for them is they

[19:22] wanted evidence based finding that I was

[19:26] just like an expl

[19:28] those what they would deem as evidence

[19:32] based from the city standpoint.

[19:36] What what do they want us to provide

[19:40] in that case right?

[19:55] » Yeah. Does the elevation maps that show

[19:57] the drainage points of ponds at 4215

[20:00] support that arguments enough to hold up

[20:04] in court?

[20:05] >> Which I think it would, but I'm not

[20:06] looking.

[20:08] >> There's quite a bit of documentation

[20:10] that the state

[20:12] engineers there's a lot of stuff out

[20:15] there that supports that 425

[20:26] I guess

[20:28] >> and common sense. I mean, I would you go to a few of these points. There's a

[20:32] couple places you look out there and

[20:34] think, well, probably be all right right

[20:36] there. But there's I bet at least half,

[20:39] if not more of these, if you drive out

[20:41] there and look, you'll be like, "Yeah,

[20:42] we probably shouldn't be building

[20:43] subdivisions out there."

[20:45] >> Yeah. Well, that's why would be feasible

[20:48] if we built

[20:52] between certain parameters you need a

[20:54] study.

[20:55] >> I was like for even stuff because I know

[21:00] that the

[21:02] county has you the health department has

[21:04] for

[21:06] just to see how fast it drains the water

[21:09] soil is different, right? Like is there

[21:11] something that we can put in there that

[21:14] would further help provide that evidence

[21:16] to say

[21:18] that go and

[21:22] The hard part I think with like a just a

[21:25] full on geoteex

[21:27] if you go study it this year it's going

[21:29] to tell you it's fine and and it's too

[21:32] long to say you got it you know if you

[21:34] don't do it in a relatively wet year I

[21:36] don't think that's accurate data I think

[21:41] >> yeah that's what that's why I saw the

[21:42] problem with Syracuse they wanted a

[21:44] sixmon water study but if you did it in

[21:46] the last six months you're fine Yeah.

[21:49] I hate to tell somebody they can't use,

[21:52] but

[21:56] usable. They just have to bring in a lot

[21:57] of pill.

[21:58] >> Yeah.

[22:12] » So, they're looking for us to make a

[22:14] recommendation to change that will go to

[22:16] the

[22:22] I didn't think was all that crazy. I

[22:25] mean, it's not like we're miles apart.

[22:28] We may just have to get our attorney and

[22:30] make sure we're covered on the things

[22:32] we're worried about. I didn't It wasn't

[22:34] like

[22:38] reasonable.

[22:39] >> I agree.

[22:43] » Well, that's you know, that's my

[22:44] concern. Like, you're you're your home

[22:49] and building out there, then that's kind

[22:50] of on you. You get a guy like me and I

[22:53] move out here.

[22:57] In 10 years from now, I've got to have

[23:00] six sump pumps in my basement.

[23:03] I'm not real

[23:06] scary with this. You want something that

[23:09] the river and water's coming back at you

[23:13] from the west.

[23:14] >> We've got huge pumps out. We can't

[23:17] >> Well, you're going to pump it into the

[23:19] pond at the pond's coming right back at

[23:20] you.

[23:21] >> One big cycle.

[23:22] >> Yeah. Mean that big that last big

[23:24] raintorm last August, whatever it was,

[23:26] everything was full. Didn't matter where

[23:27] you're pumping. There you

[23:30] >> just flood.

[23:31] One thing that mean comment obviously

[23:33] the lowest floor like in this area like

[23:36] no basements at all, right? Like even if

[23:37] they want to do a basement, put a pump

[23:40] in there for sewer. Is there something

[23:43] in that code that says I guess the

[23:44] slowest low lowest floor height?

[23:46] >> The counties does and our ours our

[23:48] subdivision ordinance says they can't

[23:50] have a basement without land system.

[23:54] problem is the legislator should change

[23:56] the state code to say if they have a

[23:58] geotech

[24:03] » which I don't disagree with other than

[24:05] we can certainly do a geotech

[24:12] » yeah well we had there was a person who

[24:15] did a study for septic

[24:18] in like 23 when we had the big wet stuff

[24:20] didn't pass this now neighbor came in

[24:23] the past and now that guy's mad. You

[24:25] have to wait so long before you get your

[24:27] do your septic feasibility again. It's

[24:30] kind of funny.

[24:31] >> Just exactly what you're saying.

[24:33] >> Just never know.

[24:37] » Sounds like we have a lot of questions.

[24:47] Were

[24:56] they requesting the 4215

[25:00] or were they just requesting

[25:06] some new language here?

[25:10] >> I mean really what they're

[25:11] >> Yeah, they do have the 4215 in there.

[25:18] But I I I think everybody agrees on the

[25:21] 4215 part. And like I say, it wasn't

[25:25] ever our intention to challenge that or

[25:27] say that's inaccurate. It is. That's

[25:29] just where we need to start development

[25:32] of utilities. Not

[25:34] >> Yeah. So that's that's where the

[25:35] difference is development of utilities

[25:37] versus development of house.

[25:41] >> And so does their 421 they want to go 5t

[25:45] lower?

[25:46] >> They want to go houses.

[25:48] is that is that I guess I'm asking is

[25:50] that is that how that is

[25:51] >> really all they're asking for is

[25:53] clarification on what our standard

[25:54] means.

[26:11] a little different.

[26:16] » Well, I think the Weaver County is most

[26:18] applicable and it certainly has

[26:20] provisions in there that allows for

[26:23] that. 4215 is the bottom and then

[26:26] there's different conditions that

[26:27] transit from that.

[26:29] >> Yeah.

[26:30] >> And that basically is the same thing

[26:31] we're doing just in a different.

[26:34] >> Yeah. And this is saying so no building

[26:36] can be on that property unless 20,000

[26:38] foot of it's at 4215. But even then the

[26:40] lowest habitable floor is at 4216. So

[26:43] you're still going up a little bit. So

[26:45] they're saying the property itself has

[26:48] to be

[26:49] >> 42

[26:53] » potential.

[26:53] >> Yeah. Potentially.

[26:56] >> Yeah. So they're allowing utilities

[26:58] below the floor.

[26:59] >> Yeah.

[27:00] >> Below the 4250.

[27:01] >> Yeah.

[27:03] I don't know that was written in 1986

[27:06] and there's a section that contemplates

[27:08] if you're doing septic you got to be 2

[27:11] feet above that and so much cover and it

[27:13] puts above 4220

[27:16] >> and in theory we're not doing septic

[27:18] anymore but we still have something

[27:20] drained into that 425 and I think

[27:24] basically saying the same thing

[27:29] » 86

[27:32] >> I was just texting

[27:33] planner CP editing updated in the code.

[27:38] I don't know yet. I don't talked about

[27:41] it a lot at least that we've been

[27:42] counting but I I like the idea of kind

[27:45] of maybe having a number like the 416 or

[27:47] maybe even 17 or something similar to

[27:50] that anyways but then yeah giving the

[27:52] maybe a little more flexible as far as

[27:54] the geotech or as far as the what the

[27:56] design calls for on the subdivision.

[28:01] How far below grade is your sewer at

[28:04] vacuum usually?

[28:05] >> That's a whole another Oh, I'm not that

[28:07] worried about sewer because it should be

[28:09] a sealed system. You could have

[28:12] influence on the gravity. The gravity is

[28:15] going to be way below that. Yeah. Like

[28:17] this gravity right here's 20 ft deep in

[28:20] branch.

[28:21] >> Are you having a lift station on this

[28:22] one then?

[28:24] >> But the vacuum sewer is not that deep.

[28:26] I'm not as worried about that as the

[28:29] storm drain just doesn't work if it's

[28:31] already full of water when a big storm

[28:33] comes.

[28:34] >> Yeah, I think my vacuum's at 36 in.

[28:40] You feel like type of ground plays into

[28:45] how soil and things like that change

[28:48] based off the piece of ground

[28:51] on where you

[28:53] >> probably certainly would under normal

[28:55] conditions but I don't know under that.

[28:56] I mean we're talking about I don't know

[28:59] if the lake will ever get that high

[29:01] again but that's kind of the data we're

[29:03] working off of.

[29:05] >> I don't think the soil will matter then

[29:07] but I mean it would

[29:08] circumstances that they could

[29:11] >> I mean

[29:13] yeah if we're talking about the drain

[29:16] coming down most storm or whatever

[29:19] being able

[29:40] experience. It was like 10 years ago. I

[29:42] cleaned that main drain with the track

[29:45] that goes out right to the south fork of

[29:47] the Weaver River. When we got to the end

[29:49] of it, you don't realize how flat that

[29:51] is. And took the last few scoops, the

[29:53] river ran back halfway up the ditch that

[29:56] I just cleaned. The water was going the

[29:58] wrong way. It wasn't a storm. It was a

[30:02] little bit kind of set in my mind how

[30:05] flat that is out there.

[30:19] Jurassic

[30:30] if you'd like me to prepare. Yeah, I

[30:32] think that's helpful for everybody

[30:37] on the same

[30:40] time.

[30:49] Call up the representative. Ask

[30:51] questions. Attorneys

[31:01] kind of Anything

[31:07] else you guys want to discuss about

[31:15] that

[31:20] risk of

[31:25] do nothing?

[31:30] How do we

[31:32] interest.

[31:39] Okay. Now, last one is just a discussion

[31:42] item

[31:45] for new ordinance. Doesn't look like it

[31:48] just as discuss. This is around the

[31:52] group home section

[31:55] or amendment. So, right now it's just

[31:58] kind of

[32:01] group homes are allowed

[32:04] conditionally everywhere.

[32:07] So, it's just kind of lumped in there.

[32:10] We might want to look at more

[32:13] granular and resial versus commercial.

[32:18] The one thing that I could see this

[32:20] benefiting is I think everybody's

[32:23] retireen

[32:25] living

[32:27] there within the residential

[32:28] neighborhood. I think the

[32:31] angst that I would have is like you have

[32:34] your drug rehab center right there in

[32:36] the middle of your resial area. So how

[32:39] do we in that in those ordinances and

[32:42] amendments? How do we balance those two?

[32:48] situations

[32:59] by

[33:05] » I think right now

[33:07] correct me if I'm wrong ordinance

[33:14] four

[33:15] >> y up to four unrelated persons with or

[33:17] without children living together or

[33:19] single housekeeping unit or in a

[33:21] dwelling unit.

[33:29] » Your guys's thoughts on residential

[33:37] I know the state

[33:40] when I was listening to the city council

[33:42] talk about this the state

[33:45] won't let you

[33:48] prohibit some of those in resial

[33:57] zone. You can control the size

[34:01] and I don't think it matter what it was

[34:03] for. It could have been elderly care,

[34:06] could disability care, could be drug

[34:08] alcohol, but that you can't limit

[34:12] where they type.

[34:16] I guess that's

[34:17] >> Yeah, if I could interject, it's it's

[34:20] from the federal fair housing act,

[34:22] persons with disabilities, which can

[34:24] include um drug addiction. So, uh so

[34:29] elderly, um adults with disabilities,

[34:32] people going through drug treatment, um

[34:36] troubled youth, uh you know, those they

[34:38] are all protected as a development use.

[34:42] You have to allow them anywhere that you

[34:43] would allow residential development

[34:45] within the community. However, as has

[34:47] been mentioned, you can control the

[34:49] size, you can control things like

[34:52] parking access, you know, things like

[34:54] that. But yeah, you have to allow them

[34:56] that's that's a federal law. You have to

[34:58] allow them anywhere. You cannot

[34:59] discriminate against them in any way

[35:02] that you would

[35:04] allow any other type of housing.

[35:19] » I I know some of the stuff they were

[35:21] having

[35:24] discussion about was the definition of

[35:26] family like what how you can control

[35:29] that so you don't end up with

[35:33] house.

[35:56] So they've got limited to four

[36:01] So that's what they wanted us to look at

[36:06] the amount of people

[36:12] » to reduce that number.

[36:16] There were some other questions in there

[36:27] for more than eight juveniles under 18y

[36:30] old. So as you get a little further

[36:31] down, they start talking about

[36:33] children's treatment facilities. That's

[36:35] where they were starting to look into

[36:36] some of the numbers.

[36:38] >> You know, not a lot of discussion about

[36:40] daycare facilities

[36:42] or dayare

[36:45] like drug and alcohol treatment

[36:48] for adult patients there isn't

[36:51] so like if you read that one drug and

[36:53] alcohol treatment establishment portion

[36:55] there isn't a number so provides a

[36:58] treatment program for adult patient

[37:01] >> it's on the previous

[37:03] >> yeah the next

[37:05] >> goes down

[37:09] » group of more than 10 people not related

[37:12] don't

[37:14] Does that tie to that? I don't think

[37:16] it's tied to that drug and alcohol

[37:17] treatment.

[37:18] >> It's like a new header.

[37:20] >> Family.

[37:21] >> Yeah, I agree. That one doesn't have a

[37:23] quantity.

[37:23] >> So, I know I think they're looking for

[37:26] kind of our thoughts on

[37:29] quantity there.

[37:30] >> It's funny because every other one has

[37:32] quantity in it

[37:33] >> and daycare doesn't either. Oh, no.

[37:35] Daycare does 12 or 12 individuals.

[37:41] » Foster care.

[37:45] 7 to 13 children.

[38:11] I don't know

[38:19] for the like what is a reasonable

[38:24] I guess how can they reasonably not

[38:27] reason but how can they effectively

[38:30] treat these people like what's the

[38:32] required amount of space that they need

[38:34] to administer that treatment process

[38:40] Are they

[38:46] trying to find

[38:49] how many staff they had to have per

[39:03] children's treatment facility which I'm

[39:06] not sure how he defile provides

[39:07] treatment for substance abuse. So that

[39:10] one for kids all it says is making sure

[39:13] that they have permanent provisions for

[39:15] more than 18 or more than eight

[39:17] juveniles but there's not a maximum on that

[39:26] provides treatment for substance abuse

[39:31] include group foster homes with more

[39:33] than 13.

[39:36] I think that's kind

[39:43] of

[40:39] That's

[40:41] >> Yeah, I think when they went through

[40:44] this the first and second time

[40:47] and they kept talking about that there

[40:49] is it doesn't go city by city on some of

[40:52] that stuff that's like state

[40:56] >> what kind of education what kind of

[41:00] basically certifications they all that

[41:02] kind of

[41:09] multiple people. Each person has 60 ft

[41:14] room

[41:17] and then male and females have to be

[41:19] separated.

[41:26] You can't mix

[41:29] in there.

[41:33] Just looking for numbers. What are your

[41:34] guys thoughts on the numbers?

[41:52] » Yeah. So, are we trying to put a maximum

[41:54] number in there and then if they wanted

[41:55] to go above the max, they'd have to get

[41:57] a conditional use?

[42:01] It's a conditional use max.

[42:23] This is a discuss

[42:26] Attention.

[42:56] Amendment

[43:07] specific.

[43:18] So

[43:22] I don't know that

[43:26] Because you can be court ordered into

[43:30] a facility. The way this reads,

[43:34] placement of group home facility shall

[43:36] be on a strictly voluntary basis

[43:39] and

[43:41] part.

[43:54] That's what I'm

[44:06] speaking.

[44:22] That applies to

[44:25] examples that we have

[44:29] next

[44:44] for that process.

[44:49] I think so.

[44:57] I mean they've already covered under

[45:00] that 1026 the approval process basically

[45:04] if it's four or less they don't need a

[45:07] conditioner

[45:15] there's just no

[45:26] The definition doesn't give it max.

[45:35] Sorry.

[45:42] group home for the elderly is eight or

[45:45] fewer

[45:46] >> and same with disability

[45:48] is eight

[45:49] >> elderly person I do kind of object that

[45:51] they're using age 60 for elderly

[45:57] » rightamilies

[46:05] or children

[46:08] there's

[46:10] no no max ones

[46:17] or even definition

[46:37] children's treatment facility.

[46:40] This is more than

[46:48] there's

[46:50] no max

[46:58] treatment.

[47:00] Daycare home does say

[47:03] wear more than six but no greater than

[47:06] 12 individuals.

[47:11] screens.

[47:26] » Yes,

[47:28] there's there's no min

[47:32] alcohol treatment facility. Well, it's

[47:34] four or less.

[47:36] The way I read the way I read this is

[47:38] because we don't allow it at all.

[47:43] So you can only have a group home if

[47:46] it's for the elderly or person

[47:47] disabilities. I'm reading what 102B-6A

[47:53] placement in a group home facility which

[47:55] my mind is the disability or elderly not

[48:00] confinement rehab or treatment

[48:03] facility. So the way I read that is we

[48:05] don't allow it anyways.

[48:08] >> Trouble if they consider a drug.

[48:10] >> Yeah. And that's what I guess understand

[48:11] that that's why there's no min because I

[48:13] don't think it's saying it's

[48:15] >> the max is zero.

[48:16] >> Yeah.

[48:20] » For the approval process.

[48:22] >> Yeah.

[48:25] So anything over four, it's just not

[48:27] even addressed. It's saying we don't

[48:29] even allow it.

[48:31] >> Yeah.

[48:33] >> They don't need to do anything.

[48:39] » I just need to

[48:42] talk about it more as far as if they're

[48:44] allowing the confinement rehab

[48:47] treatment. If they are, they need to

[48:49] find that and then give some min work.

[48:53] >> Yeah.

[49:05] I would like to see what some of the

[49:08] other cities are doing. So, we're not

[49:09] just throwing out arbitrary numbers

[49:12] how we feel.

[49:13] >> Yeah.

[49:25] » Great.

[49:33] are

[49:48] » you're going to have a busy evening.

[49:49] >> That's great.

[49:50] >> Perfect. Huh?

[50:00] Or do we want to give them time for the

[50:02] general plan update?

[50:03] >> Yeah,

[50:05] >> you're good.

[50:07] >> We can be fast.

[50:09] >> It's a 12step plan.

[50:12] » It's at the very very top.

[50:19] » It's okay.

[50:21] >> Um, well, I'm Jenny and this is Brian.

[50:23] We work with J engineers and we're going

[50:25] to be part of your team to help you with

[50:26] the general plan update. Um we've been

[50:30] meeting mayor, we met with Jared, we met

[50:32] with Malcolm and have kind of started to

[50:34] get this kicked off. We have our first

[50:38] kind of action item that we have for

[50:40] everyone is we sent around kind of a

[50:43] steering committee list for to us to

[50:45] gather around and get people

[50:47] to attend that as be part of our Yeah.

[50:50] steering committee working group to help

[50:52] guide this plan and implement kind of

[50:54] the city's vision in this. Um so we have

[50:57] suggested members, some that are city

[50:59] staff. Um mostly we would like community

[51:03] representatives, so lifelong Her

[51:05] residents, newer residents, younger,

[51:07] older, um agriculture representation um

[51:11] as well as you guys are also updating

[51:15] your parks and um active transportation.

[51:19] So any, you know, youth sports

[51:22] organizations,

[51:23] um, trails, bikes enthusiasts, stuff

[51:25] like that. So, we've sent that over to

[51:28] the city, and I'm not sure if it's made

[51:29] its way over to you guys as well, but

[51:31] we're hoping that get a good list of

[51:33] people. It can be multiple people per

[51:35] category because we're need to make

[51:37] those invitations. Some people might be

[51:38] able to participate, some people might

[51:40] not. Um, so hopefully you guys have that

[51:43] and can start filling that out. I think

[51:45] we met with the city on Monday to

[51:49] discuss when we wanted that list filled

[51:51] out and back to us. So hopefully um next

[51:55] week you guys can have a good list for

[51:57] us to start making those invitations

[52:00] um to participate and then Brian can

[52:04] kind of go over like what the general

[52:05] plan update is for you guys, what's

[52:07] required, what we'll be looking at and

[52:09] stuff.

[52:10] >> So question question before we get too

[52:12] far. So we did we received an email the

[52:15] mayor on Tuesday

[52:17] >> and she wants to list input by Monday.

[52:22] Why that Monday deadline?

[52:24] >> Um

[52:25] >> we can extend that. It is really fast.

[52:27] Um we can extend it to probably the end

[52:30] of the week. That way we they want to

[52:32] have the steering committee first

[52:36] meeting sometime in July. We are also

[52:38] putting together a survey for the city.

[52:40] So having the steering committee's input

[52:43] on the questions that go out is good as

[52:46] well.

[52:46] >> So when you say they, it is they

[52:48] >> they as in the steering committee and

[52:50] they as in the city

[52:52] >> council also has to approve all those

[53:00] agenda.

[53:07] So, so you're you're wanting us to

[53:12] try and find volunteers for this or

[53:15] >> suggestions. So, you don't have to go

[53:17] out and make those connections and ask

[53:19] them if they want to be in the steering

[53:21] committee. Just everyone here has

[53:22] different touch points with people in

[53:24] the city who they think would be a good

[53:26] representation for this. And so, just

[53:29] putting together suggestion list, Brian

[53:31] and I will make the contact with them.

[53:34] >> Okay. And all you need is res names or

[53:37] do you need phone numbers and addresses?

[53:39] >> Um, phone numbers, addresses, emails,

[53:41] contact information if you can so that

[53:42] we can contact them and ask.

[53:46] >> And you want one from each of us

[53:47] individually or do you want us to have

[53:48] one as a collaborative group?

[53:50] >> Um, as a collaborative group, if that

[53:53] works best for you if you don't you

[53:55] don't have to fill out every single one.

[53:57] If you have someone in one category and

[53:59] someone has you can work off the same

[54:01] spreadsheet.

[54:02] >> Perfect.

[54:03] >> So, we want to have a shared spreadsheet

[54:04] that we all input to.

[54:09] Yeah, probably.

[54:10] >> I think we do our own sort.

[54:14] >> Yeah. So, we'll just send our own and

[54:15] you guys can put them together because

[54:16] we can't collaborate.

[54:17] >> Yeah,

[54:18] >> good point.

[54:21] » So, good. That's why he's our chair.

[54:25] >> Um, yeah, we have other public outreach

[54:28] activities planned, open houses. We plan

[54:31] to ban tomato days, feed the parks as

[54:34] much as we can, getting people involved,

[54:36] having their input on the plan. So,

[54:38] >> okay, perfect.

[54:40] Um, so the intent of the process is uh

[54:42] to just kind of help provide some

[54:44] content updates to the general plan. The

[54:46] last plan was written four almost five

[54:49] years ago. And so there are a couple of

[54:51] just we want to do refresh on like the

[54:54] statistical estimates. You know, we'll take a look at population

[54:57] projections again.

[55:00] changed much since uh the last five

[55:02] years. Um we want to update your

[55:06] moderate income housing section to make

[55:08] sure that that's compliant

[55:10] uh within and up to date with state code

[55:13] and and the the city you're not quite

[55:16] there yet, but you're getting close to

[55:18] the point where the city is required to

[55:19] produce a water use and preservation

[55:21] plan. Um and so we can kind of set the

[55:24] groundwork for um

[55:28] putting that in your general plan. So

[55:30] that once once you do trigger that, you

[55:33] hit that 10,000 um person population

[55:37] threshold and then the state's going to

[55:39] require you to include that the document

[55:41] so we can we can start getting you prep

[55:44] on having that information available so

[55:46] that when you hit that threshold

[55:49] it's easier to comply. Yeah. So um but

[55:52] then you know mostly we want to look at

[55:54] um just what what kind of uh what kind

[55:57] of tools do you need to be making land

[55:59] use decisions. There are a lot of you

[56:02] know there's there's a lot of potential

[56:03] change um going on with with a potential

[56:06] new commercial center um or large

[56:10] commercial businesses coming to town.

[56:11] You've got the new highway uh you know

[56:14] the west side corridor highway coming

[56:16] through in the next

[56:18] probably 5 to 10 years. on the side of

[56:21] that. Um, you know, those are going to

[56:22] bring some big changes and uh the the

[56:25] mayor at least and and talking with

[56:28] Malcolm, you know, we there's a sense

[56:31] that your current zoning code isn't

[56:34] providing enough options to deal with

[56:37] diversified need in housing, diversified

[56:40] need in commercial and and other retail

[56:42] services and things. Um, so we want to

[56:45] kind of just get some ideas on on, you

[56:47] know, what types of uh what types of

[56:49] development do you think would be

[56:51] compatible um

[56:54] scalewise and and locationwise and and

[56:57] how can we come up with with kind of a a

[57:00] more

[57:02] um

[57:04] a more varied toolbox for you, you know,

[57:06] to use to try and and find ways to

[57:10] accommodate development that that you

[57:12] think is going to fit the community's

[57:13] character.

[57:15] Um, and then

[57:19] we've also got a sub consultant working

[57:20] with us who's going to do some economic

[57:22] analysis to try and provide some ideas

[57:26] on on what the costs and benefits are to

[57:29] providing opportunity for these

[57:32] different types of development. How can

[57:33] we how can we make um different

[57:37] varieties of housing? How can we work

[57:40] with uh developers to help different

[57:42] variet varieties of housing fit into the

[57:44] community and and not be a burden? Um

[57:47] how can we encourage uh commercial

[57:49] retail broad the tax base and services

[57:52] available for residents?

[57:54] >> So who can we get an email from where we

[57:57] can send our suggestions?

[58:03] » I think it's important to make sure that

[58:06] we're not people think

[58:13] » it has to be very diverse.

[58:16] >> Thank you.

[58:18] >> But

[58:22] yeah, we want we want a good broad

[58:24] representation of the community.

[58:26] >> I like it.

[58:29] >> By Monday.

[58:29] >> How often do those communities meet?

[58:33] >> Um it's varied. You know, meeting often

[58:37] can kind of be a scope strain on like

[58:40] what you guys can afford, but it depends

[58:43] on how far we get with each group. If we

[58:45] have to do shorter, but more frequent or

[58:47] longer and fewer in between, it really

[58:50] depends.

[58:54] » Yeah, we're kind of targeting one a

[58:56] month.

[58:56] >> Yeah.

[58:57] >> See how that goes.

[59:03] » Yeah. Yeah. That's the kind of

[59:04] commitment that we're asking from is

[59:05] maybe an hour or two.

[59:08] How long would this process thinking

[59:10] take?

[59:10] >> The timeline is a a year.

[59:13] >> Actually, we're trying to see if we can

[59:14] get it done in in 8 to 10 months, you

[59:16] know, by uh

[59:19] yeah, January, February.

[59:23] Have you draft documents ready to start

[59:25] putting through the adoption process?

[59:37] Thanks for helping us out. You did

[59:40] great.

[59:40] >> Oh, yeah. Yeah. Put you in for an hour

[59:43] over time.

[59:44] >> I'll just uh I'll

[59:54] move.

[1:00:03] Thank you.

[1:00:09] >> Good to see you.

[1:00:11] >> You see Taylor tomorrow?

[1:00:20] » Yeah, he's in Yellowstone.

[1:00:26] Yeah.

[1:00:38] » It's fascinating.

[1:01:12] This is

[1:01:16] really

[1:01:41] places.

[1:01:55] That's

[1:02:07] » right. We'd like to welcome you all out

[1:02:09] to our June 11th, 2026 Cooper City

[1:02:13] Planning Commission agenda. I'm

[1:02:16] Commissioner McCormick. I'll call the

[1:02:17] meeting to order. Um to begin, we'll

[1:02:20] have a pledge of allegiance led by

[1:02:24] Commissioner Denny and then a prayer

[1:02:27] given by Commissioner W.

[1:02:30] Please stand.

[1:02:33] >> Recording in progress.

[1:02:36] >> I aliance to the flag of the United

[1:02:40] States of America and to the republic

[1:02:43] for which it stands. One nation under

[1:02:46] God, indivisible, with liberty and

[1:02:49] justice for all

[1:02:58] like to thank

[1:03:03] heavenly father. We grateful for this

[1:03:05] time that we have to come together to

[1:03:07] discuss matters of the city and we're

[1:03:10] grateful for this wonderful gift that we

[1:03:11] have to to do this in this wonderful

[1:03:13] country and state. We ask a special

[1:03:15] blessing that we could be guided and and

[1:03:18] as we talk about these items on this

[1:03:19] agenda today that we can listen to the

[1:03:22] residents and be mindful and and make

[1:03:25] good decisions here today. Once again,

[1:03:27] we're grateful for this wonderful place

[1:03:28] that we live and we say in the name of

[1:03:30] Jesus Christ. Amen. Amen.

[1:03:35] Thank Commissioner Denny and

[1:03:36] Commissioner White for providing those

[1:03:37] for us. On to the first item of consent

[1:03:42] is the approval of the minutes dated May

[1:03:44] 14th, 2026.

[1:03:49] I don't see any issues or anything. So,

[1:03:51] I'll make a motion to approve the

[1:03:52] minutes dated May 14th, 2026.

[1:03:55] Second that motion.

[1:03:56] >> We have a motion from Commissioner White

[1:03:58] and a second from Commissioner Bates.

[1:03:59] All in favor? I

[1:04:01] >> I

[1:04:02] >> motion passes. Okay. So now on to our

[1:04:05] first action

[1:04:07] item is a conditional use permit request

[1:04:11] for Jeb Jed Debbach for an oversized

[1:04:14] structure located at 4704 South 5950

[1:04:18] West. Request is for 3000 square ft with

[1:04:21] the height of 25.6. We'll turn some time

[1:04:24] over to staff to give a presentation on

[1:04:26] the request.

[1:04:30] Okay. So, as you can see there on the

[1:04:32] application, he applied for that 3,000

[1:04:34] square ft. The height structure of 25

[1:04:37] and a half. So, the conditional use

[1:04:39] permit is for both of those. Um, stating

[1:04:42] he'll be using it for storage. No

[1:04:44] plumbing or electricity or business use

[1:04:47] is in there. Um, I've attached the

[1:04:50] rendering of what it looks like, the

[1:04:52] three bays and the van door. And then as

[1:04:55] far as the site plan on the right, it

[1:04:56] just shows all the setback requirements

[1:04:58] that it's following and then just where

[1:05:01] it'll sit back from the house.

[1:05:05] Thank you. We will now I'll now

[1:05:09] entertain a motion to enter a public

[1:05:12] hearing on this conditional use permit.

[1:05:20] So

[1:05:23] » a motion from Commissioner Bates and

[1:05:25] second from Commissioner Woodson. All in

[1:05:27] favor?

[1:05:28] >> I.

[1:05:29] >> Okay. So now we are in a public hearing

[1:05:32] for the conditional use permit. If we

[1:05:34] could have

[1:05:37] as you come forward, please state your

[1:05:38] name if you're a resident and then you

[1:05:42] will have three minutes to comment on

[1:05:45] the conditional use permit.

[1:06:03] I'm Carla Austral.

[1:06:09] Um, I'm just really disappointed in you

[1:06:11] that you didn't take this off the agenda

[1:06:13] today because the state law requires 10

[1:06:16] days. The envelopes were postmarked June

[1:06:20] 8th, which was Monday. We got our

[1:06:22] letters yesterday. That did not give us

[1:06:25] 10 days. That gave us one day to look at

[1:06:27] this, to think about it, and to figure

[1:06:29] out how it's going to affect us. I live

[1:06:31] directly behind him, and I've met you.

[1:06:33] You're a nice guy. But that's a monster

[1:06:36] shop. That's like two and a half times

[1:06:38] the normal size of a shop.

[1:06:42] It is going to affect my property. It is

[1:06:44] going to shade it. It's going to take

[1:06:46] away the sunlight from my garden, from

[1:06:48] the grass, from my chickens, from

[1:06:51] everything. That is huge. And I realize

[1:06:54] that he has his race cars and wants a

[1:06:56] place to store them, but that is just

[1:06:59] really huge for a backyard shop. And

[1:07:04] again, we're really disappointed that

[1:07:06] you didn't give us a chance to uh think

[1:07:08] about it and really talk to others about

[1:07:10] it first.

[1:07:16] Thank you.

[1:07:20] » Any other public comment?

[1:07:29] » My name is Kitty Peacock. Um, I live

[1:07:33] next door to you and I agree completely

[1:07:35] with Cara that we got one day notice. I

[1:07:38] don't know how big this thing is. Um,

[1:07:43] Why does it have to be so tall if it's

[1:07:46] for cars? I don't know because I haven't

[1:07:49] had a chance to look in. I haven't had a

[1:07:51] chance to talk to anybody.

[1:07:53] My view of Hooper is now gone. It's

[1:07:57] gone. I've lived here for 20 years.

[1:08:01] Um I realize that there's going to be

[1:08:03] growth. Things are going to change, but

[1:08:06] this this is

[1:08:09] pretty massive.

[1:08:11] That's all I have to say.

[1:08:16] » Thank you. Thank you.

[1:08:22] » Any other comment?

[1:08:26] All right. I'll entertain a motion to

[1:08:28] close the public comment.

[1:08:32] A motion to close.

[1:08:36] » Second. I have a motion from

[1:08:38] Commissioner Denny and a second from

[1:08:40] Commissioner Wson to close public

[1:08:41] comment. To close public comment, all in

[1:08:44] favor?

[1:08:44] >> I I

[1:08:47] >> Sorry, I should have preface that. We

[1:08:48] did discuss this in our in our work

[1:08:51] meeting. Um the letters were sent out um

[1:08:56] with enough time to get there, but they

[1:08:58] didn't get there in time. And so we

[1:09:00] discussed for this reason tableabling

[1:09:03] this request so the letters can be sent

[1:09:05] out and give you guys proper notice on

[1:09:09] this. We just wanted to get the public

[1:09:11] comment first and sorry I didn't make

[1:09:15] that clarification in that sense. Um

[1:09:20] but that was our discussion in in work

[1:09:22] meeting earlier today. Um is there a

[1:09:25] representative from

[1:09:27] uh the represent

[1:09:30] Mr. Debbach to come forward to the mic

[1:09:31] that we can ask questions for

[1:09:37] Alan Caron contractor.

[1:09:41] >> This is J here.

[1:09:43] >> Thank you.

[1:09:44] >> So the reason asking for height is is

[1:09:47] that some of his trailers are tall to

[1:09:50] get the tall get the pitch and

[1:09:51] everything that needs to be that tall

[1:09:52] and we're only six inches taller than

[1:09:56] what your ordinance already allows. on

[1:09:58] the on the height. So that's why sorry

[1:10:02] it's tall but if you go there and look

[1:10:04] there's other people around there have

[1:10:06] big build buildings too. In fact most of

[1:10:08] the people who are looking for happy

[1:10:09] robots are looking to put a shop or

[1:10:11] something up.

[1:10:13] Any other questions you have of us?

[1:10:21] No.

[1:10:22] >> Thank you.

[1:10:27] I'll now bring this back to the

[1:10:29] commission for discussion and motion.

[1:10:33] >> So, how how much larger is this than

[1:10:35] they allow space?

[1:10:37] It's 500 ft bigger.

[1:10:41] >> So, currently right now in our two zone,

[1:10:44] the ordinance states that you can have a

[1:10:46] 2500 square foot um accessory going

[1:10:50] accessory structure and so this request

[1:10:52] is for 3,000 square feet. 500 square f

[1:10:55] feet and then the like I mentioned

[1:10:57] before half a foot higher than what our

[1:11:00] ordinance allows on the height.

[1:11:08] I do apologize that you didn't get the

[1:11:10] letters on time and I do apologize for

[1:11:13] you guys because that puts you guys back

[1:11:15] another month on constructions and

[1:11:18] having you come back to this meeting

[1:11:19] again. I understand there's mistakes, I

[1:11:22] guess.

[1:11:24] uh puts both of you in in kind of a bad

[1:11:26] spot, but to protect us from a

[1:11:28] standpoint, I feel my thought is is to

[1:11:32] give the residents their 10day notice

[1:11:35] would be the the right thing to do if

[1:11:37] anybody has anything else.

[1:11:39] >> If if we do table this, we can also have

[1:11:42] another public hearing. Correct.

[1:11:47] » Yeah, that's correct. You're not

[1:11:49] required to because you've had one

[1:11:50] tonight, but you can always have a

[1:11:52] public

[1:11:54] on this.

[1:12:02] » Okay. I'm going to go ahead and make a

[1:12:04] motion that we table the request for a

[1:12:05] conditional use permit uh from Mr. Jed

[1:12:08] Debbach.

[1:12:10] Sorry, am I getting the name correct?

[1:12:13] Thank you.

[1:12:13] >> It's been said worse, but yeah.

[1:12:17] Uh, and with that tableabling, I would

[1:12:20] like to propose that this reappear on

[1:12:23] the soonest agenda possible with another

[1:12:27] public hearing for local residents to

[1:12:30] have a decent amount of time to comment.

[1:12:35] Second. Have a motion from Commissioner

[1:12:38] Bates, a second from Commissioner Wait.

[1:12:40] All in favor?

[1:12:41] >> I.

[1:12:42] >> Okay. motion has been or it has been

[1:12:45] tabled. All right, on to our next

[1:12:48] conditional use permit for James Upshot

[1:12:51] for an oversized structure located at

[1:12:53] 4483 South 5,400 West. The request is

[1:12:58] for 2900 square ft. And we'll turn some

[1:13:00] time over to staff to give a

[1:13:03] presentation on this request.

[1:13:07] Okay. So, up in the top left again, you

[1:13:10] can see the square footage structure

[1:13:12] request 2,900 ft. The height of the

[1:13:14] structure is 22 and 4 in. So, he is just

[1:13:18] requesting the conditional use for the

[1:13:20] square footage. Um, he's stating it will

[1:13:22] be used for storage for an RV tractor,

[1:13:25] household items. Um, plumbing will not

[1:13:28] be installed as of right now.

[1:13:30] Electricity will be and will not be used

[1:13:32] for business as of right now. Um, on the

[1:13:35] right, you can the site plies following

[1:13:37] the setbacks that are needed and

[1:13:39] required and then just that bottom left

[1:13:41] image of the the rendering of the

[1:13:43] building.

[1:13:46] » Thank you. And before public hearing,

[1:13:49] I'm going to have the is there a

[1:13:51] representative from Mr. Shaw to come

[1:13:53] forward and maybe answer our questions

[1:13:55] before we go into public hearing and

[1:13:57] then we can go into that to maybe do

[1:14:00] that.

[1:14:01] >> Absolutely. And Diana Shaw and he has a

[1:14:03] better half.

[1:14:05] You got the 18 tonight.

[1:14:08] >> Any additional questions on this? And

[1:14:10] it's the lean tube that's making it this

[1:14:12] size.

[1:14:16] Any questions I can answer?

[1:14:21] I think it looks like a great building.

[1:14:22] I didn't have any questions, but just

[1:14:26] pretty straightforward.

[1:14:28] >> Thank you.

[1:14:29] Right now, I entertain a

[1:14:31] motion to enter a public hearing for the

[1:14:33] conditional use permit for James Up.

[1:14:39] » I'll make a motion to enter a public

[1:14:40] hearing for this conditional use permit

[1:14:44] for James.

[1:14:46] >> Second motion motion from Commissioner

[1:14:48] Wait, a second from Commissioner Bates.

[1:14:50] All in favor?

[1:14:52] >> I.

[1:14:53] >> Okay, residents, we are now in public

[1:14:55] hearing. You will now have the

[1:14:56] opportunity to come forward. Please

[1:14:57] state your name and your Herp City

[1:15:00] resident, if you want to make a comment,

[1:15:02] you'll have three minutes. Please watch

[1:15:05] um Jamie and she'll give you your time.

[1:15:15] Seeing no public comment, I'll entertain

[1:15:17] a motion to close public comment. Move

[1:15:20] to close public comment.

[1:15:22] >> Second.

[1:15:23] >> I have a motion. A motion from

[1:15:26] Commissioner Denny and a second from

[1:15:27] Commissioner Woodson. All in favor?

[1:15:29] >> I

[1:15:31] >> Okay, we're now back um for discussion

[1:15:36] on the conditional use permit for James

[1:15:38] Upshaw. Is there any other discussion

[1:15:41] items? This one looked pretty

[1:15:42] straightforward to me.

[1:15:50] I don't feel like the 400 ft is

[1:15:51] excessive and I feel like it fits nicely

[1:15:54] on there. So,

[1:15:58] Is the access I didn't know I should ask

[1:16:00] when you're up here. Is the access

[1:16:01] similar to where your driveway is for

[1:16:04] the home or on different sides?

[1:16:06] >> Yes, it is on the same side as the

[1:16:07] driveway. It's an additional 30 ft and

[1:16:09] it would be concrete all the way back to

[1:16:11] the building.

[1:16:13] >> We're also lighting that area. Motion

[1:16:16] lighting.

[1:16:21] I'll make a motion to approve the

[1:16:24] conditioning permit for James up shop

[1:16:26] for the oversized structure located 4043

[1:16:29] South 5400 West.

[1:16:32] I'll second. We have a motion from

[1:16:34] Commissioner White and a second from

[1:16:36] Commissioner Denny. All in favor?

[1:16:38] >> I.

[1:16:39] >> Motion passes.

[1:16:42] Okay. Now on to

[1:16:45] uh item number item C. the request to

[1:16:49] amend the Hiler to Hiler city code

[1:16:51] 10-4A-31.

[1:16:54] The request is to change the elevation

[1:16:56] line from Smith Nullles attorney. Um I'd

[1:17:00] like to turn some time over to our

[1:17:03] public works director Jared Hancock to

[1:17:05] kind of give a presentation kind of get

[1:17:08] everybody

[1:17:09] on the page of what this request is

[1:17:11] entailing.

[1:17:14] >> Okay. So there there's a a development

[1:17:17] elevation line that's long been

[1:17:20] acknowledged throughout the county and

[1:17:22] on the the lake shore there at 4215.

[1:17:28] So I just put a few things together

[1:17:32] there for the history of it. So the

[1:17:34] elevation line's been recognized as the

[1:17:37] threshold for development in our region

[1:17:40] along the Great Salt Lake and

[1:17:41] surrounding tributaries and SLOs. I

[1:17:43] think as we discussed in

[1:17:47] work meeting that may go up a foot or

[1:17:50] two here and there but uh for the most

[1:17:52] part that's been long recognized as the

[1:17:55] threshold where we don't develop below.

[1:17:58] Um to my knowledge nobody on either side

[1:18:01] of this discussion is challenging that

[1:18:04] 4215 line.

[1:18:07] Um as the city begin to see development

[1:18:10] ideas and pressure in those lower

[1:18:13] elevation areas. Um there were concerns

[1:18:16] about how the 4215 elevation line was

[1:18:20] being applied to the new development.

[1:18:23] Um developers of course wanted to

[1:18:25] maximize their developable property and

[1:18:28] built the lots right down to the 4215

[1:18:32] elevation line.

[1:18:34] The city argued that the infrastructure

[1:18:36] was part of the development and the

[1:18:39] underground utilities needed to be

[1:18:42] included in the design above 4215

[1:18:46] particularly the drainage.

[1:18:49] So this this clarification

[1:18:52] uh is basically what I'm going to call

[1:18:55] it to the 4220

[1:18:58] um was purposely done during the general

[1:19:01] plan update uh There were other

[1:19:04] ordinances being updated and addressed

[1:19:07] at the time and we thought that was the

[1:19:10] best time to make a broad adjustment

[1:19:15] rather than being reactive to a

[1:19:19] submission from a developer.

[1:19:22] So that that's why that was done. So

[1:19:24] I've I've heard a lot of opinions and

[1:19:27] arguments about this and I want to be

[1:19:30] crystal clear. This was never uh

[1:19:34] intended to alter, redefine or move that

[1:19:37] 425

[1:19:38] elevation line. That is the basis for

[1:19:41] the 4220 argument.

[1:19:46] Um the the main objective that I see

[1:19:49] from the public works perspective on the

[1:19:52] line is to raise the lots and structures

[1:19:56] doesn't matter so much as that we need a

[1:19:58] drainage above that 4215 so that it'll

[1:20:02] function.

[1:20:05] So this is a little drawing that I hope

[1:20:08] makes it a little bit easier to

[1:20:09] understand what I'm talking about. So

[1:20:12] you can see the the tops in there. We've

[1:20:15] got the house built right down to the

[1:20:16] 4215.

[1:20:18] Um we got that flood plane coming up.

[1:20:21] You can see to the right that it shows

[1:20:24] the street section and a water meter,

[1:20:27] curbon gutter, storm drain box, and and

[1:20:29] a pipeline that would represent the

[1:20:32] outflow. Um, if the water comes up,

[1:20:36] which we're supposed to anticipate with

[1:20:39] this 4215 line and all that

[1:20:42] infrastructure below that, it will not

[1:20:44] work. It won't function. It'll already

[1:20:46] be full of water perhaps when the

[1:20:48] residents need it to drain the worst.

[1:20:51] Um, you can see the next example down.

[1:20:54] If we hold that house up just a little

[1:20:56] bit, um the infrastructure there, the

[1:21:00] drain boxes and have our outflow above

[1:21:03] that for 215 that gives the

[1:21:06] infrastructure the opportunity to drain.

[1:21:09] Um I also want to kind of bring up we're

[1:21:12] talking about here we talk about these

[1:21:14] numbers and maps and different things.

[1:21:18] We're basically talking about if the

[1:21:20] water level is this carpet, we want the

[1:21:22] houses as high as the

[1:21:24] We're not asking about a lot. We just

[1:21:27] need a little bit of room there to fit

[1:21:28] that infrastructure.

[1:21:31] Um, a couple of things that are

[1:21:33] important to consider, especially I in

[1:21:36] work meeting, we talked about some other

[1:21:38] cities elevations and different how

[1:21:42] people are looking at this. So the 4215

[1:21:45] elevation is based on the historic Great

[1:21:48] Salt Lake level. The biggest risk of

[1:21:52] catastrophic flooding to Hooper is

[1:21:54] actually not the lake itself, but the

[1:21:57] south fork of the Weaver River, which is

[1:21:59] a contributo to the lake. Um, the flood

[1:22:04] elevations are higher along the river.

[1:22:06] And I think in that memo I sent you,

[1:22:08] there's a snippet from the Division of

[1:22:11] Natural Resources uh

[1:22:14] report that I read and they estimate

[1:22:18] that 80% of the elevation up to 4220

[1:22:24] would be underwater if we got the lake

[1:22:26] to the level

[1:22:28] 4215.

[1:22:31] Um, you may just kind of an example of

[1:22:34] so we're not always dealing with what

[1:22:36] ifs may recall a few years ago and

[1:22:39] Tucker you could weigh in here the

[1:22:41] county spent millions of dollars

[1:22:43] mitigating flood damages along the river

[1:22:46] and the lake was nowhere near that level

[1:22:49] so I think that shows real world

[1:22:52] experience that the river can flood even

[1:22:55] when the lake isn't at that elevation

[1:22:59] um we've learned a little bit uh through

[1:23:02] our work session, but Weber County's

[1:23:04] 4215 elevation moratorum, the one that

[1:23:08] was recited in the letter from the

[1:23:10] attorneys, um that link goes back to a

[1:23:14] 1986 document that we've just learned

[1:23:17] has been updated. Um but that document

[1:23:21] contemplates

[1:23:23] having situations where you need the

[1:23:27] homes above 4215

[1:23:29] in order to accommodate

[1:23:31] structures and I believe that new

[1:23:36] updated version is 4218.

[1:23:41] Um, one one thing that often gets talked

[1:23:43] about during development is can we fill

[1:23:46] these lowlying areas? Um, and and I

[1:23:50] suppose we can. The problem we run into

[1:23:54] uh is the type of fill that's brought in

[1:23:57] is generally

[1:23:59] off other it isn't structural in nature

[1:24:03] and so when we start filling large

[1:24:06] fields um there's no way to test it for

[1:24:10] compacted if it's compacted and if it's

[1:24:13] suitable to build structures and

[1:24:15] infrastructure on top of um if we were

[1:24:19] to haul in granular structural

[1:24:22] engineered fill I think the cost would

[1:24:24] exceed the value in the lot and then the

[1:24:27] other problem we have when we read the

[1:24:29] geotech on fill. Often times the

[1:24:32] subsurface that we're filling on won't

[1:24:35] support the weight and the demand.

[1:24:38] So that that's something we've just

[1:24:40] tried to kind of stay away from is

[1:24:42] filling large fields out into these

[1:24:44] wetlands. Um the current ordinance does

[1:24:48] contemplate a 10% scenario that is

[1:24:53] interior and what was intended by that

[1:24:56] is if there's a ditch or a swale or a

[1:24:58] low in a piece of property that is

[1:25:01] generally above the elevation and it can

[1:25:05] be developed. We can allow some fill in

[1:25:08] those areas and work that out in the

[1:25:11] development plan. We just don't want to

[1:25:12] keep going further and further out into

[1:25:14] the

[1:25:16] wet areas and that that's something that

[1:25:19] probably could be adjusted and made a

[1:25:22] little more clear in our ordinance.

[1:25:29] So this is this is kind of the most

[1:25:31] telling uh slide I believe. Um and maybe

[1:25:35] it makes it make sense to people. I'm

[1:25:38] just going to walk up there. So this is

[1:25:41] real examples that of some existing

[1:25:43] development that we have in place and

[1:25:46] some proposed development that's coming

[1:25:48] that directly deals with this issue. So

[1:25:51] these are the lower loft in Rosson Ranch

[1:25:54] phase one.

[1:25:57] They were built before we had the 4220

[1:26:00] rule, but the developers engineer worked

[1:26:04] with us and really everything worked out

[1:26:07] to be about equal to the 4220 rule, just

[1:26:10] out of function. So if you look, there's

[1:26:13] a pond right here. That's where all that

[1:26:16] water drains to. And then the storm

[1:26:18] drain in the subdivision itself comes

[1:26:20] down and goes into this pond.

[1:26:23] If you look at the elevations, the

[1:26:25] bottom of the pond is 4215.

[1:26:29] The bottom of this pond is 4215

[1:26:32] and the banks are like 4218.

[1:26:35] So the back of these lots is 4219

[1:26:39] and then they go up a little bit to the

[1:26:41] curb and gutter.

[1:26:43] We also have a 42 in storm drain line

[1:26:48] that drains a significant part of West

[1:26:51] Haven and Hooker that runs down this

[1:26:54] property line and dumps into this pond.

[1:26:59] So this this is a development that a

[1:27:02] proposal that they've come in with as a

[1:27:05] concept. And you can see this is the

[1:27:08] area that's too low on these lots. If we

[1:27:11] shifted that a little bit. They could

[1:27:13] still get their lots and stay out of

[1:27:16] that lower area. I think it's a crazy

[1:27:19] idea to approach building lots equal to

[1:27:23] the bottom of the lake that we're

[1:27:24] draining half the city into. So, that's

[1:27:28] kind of my point. Um, I think where

[1:27:30] there's room for some adjustment in that

[1:27:33] ordinance and clarification. I'm not

[1:27:35] opposed to that, but I do think we need

[1:27:37] to start uh with the elevation of our

[1:27:41] drainage facilities at 4215 and work up

[1:27:45] from there.

[1:27:50] Thank you, chair.

[1:27:54] Um, is there a representative from Smith

[1:27:59] here?

[1:28:03] » Sorry, let me

[1:28:07] just come forward and state your name

[1:28:09] and then

[1:28:11] >> tell us a little bit about the project

[1:28:12] and then or and then we can ask you

[1:28:16] questions and clarifications.

[1:28:17] >> So my name is Valerie Clawson. I am with

[1:28:19] planning outpost. So I'm actually here

[1:28:21] with Woodmir Holmes tonight.

[1:28:23] >> Okay.

[1:28:23] >> Um related to the application but not

[1:28:25] with Smith and Nolles. Um but we were

[1:28:28] just um requesting the text amendment

[1:28:31] support the text amendment to do the um

[1:28:34] 4215. I've been trying to get a hold of

[1:28:36] the city engineer no calls that's

[1:28:40] um so um because in that memo and Jared

[1:28:42] you mentioned that you had provided

[1:28:44] information and is that in addition to

[1:28:45] the memo from JB or that was you gave JB

[1:28:49] pieces of that letter? I I did a wrong

[1:28:53] >> there's an amendment to the packet so

[1:28:55] you'll see that online

[1:28:59] » okay

[1:29:01] >> um okay

[1:29:04] uh that was not there before uh did that

[1:29:07] get posted today

[1:29:09] >> uh yesterday.

[1:29:09] >> Yesterday. Okay.

[1:29:11] >> Um

[1:29:13] so it does the lower levels do wipe out

[1:29:17] a significant amount of acreage of

[1:29:18] available land. um we would continue on a dialogue then in terms of the

[1:29:25] clarification that Jared's talking about

[1:29:27] or from Juvia memo it seemed to be that

[1:29:29] they were proposing that 4217 would be

[1:29:32] something that they were looking to work

[1:29:33] with that's what I read in that letter

[1:29:37] and so if that's acceptable um we would

[1:29:41] like to see that be um possible of of

[1:29:44] part of that text amendment um and then

[1:29:47] as far as like geotech studies those are the ones that come out at the time

[1:29:50] of development in that specific location

[1:29:52] to be able to to verify um the soils and

[1:29:55] whether or not the structure supported.

[1:29:57] And so that really is kind of should be

[1:30:00] a non-issue because those are done at

[1:30:02] the time um of that development on that

[1:30:05] specific site. So I'm happy to answer

[1:30:08] any questions you might have. Um we also

[1:30:11] have women homes here as well. So thank

[1:30:13] you. Do you have an address or a

[1:30:16] specific site you're looking at

[1:30:17] currently that we could look at? Is this

[1:30:19] the one? No, that's a new

[1:30:21] >> That's a different one. Um,

[1:30:25] the phase we're working on right now is

[1:30:27] not specifically affected in that same

[1:30:30] way. There's um portions a little

[1:30:32] further to the west of that that are.

[1:30:35] So, it's not this is like text

[1:30:37] amendment.

[1:30:39] >> So, it would be

[1:30:41] >> for the future phases and for I guess

[1:30:44] the reason I ask is if it's near close

[1:30:45] to the flood plane because that I mean

[1:30:48] the flood plane do determine a lot of

[1:30:50] different things.

[1:30:51] >> Right. Right. No, this is um like this

[1:30:53] is an area that had some supposed

[1:30:56] wetland delineations. So those studies

[1:30:58] have also come back and have indicated

[1:31:00] that the water isn't is 8 ft below the

[1:31:03] 4215 line. So in this particular

[1:31:06] instance, there really should not be a

[1:31:10] problem

[1:31:11] in this in the project if you're going

[1:31:13] to go project specific versus a policy

[1:31:16] and text amendment.

[1:31:23] » Um, so one thing I had in the Smith

[1:31:26] knows letter, they said to reference

[1:31:29] specific evidence. What would you guys I

[1:31:32] guess what when you guys say specific

[1:31:33] evidence, what are you guys looking for

[1:31:35] the city to provide when you say

[1:31:38] something like that? Or what what would

[1:31:40] you imagine the city providing you in

[1:31:42] that context?

[1:31:50] » When you say specific, okay, which

[1:31:54] section of the text amendment?

[1:31:57] >> It's in the Smith and Nolles letter in

[1:31:59] section one. This is a proposal.

[1:32:01] >> Oh. Oh, it's not in the text amendment.

[1:32:03] Okay, that's why. Okay. Um,

[1:32:12] » okay. So, it's it's

[1:32:14] >> I guess

[1:32:14] >> it's a whole lot of legal ease, right?

[1:32:16] >> Yeah. Sorry.

[1:32:18] That's why I was like, wait, this

[1:32:19] the text amendment itself didn't have

[1:32:21] anything I thought. Yes.

[1:32:22] >> Substantial evidence. I guess what I

[1:32:24] guess I just want What are you guys I

[1:32:26] guess what are they looking for?

[1:32:28] >> It's going to be the the what? the

[1:32:30] standard subdivision uh items, right?

[1:32:32] Your geoteex um is is going to be one of

[1:32:36] the main things, but it's just saying,

[1:32:37] hey, it just needs to show that the that

[1:32:40] there is good demonstration that it's

[1:32:43] not going to cause problems, that it's

[1:32:45] out of the um that it's that it's

[1:32:49] suitable for development, right? Like

[1:32:51] that it's going to have the

[1:32:52] documentation and it'll make it not

[1:32:54] arbitrary, right? that you're going to

[1:32:56] have if you're going to follow state

[1:32:57] law, have the documents, have that

[1:32:59] record, which we're getting better at

[1:33:02] because you guys have a full-time

[1:33:03] planner now, right? Like so those

[1:33:05] there's really cool things that would be

[1:33:07] um happening with that. So,

[1:33:09] but yeah, that we have on record and it

[1:33:12] and it's going to tend to be the geoteex

[1:33:14] and any of the engineering studies

[1:33:16] associated with that project.

[1:33:19] >> Thank you.

[1:33:22] Any

[1:33:25] other questions?

[1:33:27] >> Okay. Thank you very much.

[1:33:28] >> Thank you.

[1:33:32] » And now I'll entertain a motion to

[1:33:34] enter.

[1:33:34] >> Oh, do you mind if I kind of expound on

[1:33:37] that specific? So

[1:33:40] >> I'm Josh with Wood Homes, Josh Lynch.

[1:33:43] Um, so the example that got brought up

[1:33:45] in Rosson's Ranch, the drainage and

[1:33:47] everything, the elevations, it doesn't

[1:33:50] apply to our development. Like our

[1:33:52] development is completely different. And

[1:33:54] plus, like the drainage that we have out

[1:33:56] there is a lot lower than that 4215

[1:33:59] line. like the studies that we had with

[1:34:02] wetland which the city has had for

[1:34:04] probably about two months now with the

[1:34:06] wetland delineation that we got verifies

[1:34:09] that that water is draining out of our

[1:34:11] property at elevation's a lot lower than

[1:34:14] that 4215.

[1:34:16] So when we say spec like it this blanket

[1:34:20] 4220 that came out is just it kills like

[1:34:24] our development it killed our

[1:34:26] development where there's really no need

[1:34:27] for it where we have people have come

[1:34:31] out and done studies for a year and a

[1:34:32] half studying stagnant water and

[1:34:34] everything and have proven that that

[1:34:36] doesn't apply to our property. I think

[1:34:39] that's throughout the city. I think

[1:34:41] there's properties that have just great drainage

[1:34:46] at those the lower elevations of the

[1:34:48] 4215,

[1:34:49] but this blanket is just it's killing

[1:34:53] property that shouldn't be that

[1:34:54] shouldn't be not allowed to develop.

[1:34:58] And so I think when they're talking

[1:34:59] about specific is going in and looking at the project itself and saying

[1:35:06] yeah this actually works out here

[1:35:07] instead just no 4220 you can't do it I

[1:35:12] think is what the what the null letter

[1:35:13] is referring to.

[1:35:15] >> Okay thank you.

[1:35:21] Okay. Now I entertain a motion to enter

[1:35:23] public hearings for the discussion

[1:35:26] motion on the Smith Nles uh elevation

[1:35:30] change line. So

[1:35:33] >> second.

[1:35:34] >> We have a motion by Commissioner B,

[1:35:37] second by Commissioner Woodson. All in

[1:35:38] favor?

[1:35:39] >> I I now public hearing. For those

[1:35:42] citizens that want to come forward and

[1:35:44] make a comment, please just state your

[1:35:45] name and you're a city resident and you

[1:35:47] can comment on this proposed request.

[1:35:57] Ray Hancock. I think I qualify as a

[1:36:00] president.

[1:36:01] Um, with all due respect with our

[1:36:05] public works director, Jared, this

[1:36:08] specific spot, I spend a lot of time out

[1:36:11] there where these guys are looking at

[1:36:14] building. And I do believe that

[1:36:17] comparing it to the Ross and Ranch thing

[1:36:19] is kind of like comparing apples to

[1:36:21] oranges. It's not the same situation.

[1:36:25] And I know Tucker will um verify that u

[1:36:31] FEMA and Army Corp of Engineers when we

[1:36:33] had the last flooding out to Agnum Bay

[1:36:36] that was caused because there was not

[1:36:39] enough drainage to get the water through

[1:36:41] the dikes at Agnum Bay that uh they came

[1:36:45] in and doubled the capacity maybe triple

[1:36:47] the capacity

[1:36:49] of uh headgates to get rid of the river

[1:36:52] water. When we had the floods in ' 84,

[1:36:54] it wasn't the lake water that came clear

[1:36:56] back up. It was the river water that

[1:36:58] backed up that could not get to the

[1:37:00] lake. The lake was high. No doubt about

[1:37:02] it. But anytime any of you want to go

[1:37:05] for a ride and see where the lake level

[1:37:08] got to, I would be happy to take you out

[1:37:09] there because I'm out there every day um

[1:37:12] and let you look around and see where

[1:37:14] the lake actually got to. The problem

[1:37:17] back then was um too much water getting

[1:37:21] to Ogden couldn't get through. Uh that

[1:37:25] has been mitigated. So you will not

[1:37:28] unless I don't know what it would take

[1:37:30] 10 years of 400,000 ft of snowfall and

[1:37:34] water which doesn't look promising

[1:37:37] um to bring those lake levels back up to

[1:37:39] where it'd be a problem. And I believe

[1:37:42] one suggestion I would have for you if

[1:37:44] you have questions about this before you

[1:37:48] rule on not enabling it to be dropped at

[1:37:51] 4215. If you would like to take a ride

[1:37:54] and go out there and see the situation

[1:37:56] because I'm pretty sure none of you have

[1:37:58] actually seen it and before you made a

[1:38:01] motion to um actually stick with the

[1:38:06] existing rules.

[1:38:08] Um maybe look at it.

[1:38:12] >> Thank you.

[1:38:19] » Just barely

[1:38:22] Larry Ro up res. I'm just going to piggy

[1:38:25] back Ray a little bit. Talked to Jared

[1:38:28] today. We had a great conversation and

[1:38:31] uh I think there's different areas out

[1:38:33] here in Hooper uh that uh the Ross one

[1:38:38] toll. Yeah, that may be a problem. I

[1:38:40] don't know the area well, but I do know

[1:38:44] uh where the lake came up in my property

[1:38:47] in ' 84. We still have driftwood there.

[1:38:49] Uh and Ray just explained what happened.

[1:38:53] I went out and uh off of the map that

[1:38:56] I've got from the city here today, I

[1:38:59] went to that 4220 line and then I went

[1:39:03] uh to where the drain water is running.

[1:39:06] Uh it never backs up on my property and

[1:39:09] is draining out and it's at 42

[1:39:14] 4212.

[1:39:16] And then I go a little further west

[1:39:18] where the water drains out through

[1:39:20] another area that's really not the

[1:39:21] ditch. It's just

[1:39:23] Uh, and that one there's 4209.

[1:39:28] Uh, I didn't go shoot where the lake

[1:39:31] come up. I wish I would have now. Uh, my

[1:39:34] guess is uh that it's probably 425 426

[1:39:41] uh somewhere's in there. So my

[1:39:44] suggestion, I know it's coming back to

[1:39:45] us to make the decision, but just so you

[1:39:48] guys can uh come up with something u uh

[1:39:52] you know, wording or that to take, you

[1:39:54] know, maybe even specific uh piece of

[1:39:58] property, how it aligns with the South

[1:40:00] Run or what do you call the South Fork?

[1:40:02] It's been the South Run to us since we

[1:40:04] were kids. But uh uh yeah, I don't see

[1:40:07] it uh uh ever backing up. Can it?

[1:40:10] Absolutely. But anyway, that's just a

[1:40:13] little bit of info that might help you

[1:40:16] uh know some things and if this map's

[1:40:19] correct, those would be the right

[1:40:21] heights.

[1:40:23] Thank you.

[1:40:25] >> Thank you.

[1:40:27] Any other public comment?

[1:40:31] See no public comment. All

[1:40:34] entertain a motion return to our review.

[1:40:41] Motion to be uh public.

[1:40:44] >> Second. A motion for Commissioner Wis

[1:40:46] and a second from Commissioner Denny.

[1:40:48] All in favor?

[1:40:49] >> I I We are now back in our regular

[1:40:54] meeting on the request for

[1:40:58] uh change elevation line and bring it

[1:41:00] back to the commission for discussion

[1:41:02] and motion.

[1:41:06] » Question J. So with that was it rosin

[1:41:09] rats we call it?

[1:41:10] >> So that was prior to this 4020 4220 code

[1:41:14] that we have now. So what what

[1:41:16] determined what made you guys get up to

[1:41:17] that elevation you were saying where it

[1:41:19] worked well just because it

[1:41:21] >> that was the only way they could get it

[1:41:22] to drain the design engineers.

[1:41:24] >> Yeah.

[1:41:25] >> You know to get to that 4215 with their

[1:41:27] storm drain. Obviously the locks were

[1:41:29] going to be higher than that. So

[1:41:31] >> yeah. So that's kind of where I wanted

[1:41:34] to get to is I think a lot of times I

[1:41:36] think numbers

[1:41:37] start at, right? We have somewhere to go

[1:41:39] off, but a lot of times the design of

[1:41:41] the subdivision improvements are going

[1:41:43] to determine where the houses are going

[1:41:45] to end up at. And I think it's probably

[1:41:47] I think we look at the number and maybe

[1:41:49] change things down. 4220 is probably a

[1:41:51] little high in my opinion, but I agree

[1:41:53] to give the city the review they call

[1:41:57] the technical review committee they call

[1:41:58] and specifically Jared a little more

[1:42:01] power but just a little more say in

[1:42:03] different elevation

[1:42:05] um to determine that based off of

[1:42:07] professional geotechnical or those

[1:42:10] people bringing the design to them um

[1:42:13] because that to me that makes more sense

[1:42:14] where I mean obviously we want the city

[1:42:17] to have good infrastructure and not have

[1:42:19] issues

[1:42:19] But we also need to rely on

[1:42:21] professionals for designing and bringing

[1:42:22] these studies to us to make sure that's

[1:42:25] going to be good. You know, we kind of

[1:42:27] discussed yeah wet years, dry years,

[1:42:29] water levels up and down in the ground

[1:42:31] and things like that. But so that's kind

[1:42:33] of my thoughts is maybe bring number

[1:42:36] down and then just get maybe a little

[1:42:37] more

[1:42:40] guessy. I don't know just going back and

[1:42:42] forth with the design engineers and the professionals for the technical and

[1:42:47] stuff like that.

[1:42:49] So I I guess I have a question for city

[1:42:51] council better for our attorney Nick. Is

[1:42:55] this something that we can make

[1:42:58] variable? I mean I call a couple of

[1:43:00] different cities today like Farmington's

[1:43:02] got a set number. Syracuse has something

[1:43:05] different where it's based on water

[1:43:06] tests and people paying for pump

[1:43:08] stations. Can is it something where we

[1:43:11] can set a number and say then it's a

[1:43:12] conditional use or to go below that

[1:43:16] number or what would you advise? Well,

[1:43:20] can we work it that way?

[1:43:22] >> Okay. Yeah, great question. So, this is

[1:43:24] an ordinance change. So, you're

[1:43:25] recommending body. So, this body

[1:43:28] wouldn't actually do that. The city

[1:43:29] council would, but it's a legislative

[1:43:31] decision. So, there doesn't need to be

[1:43:33] substantial evidence. There just needs

[1:43:35] to be a reasonable basis for why you've

[1:43:37] passed the ordinance. Uh Mr. Hancock,

[1:43:39] our public works director, has done a

[1:43:41] great job of explaining the reasonable

[1:43:43] basis for why they initially enacted the

[1:43:45] ordinance. But if you as a as a planning

[1:43:48] commission want to make a um want to

[1:43:51] give some flexibility to developers and

[1:43:53] to say, "Hey, go look at this on a

[1:43:55] sightspecific

[1:43:56] um basis." You have absolute legislative

[1:43:59] authority to do that. Um and you're you

[1:44:03] be free to do that. You could have a

[1:44:04] bright line rule and sometimes there's

[1:44:06] some pluses to that. makes it really

[1:44:08] easy for staff to say, "Hey, look,

[1:44:11] you're below 4220. We're done." That

[1:44:14] like that saves a lot of staff time, but

[1:44:17] uh there's been good points on the other

[1:44:19] side as well. So, yeah, you can make

[1:44:20] that

[1:44:22] uh

[1:44:24] customizable to each site. So, if we

[1:44:26] were looking at like 4217

[1:44:29] >> and somebody still wanted to go below

[1:44:30] that, if if the city council passed that

[1:44:33] ordinance at 427, they can still apply

[1:44:35] for a variance.

[1:44:38] >> Yeah, you can apply for a variance. Uh

[1:44:40] variance has a very high standard. But

[1:44:43] what I guess if you wanted to give some

[1:44:45] flexibility, we could draft an ordinance

[1:44:47] that allowed you to give them to give

[1:44:50] developers

[1:44:50] >> a case by case

[1:44:51] >> case by case scenario. Yeah.

[1:44:53] >> And that protects the city and and

[1:44:56] developer.

[1:44:56] >> Yeah, absolutely.

[1:45:02] » I guess I had a question for just to

[1:45:05] your comment on currently how the

[1:45:07] ordinance is written. Is the city at

[1:45:10] risk of litigation or anything like that

[1:45:13] with how it's currently written or I

[1:45:16] guess is there a win-win situation that

[1:45:17] we can make take this opportunity to

[1:45:19] make the correct adjustments that we get

[1:45:22] everything storm water working correct

[1:45:24] as public work wants it and give

[1:45:27] maximize the property rights to home

[1:45:31] homeowners in that in that area. So, uh

[1:45:36] you can't ever say that because you have

[1:45:39] a statute sued on it, right? People can

[1:45:41] sue for any reason or no reason at all.

[1:45:44] So, but as far as like being successful

[1:45:46] in litigation, yeah, I mean, Mr.

[1:45:48] Hancock's done a great job tonight of

[1:45:50] explaining the basis, the reasonable

[1:45:52] basis for why we did why the city pass

[1:45:55] the ordinance that it did. 4215 allowed

[1:45:58] things to drain. We went 5T above that

[1:46:01] to allow the infrastructure underneath.

[1:46:03] That's a perfectly reasonable basis that

[1:46:05] I think would withstand any any kind of

[1:46:09] attack. Absolutely. Can you change that

[1:46:11] and still still have that? Sure.

[1:46:13] Absolutely. You could you could provide

[1:46:15] some flexibility and that's really your

[1:46:18] decision as policy makers and

[1:46:20] recommending bodies is to see if that's

[1:46:24] city wants to do. But you could

[1:46:25] certainly draft something, Mr. Curtis

[1:46:27] and I could certainly draft something

[1:46:29] that um protected the city but gave some

[1:46:32] flexibility if that's what the planning

[1:46:34] commission wanted to do.

[1:46:40] » I like Tucker's idea of the flexibility.

[1:46:43] I don't think I think we're in a day and

[1:46:45] age where we have technology to be able

[1:46:49] to look at things differently and to

[1:46:51] have a blanket rule is

[1:46:54] I think it protects us but it also takes

[1:46:56] away some property rights in that

[1:46:58] instance. So I lean towards that

[1:47:01] flexibility with also maintaining

[1:47:04] to reduce the risk to the city. But that

[1:47:06] that's just where I

[1:47:09] think with that flexibility it being

[1:47:14] like I said before the design of the

[1:47:15] subdivision should bring it up because

[1:47:18] Jared will have the ability to say no

[1:47:20] this storm drain isn't going to work.

[1:47:21] It's going to fl people out. We need to

[1:47:22] bring this up a little bit and that'll bring up the subdivision law and Jer mentioned a lot. Yeah. And we

[1:47:29] were county

[1:47:31] um the flood we had wasn't like you were

[1:47:34] saying it wasn't the lake. It's the

[1:47:36] river. It's flat and it spreads out and

[1:47:38] it backs all the way up. Couple years

[1:47:40] ago we had the big snow events. It was

[1:47:43] actually pretty controlled runoff, but

[1:47:45] things still flooded, right? Got up high

[1:47:47] and I don't know if it backed up where

[1:47:49] you were talking just right next to this

[1:47:50] frozen ranch or anything like that. But

[1:47:53] yeah, a little bit. And things have

[1:47:54] changed. They did do some improvements

[1:47:56] to the to a bay a lot. I don't know. I

[1:47:58] mean, it's helped, but there's always

[1:48:00] something, right? There's always

[1:48:01] something that's going to cause

[1:48:02] problems. But I think that's that's my

[1:48:04] thought is it's that flexibility. The

[1:48:07] design and review of the design is going

[1:48:09] to bring those houses up. thing you

[1:48:10] brought up. We don't want to. Yeah. The

[1:48:13] last thing is you want I mean in August

[1:48:15] when it rained hard for a day and a half

[1:48:18] for how many inches of rain? I forget

[1:48:19] it. But we had people calling all day

[1:48:22] the county saying we're flooding. We're

[1:48:24] flooding stump pumps aren't doing

[1:48:25] nothing. That's cuz every drain was

[1:48:27] full. And so we exact example where the

[1:48:29] drains are full. They couldn't pump up

[1:48:30] anywhere. They just flooded. So I think

[1:48:33] the design and review of that design

[1:48:35] kind of brings things up if it needs to

[1:48:36] be brought up. That's kind of like I

[1:48:38] like the flexibility idea of it.

[1:48:43] » Yeah, I would say I agree. I'm a I'm a

[1:48:45] big proponent of Jared's model that he

[1:48:47] proposed. You know, I have a pretty good

[1:48:49] knowledge base of underground

[1:48:50] infrastructure for my professional life.

[1:48:52] But um obviously water's got to flow and

[1:48:55] if it's just pumping in a circle because

[1:48:56] the pipes are full or the dam the

[1:48:58] river's full and then we're screwed. But

[1:49:00] I like the ideib

[1:49:06] I don't agree. Some of these guys have

[1:49:08] brought up some good points and I don't

[1:49:10] have any problem looking at it case by

[1:49:12] case. I think the hard part here is for

[1:49:16] I think since 1986 we've dealt with one

[1:49:19] elevation that's it. We made some

[1:49:22] adjustments to that and I don't really

[1:49:24] mind going back to 4215 as long as we

[1:49:27] can start there with infrastructure.

[1:49:30] Um but I I think that's probably the

[1:49:32] hard part. There definitely are cases I

[1:49:35] think anybody looking at that Rosson

[1:49:38] Ranch scenario would be crazy to say

[1:49:40] let's build lots below the pond. Um

[1:49:43] there are some other places in town like

[1:49:45] Mr. Lynches that may be fine. So I don't

[1:49:48] mind looking at them case by case but do

[1:49:50] that we want to like absolutely we're

[1:49:52] not going below this level. Um, the

[1:49:55] other thing I want to bring up, we talk

[1:49:58] about geotech reports and I'm not a

[1:50:01] geotech engineer, but I read them all

[1:50:03] the time and a lot of times they're full

[1:50:05] of baloney.

[1:50:08] They they go out in the I will mention

[1:50:11] the property and tell us they found

[1:50:13] traces of groundwater at 7 ft. And I'm

[1:50:17] like, leave that open overnight and

[1:50:19] there'll be more than a trace. It'll be

[1:50:20] full. Um, if we go do a bunch of geotech

[1:50:24] reports right now on the it's either the

[1:50:27] driest or the second driest year ever,

[1:50:30] we're going to get reports that are

[1:50:32] favorable to developing that area that

[1:50:34] may not be the case when we get another

[1:50:37] 1984.

[1:50:39] So, I think there's a little bit of

[1:50:41] stuff we'd have to work out, but I'm not

[1:50:43] opposed to working at case by case and

[1:50:46] doing things that make sense.

[1:50:51] thing I meant or want to mention is too

[1:50:53] is I don't know how recently the flood

[1:50:56] maps for Hilford um obviously we're

[1:50:59] getting closer to the lake than we're

[1:51:01] going to be seeing the flood zone if I'm

[1:51:02] not mistaken it's zone A pretty much

[1:51:04] everywhere right there's no defined

[1:51:07] flood elevation saying this is it and so

[1:51:09] if we're getting closer to that and

[1:51:10] that's not going to help determine a lot

[1:51:11] of things anyways um I don't know how

[1:51:14] close your property is to flood zone but

[1:51:17] anyways that's something to think about

[1:51:19] as

[1:51:29] So, as far as the recommendation or if

[1:51:32] we want to move on this um tonight, it

[1:51:35] sounds like we do want some flexibility

[1:51:39] but also want to see city needs met as

[1:51:43] well. So in any recommendation, I think

[1:51:46] we should have the city council work

[1:51:49] closely with city staff to make sure

[1:51:51] they feel like their needs are getting

[1:51:53] met and we can get that flexibility for

[1:51:56] the property owners as well if we choose

[1:51:58] to go that route.

[1:52:02] >> If the planning commission wants to see

[1:52:03] something with some flexibility, we

[1:52:05] could also table it tonight and we could

[1:52:07] I could work with Mr.

[1:52:10] I think Johnson and Smith Nolles and and

[1:52:12] with staff here obviously and try to get

[1:52:15] something that's mutually agreeable for

[1:52:17] everybody and bring that back if the

[1:52:19] planning commission wants to do that

[1:52:21] because this is an ordinance excuse me

[1:52:23] ordinance amendment the city has no

[1:52:25] liability for tableling it or putting it

[1:52:27] off as long as we want. So

[1:52:30] that's I think we do that. They also

[1:52:32] asked their attorneys with Smith Noles

[1:52:35] that I mean they provided a couple of

[1:52:37] examples in there but Summit County

[1:52:39] isn't really relatable to Utah but you

[1:52:42] know when you think of elevations and

[1:52:44] stuff like that. So that that wasn't

[1:52:47] very helpful but

[1:52:51] » yeah I would agree. I'd like to see

[1:52:53] something drafted up that can kind of

[1:52:55] give us something to wrap our heads

[1:52:56] around that you know benefits everyone

[1:52:58] involved.

[1:53:02] I really think we're closer on this

[1:53:04] issue than all the drawings created

[1:53:07] about it. It's I don't think there's

[1:53:09] that much disagreement. I think everyone

[1:53:11] wants the infrastructure to work

[1:53:12] including the developers. I think we can

[1:53:15] get there.

[1:53:18] >> Would you feel fine if they did that? If

[1:53:21] that was the motion tonight, does that

[1:53:23] feel good?

[1:53:29] » Then if you're okay with it, I'll have a

[1:53:30] motion to table this and we will revisit

[1:53:33] the issue with a draft from the

[1:53:36] attorneys.

[1:53:40] » Second. We have a motion from uh

[1:53:43] Commissioner Denny and a second from

[1:53:45] Commissioner Wait to table this item

[1:53:46] until we get further

[1:53:49] u instruction from the attorneys. All in

[1:53:52] favor?

[1:53:53] >> I I

[1:53:56] » um now on to our last discussion item

[1:54:01] for and this is involving a group home

[1:54:04] ordinance creation and amendments to

[1:54:07] city code 10-1A-1.

[1:54:10] amendment of 10-2B-2

[1:54:13] and creation of a new ordinance 10-2B-6.

[1:54:18] Um,

[1:54:19] I'll bring that up to

[1:54:23] >> to the commission to discuss and maybe

[1:54:27] ask the attorney any questions that we

[1:54:28] have in our working

[1:54:43] I guess some of the items that were just

[1:54:45] brought up in the work meeting was that

[1:54:47] there's just not

[1:54:50] there's some gray areas as far as

[1:54:53] what's the maximum number allowed and

[1:54:56] what's not allowed. And I think we just

[1:54:59] want some clarification

[1:55:01] or guidance on clarification as far as

[1:55:04] where we can put those limits and how

[1:55:07] each of these subgroups or limits fall

[1:55:10] into those categories in that in that

[1:55:14] section.

[1:55:19] Did that sum up everybody?

[1:55:20] >> Yeah,

[1:55:21] >> I'm sorry. I was a little I apologize. I

[1:55:23] was a little stressed. Can you tell the

[1:55:25] question?

[1:55:31] So we were

[1:55:33] in the ordinances how they're currently

[1:55:35] written and what is was proposed a lot

[1:55:37] of times it states a a minimum number

[1:55:41] but doesn't give a maximum number and we

[1:55:43] just want to

[1:55:46] guidance on how those maximum numbers are best way

[1:55:51] to determine those maximum numbers. So,

[1:55:55] group home group home facilities are a

[1:55:59] sticky wicket legally. Um, there's not

[1:56:02] really great bright line rules. I can

[1:56:04] tell you like once you hit 10 people,

[1:56:08] you can just say no. It's a lot of it is

[1:56:10] dependent on size of the structure and

[1:56:14] uh number of bedrooms, number of

[1:56:15] bathrooms, that kind of thing. So, um

[1:56:20] I I mean I think the the idea is that

[1:56:22] the group home has to be

[1:56:25] there has it there has to be reasonable

[1:56:27] facilities for who's going to be in the

[1:56:28] group home. So, for example, if you have

[1:56:30] a sixbedroom, five bath home, you're

[1:56:33] going to have a lot a lot higher maximum

[1:56:36] number of people. We generally think two

[1:56:38] or three people per room somewhere

[1:56:40] between there. Um so, you know,

[1:56:46] If it's a twobedroom home, it's like

[1:56:49] obviously much smaller smaller

[1:56:52] number. Um, a lot of times there's these

[1:56:58] uh presumptive

[1:57:01] limits like these uh four for unrelated

[1:57:05] people. But that is um

[1:57:08] often these group homes fall under ADA

[1:57:11] and we have to comply with ADA. So they

[1:57:14] often come to staff with arguments for

[1:57:18] why they should exceed those and

[1:57:21] generally we have to if they can show

[1:57:23] that they're within

[1:57:26] um the reasonable range then we

[1:57:29] generally allow them.

[1:57:31] >> So how much of this it seems like a lot

[1:57:33] of this is governed by state code. Um

[1:57:39] I guess where's our

[1:57:42] steering direction that we can go if a

[1:57:45] lot of times it just comes back and if

[1:57:46] they can

[1:57:48] prove a reasonable point we kind of

[1:57:51] allow it anyways.

[1:57:53] >> Yeah. Um I think that I think the idea

[1:57:56] is that um with with what's proposed um

[1:58:03] and and kind of what we're thinking

[1:58:04] about I think the idea is that those are

[1:58:07] general guidelines and if somebody if

[1:58:09] somebody comes in and they want to

[1:58:12] deviate from those then the the weight

[1:58:15] of persuasion falls on them right so if

[1:58:19] they come in and they just say look I

[1:58:21] want double the number Then we this

[1:58:25] gives us the ability to say okay explain

[1:58:28] why and then they have to they have to

[1:58:30] demonstrate why they think that that the

[1:58:32] ADA would allow that why they think that

[1:58:35] the facilities are adequate and those

[1:58:37] kind of things. So you're exactly right

[1:58:40] like this is largely governed by federal

[1:58:42] and state law and the cities have very

[1:58:45] little to regulate here but we do have

[1:58:47] some interest in regulating it and

[1:58:49] establishing some standard gives us the

[1:58:51] ability one to when they come in and

[1:58:54] talk to staff we can say how many people

[1:58:57] are going to have and have dialogue

[1:58:59] there

[1:59:01] rather than rather than just being

[1:59:03] governed by federal and state law.

[1:59:08] One of the questions I had, so we have

[1:59:09] definitions for a group home for persons

[1:59:11] with disability, group home for the

[1:59:13] elderly. And then amendment two in that

[1:59:16] first sentence of 102-6,

[1:59:19] it says that placement of specific

[1:59:21] persons restricted placement of group

[1:59:23] home facilities shall not shall be on

[1:59:25] strictly voluntary basis and not part of

[1:59:28] uh in loop and find out treatment or

[1:59:30] correct facilities. So those types will

[1:59:33] not be allowed in these types of

[1:59:34] situations.

[1:59:36] >> That's correct. Now, let me let me cave

[1:59:40] off that. So, you could have a rehab

[1:59:42] center in in these residential zones and

[1:59:46] candidly like the city can't prohibit

[1:59:48] that because of ADA requirements, but

[1:59:51] you couldn't have a halfway house.

[1:59:52] >> Oh, yeah. If it's a if it's something

[1:59:55] like that, no. If it's a it's a halfway

[1:59:58] house treatment facility, that can't be

[2:00:00] in residential zone. If it's a if people

[2:00:03] are paying to be there and they're there

[2:00:04] on a voluntary basis, then yes.

[2:00:09] when we to kind of ask expand on that

[2:00:12] just a little bit. So, court ordered

[2:00:15] treatment. So, you've got a juvenile

[2:00:18] that goes before a judge and they're

[2:00:19] like you're either getting a year or you

[2:00:22] go to a rehabilitation facility. Does

[2:00:24] this exclude them or because the way

[2:00:28] that reads in my mind says we can

[2:00:30] exclude it and that might be an issue

[2:00:32] with our organs. Yeah, I think what this

[2:00:35] would say is if the state is going to

[2:00:37] run a rehab facility and they're going

[2:00:40] to it's a it's a custodial setting,

[2:00:43] right? Those people are not free to

[2:00:45] leave, uh then then it can't be in the

[2:00:48] res. Okay.

[2:00:49] >> But if the person goes to court and the

[2:00:51] judge says you got to do substance abuse

[2:00:53] treatment or you got to do mental health

[2:00:55] treatment, um find a place on your own

[2:00:58] and that person goes out and finds you

[2:01:00] know my house that I'm running treat and

[2:01:03] they're showing up voluntarily, then that's going to be allowed.

[2:01:07] >> But it's not going to be allowed if

[2:01:10] correctional officers bring them to the

[2:01:12] home and there's a large, you know, 12t

[2:01:14] fence with barbed wire. That's not going

[2:01:17] to be allowed.

[2:01:32] I guess like

[2:01:34] I feel like we're tasking you up on your

[2:01:36] first night like crazy, but I I think

[2:01:39] this is, you know, this is a big scary

[2:01:40] subject because there's a lot of laws in

[2:01:42] that and you know, having been witnessed

[2:01:45] to a lot of the city council meetings

[2:01:46] where this came up in previous years.

[2:01:49] Um, I think we need some help of where

[2:01:53] we can construct boundaries

[2:01:56] >> versus, you know, whether it be

[2:01:58] residential or commercial zone, whether

[2:02:00] it be bed count, you know, a lot of that

[2:02:02] is federal and state mandated, right?

[2:02:05] Like certifications and all that kind of

[2:02:07] stuff. But I think we could really use

[2:02:09] some help and guidance there because

[2:02:10] otherwise we're just going to have

[2:02:12] arbitrary numbers and violate

[2:02:14] everybody's rights. They lost and that's

[2:02:16] not good.

[2:02:17] >> Fair enough.

[2:02:19] This is a great first meeting for me.

[2:02:20] Thank you.

[2:02:22] >> Oh, we're not done with you yet.

[2:02:27] » Okay. So, just so I'm clear, so when I

[2:02:28] come when we come back in July, we want

[2:02:30] to have a better understanding of number

[2:02:33] of residents

[2:02:37] per per square foot or whatever. What

[2:02:41] else can we change that? Can we change

[2:02:44] that based off of residential and

[2:02:45] commercial, too? Should there be two

[2:02:47] different codes based off of both sets?

[2:02:49] >> I feel pretty confident we can do that

[2:02:51] right now, but I'll make sure I'll just

[2:02:53] research.

[2:02:54] >> Yeah, I think and just that kind of what

[2:02:56] the guard rails are and verbiage around,

[2:02:58] you know, are our definitions correct

[2:03:00] around,

[2:03:02] you know, what defines elderly person or

[2:03:05] persons with disabilities. It seems like

[2:03:07] we have different men and maxes listed

[2:03:09] in here and I just want to make sure we

[2:03:11] line up with keeping everybody legal.

[2:03:29] I think that was all. Anybody else

[2:03:32] questions? I think that answered most of

[2:03:34] mine.

[2:03:37] I got some good

[2:03:40] for you next time. Wait for it. Be

[2:03:43] great. Thank you.

[2:03:45] Um, we'll now move into our

[2:03:50] citizen comment portion of the meeting.

[2:03:52] As a citizen, you can come forward. You

[2:03:54] have three minutes to comment. Please

[2:03:55] state your name and you're if you're a

[2:03:59] per city resident. And just so you know,

[2:04:02] we can't take any actions or on these

[2:04:05] comments, but you can come express

[2:04:07] anything that you want to express.

[2:04:10] We'll turn that time over to you or turn

[2:04:13] that time to you now.

[2:04:18] See,

[2:04:20] that's okay.

[2:04:23] Just want to thank you guys for what

[2:04:25] you're doing. It's nice to have some

[2:04:27] people on the planning commission that

[2:04:29] have some real life experience on these

[2:04:31] kind of issues. It's going to be really

[2:04:33] helpful. We love Jared and I know we can

[2:04:36] work with him and our new attorney. I'm

[2:04:39] pretty already has given to us a good

[2:04:41] job and be fun. So I don't know how you

[2:04:43] can lose in that situation.

[2:04:49] » Thank you. Any other citizen comment?

[2:04:55] Seeing no comments, I'll entertain a

[2:04:57] motion to adjourn the meeting.

[2:05:02] » Second motion from Commissioner Wood to

[2:05:05] second from Commissioner B. All in

[2:05:06] favor?

[2:05:07] >> I I

June 11, 2026 - Planning Commission Meeting

Transcript