[0:00] You are

[0:04] actually

[0:10] one minute

[0:24] there. [laughter]

[0:33] I heard you're serving dinner tonight, too.

[0:38] » Yeah. >> Seriously?

[0:41] [laughter]

[0:45] » Oh my

[0:54] good.

[1:03] You >> ready?

[1:07] » All right. We'll call the meeting to order for the Paroin Planning and Zoning

[1:10] Commission for September 2nd, 2026. Are there any uh conflicts of today's agenda

[1:16] by any commission members? >> Nothing.

[1:19] » Nothing. Nothing for me.

[1:24] We'll move into approval of the minutes from the August 5th, 2026 meeting. Do

[1:29] everyone have a chance to look at those? Do we have any comments, edits,

[1:33] corrections, additions? >> I was not in attendance and I did not

[1:36] watch online, so I have no comments to make. No corrections to make.

[1:44] » Don't tell Molly though.

[1:49] I don't have anything. >> Uh, no, I'm fine.

[1:54] » Entertain a motion. A motion to approve the those minutes.

[1:59] » I move to approve the minutes. >> I approve. I second.

[2:05] » Any further discussion? All in favor? >> I

[2:08] » I. >> Any oppose? Eyes have it.

[2:15] All right, we'll move into our public comment

[2:19] portion of the meeting. Anyone, any members of the public have comments?

[2:25] Let it be known. No.

[2:36] Have anything sent in or anything for this? No,

[2:40] » nothing I know of. Kelly. >> Okay.

[2:46] And let's move to item five, a discussion on upcoming annexation

[2:50] petition and zoning recommendation. Okay. I'm going to steal the screen,

[2:55] Kelly.

[3:00] The city has had two different petitions um to annex

[3:09] and um the city council formally accepted the petitions and all that

[3:14] means is that we are now reviewing them. Um they will be certified um by

[3:25] uh Cali. We we're just checking on a on a legal um thing on one of them. We have

[3:31] 30 days to certify it after it's been a petitions and all that we're saying is

[3:35] that it we're certifying that it is um legal and fits all requirements so

[3:42] that we could annex it if we want to. Right. So, we've been reviewing that. Uh

[3:47] Scott was here today. He couldn't make it to tonight's meeting, but he was here

[3:51] today for a while and we went through that. We're trying to work through a a

[3:55] legal issue on the one to make sure it's legal to annex them. However, um

[4:02] I do anticipate that both of them will be certified after we work out this one

[4:07] potential issue. Um and at that point, we'll be reviewing them. They will sit

[4:13] in a 30-day protest period. um where

[4:20] affected entities which are the county, the school

[4:24] district, any utility companies or whatever have have a chance to protest

[4:29] it. And also um a notice will be sent to all unincorporated

[4:36] parcels within a half mile radius. notice is not

[4:41] sent to um

[4:45] parcels that are already inside city limits.

[4:48] That's the way the state code reads. And that I I believe the reasoning for that

[4:54] is um an annexation can affect other

[4:59] incorporated areas if you are being forced to be annexed or it could affect

[5:04] somehow how it how it relates to an unincorporated

[5:09] parcel. Um, and but the stupid thing is when it comes to

[5:14] property owners, the only ones that can officially protest it are rural real

[5:20] real property owners. And as defined, it's like massive acreage. It's like

[5:25] they did this weird little carveout when they when they created this in state

[5:29] code. So almost nobody can can really protest it

[5:34] other than the affected entities. And theoretically, there could be some very

[5:37] large land owners that nearby that could protest it. Anyways, doesn't matter

[5:43] because it'll have a public hearing and anybody from anybody can show up and say

[5:48] anything they want to say. It's just the the legal protest is a very technical

[5:52] thing in the annexation. After we're done with a protest period, we schedule

[5:56] a public hearing where the city council will hear a public hearing. Um,

[6:02] and then we will, if the city council's kind of interested in doing the

[6:07] annexation, we'll negotiate with an annexation agreement. Annexation

[6:11] agreement is not required by state code, but it is mentioned in our annexation

[6:15] policy plan. So, we work on that. Um, the policy plan also says that planning

[6:20] commission will recommend a zone because that's how we create zones or change

[6:24] zones. So, we look at the zone, make a recommendation to city council. Um, so

[6:30] what we're what we're talking about doing is just kind of running this

[6:33] process, this dual process, because nowhere in state code does it mention

[6:39] that we have to go to planning commission for a zone or that we even

[6:43] have to assign it a zone at time of annexation. Our policy plan does. So

[6:49] that's we're going to run both processes concurrently, meaning we're going to be

[6:54] discussing it. We're going to make a zoning recommendation so that by the

[6:58] time the city council is ready to move forward with

[7:03] um a potential annexation agreement, they already have planning commission

[7:07] zoning recommendation. Make sense? So, all we're doing tonight is

[7:12] [clears throat] I'm going to go over the annexation petition, their re their um

[7:18] requested zone, and just kind of let you guys soak in that for a little bit.

[7:24] Think about it. let your thoughts reminisce and then we'll schedule a

[7:28] public hearing to hear um the public's input and then have a um actual

[7:34] recommendation in a future meeting. We have more than 30 days to to spend a

[7:41] meeting or two on this till we're till we have our zoning recommendation. So, I

[7:46] didn't invite [clears throat] any of the applicants to this meeting. We're not

[7:48] going to get into anything heavy. I'm just going to kind of do a review so

[7:52] that you guys are aware that we're going to be having the conversation. So

[7:57] a having said that, I don't know if you care which one we

[8:02] talk about first. We have two proposed annexations. [clears throat] The one is

[8:08] up by um >> heroin's misspelled

[8:13] » Heritage Hills. Yep. Hey, you got a keen eye, Jerry. You're not the first one

[8:17] that's noticed that, but you're the second. You're the first one that saw it

[8:21] so fast. >> Peran is misspelled. So, we almost

[8:25] denied their petition outright. We joked about it.

[8:28] » They got to fix that. If you're familiar with Heritage Hills

[8:34] subdivision out on Old Highway 91,

[8:39] » right out kind of near the outskirts of town,

[8:42] » there's this road that comes all the way up. And most of these lots have houses

[8:45] on them. >> Allergen company.

[8:47] » What's that? >> Allergen company. That's never

[8:50] » Okay. Sure. This is what we just affectionately call the the Wheeler

[8:55] subdivision or sometimes the Tracy Wheeler subdivision, although it wasn't

[8:59] just Tracy. They're the ones that developed this piece. And we have talked

[9:02] about these two pieces for other things. This is nothing to do with the Wheelers

[9:06] even though it says Heritage Hills on the application. It is because Heritage

[9:10] Hills holdings LLC is the property owner of these two parcels.

[9:18] Um, you can see this dotted line right here.

[9:21] This is the current city limits which goes kind of down on the on the east and

[9:28] the north boundaries. So they want to they want to annex in this property here

[9:34] which would take us right up to the BLM and um and then this property is not

[9:41] part of it. Um it is within the annexation

[9:46] declaration area. It is contiguous to city limits and um and so it's been

[9:52] accepted to review it. There's this big huge barn up here. You guys may have

[9:57] seen that barn. Mhm. >> And there is a home right here which is

[10:01] currently on the property. Um, >> who owns the home?

[10:07] » Heritage Hills Holdings LLC. I don't know who the owners are. We've only ever

[10:12] dealt with the engineer. >> Used to be the Rick. I believe it was

[10:15] owned by the comp by the same company that had the um

[10:20] boys home up on Brian Head because here we used to have parking issues where all

[10:25] their employees would park across from these houses. Um we had a lot of

[10:29] complaints about that four years ago. And then I think they I I don't know if

[10:34] it's the same owners or if they sold the property. I know they shut that business

[10:38] down. So again, I don't know if they sold the property or same owners or

[10:41] different owners, but I don't know who the owners are.

[10:45] Anyways, um so you know when the day comes if we annex

[10:51] them, we'll have to have some serious conversations about subdivisions. Um you

[10:56] know things like they are in the WOOI wildland urban interface. They are

[11:01] getting very high in elevation to where potentially fire flow could be an issue

[11:05] and things like that. We're going to make sure that we set their expectations

[11:09] very well during annexation agreement time so that if they do get annexed in

[11:16] that that they don't have expectations of something they're not ever going to

[11:20] get approved. Um I have had sitdown meetings with the engineer a time or two

[11:26] and they're well aware of of those challenges. Um I don't know if they're

[11:30] well well aware of what what our code says but things like multiple ingress

[11:34] egress. Um if you remember we recently had a fire.

[11:40] We had a fire right here >> about two weeks ago. Luckily

[11:47] right as the fire started a rainstorm opened up and dowsted it. We but we had

[11:52] us and BLM and everybody there and it burned a couple of trees. Had the

[11:57] conditions been differently, it easily could have just ran through here. Um, we

[12:02] also had a fire chase up this mountain and um, recently

[12:08] um, they called that whatever this name of this street is was the name of the

[12:13] fire. And that one was scary. I mean, this was within 100 feet of these cabins

[12:17] up here. And there was really only one way in and one way out. And our fire

[12:22] chief was like, "This just scares the heck out of me. This is how people get

[12:27] killed. You've got to have multiple ingress and egress, even if there's not

[12:31] that many homes when you're building in the WOOI like this. It's just, you know,

[12:35] on the hillsides and things like that. So, he's aware of it. They're aware of

[12:39] it. Um, but that's not what we're looking at. What we're looking at is

[12:43] zoning. Now, what makes this one interesting,

[12:46] and if you're a planning geek or nerd like I am, and I think maybe you guys

[12:52] are, otherwise you wouldn't be on this. This one's kind of cool.

[12:58] [clears throat] If you look at our bloom,

[13:03] does anybody know what the color green is?

[13:08] Stands for reason. It must be.

[13:13] So, we have a as a guess. Any other guesses? Larry, you might know this one.

[13:23] [clears throat] >> John Deere.

[13:24] » John Deere.

[13:28] » John Dean has heard it recently because I discussed it in a prior meeting.

[13:33] » Isn't it um five aces?

[13:39] » It's not rural estates. Well, that's a zone.

[13:42] » Okay. What we in our plan call it is open space open space slashlimited

[13:47] development. Okay. Now what does that mean?

[13:54] Um

[13:58] and you'll notice what is green. Most of this is actually BLM here in

[14:05] this area and is not even will ever be developed. You do have some and this is

[14:11] all BLM that that chases up here. Eventually you get up there, you get to

[14:16] some private space. This is the almost the rare area that's in our general plan

[14:21] that is private property that has that same thing. [clears throat] Now again,

[14:26] we know that the general plan is is a plan. It is a not a controlling

[14:31] document, but it is a it is a a a what educating document. and it is is what

[14:37] the planning commission should look at for the source of of what what should be

[14:43] done. Um, and [clears throat] if you wanted to go read the general plan and

[14:47] find out if there's any more information in that, but I told them that I said

[14:51] this is an interesting one because it's not light density, which is yellow. It's

[14:56] open space limited development. So, what did zone did they request? Drum roll.

[15:07] They have requested >> A1.

[15:12] They have requested a zone of A1.

[15:17] And what they have said to city council when they were here doing their

[15:21] annexation is that they want there's that huge

[15:24] barn. They want to build some very large lots, very rural, very spaced out large

[15:31] lots that people can have horse property and have I think they're going to do

[15:35] some sort of a ownership or or or time share into that barn. They want to

[15:42] create kind of this high-end horse equestrian type subdivision.

[15:49] So [clears throat]

[15:53] um that's the request A1. Um you can see here the current city

[15:59] boundaries is the cross-hatched area and this was the the cross the um diagonal

[16:04] slashed area is the annexation boundary. So that's about all the information I

[16:11] have. Any questions, thoughts in just this is just to put it on your radar is

[16:16] really all we're doing tonight. I'd say go read the general plan. Go

[16:21] look into that. You start thinking whether A1 fits

[16:25] um that kind of [clears throat] general plan. Does it fit the development that's

[16:31] been in there and going around there? Um, we do have, if you look at what's

[16:37] actually built and developed, you have some of these homes where people have

[16:42] done a here's a shared drive and built a home on 22 acres and a home on 22 acres.

[16:50] You have uh my pals, the Heatens, Dennis and Latoy Latana

[16:57] um who have built um and you have kind of these

[17:02] you know larger rural type homes. That's

[17:07] [clears throat] that's pretty much consistent with what they're telling us

[17:10] they want to do. If the fact that they've asked for R1 tells you now R1

[17:14] you could build oneacre lots. Now, I will say much of this is hillside

[17:20] development. You get past about right here and it gets pretty steep.

[17:25] [clears throat] In other words, there probably won't be able to do very much

[17:29] density in there anyways. You get above a certain elevation and they don't have

[17:33] fire flow. So, they can't out they can't out build where they can have fire

[17:38] hydrants. Um, but you could have the fire hydrant

[17:42] at the bottom of a of a of a driveway and as long as the house is so many feet

[17:46] from it and things like that, right? And you could even put your house up above

[17:50] that if they put their own pressure pump in on after the meter. We're not going

[17:56] to put agree to anything that we would pressurize

[18:00] our own system. We would not ever want fireflow to be dependent on a pressure

[18:06] pump working that day, right? And power to pump it and stuff like that. So

[18:10] there's going to be some natural constraints as to what sort of density

[18:13] they build up here anyways and they know that they're realistic about that. So

[18:18] anyways, that's that one. Any other questions?

[18:21] » I have none. >> Okay, the other one, the annexation plat

[18:29] is here. I'm going to show you where on the map

[18:33] it is first.

[18:38] Um, this is this odd piece. Um, I call it a key and it literally looks like a

[18:44] key. You see this dotted line that comes down here, chases up the freeway. This

[18:48] is right by 400 North where it goes under the freeway and then it comes down

[18:53] 600 West keyholes down around this and back up and out. So, now that you're

[18:59] familiar with where it is in the city and the shape of it, now I'll show you

[19:04] the annexation petition and you'll see the same thing, right?

[19:09] Um, this is uh owned by Dave Co. LLC. Um, actually, what we're trying to get

[19:17] to the bottom of is related to this. There's a there's two parcels and the

[19:23] petition only had one parcel on it. Yet the annexation plat has two on it. And

[19:29] the reason is because originally the county said that they can't leave this

[19:32] little one acre as an island of unincorporated.

[19:36] I didn't pick up on it when they submitted the annexation paperwork

[19:40] because it matched exactly the certificate

[19:44] certification of notice. Their their their certi their petition requests

[19:50] matched the certificate of notice, but neither of them match the annexation

[19:54] plat. So I I think there's a good chance the county will officially protest it

[19:59] and want that one acre lot included. Um, and but I know that the the primary

[20:06] sponsor of this had already talked to them and they were okay with annexing at

[20:10] one point. So, it may just be a a case of fixing the paperwork and including um

[20:16] and updating the paperwork, making sure we're good with state law on that and

[20:21] then and then including it for both parcels.

[20:25] um unless the other parcel doesn't want to annex and then we have to look into

[20:30] the math and see if they can be compelled to annex or not. So, we just

[20:35] got to work through that little little issue. Um from what I've been told, they

[20:40] were fine with annexing it. The only the only question was back when they were

[20:44] required to bring water rights, we now have an ordinance that if you're forced

[20:49] to annex not by your own accord, we can annex it and bring it in as a dry lot.

[20:54] So it comes in without water rights, but it is not entitled to any water until

[20:59] they bring us a water right for it. And that's what we had to do with the Alex

[21:03] Meiser annexation. There was a couple of lots that came in that are now in the

[21:07] city, but they're dry. So that's actually not a concern and I

[21:12] think that was the only little wrinkle, but I I'm not sure why it ended up not

[21:16] coming in on the annexation plat. So I mean the annexation petition paperwork.

[21:20] So we've got to look into that. But um what makes this one interesting besides

[21:25] that is um is the zone request. [clears throat]

[21:30] I'm just going to show you back to our future land use map.

[21:36] You can see the uh I don't know why they call a black and white line a

[21:39] caterpillar line, but you can see that caterpillar

[21:42] line. Maybe it's because it looks like a monarch butterfly caterpillar.

[21:47] Um and you see that there you got this orange color and you got this yellow

[21:50] color. Um the orange is medium density residential and the yellow is light

[21:56] density residential. Um the uh owner of the property coming into

[22:03] annex. Um this is transacted transsected by the um by a future

[22:11] planned frontage road which comes right through here and and goes under to 400

[22:16] north. And um basically he like depending on where the city wants that

[22:23] road, it really fouls up my plans. He is requesting multiple zones.

[22:30] He's requesting a commercial zone on part of it and a residential zone on

[22:36] another part of it. Um so the actual petition said commercial, industrial,

[22:43] residential and the commercial industrial is because

[22:49] um this is the same property owner that

[22:53] owns property on 200 South where he's got all that tree maintenance equipment

[22:56] out there, a track hole and tree trimming and stuff like that. He wants

[23:01] to build a metal building and and basically house that business there. and

[23:06] and and what he said was right up against the freeway um to have a metal

[23:10] building where he can put his tree trimming business and stuff is is not

[23:15] too incompatible with the land uses around it. That's of course what his

[23:18] main pitch is. The question is is where that road was going to go could really

[23:23] foul up his plans. And so we invited him to say, "What do

[23:28] you want to do with the road?" And we'll look at it. Um, I've spent a a bunch of

[23:33] time with um the city engineer

[23:42] recently in looking at this because

[23:46] this is kind of the the crux of the whole thing. Well, zoning and that road.

[23:52] If you guys remember the transportation master plan, it's been a minute since

[23:55] you saw it. We actually spent a fair amount of time debating this when with

[24:00] the engineer when we adopted the transportation master plan because um

[24:05] the existing 600 West road comes right down here and it's kind of this blind

[24:12] lefthand turn or blind right hand turn with traffic coming underneath. They

[24:16] recommending us pushing that road out to here and scooping out through this

[24:21] property and then slowly getting back closer to the freeway. Right. Of course,

[24:28] it makes this whole pie wedge kind of useless property. So,

[24:34] and and I said, "What would you rather do? Would you rather push the road

[24:36] farther out so you can use property on both sides of the road?" and he said,

[24:40] "No, I would like to keep the road right against the freeway and then do what you

[24:46] got to do in here." So, [clears throat] um, went out, talked with our engineer,

[24:52] went out, looked at it, walked the site, literally

[24:56] parked and backed in down into the weeds into here. Um they got on it, surveyed

[25:01] um and looked at um turning radiuses and um sight distances and depending on the

[25:08] speed of this road and have come to the conclusion that it is possible following

[25:15] good engineering standards

[25:19] to move the road over by the freeway. as long as that road is only intended to

[25:28] be a 25 mph road, which is the plan. Anyways,

[25:35] I'm slowing down because I'm pulling up a um

[25:39] a document to show you that. Why did I not save it in the my near annexation?

[25:46] I'll find it. Anyways, basically the the road would stay right against the

[25:51] freeway and then right towards the end of the property, it would start kind of

[25:55] an S and it would come out and then it would come in like this and tie right in

[26:00] like this. So, it would it would use up the least amount of his property and put

[26:04] the road against the freeway only at kind of about almost twothirds of the

[26:09] way through the property would start its arc and come out here like this. And

[26:13] those curves work as long as a 25 mph property. I mean road. The reason why um

[26:19] 25 mph is is what we will plan on is because this frontage road goes through

[26:25] this residential neighborhood and they will have residential driveways going

[26:30] out onto that road. >> Even though it's a little wider of a

[26:33] road, um a 25 mph recommended road to have driveways going out onto it. We

[26:38] wouldn't want to get the get them faster than that with with driveways. So it's a

[26:43] minor collector, which is the smallest um road that's upsized from a local

[26:50] road, right? So, it's if it was a major collector or an arterial, we would

[26:54] probably just not recommend going 25 mph. We'd also probably not recommend

[26:58] putting driveways out onto it, even though we have those in town. We

[27:03] also have a 100 foot rightway in most of those areas. Anyways, long story short,

[27:09] now that we have a diagram for this, um he said, "Yeah, that actually probably

[27:13] works for me." Um then it's just a question of who builds what, who deeds

[27:18] what when. Um and zoning is a big those are the two big factors for him. So

[27:26] assume and I asked him I said now that we know that road could work in that

[27:30] area from the city engineer where do you want commercial and where

[27:36] do you want residential? By the way residential isn't just residential. Is

[27:41] it R1, R2, R3? A A1 rural estates, you need to tell us

[27:48] what residential you want and and kind of where the cut off is between the

[27:52] commercial and the residential. So I've asked him for a diagram that even just

[27:57] says, you know, even just how many feet off of that. The other thing to consider

[28:02] with that is this is one parcel and there's nothing that says that we

[28:08] can't have a parcel that has different zoning on one part than another.

[28:13] but it it's not best practice, right? So, this one has a little bit more to

[28:19] chew on and think through. Um, again, our general plan shows that, by

[28:26] the way, the general plan shows two different zones on the same parcel.

[28:32] Of course, the general plan wasn't really looking super a lot at parcels,

[28:36] but that's kind of what it did all the way out through here, right? It was more

[28:40] of a concept of we're going to put a certain density against the freeway and

[28:44] a different density as you get away from the freeway. So, are we if we were

[28:50] comfortable with that in the general plan, are we comfortable with that with

[28:53] the actual zoning recommendation too? Only instead of

[28:59] residential of one density and residential of a different density, it's

[29:01] commercial of commercial and then residential of some density. Um, I

[29:06] strongly suspect he's going to um well, actually, I don't want to put words into

[29:09] his mouth. He said he wants to build his house. He wants to build kind of his his

[29:14] retirement home, but I don't know what kind of zone he's going to request. He

[29:17] may request R1 and he may request R2. I don't know, three.

[29:22] I don't think he's going to go with a higher density. I think he's going to go

[29:24] with more of a lower density, but we'll let him request that. [clears throat]

[29:28] And I don't know, maybe he wants to come out to here with commercial.

[29:34] Um anyways, so that's that's that. Um questions, thoughts?

[29:40] Uh what did I miss in my explanation?

[29:48] » You have that uh drawing that you showed me with the the road? Yes. Let me find

[29:54] that. I thought I had it saved and I know I have it saved. It just wasn't

[29:58] where I expected to have it. I may have to in a pinch hurry already look at my

[30:02] email and get it that way. I know I put it in

[30:07] maybe I put it in streets.

[30:24] [sighs] Let me let me just download it from my

[30:27] email again real quick [clears throat] so I'm not on the

[30:48] Okay.

[30:52] So Rosenberg is the city's um engineer. You'll see that you'll see that

[30:58] [clears throat] this is the road. This is actually

[31:01] you're just seeing the rightway, but you're seeing that rightway stay right

[31:05] against the freeway and then it does this S. It turns out actually tease into

[31:11] um 600 West. Um and if if you remember our transportation master plan, 600 West

[31:20] is planned to someday be um vacated along this portion,

[31:27] but to leave a local road section here connecting. So, you'll notice that the

[31:34] the primary direction of travel without stopping is the frontage road on the

[31:38] master plan. But

[31:43] on this plan, they actually have 600 West being the the the primary. I can't

[31:48] they don't use primary, but they call it the prioritized level um prioritize

[31:53] direction of travel that doesn't have to stop.

[31:56] But you'll also notice that that we have this acreage here. So we can change

[32:02] between um a road that comes out and and curves to an S and we can use have 600

[32:09] West stop at some point in the future. we have the the space and the acreage to

[32:14] be able to um reconfigure that intersection so that

[32:19] it's one way with a T now and it could be one way with a T later um as as

[32:26] traffic patterns change over time and and we had actually looked at both of

[32:29] them. But if we do this and we require that exaction from both this property

[32:36] here, which by the way is will be very soon in front of you in planning

[32:41] commission for the public hearing. They have a um preliminary application that

[32:45] subdivision review committee's been bouncing back and forth. We've told them

[32:49] that they're going to need to accommodate

[32:52] um a road a rightway dedication for this piece. Um and then in the future if when

[33:00] the time comes we can shift it so that it's this is the primary travel and then

[33:05] it'll look more like an S with a T intersection here and our engineer

[33:10] design both of them within our current engineering standards and both of them

[33:14] fit within that area. So um this was the this is what I sent to the property

[33:19] owner and I said is this something that you could live with and he said yeah I

[33:23] think I could live with that. So, I mean, obviously until we have an

[33:26] annexation agreement signed, it's just it's a concept. But if we adopt this, if

[33:32] we really like this as a city, we can update our transportation master

[33:38] plan with this configuration and redraw

[33:47] this yellow line to match it and adopt it. That way whenever it takes

[33:53] place in the future sometime, we actually now have better engineered

[33:57] plans for this corner. Then as city managers come and go, city

[34:02] engineers come and go, planning commissioners come and go, and property

[34:06] owners trade hands, then we have a good plan that we know works. So,

[34:10] » huh. Well, you're going to be on here forever.

[34:15] So, I've been yapping a whole lot, but you could tell we've been doing a lot of

[34:19] work since we last had a city council meeting on this. Um, just trying to get

[34:24] this all figured out because now is the time where we have things happening and

[34:28] development and annexations and stuff like that. When the road will actually

[34:33] be constructed is an entirely different conversation.

[34:44] So questions on the annexation

[34:49] really what we're making a recommendation would be for zoning. We

[34:53] don't yet have their exact request but we do know that it has commercial on

[34:59] some portion and residential on some portion and by our next meeting I'm I

[35:03] want to actually have a diagram for you to look at with that. either

[35:09] that and if we don't get it, we'll just give a recommendation of what we think

[35:13] it should be. At the end of the day, the city council can decide as they as they

[35:19] annex it or don't. So, we don't have to have that in order to make the the uh

[35:25] recommendation, but if we want to consider what they want to do, we really

[35:28] need to have it. So, that's what I've asked him for.

[35:36] All right. They have any more questions or anything

[35:40] on that? >> Nope.

[35:44] All right. [clears throat] Okay. Let's move into

[35:49] item six, a discussion regarding Lance Shotwell and Parent City boundary

[35:53] adjustment record of survey and road dedication plat.

[35:57] » Okay, these are the things that by the way take up all my time.

[36:03] If you're familiar with the Heritage Park and the road, we just I call it the

[36:09] pee hill road. >> Um it's been, by the way, it's been a

[36:12] livestock trail for a long time. Um

[36:18] this is what you're looking at. Um for whatever reason, this road was never

[36:23] dedicated to the city through this property, but all of the the road is

[36:27] built to this point. All of the utilities are into that point. So, um,

[36:32] I've talked to the because it's for sale. I've talked to the realtor and

[36:35] said, "Hey, whoever buys this thing really should dedicate that road to the

[36:39] city because they're paying taxes on a public road." You know, there's no way

[36:44] they could ever close it. It's got perpetual use. There's a livestock

[36:48] trail. There's no way that the county or us would or BLM or anybody would ever

[36:54] let them close that. So, why pay taxes on it? You know, they clearly paid all

[36:58] the money to improve it to put in that home. might as well just deed it to the

[37:02] city. But that's not what we're talking about. What we're talking about is um

[37:08] for a couple of years now, we have been in hot and cold on and off discussions

[37:14] with the owner of this parcel. You'll notice this parcel

[37:20] is two parcels, but it's not. It's one parcel. That happens sometimes.

[37:26] I think it's bonkers. You'd think a parcel would have to be connected to

[37:30] itself, but it doesn't. What transit trans transsects this parcel? Um, since

[37:38] I'm just throwing out dollar words so you guys think I'm smarter than I am

[37:40] because I'm really a dumb redneck. Bifurcates what bifurcates this parcel

[37:45] is Main Street. Right? If you go and look, and we won't

[37:50] go dig into, but if you go and look at the old survey of the city, Main Street

[37:55] came right through the middle of these homes and up to here. The other thing

[38:00] that came through here was 400 South came through here. You can see it when I

[38:04] zoom out. You can see 400 South coming through here. And you can see Main

[38:08] Street coming through here. 400 South was vacated at some point. And

[38:14] so these are now private properties. Main Street was never vacated through

[38:18] here. I have gone through

[38:23] a arduous process um assisted financially by the property owner

[38:29] to create this as a legal parcel for Perowin City because what we owned was

[38:36] Main Street and we owned this parcel. It's just that there's you there's never

[38:40] really a reason to make something a parcel when it's owned by the state or

[38:44] the city or something because there's no taxes. We're usually not involved in

[38:48] messing around with it till we get ready to do something. And then you have to go

[38:51] through this pain in the butt to prove that it isn't owned by anybody else and

[38:56] that it actually and we found all the paperwork and some mayor 50 years ago,

[39:02] whatever. And we were able to establish that yes indeed, the city really does

[39:06] own this. and we got all of that recorded. And when I say he he just paid

[39:11] for all of the work. He paid for all the title searches and all that stuff. So

[39:16] what we own is we own Main Street, which doesn't make any sense as Main Street

[39:19] right here. And he owns this parcel, which is actually two parcels.

[39:25] » Um he approached the city and said, "You want to trade?

[39:31] I would really like to own this parcel here

[39:35] and I really don't care about owning this parcel, this piece of my parcel.

[39:40] And so we looked at it and we said, "Well,

[39:43] might be kind of nice to loan own the land that's contiguous with our park so

[39:48] that we could kind of extend the park. We want to try to protect the spring

[39:52] that's right here. And by the way, this road is going through. So if we do any

[39:57] sort of trade, we're going to end up owning the road at the end of the trade.

[40:02] So the road is established all the way through to the end of this, which would

[40:06] make his parcel here and his parcel here smaller because you plop a road in the

[40:11] middle of it. There'll be a road in the middle of this one. So we started

[40:15] looking at it and um talking uh talking to the city council. Sometimes when we

[40:22] go into close session, we talk about stuff like this. What we ended up coming

[40:26] up with when we he hired an engineer and there's

[40:34] a better there's a better version of this and and when I asked him to send me

[40:38] the actual road survey and parcel survey and all of that stuff he sent me an

[40:43] older version so I need I have a printed one in my office it's this big and it's

[40:47] got highlighter all over the place but this is this this tells you the exact

[40:52] concept the only difference is is the uh the curve of this road is is is wrong on

[40:57] this one. Acreage is all correct. The concept is all correct. So, what we're

[41:02] talking about doing, and it's a multi-step process. We the city council

[41:07] approved and signed an agreement to get us onto the track of doing all these

[41:11] things. First thing we have to do is we have to vacate Main Street.

[41:18] We have to vacate it so that all that land belongs to somebody. We have to

[41:25] realign the parcel boundaries and then we have to do a road dedication plot and

[41:30] then we have to get to a point where we're ready to actually trade acreage.

[41:34] When all is said and done, it'll look like this. Only there will be a little

[41:40] bit different of a of a curve through here. He will own lot three and lot

[41:47] four. The city will own

[41:52] all of this parcel and all of this parcel, which don't have numbers on

[41:56] them. On my original thing, they were lot one and lot two. Um, so we will own

[42:02] two parcels. He will own two parcels. We will own the road

[42:08] from an acre per acre trade. It's actually um

[42:14] very very close to just a straight across acreage trade. And I think that's

[42:18] before you take the road out or something like that. From an actual

[42:22] reality of use, it is it is much more um think of it as we're trading this

[42:31] for this

[42:35] and like we'll end up owning this whole section

[42:41] and the road. He'll end up owning these two parcels and then we'll own the road.

[42:45] So again, if you kind of toggle back and forth and you can do the math and you

[42:49] can look at it, it ends up just kind of fixing this whole area.

[42:55] And at the end, we both end up with something that works better for us. We

[43:00] have a parcel. It's 79 acres. And and and these these acreages will change

[43:04] just a little bit as that curve changes, but what what we gain lose down here, we

[43:09] gain up here. So it's it's mathematically the same. We'll have a

[43:13] technically a buildable lot that the city can do something with.

[43:19] We can auction it off. We can use it. Whatever. We'll own a lot. We'll have a

[43:25] lot here, which is technically a buildable lot, but most likely all we'll

[43:29] do is is just combine our park. Maybe we'll do some little walking trails and

[43:34] some resting benches. It is up there where you have a great view and stuff

[43:37] like that. So my my thought is we'll probably incorporate in that into the

[43:42] park and we'll figure out in the future what to do with this other parcel. He

[43:47] will own two lots and more importantly

[43:52] when he wants to get a building permit at some point he will have to extend all

[43:56] the utilities to this point and extend the road.

[44:02] So, this is something that comes up quite

[44:06] often because these four parcels up here, I have people that ask me, "Hey,

[44:12] can I build a house there?" And I'm like, "Not until you can get that road

[44:16] through and you can get the rightway through and you can get the utilities

[44:19] in." And by the way, it's a mess to try to get it all figured out. Everybody has

[44:24] to participate, including the city. So, this just rearranges everything,

[44:29] dedicates roads, and and then no development happens until he's then

[44:34] ready to develop and then he can develop. So, um that's what we're doing.

[44:38] The actual timeline of this thing involves six meetings. [snorts]

[44:44] Um the next step for us is that we will

[44:52] we will have a public hearing and vote to approve a new record of survey parcel

[45:00] boundary realignment and road dedication plat.

[45:05] And that's what I have on my paper. But it'll look like this. and

[45:11] [clears throat] it'll have a bunch of new legal descriptions on the right, the

[45:15] legal description of the road and all that stuff, place for the city engineer

[45:18] and everybody to sign when we do a road dedication. And then also we'll have an

[45:22] application with the parcel boundary realignment thing, which is a

[45:28] technically a different process, but we're going to combine them and do them

[45:31] all at the same time. So that one thing that will go get recorded up there won't

[45:37] create any new parcels. It's not subdividing. It's just

[45:42] well the city council, you guys won't be involved because you're not. The city

[45:46] council will have two meetings to vacate the road.

[45:50] We will have this meeting and a public hearing

[45:55] and a vote to rearrange the parcel boundaries

[46:00] and dedicate the road and record the record the survey, but

[46:05] it's the same thing as the road dedication plat.

[46:08] So, public hearing here, public hearing in city council. The vacation has to

[46:12] happen immediately before this thing happens. When we're all said and done,

[46:18] before we trade property, he will own lot three

[46:23] and he will own this piece here. We will own these two pieces.

[46:32] Wait, no. We will own this piece and we will own this piece. He will own this

[46:36] piece and this piece. The what we will then do is we will do a property trade

[46:40] which won't involve the planning commission. That's just city council.

[46:43] That's the very last step is we will trade these two parcels.

[46:47] So again, it's a mess, a lot of steps. I've been had this on the back burner

[46:52] forever because it was going to be so much work to do it. But um he's been

[46:56] paying for all of it and doing all the work andounding me and me andounding me.

[47:00] and we've probably met with the city council

[47:03] four times in close session and then we we finally made an agreement with him.

[47:07] The reason we did an agreement is because at any given

[47:12] at any given point in all of these points, if one of us just withdraws, it

[47:17] leaves a mess. Like we don't want to vacate Main Street without dedicating

[47:22] this new road because that would just give him a bunch of property and now we

[47:25] don't have any sort of road. And so we both signed the agreement. So we will

[47:30] see it through to its end. Worst case scenario

[47:34] at the end we choose not to trade this lot for

[47:39] this lot. Whatever. Yeah. We at the end of the day, worst case scenario, we just

[47:44] don't trade two of the lots, but we have the parcels all realigned and we have

[47:48] the roads and all that stuff. So that's that's okay because the city council

[47:52] can't vote to tr to get rid of land without having that public hearing

[47:56] anyways. But we just needed an agreement that pushed us through the whole process

[48:00] together. So again, long long story. Apologize for that, but um that's the

[48:06] deal. Wanted to make sure that it was all um open and transparent. And so

[48:11] that's why we had we've had two meetings in city council on it. Um the first one

[48:18] to talk about it, second one to sign the agreement, the next one will be the road

[48:22] d road vacation. you guys will have your meeting with the public hearing and and

[48:27] dedicate the new roads and um then the city council will have it go through its

[48:32] process to dispose of land. So anyways, any questions on that?

[48:37] » No. >> I'm kind of excited to get this thing

[48:40] done and behind us and [laughter] and then the crazy thing is you'll drive

[48:44] up there and nothing will change looking at it. [laughter]

[48:46] » Long as it doesn't affect the third grade uh field trips up to the pee hill.

[48:51] » No, >> since Rex Burton's return. No, nothing

[48:53] will affect that. This is a this is a a road no matter what happens. Um so,

[49:01] but it'll be good to get it kind of cleaned up. So, okay. Um that's all I

[49:05] have on that. >> All right, let's let's continue our

[49:10] discussion on the sign ordinance. >> Okay, I now need to apologize if you

[49:17] guys want to beat me or flog me. We had a big discussion. We had all of our

[49:24] things and you guys were going to do homework

[49:28] and I got ready for this meeting and I was gonna I was going to say, "Okay, did

[49:31] everybody do your homework?" Guess what? I never sent out

[49:36] the stuff for you to do homework on. So, if you take one and pass it along,

[49:42] this was the stuff you guys were supposed to have and be reviewing so

[49:45] that we could come back and talk through the height and the different things that

[49:50] all the cities do and all that stuff. So,

[49:53] I'm just going to hand those out. We'll give we'll give one to Jamie and one to

[49:56] Andy and talk about it in two weeks. We're not under the gun on this. So,

[50:05] unless you guys just happen to do random homework that you never got the homework

[50:09] assignment. [laughter] I asked Cali, I'm like, "Tell me I

[50:12] emailed that out. I swear I did, but I didn't. I had left town right after the

[50:16] meeting last time and slipped my mind. I apologize."

[50:26] » Okay, I guess we'll do our homework.

[50:33] move into member reports.

[50:38] You have any >> I have nothing.

[50:41] » Um, so I will actually be out of town on our next meeting. I apologize for that,

[50:46] but it's it's elk season, so busy. >> Where are you hunting?

[50:51] » Colorado.

[50:57] » Oh, no. I'm good. Awesome to report. >> You guys have heard enough from me, but

[51:02] I just will say there is a ton of stuff happening in land use at the state

[51:08] level. They have an act they have an active

[51:11] interimm committee. Uh Molly sits on that committee. Um I I don't sit on it,

[51:17] but I listen in and comment as a lot of the city managers do for the mayors that

[51:21] are on it. The state governor

[51:28] threatened Heber City to pull all of their state funding

[51:36] because they didn't approve this 144 unit development.

[51:43] And the governor said, "We're going to pull your funding through." He said it

[51:48] through his housing guy, Steve Walrip. it hit the papers.

[51:53] Um, the governor also in a different article

[51:57] is really frustrated that all that the state has done has not been successful

[52:03] in trying to help housing affordability. They there they set a very aggressive

[52:09] goal to have 35,000 new starter homes. They've achieved about 7,000.

[52:15] So, he's really frustrated. Um the governor doesn't make laws. The

[52:22] governor does not control funding. The legislature does. So it's largely just

[52:28] chest beating and things like that. But >> but I but you guys know how the

[52:33] legislature is and kind of how they're comprised. I expect some pretty

[52:38] aggressive bills this upcoming season in in the in the 2027 session. Um of course

[52:46] we we are a member of the league. The league is very very very very very

[52:50] active in doing their they sit on the LMA committee and they work so hard to

[52:57] try to work with the legislature so they don't

[53:01] just preempt um city's authority. They always say partnership not preeemption.

[53:06] That's what they say in every single meeting. Partnership not preemp

[53:08] preeemption. Um, I just I think that that maybe the screws are getting a

[53:13] little tighter on on on everything and maybe it's all rhetoric, but I expect to

[53:17] be some maybe some crazy bills. One bill that I heard was floated was

[53:23] that they would make the state would mandate any residential area can have

[53:28] lots as small as 6,000 square feet in any residential zone in the state.

[53:35] um they may pull that back to cities that are what they call MIHP or that

[53:43] that are big enough that they have to have um housing plans, moderate income

[53:48] housing plan is what MIHP perin is not an MIHP city. Um so they may come out

[53:54] with some kind of heavy-handed stuff like that, but they it may only apply to

[53:57] larger cities. Um I'm not trying to scare you guys. I'm just being scared on

[54:02] all these calls and I'm like, "Holy cow, like they're doing some crazy things."

[54:06] So, um, nothing to report other than there's some heavy conversations

[54:11] happening. And,

[54:16] uh, the other thing I'll report is the the zone change was not was voted down

[54:22] by the city council, the one that we sent a positive recommendation on R2. So

[54:26] that stayed as A1 and the PUD out here by um

[54:36] by your property and across from Eagle Rock

[54:40] » was uh denied. Um

[54:45] maybe there's a legal question on that. You may see it come back to city

[54:49] council. We may have to work through a little legal rent um wrinkle.

[54:54] Um, but the the city council, if I can just summarize, they didn't really say

[55:00] this, but there was there was a lot of comments. They were frustrated that

[55:04] there was too many variances. The variances were too extreme. Um the

[55:10] planning commission working originally on the PUD had kind of we asked for open

[55:16] space, we asked for parking, we asked for snow, we asked for a little less

[55:20] density and and and wider streets and and we had kind of negotiated to this

[55:25] point and then we sent a recommendation on a neutral recommendation which we

[55:30] should never do that again. But the city council then took it and the city

[55:35] council negotiated further with them and we got to where we were

[55:40] this far apart and there was some major issues in between but we had come

[55:44] together um and

[55:49] we were we were scheduled to have a vote on the things that we were going to do.

[55:54] This was a year and it was May in 2025. We the next agenda is the city council

[56:02] was going to vote on what it was willing to live with in the annexation agreement

[56:06] and what it wasn't and the applicant withdrew their their their agenda item

[56:12] because they wanted to consider a standard subdivision. They just said,

[56:15] "Hold up. We're not we're not withdrawing our PUD application. We just

[56:20] want to look at a standard subdivision." Because there was a lot of discussion

[56:24] about leased lots versus owned lots, right? So they effectively hit the pause

[56:28] button. We hadn't heard from them for more than a year and they came back and

[56:33] they said, "Okay, we want to resume." And we had negotiated to this point. And

[56:39] when we went to resume, they reset. They reset back to this place. And I I

[56:47] think and and I don't think they did it really out of ill will or trying to be

[56:50] difficult. I think that they really thought they had something

[56:54] in they had something in stone that they could do and it was just about a

[56:58] negotiating tactic to get to where the middle where they could live with but

[57:02] they didn't have anything in stone because until they get an annexation

[57:07] agreement and the PUD is approved they have nothing and so by them kind of

[57:12] resetting all the way over here if I can put into the city council's words what I

[57:17] saw city council was like okay now you're just being ridicous ridiculous.

[57:22] You you've you've just retreated from everything that we that we had worked

[57:26] towards. So, we're just going to deny it. And the city council denied it and

[57:31] killed it. The reason why that's really interesting is they can't reapply with

[57:37] the same code because they were vested into the code that they had prior to

[57:43] rural done. So, when it was denied, that application

[57:47] is now dead. meaning they can reapply for a new application, but they only

[57:54] have the options that are available now. And all they have available is anything

[57:59] that they can buy, right? Do in an R3. We also have this thing called a cottage

[58:05] courtyard. Remember how we left that in there? And

[58:10] a cottage courtyard is some version of a PUD, but it's a very kind of specific

[58:16] version of it. Um, But it's clearly a subdivision. This was not really going

[58:22] to be a subdivision. It was more of a mobile home park.

[58:26] So, we don't know what they're going to do, but that's the update on that. If

[58:31] they come in for an application to do a cottage courtyard,

[58:36] it'll come back to planning commission and we will start from scratch

[58:41] on a very specific type, but it's a PUD. It'll go through here and go through

[58:46] that whole thing and go back to city council and we'll we'll negotiate PUD's.

[58:51] Um this it wouldn't but it wouldn't just be a wide open PUD. It would be a very

[58:54] narrowly defined PUD, right? And um I don't believe that you could you could

[59:00] ask for um leased land under that cottage courtyard subdivision

[59:05] because it's a subdivision. [clears throat] And um we'll see. I

[59:10] don't know. We may have a lawsuit dropped on us. we may um they've they've

[59:14] had a lot of they've been asking questions, trying to clarify, find out

[59:18] information, trying to figure out what their next steps are, but officially as

[59:22] of now it's dead, but we don't know what act two or act three of this thing will

[59:29] be. So, just giving you an update on that.

[59:36] » I make a motion to adjurnn. >> I second the motion.

[59:40] » All in favor? I >> I oppose. You get journaled.

Parowan City Planning and Zoning Meeting 9-02-2026

Transcript