[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

PC Video 3 11 2026

Transcript