[0:01] Chase barely walked in.
[0:04] Um, thank you everybody for coming. It's
[0:07] uh Planning Commission Payson City
[0:09] March 11th
[0:11] 6:00. We'll go ahead and get started. Um
[0:14] believe uh Commissioner Frisby has been
[0:16] asked to
[0:18] say a prayer.
[0:19] Thank you.
[0:22] Our Father in heaven, we're grateful
[0:23] this day. We're grateful for the
[0:24] opportunity we have to come and meet as
[0:26] a Planning Commission to discuss the
[0:27] needs before our city. We pray that
[0:29] we may be guided to make those decisions
[0:31] which will be beneficial to
[0:33] the current and future residents of the
[0:34] city and that we are grateful for the
[0:36] opportunity we have to
[0:38] live in a country where we have the
[0:39] opportunity to participate and to
[0:42] help direct the affairs of
[0:44] the place in which we live and
[0:46] we pray that you'll bless our service
[0:48] men and women that they'll be watched
[0:49] over and protected in these things we do
[0:50] in the name of our savior Jesus Christ.
[0:52] Amen. Amen.
[0:54] Uh I forgot to mention who's here.
[0:57] Looks like we have uh Commissioners
[0:59] Frisby, Adams Becker
[1:02] Beecher
[1:03] Hemuli and Getzbor.
[1:05] So
[1:09] Um everybody have a chance to look at
[1:11] the agenda from February 11th, so a
[1:13] month ago?
[1:15] Any questions, comments, concerns?
[1:19] I need a motion then to approve that
[1:21] consent agenda. Make the motion to
[1:24] approve the
[1:25] uh minutes from the February 11th
[1:27] meeting.
[1:28] Second.
[1:29] I have a motion and a second. All in
[1:31] favor by yes. Yes. Yes.
[1:34] Any opposed? Thank you.
[1:36] Public forum. Well, we don't have any
[1:38] public unless there's somebody online,
[1:39] right?
[1:40] Nobody online?
[1:42] Okay.
[1:44] We'll go on to action items. Uh first is
[1:47] a public hearing. It's going to be a
[1:49] short public hearing if there's no
[1:50] public, but whatever.
[1:52] It is the Payson City is proposing code
[1:54] amendments to various sections of title
[1:56] 12
[1:58] um which is the subdivision regulations
[2:00] of the city code. Um
[2:02] it intends to better clarify how
[2:04] residential density is calculated and
[2:06] interpretated interpretated throughout
[2:08] the ordinance.
[2:10] Michael, are you giving us anything on
[2:11] any of these?
[2:13] I'm going to give it to you all at once.
[2:15] >> Okay. That's fine.
[2:17] So we're talking about code amendments
[2:19] for that's 51, 52 is code amendments for
[2:23] uh title 13 zoning and this in intends
[2:26] to clarify how residential density is
[2:28] calculated etc. Same thing as as 51
[2:32] except for in section or in title 13.
[2:35] Um
[2:38] we've got uh
[2:40] let's see, with the sections within the
[2:42] general plan
[2:44] um proposing adopting various sections
[2:47] within the general plan originally
[2:48] adopted in September of 2020
[2:52] and the intendents again are trying to
[2:55] clarify residential density.
[2:58] Uh general plan amendment um sections of
[3:02] the Spring Creek area specific plan
[3:04] which is an extension of the 2020
[3:06] general plan
[3:08] and again we're trying to clarify um how
[3:11] residential density is interpreted
[3:13] within plan documents.
[3:15] And the last one with 55 which is the
[3:18] South Meadows specific area plan
[3:21] again the same uh conditions to the
[3:24] general or extension of the general plan
[3:26] and clarify how residential density will
[3:29] be interpreted within plan documents.
[3:31] We'll have to handle each one of these
[3:32] separately, but Michael will give us a uh
[3:38] a sum a summation of what we're to
[3:39] looking at here.
[3:47] So Commissioner Beecher uh summarized it
[3:50] pretty well. I can skip this first
[3:51] slide. Um
[3:55] and then each of these other slides are
[3:57] really just going to be
[3:59] um
[4:01] the specifics for each of those
[4:05] uh codes or plans. Mhm. Um but it's
[4:09] intended to be up on the screen for the
[4:11] public to see what we're talking about
[4:13] and then I'm just going to break away
[4:15] from what's here and show you the actual
[4:19] documents that were in your packets.
[4:21] Okay.
[4:21] >> makes sense. So there's not a
[4:23] significant presentation so much as
[4:25] we'll just look at what's actually in
[4:27] your your
[4:28] uh packets. Yeah, and see if we don't
[4:30] have the public here, they can look at
[4:31] it later online if they need to, so.
[4:33] Correct.
[4:35] Um so as was stated, these five
[4:37] documents, the general plan, the South
[4:39] Meadows area specific plan the Spring
[4:42] Creek area specific plan, title 12 and
[4:44] title 13 of the city's code would all be
[4:48] affected with some clarification for
[4:51] density.
[4:57] And I knew I was going to get them out
[4:58] of order, but that's fine. Um so first
[5:02] one, the general plan, the basis of
[5:05] what's what's being addressed is on
[5:07] pages 60 through 62 in the plan and this
[5:12] is some
[5:14] uh language amendments to
[5:16] change where it states about units to
[5:19] the acre and instead puts in language
[5:22] that talks about what would be the most
[5:24] appropriate zones for the area based off
[5:28] of the original density
[5:30] anticipated and calculated in the
[5:32] original general plan.
[5:35] Um
[5:38] same with South Meadows. South Meadows
[5:40] is a plan that's um well, at least
[5:44] almost four and a half years older than
[5:45] the general plan, so it was done a
[5:47] little bit differently. Um the South
[5:49] Meadows is the one that probably has the
[5:52] most of the
[5:54] uh staff recommended changes because of
[5:57] this nature. Uh there was a lot of
[6:00] referencing to units to the acre, the um
[6:04] land use map in there had a map that was
[6:08] identifying areas with different colors
[6:11] with units to the acre and this was
[6:15] often times uh
[6:17] point of
[6:19] deliberation between staff and
[6:22] applicants and developers and um and we
[6:25] just want to have it fully clear what
[6:28] the intent is.
[6:32] Um
[6:33] the Spring Creek plan is quite new. It
[6:35] was adopted in 2023 of December and so
[6:40] this one has very few changes, but it
[6:41] does still have some language that
[6:45] we felt as if could have a little bit
[6:47] further clarification.
[6:49] Um and then the last two are the
[6:51] subdivision code and the
[6:55] uh zoning code. So these are the
[6:58] sections specifically that are addressed
[7:00] in the subdivision code
[7:03] 12 12 40, 12 12 60, and 12 12 80 and
[7:08] those are the things they talk about
[7:10] base density, total project density and
[7:13] the relationship of the PRD to this
[7:15] title and other development ordinances
[7:17] of Payson.
[7:19] And then the last one
[7:25] is the
[7:27] um
[7:30] the uh zoning ordinance itself. This one
[7:33] has a few more sections in it. Um
[7:36] as you may be aware, we are currently in
[7:39] a revision for our
[7:42] entire zoning code that also incorporate
[7:45] the subdivision ordinance but we felt as
[7:47] if
[7:48] it's timely to bring this to you now
[7:50] because we often get
[7:54] concerns and comments and questions
[7:56] about
[7:57] what can I do here and how much units to
[8:00] the acre and and whatever. I So we
[8:02] wanted to clarify these things and these
[8:05] specifically um
[8:08] clarify the definition of zone or of
[8:10] density and how density
[8:15] is used throughout those other sections.
[8:18] So we used our um
[8:20] attorney consultant that's been doing
[8:23] our general plan or zoning update for us
[8:26] to help us with this
[8:28] and this is the proposed language that
[8:29] she gave. And then and the basis of that
[8:32] is she gave gives us um
[8:35] a new definition for density and then
[8:37] gets rid of the two definitions that we
[8:40] have called gross density and net
[8:42] density. And then therefore anytime it's
[8:44] referencing one of those two, she's just
[8:47] replaced it with this new
[8:49] uh term for density and that way we're
[8:51] not
[8:52] arguing what is gross, what is net when
[8:56] is one applied, when is the other. It's
[8:58] just density is what we're using.
[9:01] Um so with that being said, um
[9:04] I'm happy to go through with the uh
[9:07] Planning Commission the various sections
[9:09] that they were in your packets um but I guess I'd be open to how you how you
[9:14] want to proceed. I I'm assuming most of
[9:16] you have looked at the packets and have
[9:17] seen the information in there. Um
[9:20] how would you like to proceed? Would you
[9:21] like to open a hearing and and discuss
[9:24] these items after that and then
[9:28] uh maybe do some more in-depth review if
[9:31] you have questions or comments.
[9:33] How would you like to go? Let's go ahead
[9:35] and open the hearing.
[9:38] Um so we can
[9:40] get that on the books and then we can
[9:43] talk about everything. So I need a motion to open the hearing.
[9:48] to discuss
[9:50] the
[9:51] five
[9:52] um items that are being discussed in in
[9:55] at a public hearing that have been
[9:56] presented by Michael Bryan.
[9:58] >> you need to do each one separately. So,
[9:59] the first one on the agenda is the
[10:01] subdivision uh regulation that we're
[10:03] >> Oh, okay. So, we would discuss each
[10:05] section. Yes. So, I'll make a motion to
[10:07] open the public
[10:07] >> have a public hearing for each one. So,
[10:10] open a public hearing. So, I'm going to
[10:11] make a motion to open a public hearing
[10:13] for 5.1.
[10:16] Correct. Okay. Do I have a second?
[10:20] by Commissioner Adams.
[10:22] Uh all in favor with yes. Yes.
[10:25] >> Yes.
[10:26] Any opposed?
[10:28] Okay.
[10:30] Any discussion on this one?
[10:32] Well, this would be the time for the
[10:33] public to
[10:34] >> public comment.
[10:36] And we don't have anybody.
[10:38] Unless staff wants to comment as the
[10:40] public.
[10:44] One of you actually lives in the city,
[10:46] so
[10:47] Two of them. Oh.
[10:48] Does Anders live in the city now? Yeah.
[10:50] Nice.
[10:53] They're both excited to be developers,
[10:55] too, so.
[10:58] Good.
[10:59] No comments. We'll go ahead and
[11:02] entertain a motion to close.
[11:04] Make a motion to close the public
[11:06] hearing for 5.1.
[11:08] Need a second.
[11:13] By Commissioner uh
[11:15] Gettaboard.
[11:16] Um all in favor with yes.
[11:19] >> Yes. Any opposed?
[11:21] Okay.
[11:23] Let's go ahead and keep open each one of
[11:25] the public hearings, and then we'll
[11:27] discuss all of it together, okay?
[11:30] Make a motion to open the public hearing
[11:32] for 5.2.
[11:35] Have a motion. Do I have a second?
[11:39] I have a motion and a second. Um
[11:41] any all in favor?
[11:44] Yes.
[11:45] Any opposed?
[11:47] Okay.
[11:49] We'll uh
[11:50] entertain any
[11:52] comments from the public.
[11:55] Seeing none, I need a motion to close.
[11:57] Make a motion to close the public
[11:58] hearing on 5.2.
[12:01] I need a second.
[12:05] All in favor with yes.
[12:07] Yes.
[12:09] Any opposed?
[12:11] Okay. Let's go to 5.3. Just one comment.
[12:14] When you when you speak, please make
[12:15] sure you turn on your microphone,
[12:17] especially for the recording. So, thank
[12:19] you. Make a motion to open the public
[12:21] hearing for 5.3.
[12:24] Have a motion. Do I have a second?
[12:29] I have a motion and a second. All in
[12:30] favor with yes.
[12:32] Any opposed?
[12:36] Okay.
[12:38] Seeing no comments, I need a motion to
[12:40] close public hearing. Make a motion to
[12:42] close the public hearing on 5.3.
[12:46] I do I need a second?
[12:51] All in favor by yes. Yes. Yes. Any
[12:54] opposed?
[12:57] Thank you. I need a motion on 5.4.
[13:00] I'm tired. Someone else.
[13:04] I'll make a motion to open the public
[13:06] hearing for 5.4.
[13:08] I'll second that. I have a motion and a
[13:10] second. All in favor with yes. Yes. Any
[13:14] opposed?
[13:16] Seeing no comments, I need a motion to
[13:18] close public hearing.
[13:21] I'll make a motion to close
[13:23] section 5.4.
[13:25] I have a motion to close.
[13:27] Um do I have a second?
[13:31] All in favor by yes.
[13:34] Any opposed? It's like an auction.
[13:41] And one last public hearing. A public
[13:43] hearing for 5.5, section 5 or line 5.5.
[13:49] Make a motion to open public hearing for
[13:50] item 5.5.
[13:52] I have a motion. Do I have a second?
[13:53] >> I'll second that.
[13:55] A motion and a second. Um all in favor
[13:58] with yes.
[13:59] Any opposed?
[14:03] Seeing no comment, I need a motion to
[14:05] close.
[14:07] Make a motion to close.
[14:10] Commissioner Adams, motion to to close
[14:12] public hearing. Do I have a second? I'll
[14:14] second.
[14:15] I have a second. All in favor by yes.
[14:18] Any opposed?
[14:20] Okay. Now we can discuss each one of
[14:22] these and
[14:24] any comments that anybody has.
[14:29] So, just in Michael's presentation, he
[14:30] said that the staff's recommendation is
[14:34] not to put units in acres, but just to
[14:37] um mention or suggest what is the zone that makes the most
[14:43] sense.
[14:44] Correct. And the only places where we're
[14:48] still keeping the density in there is in
[14:50] multi-family because you can't do
[14:54] uh
[14:55] for one, we have one multi-family zone
[14:57] that's that splits into three different
[14:58] densities, and for two,
[15:01] there there aren't lots when it comes to
[15:03] multi-family. It's units, so. Thanks for
[15:06] that clarification.
[15:08] Any other comments? Commissioner
[15:10] Frisbee, did you have something?
[15:11] >> definitely like the new definition
[15:12] better than what we previously had, cuz
[15:14] it's always been the huge debate over,
[15:16] okay, they come in wanting base density,
[15:17] and we're like, yeah, well, base density
[15:19] is just gross acreage versus net. I did
[15:21] have one question. I think it's in the
[15:22] Spring Creek plan, we talk about mixed
[15:25] density residential.
[15:27] Do we have I tried to find something. Do
[15:29] we have anything that
[15:31] clarifies what we mean by mixed density
[15:33] residential?
[15:35] So, in the plan
[15:35] >> Mixed use residential?
[15:37] >> It calls mixed density residential in
[15:38] Spring Creek, and the only thing I find
[15:41] is a small definition at the end that
[15:42] just says, but it doesn't say what size
[15:45] lots that would be. I I don't know if
[15:47] I'm just missing something, but
[15:49] we've called it out as
[15:51] a zone, but yet I see no guidance on
[15:55] what that zone actually entails,
[15:58] which I think has a lot of potential.
[15:59] I've actually had the thought that
[16:01] we always get stuck in R19, R110,
[16:04] whatever, but having a mixed density
[16:06] residential where you could have lots
[16:08] from 7,000 square foot to 12,000 square
[16:10] foot would be awesome.
[16:11] And I think that's maybe what was
[16:13] intended there, but I don't see any
[16:14] guidance on what that actually entails
[16:17] for that area that's zoned
[16:19] or planned for.
[16:21] I think there's two
[16:23] uh avenues of thought for that. Number
[16:26] one,
[16:27] um
[16:28] this never happens, but um
[16:31] you can have, say, the R175 zoning and
[16:37] put 10,000 square foot lots in there.
[16:39] And so, you're going to have a mix of
[16:40] various lot sizes.
[16:43] Um obviously, development is based off
[16:46] of how many
[16:48] lots I can get, and so that doesn't
[16:50] happen too much. Uh we do have an
[16:52] example of something like this coming to
[16:53] us, but it's coming to us through a
[16:57] uh development agreement where they
[16:58] they're wanting the R19 zone, for
[17:01] example, and but they also want to have
[17:03] a few lots smaller than that.
[17:05] Um but the other option is through like
[17:09] uh planned residential developments, you
[17:10] can have various um
[17:13] mixture of uh lot sizes and densities.
[17:17] Um our multi-family housing zone also
[17:20] allows for you to have single-family
[17:22] homes, townhomes, condominiums,
[17:24] apartments. All of those are allowed in
[17:27] that zone. Now, again, we almost never
[17:30] see that because it's it's intended to
[17:32] get the maximum amount. Um but if you
[17:36] feel like there's some recommendation
[17:38] for additional clarification in here,
[17:42] um and you feel as if it's crucial to to
[17:46] these requested amendments, then we
[17:48] could forward that on with your
[17:50] recommendation to city council.
[17:52] Otherwise, I would say
[17:54] um that it might be useful to
[17:57] uh
[17:58] table that recommendation for a future
[18:00] amendment. So, it just depends on on how
[18:02] critical you feel that is.
[18:04] I don't know if it's critical for that
[18:05] this amendment or anything, but it is
[18:07] something I think would be interesting
[18:08] to explore that if we said, well,
[18:09] percentage wise, well, we want cuz like
[18:12] you said, if we if we zone it R175, the
[18:14] developer says, well,
[18:15] I don't want anything bigger than a
[18:16] 7,500 square foot lot, but if we had
[18:18] some sort of mixed use that says, well,
[18:20] you have to have 50% of your lots have
[18:21] to be over 10,000, and then you can have
[18:23] 30% of your lots be 5,000, and then 20%
[18:26] I mean, I don't know if there could be
[18:27] some I don't know if that's worked in
[18:29] other communities, but I see it as
[18:31] creating
[18:32] a neighborhood that could have a lot of
[18:34] character and stuff versus just, hey, we
[18:37] are just trying to make
[18:38] we we we're going to have 7,600 to 8,000
[18:41] square foot lots. We're going to just
[18:42] build that range for the whole
[18:43] neighborhood versus if we could kind of
[18:45] mix it up with some sort of a mixed density I don't think for
[18:49] approving this that that makes sense,
[18:51] but just maybe something to explore.
[18:53] That is something we are exploring with
[18:56] this code update for the ordinance
[18:58] update. Um and we've gone on a few field
[19:01] trips in other communities and seen
[19:04] various developments and what they've
[19:05] done.
[19:07] I think we want to tie that to density
[19:10] bonus type of stuff. So, you get
[19:12] additional density if and flexibility in
[19:15] your lot sizes if you give us some added
[19:18] design, or maybe you have
[19:20] um some additional amenities or things
[19:22] like that. So, we we really want to try
[19:25] to have something that works with
[19:28] density bonus so that
[19:30] we get a better product. And and that
[19:33] could definitely be part of it is the
[19:35] mixture of uh lot sizes.
[19:39] So, on the on the mixed use residential
[19:42] density you're talking about,
[19:44] did you see the section where it talks
[19:46] about that it's eight units per acre?
[19:48] Right. So, that's the max, which my
[19:51] assumption should be the developer's
[19:52] going to come in and say I want eight
[19:53] units per acre instead of hey I want a
[19:55] mix of 10,000 and and if we do eight
[19:57] units
[19:58] talking about is is getting a diverse
[20:01] Right. So it's not just portfolio versus
[20:02] just the maximum lots I can cram on
[20:04] here. It could be like hey we have to
[20:06] have some 10,000. So we're only getting
[20:08] four units per acre in some of these
[20:09] lots. And then we might have a a 5,000.
[20:11] And I think that's something that we
[20:12] don't have as the city other than
[20:14] We really don't have
[20:15] >> have a small lot size that I think we
[20:17] need to consider.
[20:19] We've talked about that before. That and
[20:21] we might need to have that. Correct. You
[20:24] know, and and as right now we don't have
[20:26] that but that could be a place you could
[20:27] start integrating a smaller lot
[20:30] but not making the entire zone a bunch
[20:33] of small lots. You don't have 20 acres
[20:34] that become 5,000 square foot lots. You
[20:36] have 20 acres that's 20% of it is 5,000
[20:39] square foot lots kind of mixed in with
[20:41] other development.
[20:42] >> Uh for instance of that and it's kind of
[20:44] goes back to what I just mentioned
[20:45] before but for example the city
[20:48] struggles to
[20:50] obtain public open space
[20:53] with development dedications.
[20:56] But if it was valuable to the developer
[21:00] say for example they could put
[21:02] X additional lots on the property that
[21:04] were 5,000 square foot lots whereas the
[21:06] zoning maybe only allows 7,500
[21:10] then they're they're gaining the
[21:11] additional units and and they may not be
[21:13] losing much if anything with that extra
[21:16] gain of units that
[21:18] um
[21:19] we could get some of that park space and
[21:21] then that lost yard space is not a total
[21:25] loss to the residents because they have
[21:27] that park space and public open space
[21:29] available. Right.
[21:31] So. Well, and you mentioned a PRD which
[21:33] I spent several years but we actually
[21:35] saw a pretty rash run on PRDs for a
[21:37] while. I think we had down by Barnett we
[21:40] had a whole bunch of bringing in
[21:42] PRDs and I think those have a place but
[21:44] if we had I think maybe a little more
[21:46] guidance on what the mixed use was for
[21:47] the developer instead of them having to
[21:48] come up with an entire plan for an area
[21:50] and we just said well we have this mixed
[21:52] use one that you could use that is
[21:54] this type of a development that maybe
[21:56] would put less
[21:58] burden on them to be able to say oh we
[21:59] have a product here that works for that
[22:01] instead of us having to come up with an
[22:02] entire plan and the whole thing. And and
[22:04] maybe part of that is well you can use
[22:06] this mixed use if you provide X amount
[22:08] of open space or amenities or things
[22:10] like that and
[22:11] then we would allow it to be
[22:13] >> I I think that could be a very realistic
[22:15] way to incorporate some of this language
[22:17] from these plans. Obviously the plans
[22:19] are not ordinances or code but they're
[22:21] guiding documents and I think that could
[22:23] be a a useful way to do that and then
[22:26] coming up with the tools that would do
[22:28] that with our code is something that's
[22:30] very valid that we can consider as we
[22:33] are doing this code update.
[22:36] Thank you.
[22:38] Any other comments?
[22:40] I got a comment on the on the R175.
[22:43] Now it talks of 7,500 square foot lots.
[22:46] I mean I I see where we can
[22:48] put duplexes and stuff like that and
[22:50] then trim them in half like I guess
[22:51] that's how you consider it.
[22:54] Now something like that but where you
[22:56] talk about putting townhouses and
[22:58] apartments in and that that's
[23:01] to me that's putting more high density
[23:02] and that ain't to me to me that they
[23:04] need to
[23:06] you know, follow like a zoning so where
[23:08] you're trying to put more
[23:10] Let let me be clear. So
[23:13] the RMF zone which is our multi-family
[23:15] zone it allows for all that variety. So
[23:18] it'll allow for condos, it'll allow for
[23:20] apartments, it'll allow for townhomes,
[23:22] it'll allow for single family homes. The
[23:24] R175 is our smallest zone right now for
[23:28] just single family homes.
[23:31] Read it somewhere you couldn't talk
[23:32] about you could put
[23:34] multiple of five or single family but
[23:36] you Put turn your mic on please
[23:38] Commissioner. Turn your mic on. I turned
[23:40] it back. Where you put your you could
[23:42] put the duplex and the four
[23:44] plex on that R175. There there would be
[23:47] no way you could get a fourplex.
[23:49] >> Okay, that's where I was I just wait
[23:51] where I read it. I just I just want to
[23:52] clarify what I'm
[23:54] You could do a duplex but that's an
[23:56] added layer uh it's called an overlay
[23:57] zone that we have for it's called the
[23:59] RMF overlay and that would allow for
[24:03] potentially doing uh duplex or twin
[24:05] homes. So but it's an added layer of
[24:07] legislative uh review and it comes to
[24:09] this this body for recommendation to
[24:12] Okay, so so basically an R175 is just a
[24:14] single
[24:15] It's single family. Unless they get a
[24:17] unless they get an overlay That's what I
[24:19] was getting at. kind of stuff. That's
[24:20] what I want to clarify. That's I wasn't
[24:22] sure about that. Yep. Yeah, thank you.
[24:26] Any other comments or questions?
[24:28] Commissioner Geta bore, do you have
[24:29] anything?
[24:30] Commissioner Becker?
[24:33] Okay.
[24:34] All right. No more discussion then we
[24:36] need to vote five times. So
[24:41] I need motions on each one of these.
[24:46] I would move that we recommend to city
[24:48] council that we approve the code
[24:50] amendments to title 12 subdivision
[24:52] regulations Payson City Code as proposed
[24:54] by staff.
[24:56] I have a motion do I have a second?
[24:57] >> I'll second that.
[24:59] I have a motion and a second. Um all in
[25:02] um
[25:03] All in favor. All in favor?
[25:05] Yes. By yes. Yes.
[25:08] Any opposed?
[25:09] Okay.
[25:11] 5.2 I need a motion.
[25:13] >> I'll make a motion to send a favorable
[25:15] recommendation
[25:17] on title 13 zoning of the Payson City
[25:19] Code
[25:20] to the city council.
[25:22] Okay, I have a motion do I have a
[25:23] second?
[25:25] I have a motion and a second. All in
[25:27] favor by yes. Yes. Yes.
[25:30] Any opposed?
[25:32] Okay.
[25:33] I need a motion on
[25:36] uh
[25:36] the general plan.
[25:38] 5.3.
[25:43] I make a motion that we approve 5.3 on
[25:46] the general plan as the city has put
[25:48] out.
[25:50] Where is
[25:51] Okay. I'll second that. We have a motion
[25:53] and a second.
[25:54] >> Question.
[25:55] Uh that would be a motion for recommend
[25:57] to approval.
[25:58] >> Favorable recommendation.
[26:01] You agree with that? Modification motion
[26:04] okay. You agree with that second? I do.
[26:07] Okay.
[26:08] All in favor by yes. Yes. Any opposed?
[26:13] Okay.
[26:14] And I need a motion for 5.4. This is the
[26:17] Spring Creek specific area. I make a
[26:20] motion to send the Spring Creek area
[26:22] specific plan on 5.4 with a favorable
[26:24] recommendation
[26:26] to the city council.
[26:27] I have a motion do I have a second?
[26:30] I have a motion and a second. All in
[26:32] favor by yes. Yes. Yes. Any opposed?
[26:36] Okay.
[26:37] And on 5.5 this is South Meadow specific
[26:39] plan.
[26:43] I make a motion to make a positive
[26:44] recommendation on South Meadow's area
[26:46] specific plan
[26:48] specified in 5.5 to the city council.
[26:51] I have a motion do I have a second?
[26:55] I have a motion and a second. All in
[26:57] favor by yes. Yes. Any opposed?
[27:01] Thank you.
[27:02] We made it through the action items.
[27:05] We're to commission reports, staff
[27:07] reports and training.
[27:09] Any training first?
[27:11] No training?
[27:13] Okay, then you need to go to a
[27:14] microphone. Miss Jill.
[27:22] I just wanted to remind everybody that
[27:24] tonight is our open house Oh, that's
[27:26] right.
[27:27] >> Parkway construction. So if anybody's
[27:29] interested in that
[27:30] open house style until 7:30 tonight. Has
[27:33] it started already? It started at 5:30.
[27:36] Good. So if you want to swing in there
[27:38] on your way home, feel free to do that.
[27:41] If you're unable to and you want to go
[27:42] home and spend time with your family, I
[27:43] understand that as well. We can give you
[27:44] an update later. Where was that again?
[27:46] Sorry. Park View Elementary.
[27:48] >> I should know that but Yeah.
[27:54] Okay. Uh one matter of business Marty
[27:57] wanted me to bring up was I think two of
[27:59] your two of you have your positions um
[28:03] ending as of April. And is it
[28:07] uh Kirk and No. Oh, Ryan and Perry. Uh
[28:13] so if you're interested in um serving
[28:15] again then please make sure you reapply
[28:17] by is it the 15th?
[28:19] 16th of this month, right? So it's less
[28:23] than a week away. Yeah.
[28:25] So
[28:26] that's all I had. Anyone else have
[28:28] anything?
[28:30] Okay.
[28:32] Thank you. Okay. Commissioners anything?
[28:34] Commissioner Becker?
[28:37] Commissioner Geta bore?
[28:38] Commissioner Hemuli? No. No.
[28:41] Commissioner Adams?
[28:43] Commissioner Frisby?
[28:45] Um I'll just say that I appreciate
[28:47] serving with each one of you and thank
[28:49] you for being here. And if you do too
[28:52] you too decide to re-up we'd love to
[28:54] have you. So
[28:57] appreciate that. So
[28:59] um we won't force you though if
[29:03] But if you want to if you want to be
[29:05] back with us again we'd love to have
[29:06] that. And I just want to comment that
[29:08] the that the cameras are way out of
[29:10] focus or my I need new glasses one of
[29:13] the other. So
[29:17] We just saw a little fuzzy.
[29:20] Okay.
[29:21] Um
[29:24] Guess what? We're to item seven.
[29:27] And that is
[29:28] I need a motion to adjourn. I make a
[29:31] motion to adjourn.
[29:32] I have a motion do I have a second?
[29:37] I second it.
[29:38] Thank you. All in favor by yes. Yes.
[29:42] And thank you for coming even though we
[29:44] did a lot of
[29:46] repetition. Thank you for coming.
[29:51] I have like many items in that much
[29:52] time. Yes.
[29:57] They have more time