[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