[0:11] Okay.

[0:13] We will go ahead and get started then.

[0:15] >> [clears throat]

[0:16] >> Welcome everyone tonight to Santaquin

[0:18] City Planning Commission meeting. It's

[0:20] Tuesday, June 9th, 2026. We're getting

[0:22] started at 7:01

[0:24] tonight.

[0:26] All right, before we get started, would

[0:28] anyone like to uh open us up with a

[0:30] thought or an invocation tonight?

[0:37] » Be happy to, please.

[0:41] Our dear heavenly Father, we're grateful

[0:43] for this day. We're grateful for the

[0:44] opportunity to gather as a Planning

[0:46] Commission and residents of Santaquin,

[0:49] and we pray that thy spirit will guide

[0:51] our discussion this evening, and

[0:53] we pray that

[0:55] we can

[0:56] be mindful of the important topics that

[0:58] we'll discuss, and

[0:59] we're grateful to live in this community and for our

[1:03] friends and neighbors that make this a

[1:04] great place to live, and we say this in

[1:06] the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.

[1:08] >> Thank you, Commissioner Johnson.

[1:10] Okay, would anyone like to lead us in

[1:12] the Pledge of Allegiance tonight?

[1:16] » I'll lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance

[1:17] tonight.

[1:18] Please stand.

[1:19] And people pledge after me.

[1:22] >> I pledge allegiance to the flag

[1:24] >> of the United States of America,

[1:26] and to the republic for which it stands,

[1:29] one nation under God, indivisible, with

[1:32] liberty and justice for all.

[1:36] » [clears throat]

[1:36] >> Thank you, Commissioner Hoffman.

[1:39] Okay.

[1:43] Um here is the agenda for tonight.

[1:45] Before we get started with uh the main

[1:47] part of the agenda, we will have a

[1:49] public forum. So, for those of you in

[1:50] attendance tonight, that's your

[1:51] opportunity to address the commission um

[1:55] about anything that might be on your

[1:56] mind. Now, keep in mind that we do have

[1:58] two public hearings on the agenda. So,

[2:00] if you have comments related to either

[2:01] of those public hearings, hang on to

[2:03] them and we'll get it we'll give you a

[2:04] chance to comment when we get to those

[2:05] public hearings.

[2:06] Um but, if there's anything else you'd

[2:08] like to bring before the commission, now

[2:09] would be the time to do it. So, I'll

[2:11] open the public forum at 7:03 and invite

[2:13] any comments if anyone would like to.

[2:18] Okay.

[2:21] If not, we will then close the public

[2:23] forum at 7:03. Thank you.

[2:28] All right.

[2:30] We can move on now to agenda item number

[2:32] one. This is a proposed rezone of

[2:34] approximately 2.5 acres located at 13460

[2:38] South State Road 198.

[2:44] » Okay,

[2:44] this rezone

[2:47] brought by an applicant to a adjacent

[2:50] to open a minor home occupation here by Sunset

[2:54] Terrace.

[2:55] Currently, it's zone residential

[2:57] agricultural.

[2:58] They want to make it residential

[2:59] commercial zone.

[3:01] Um currently, the zone does allow for a

[3:05] home occupation. Um they want to

[3:07] eventually move to

[3:09] a commercial daycare and so,

[3:11] residential commercial would allow for

[3:14] Um

[3:15] just to keep in mind, if it is rezone to

[3:18] residential commercial, there would be

[3:20] additional uses allowed that aren't

[3:21] currently allowed in a residential

[3:23] agricultural

[3:24] zone.

[3:25] Um all four of these tables

[3:31] Examples would include like

[3:32] multi-family,

[3:34] golf courses,

[3:36] adult specialty establishments,

[3:38] and private residences

[3:42] that would be allowed. And then, as far

[3:44] as

[3:46] how that matches with our future land

[3:47] use map,

[3:49] um

[3:51] it is part of agricultural heritage

[3:53] area.

[3:57] Their commercial is nearby, so it still

[4:01] makes sense that it is

[4:07] This is

[4:08] the area right here. It's just this

[4:09] private place. It's just

[4:11] east of the storage units.

[4:21] We also have a

[4:23] that condition attached to that area.

[4:25] It is over there.

[4:28] And

[4:29] I think we have some of the applications

[4:31] to look at.

[4:41] » And if I could add

[4:42] >> Please finish your

[4:43] >> Um yeah, thank you so much, Aspen. She's

[4:45] done a great job at at animal analyzing

[4:47] this property and working with the

[4:49] applicant. Um so, and just as Aspen had

[4:52] indicated, please um understand that

[4:55] though that the applicant is kind of

[4:56] intending um the change for a specific

[4:59] use, that we want to look at the full

[5:02] buffet of uses and the allowances under

[5:04] the RC um did district. And so, as

[5:08] staff, we would we would ask that you

[5:10] kind of take that into your

[5:11] consideration from a long-term

[5:13] perspective. Would one of those uses um

[5:16] be appropriate not not be be appropriate

[5:18] for the area. Um and in looking at the

[5:21] future land land use map of the area,

[5:25] it's a little confusing cuz it shows

[5:26] commercial right next to it where the

[5:28] storage units are, but this property is

[5:29] actually designated as as um

[5:32] heritage agriculture. Now, um the future

[5:35] land use map is simply a guide um as as you look at making zoning

[5:41] decisions, so it's not something you

[5:43] have to um align 100%, but it but it is

[5:46] kind of showing what the intent was back

[5:48] in in 2022 that we do believe that the

[5:51] use for a daycare most likely would be

[5:54] appropriate there if they had if they

[5:55] were able to meet the

[5:58] any requirements under our home

[6:00] occupation code.

[6:01] Just look at it from the the guys from a

[6:03] long-term perspective and

[6:06] if you apply the RC district,

[6:09] it does that it does that is that an

[6:11] appropriate destination for the

[6:13] property?

[6:15] >> All right, thank you. Aspen, thanks

[6:16] Morgan.

[6:17] Um the applicant's here tonight.

[6:20] Is there anything you'd like to add to

[6:21] the presentation?

[6:23] >> No, that's good.

[6:25] >> Okay.

[6:25] All right, we do have a public hearing

[6:27] on this agenda item tonight. So, we'll

[6:28] go ahead and move into that public

[6:30] hearing now. We'll open the public

[6:31] hearing at 7:07 and invite any comments

[6:34] if anyone would like to comment on this

[6:36] agenda item.

[6:40] Okay, would you step up to the podium

[6:41] and state your name for us?

[6:43] >> I am Laura Decker.

[6:47] » Sorry, I didn't catch that. Would you

[6:48] state your name again?

[6:49] >> Laura Decker.

[6:50] >> Thank you.

[6:51] >> So, we live between the storage units.

[6:53] Our house is between the storage units

[6:55] and this proposed

[6:57] Um and I don't have any problems with

[6:59] them being

[7:00] changing zoning. That's not about that.

[7:02] My problem and I have spoke with

[7:06] 30 people on this is the

[7:10] road in front of the house

[7:12] um

[7:13] the highway and it's a state road and I

[7:15] understand that you know, you guys don't

[7:17] control that. But if we're going to have

[7:20] businesses along there,

[7:22] that road needs to be slowed down.

[7:24] It needs to be slowed down even if you

[7:26] don't if you don't approve this.

[7:28] So,

[7:30] um every road every other road in

[7:32] Santaquin City is 35

[7:34] and that one is 45 and it hits 50 right

[7:38] at my house.

[7:40] And most of the time it's 70. So.

[7:43] That's my only complaint.

[7:46] And if there's anything you can do about

[7:47] it before there's commercial zoning

[7:50] there

[7:51] that road needs to be slowed down.

[7:53] They'll appreciate it.

[7:55] The people with the storage sheds will

[7:57] appreciate it.

[7:59] I don't know if the trucks will

[8:00] appreciate it, but

[8:02] the the cops will make more money.

[8:05] So,

[8:06] that's the only thing I have to say. So,

[8:07] if there's anything you can do about it,

[8:09] I would appreciate it.

[8:11] Thank you.

[8:11] >> Thank you. Thanks for comments. Um any

[8:14] other comments tonight for the public

[8:15] hearing?

[8:17] >> [clears throat]

[8:19] » Okay, in that case we will close the

[8:21] public hearing at 7:09 and we can move

[8:24] into discussion on this agenda item. Uh

[8:26] commissioners, thoughts or questions

[8:28] that we need to discuss?

[8:34] » Yeah, Commissioner Wood, I have a

[8:35] problem with the RC zone right there

[8:37] myself because as we discussed

[8:39] almost everything we've zoned RC ends up

[8:43] not being what we originally zoned it

[8:44] to.

[8:45] Um if it is allowed to have

[8:49] a daycare as is, I don't see the purpose

[8:51] of a rezone. Um you can have a minor or

[8:53] a major home occupation. Then if you

[8:55] decide to go commercial or

[8:58] a

[8:59] um dance studio or whatever the plan is,

[9:02] you can zone commercial at that time.

[9:04] But I would be against a

[9:05] rezone to residential commercial

[9:08] because of all the different uses

[9:10] allowed for that

[9:13] um RC zone and uh some of those would

[9:16] not be appropriate there in my opinion.

[9:17] So.

[9:22] » Yeah, thank you. Commissioner Hoffman.

[9:24] >> Um that's obviously the concern that we

[9:26] were talking about up front, right?

[9:28] That Morgan mentioned. So, that's

[9:30] [clears throat] certainly something to

[9:31] keep in mind. Um

[9:33] this is the table that shows what would

[9:35] be allowed in that zone. What would or

[9:37] would not be allowed in that zone.

[9:52] » And from what I can see to to have the

[9:54] daycare, they can do as a a home

[9:56] occupation currently.

[9:57] Met minor or major as long as they meet

[9:59] the conditions correct.

[10:01] >> Right.

[10:01] >> So.

[10:02] Yeah, and then at the time they wanted

[10:04] to move it to commercial use and change

[10:06] it to a commercial use. Um I would vote

[10:09] in favor of the C1 zone there

[10:11] over the RC zone.

[10:14] >> And C1 does allow a commercial daycare

[10:17] facility?

[10:17] >> It does.

[10:21] » Yeah, that's a good point. I um given

[10:23] the

[10:24] um

[10:26] the plans that were mentioned, I think

[10:27] that would probably be a more

[10:28] appropriate way to proceed.

[10:30] Um I agree with Commissioner Hoffman on

[10:32] that.

[10:33] Um

[10:36] I had a question uh stepping back, not

[10:38] necessarily with regard to uh the RC

[10:40] zone, but with regard to the application

[10:42] itself. Um

[10:43] the code states that the owner of the

[10:44] property is allowed to request a rezone.

[10:48] Um but I I was a little bit confused

[10:50] about

[10:51] um

[10:51] how that works here because the memo

[10:53] stated that the application was being

[10:55] made by Shayla Jenkins, but then the

[10:57] application itself um has the Johnsons

[11:00] on there. So, can we clarify who owns

[11:02] the property and who is um actually

[11:04] applying for the rezone?

[11:07] >> Do you want

[11:08] >> Yeah.

[11:15] Hi. My name is Dustin Johnson.

[11:17] >> Thanks.

[11:18] >> Yes. Um so

[11:20] um

[11:21] Shayla Jenkins is my sister and then my

[11:25] brother Ty Johnson and my other brother

[11:27] Dallin Johnson and their wives um

[11:32] are all eight of us bought the property

[11:34] together. So, as far as that is, um

[11:37] Shell is the one in residence um and

[11:40] thus the applicant.

[11:42] Uh name listed on the applicant. Um it

[11:44] to speak further on the residential

[11:47] commercial, the reason for that, the uh

[11:50] residential commercial zoning would

[11:52] allow a smooth conversion. Um my brother

[11:56] in American Fork tried to do go from

[11:58] residential and convert to a commercial.

[12:00] He's directly neighboring a commercial

[12:02] district. Um the city required him to

[12:05] rezone and then go through the

[12:08] application process and required them to

[12:10] shut down their daycare for several

[12:13] months, which

[12:14] obviously, if you have daycare kids,

[12:16] like you need your daycare kids being

[12:18] watched. And so, any sort of termination

[12:20] of service would cause um

[12:24] uh all the like the daycare kids to

[12:26] leave to find another alternative in the

[12:28] interim. So, that's the reason mostly to

[12:31] provide a smooth transition without risk

[12:34] of

[12:34] getting shut down for any length of

[12:36] time.

[12:37] Um obviously, if we can accomplish a

[12:40] smooth conversion process um

[12:43] and using just a residential and then

[12:46] later rezoning to a commercial, uh that

[12:48] works as well. So, we're happy to do

[12:50] whatever you guys want to we just

[12:52] thought it residential commercial would

[12:53] be easier.

[12:56] Um less applications and less processes

[12:58] involved. So.

[12:59] >> Okay.

[13:00] >> Thank you.

[13:00] >> Thanks for clarifying that.

[13:07] » Do we know what that process is going

[13:08] from residential to commercial and what

[13:10] that would require them to do?

[13:12] >> If they were to go from

[13:14] residential to a commercial

[13:15] >> And if that would require a shut down,

[13:17] do we know that?

[13:17] >> good question. Um staff, can you weigh

[13:19] in on that at all? Do you um

[13:21] can you address that concern?

[13:23] >> Um the only thing that would So, if they

[13:25] right now under the code, they're

[13:27] allowed a home-based daycare. And so, if

[13:30] they establish that and met met our home

[13:32] occupation allowances, then that that

[13:36] could run. And then what they would do

[13:38] is they would apply for the the

[13:39] commercial district. And then really I

[13:42] would see like construction activity if

[13:44] they needed to bring in infrastructure

[13:46] cuz once you build commercial, the

[13:48] infrastructure requirements do do kick

[13:50] in. I think the question would be if you

[13:53] go from a residential have a home-based

[13:55] occupation,

[13:57] does that home home-based occupations is

[13:59] it still allowed under a commercial

[14:01] zoning? And so, that's something that we

[14:05] could ask our our city attorney to see

[14:07] if there would be any issue with that.

[14:10] You know, if they So, I would say it

[14:12] would be more of a timing thing if they

[14:14] wanted to

[14:16] go under construction and build out

[14:17] those improvements that they line that

[14:19] up from a time

[14:21] line standpoint with when they apply for

[14:23] the zoning. So, it would really be kind

[14:25] of a matter of the applicant

[14:27] knowing when they wanted to make that

[14:29] conversion from a home-based to a

[14:31] commercial daycare and then just setting

[14:33] it up with their commercial cuz if

[14:34] they're going under construction anyway,

[14:36] then there's going to be most likely

[14:38] some sort of delay if they take the

[14:40] building down and build a full-fledged

[14:41] commercial building or if they convert

[14:43] the house into a meeting commercial

[14:46] code, there's going to be quite a bit of

[14:47] improvements required regardless and it

[14:50] would most likely be hard to stay open

[14:52] under construction

[14:54] activity at that level.

[14:55] >> Either way, I would think.

[14:57] >> Yeah.

[14:59] >> Okay, thank you.

[15:11] All right, commissioners, any other

[15:13] thoughts on this application?

[15:21] » Just as a reminder that you're making a

[15:22] recommendation to the city council

[15:29] » All right, thanks Aspen.

[15:40] Okay, if there's nothing else we'd like

[15:41] to discuss, is anyone

[15:44] thinking about a motion

[15:46] with regard to this recommendation that

[15:48] we need to make to the city council?

[15:51] >> I'm ready to make a motion.

[15:53] >> All right.

[15:54] >> If there's nobody else has anything to

[15:55] say.

[15:58] » I have Sorry, I'm just looking at the

[16:01] application again.

[16:02] The there's modifications they listed in

[16:04] here, would those be allowed under the

[16:06] current residential

[16:08] code?

[16:09] The ADA compliance,

[16:12] the kitchen grade kitchen hood, the

[16:13] commercial grade kitchen hoods,

[16:15] the illuminated exit signs, fire

[16:16] extinguishers,

[16:18] um

[16:19] that type of stuff, is that allowed in

[16:21] the in the residential zone or is that

[16:22] going to be cause a problem for them try

[16:24] to move their business forward?

[16:26] >> They may be allowed to like have those

[16:28] things in their home occupation. The

[16:30] difference would be like if they want to

[16:32] move to allowing more like kids or like

[16:36] sessions in their daycare, that's when

[16:38] it has to jump to the commercial, which

[16:40] is not allowed in residential

[16:41] agriculture.

[16:43] >> Okay.

[16:45] >> Does that answer your question?

[16:46] >> It does, thank you. Yeah.

[16:47] >> And as I understood, that was the point

[16:48] where they were going to make those

[16:50] improvements so to facilitate the

[16:51] commercial transition.

[16:55] » That was in the that was in phase one.

[16:56] Those things were in phase one.

[16:57] >> Oh, okay.

[16:58] >> So.

[17:03] » Even even with the residential home

[17:05] based

[17:06] daycare, and we could check with the

[17:07] building department, but there there

[17:09] still may need to be some sort of

[17:11] upgrades if there's a ADA and things of

[17:14] that nature. And we're happy to we can

[17:16] research that and and get back to you

[17:18] kind of the the upgrades for a

[17:20] residential home-based daycare to a

[17:22] full-fledged commercial if if you'd

[17:23] like. We'd happy to get that information

[17:25] for you.

[17:26] >> I'm just I feel like there's questions

[17:27] here. I'm wondering if we need to push

[17:29] this to another meeting with some extra

[17:32] information.

[17:32] >> on the RC or not. What's before us is

[17:34] they want to rezone the RC and that's

[17:36] it. So, we either send a

[17:38] recommendation for approval or denial.

[17:42] So.

[17:44] >> You could you

[17:44] >> That's it. If they want to rezone to

[17:46] something else and they'll have to bring

[17:47] that to us again.

[17:49] >> Okay.

[17:50] >> Yeah, and I think that's the primary

[17:51] issue is keeping in mind that the rezone

[17:54] is the issue that we're looking at.

[17:56] There's um a lot of plans that go along

[17:59] with that and what they intend to do

[18:00] after the rezone, but their primary

[18:02] issue is the rezone.

[18:02] >> Right. This is only the rezone to from residential ag to residential

[18:07] commercial.

[18:08] >> I guess my my question was with the with

[18:09] the questions that we have

[18:11] it was is the is it going to be a

[18:14] um a burden for them to go from

[18:16] residential to commercial. We talked

[18:18] about that. We don't necessarily have a

[18:19] clear answer yet. And that would affect

[18:22] my decision

[18:23] at this point. That's that's my only

[18:25] question there.

[18:26] >> You sure? Sure may add to that.

[18:28] >> Um so um there there there would be

[18:30] differences. So, once they got a

[18:32] commercial designation and did a

[18:34] full-fledged um commercial daycare,

[18:36] um there's site improvements um like

[18:39] parking lot landscaping. Um you do have

[18:41] UDot to uh to contend with because

[18:44] that's that's the right away they would

[18:46] access on. So, access improvements cuz

[18:48] you're moving from a residential

[18:49] category to commercial category. There

[18:51] may need to be a turn lane. So, I I

[18:53] don't know exactly every item, but yeah,

[18:56] I would anticipate a commercial like any

[18:58] commercial business you would have to

[19:00] meet that the commercial standards for

[19:02] our site plan landscaping lighting.

[19:03] >> Looking at that parcel, there's a lot of

[19:05] infrastructure that needs to be brought

[19:06] down in that area as well for

[19:08] commercial. So.

[19:10] >> But again, I think [clears throat] they

[19:11] would have to do all of those same

[19:12] things whether the zone is um RC or C1,

[19:16] for example.

[19:17] >> That's correct.

[19:17] >> Right? It comes with the the conversion

[19:19] to the commercial business.

[19:21] >> Whether it's

[19:22] either zone. Okay.

[19:23] >> Yeah, not necessarily the zone.

[19:24] >> That's clarifying. Thank you.

[19:30] » Any other discussion on that before we

[19:32] move forward?

[19:32] >> Well, as for me, like I said before, I'm all for C1 if they want to make it a

[19:37] home occupation and when they're ready

[19:38] convert it to C1, but I'm just I'm not a

[19:40] fan of the RC right there. There's just

[19:42] too many

[19:43] different things that are not

[19:45] appropriate there. So.

[19:47] >> Yeah, I think I agree on that.

[19:50] » Can I ask a question? Isn't it

[19:52] commercial across the street?

[19:54] >> It is. It's C1.

[19:56] >> Okay, so you have C1

[19:58] >> I I apologize I apologize. If you want

[20:00] to allow comment, well, it has to cuz we

[20:02] can't pick it up in the record. That's why.

[20:06] >> This shows the zoning map as is and

[20:09] what the proposed zoning would be. So.

[20:13] » Yeah, it's commercial.

[20:17] But the area around it is

[20:22] » It would make sense to match then the C1

[20:24] not RC.

[20:26] >> Yeah, I think so, too.

[20:36] All right, Commissioner Hoffman.

[20:38] >> Uh Commissioner Wood, I'd like to make a

[20:40] motion to forward a negative

[20:41] recommendation to the City Council for

[20:43] the rezoning of approximately 2.5 acres

[20:45] of parcel number 30

[20:47] .091.0047

[20:49] from residential agricultural zone to

[20:51] residential commercial zone.

[20:53] >> Okay, we have a motion by Commissioner

[20:55] Hoffman. Do we have a second?

[20:59] » I'll second.

[21:00] >> Second by Commissioner Christopher. Any

[21:01] further discussion on that before we

[21:02] vote?

[21:04] Um

[21:05] would it be appropriate to in the motion

[21:07] that um um

[21:10] » We can discuss that after.

[21:12] >> Yeah, that's fair.

[21:13] Okay.

[21:14] >> This is only for this RC zone, so let's

[21:16] discuss that after we vote and see where

[21:18] it goes.

[21:19] >> Okay.

[21:21] So, we've got a motion, we've got a

[21:22] second. Um

[21:23] let's vote. Commissioner Russell.

[21:26] >> Yes.

[21:26] >> Commissioner Christopher.

[21:27] >> Yes.

[21:28] >> Commissioner Hoffman.

[21:29] >> Yes.

[21:29] >> Commissioner Wood.

[21:30] >> Yes.

[21:30] >> Commissioner Johnson.

[21:31] >> Yes.

[21:32] >> Okay, that is forwarded with a negative

[21:33] recommendation um on the conversion to

[21:35] the RC zone and it is unanimous.

[21:39] Um

[21:40] Okay, thank you.

[21:41] >> Yeah, with that, that's what I'd like to

[21:43] say is is uh do your do your home

[21:45] occupation, come back when you're ready

[21:47] to make it commercial.

[21:49] Uh bring back a as a C1 and I don't

[21:51] think you'll have a problem with that

[21:52] cuz it will match everything around it.

[21:54] And that that's appropriate for that

[21:55] area and and we can we can work with I

[21:58] can work with that. I don't know about

[21:59] Cass.

[21:59] >> I feel a lot better about that, too.

[22:00] Yeah.

[22:01] >> Yeah.

[22:03] >> All right, thank you.

[22:06] Okay.

[22:10] Let's move on now to agenda item number two. Um

[22:14] This is a proposed code amendment

[22:16] regarding single-family residential

[22:18] landscaping requirements.

[22:22] » Okay, for this code amendment it would

[22:25] affect section 10.52.20

[22:28] and 10.32.30.

[22:31] This is coming from the state just

[22:33] complying with the changes they made. Um

[22:36] it's not removing the landscaping

[22:38] requirement, it's just we

[22:41] it won't prevent receiving a certificate

[22:43] of occupancy. Residents are still

[22:45] expected to have front and side yard

[22:49] landscaping, maintain weeds, keep

[22:51] control of dust and erosion and all of

[22:53] those things.

[22:54] There's just

[22:56] we can't keep a certificate of occupancy

[22:59] if they don't have that in place yet.

[23:03] » So, it's mostly in alignment with state

[23:04] code, right?

[23:05] >> Yeah.

[23:05] >> [clears throat]

[23:09] » All right, there's the amendment right

[23:10] there. It's pretty simple as far as code

[23:11] amendments go.

[23:13] Um

[23:15] Okay, we do have a public hearing uh

[23:17] associated with this agenda item as well

[23:18] because it is a code amendment. So,

[23:21] let's go ahead and move forward with

[23:22] that now. I'll open the public hearing

[23:24] on this agenda item at 7:24 and invite

[23:27] any comments if anyone would like to

[23:28] make any comments about this code

[23:30] amendment.

[23:33] Okay, if not, then we will close the

[23:34] public hearing at 7:24 and we can move

[23:37] into discussion.

[23:39] Commissioners, complying with state

[23:41] code, what do you think?

[23:43] >> Uh you know, my choice only question I

[23:45] have is is uh the paragraph below

[23:49] your red line,

[23:50] it says, "If a cash bond is paid, then

[23:53] the land- landscaping improvement shall

[23:55] be complete by the end of the following

[23:57] irrigation season."

[23:58] Um do we even have to have that in there

[24:00] if we can't take a cash bond in lieu of

[24:03] completion?

[24:05] If we're not going to make them complete

[24:07] or bond for it,

[24:09] do we have to have that requirement in

[24:10] there?

[24:12] >> I know like on engineering projects,

[24:14] there's some aspect that they can bond

[24:16] for, so I would want to double-check

[24:19] that with Megan or John.

[24:20] >> I was just curious if that was relevant

[24:21] or not or we're going to remove the the

[24:24] bond for that for the housing

[24:25] requirements.

[24:26] >> We uh

[24:27] we did send this out for review and um

[24:30] it it seemed like engineering was

[24:32] comfortable

[24:33] with that, but we can direct them

[24:34] specifically to that part.

[24:35] >> I don't have a problem with that. I just

[24:37] don't want it to be a

[24:38] have it be in there for no reason.

[24:40] >> Right, it's kind of confusing. Right.

[24:43] >> Yeah, good question.

[24:45] Any other questions about this one?

[24:49] Okay. Um we do need to make a

[24:52] recommendation to the city council.

[24:55] Would anyone like to make a motion?

[25:00] » I'll make a proposal that we recommend

[25:03] the adjustments as

[25:05] um outlined in this redline.

[25:08] >> Okay, we have a motion by Commissioner

[25:09] Christopher. Do we have a second?

[25:11] >> I'll second that.

[25:12] >> Second by Commissioner Hoffman. Any

[25:14] further discussion before we vote?

[25:17] Okay, let's vote. Uh Commissioner

[25:19] Johnson.

[25:19] >> Yes.

[25:20] >> Commissioner Wood. Yes. Commissioner

[25:21] Hoffman.

[25:22] >> Yes.

[25:22] >> Commissioner Christopher.

[25:23] >> Yes.

[25:23] >> Commissioner Russell.

[25:24] >> Yes.

[25:25] >> Okay, that is forwarded uh as is with a

[25:27] positive recommendation and it did

[25:28] unanimously.

[25:30] Okay.

[25:33] Thank you. Moving on to agenda item

[25:34] number three. This is

[25:36] a preliminary subdivision plan review

[25:40] um

[25:40] for the 130 South Church Street two-lot

[25:43] subdivision.

[25:55] » Subdivision, it's just north of like the

[25:58] AmSource commercial subdivision. Um it

[26:01] would be part of the R10 zone. It's

[26:03] approximately 9.124

[26:06] acres.

[26:07] Um

[26:09] There

[26:12] the main focus their the main focus is

[26:15] building a church which would be part of

[26:17] phase one and then there's a couple

[26:18] additional lots that would be phase two.

[26:20] That's future development um but they

[26:23] would need to meet the standards of the

[26:24] R10 zone. And then on April 14th, the

[26:29] DRC reviewed the preliminary plans and

[26:32] forwarded a favorable recommendation

[26:35] to the planning commission that with the

[26:37] condition that redlines be addressed.

[26:39] Um

[26:40] the redlines have been addressed. They

[26:43] meet the requirements of the R10 zone.

[26:45] They meet all engineering and public

[26:46] work requirements and the city standard

[26:48] specifications and drawings.

[26:50] Um

[26:51] and then

[26:52] this is the location.

[26:59] There's an overview, so with the

[27:01] preliminary plan, lot one would be the

[27:04] main focus in the first phase of their

[27:07] development.

[27:17] And then, I'm happy to pull up any other

[27:19] section of the plans if you have

[27:20] questions.

[27:22] >> Thanks.

[27:23] I have a question just looking at this

[27:25] map. So, we have

[27:27] a single large lot that's being divided

[27:29] into two lots, right? Lot one and the

[27:30] remaining.

[27:31] >> Correct.

[27:32] >> Um

[27:33] where that road um

[27:36] connecting to lot one bisects the other

[27:39] unallocated pieces, is there any issue

[27:41] with that?

[27:42] Um

[27:44] I mean, it it sort of de facto creates a

[27:46] separate lot on that top right corner.

[27:49] But, that wouldn't be necessarily

[27:50] included in the subdivision. Does that

[27:53] >> It will be

[27:54] >> I'm asking, and does it even is it even

[27:56] a concern?

[27:58] >> No, I mean, no I not necessarily cuz

[28:00] they still have to put in all the

[28:01] infrastructure for that like cul-de-sac,

[28:03] the road, and they do plan to develop

[28:06] those future phases. They just

[28:09] are working out some things, but they

[28:11] want to move forward with the church.

[28:13] >> Right. But, this is So, this would leave

[28:16] a single lot that's divided into two

[28:17] pieces.

[28:20] Right? Is that an issue?

[28:23] >> No.

[28:26] » Seems weird, but

[28:27] >> Yeah.

[28:28] >> if there's no, you know, issue with

[28:30] doing that with a single lot, then

[28:32] >> But, my understanding is when those lots

[28:33] develop, they come in for a phase.

[28:36] >> Yeah.

[28:36] >> Um plot for that. It'd be a final plot.

[28:38] >> I'm sure they would. I just wasn't sure

[28:40] if we could even record a lot that isn't

[28:42] contiguous. You know what I mean?

[28:43] >> Yeah.

[28:43] I see what he's saying. I mean,

[28:45] the same parcel will only be on the on

[28:47] the north and the south side of that

[28:48] cliff.

[28:49] >> Right.

[28:50] I mean, physically those are two

[28:51] separate parcels now, but they they

[28:53] haven't been subdivided yet.

[28:54] >> And they'll be listed under one parcel

[28:56] number.

[28:56] >> I just wasn't sure if that is something

[28:58] that can be done.

[29:02] » Yeah, um so we're Yeah, we're

[29:04] comfortable with the I mean, the what what they would do is just do a

[29:07] final plat when those get get developed

[29:09] and that's um

[29:10] they're they're going to have all the

[29:12] same infrastructure requirements and so

[29:14] there's nothing that would allow them

[29:15] just to go and like build houses on.

[29:16] They'd have to go through the platting

[29:18] process. What this does is provides the

[29:20] ability for lot one to move forward, so

[29:22] the church can submit building permits.

[29:26] >> It's kind of similar to like Santaquin

[29:28] Ridge Estates how it was broken up into

[29:30] different phases and things.

[29:33] >> Yeah, I don't have a problem with it.

[29:34] Like I said, it just seemed strange to

[29:35] be breaking up a single lot into

[29:37] multiple pieces without doing the

[29:39] subdivision yet.

[29:40] But

[29:43] Okay, thank you.

[29:44] >> One thing I had a question on is is that

[29:47] in the cul-de-sac is that the only

[29:48] entrance point to that parking lot?

[29:50] >> No, they have to have two points of

[29:52] access, so the other one would be from

[29:54] the 130 South.

[29:55] >> Okay.

[29:56] >> There's just some really I don't know if

[29:57] you've been over there, but there's some

[29:58] really steep grades up on 130 South up

[30:01] onto that.

[30:02] >> Right.

[30:02] >> So, yeah, it's going to be tough to

[30:04] access that.

[30:05] >> That was my my thought. It would

[30:07] preferably not be on Highland Drive.

[30:09] >> But I think it shows on their grading

[30:11] sheet as well. There's some pretty good grades there.

[30:15] >> You have to factor in when they

[30:16] eventually change the freeway and

[30:18] everything as well.

[30:19] >> Right.

[30:32] » Yeah, the other driveway approach will

[30:33] be right on that property line, looks

[30:35] like.

[30:38] Right there it is.

[30:41] Yep.

[30:41] >> Yeah, I see it now.

[30:42] >> Right.

[30:42] there.

[30:43] >> Yep, you can see that little note right

[30:45] there says there.

[30:49] Your driver installed a driver approach

[30:50] there.

[30:51] >> All right.

[31:01] Okay.

[31:02] >> You can see it on this one.

[31:09] » Is that final?

[31:15] » Yeah.

[31:15] >> Okay.

[31:16] >> So, I think it's still pretty steep

[31:17] there.

[31:18] >> It's still pretty steep, yeah, but

[31:19] that's something you have to look out

[31:20] when they do the development and if

[31:22] >> Right.

[31:26] Okay.

[31:27] What else do we need to talk about with

[31:28] regard to this one?

[31:36] Planning Commission is the land use

[31:37] authority on preliminary plan reviews,

[31:39] so we are

[31:41] being asked to approve or deny the

[31:43] request.

[31:49] » I make a motion that we approve this

[31:50] request.

[31:52] >> Okay, we have a motion to approve by

[31:54] Commissioner Christopher. Do we have a

[31:55] second?

[31:56] >> I'll second that.

[31:57] >> Seconded by Commissioner Johnson. Um

[32:00] Question before we move forward. The

[32:01] recommendation The recommended motion

[32:03] was to conditionally approve. Um what

[32:05] conditions did staff have in mind for

[32:06] that?

[32:09] » So, I think that was

[32:10] >> The recommended motion was to

[32:12] conditionally approve the preliminary

[32:14] plans, and so I was just curious what

[32:15] conditions you had in mind.

[32:19] » I think that was just left by the state

[32:22] because

[32:23] Uh

[32:24] DRC, they had the conditions that the

[32:27] red lines be addressed. So, sorry about

[32:29] that.

[32:30] Yeah.

[32:32] >> I didn't have any conditions in mind, so

[32:35] Okay. So, we have a motion and we have a

[32:37] second.

[32:38] Let's proceed with a vote. Commissioner

[32:40] Russell.

[32:41] >> Yes.

[32:41] >> Commissioner Christopher.

[32:42] >> Yes.

[32:42] >> Commissioner Hotman.

[32:43] >> Yes.

[32:44] >> Commissioner Wood. Yes. Commissioner

[32:45] Johnson.

[32:45] >> Yes.

[32:46] >> Okay, thank you. That preliminary plan

[32:48] is approved, and it is unanimous.

[32:54] All right, that brings us to agenda item

[32:57] number four. We need to approve the

[32:59] minutes from our last meeting, which was

[33:00] on May 12th, 2026.

[33:03] Any discussion on those minutes before

[33:05] we proceed?

[33:08] And if not, would anyone like to make a

[33:10] motion?

[33:13] >> I'll make the motion that we approve

[33:14] those minutes.

[33:15] >> Okay, thank you. We have a motion to

[33:16] approve the minutes by Commissioner

[33:17] Christopher. Do we have a second?

[33:22] » I'll second.

[33:24] >> You're good.

[33:26] >> Second by Commissioner Russell.

[33:27] >> Yep.

[33:27] >> Okay.

[33:29] All in favor of approving those minutes.

[33:31] >> Yes.

[33:32] >> Anyone opposed?

[33:34] Okay, the minutes from May 20th

[33:37] May 12th

[33:38] are approved, and it is unanimous.

[33:41] All right, thank you. That brings us to

[33:43] staff reports.

[33:48] » The next planning commission would

[33:50] potentially be some code amendments. Um

[33:54] Most of the other applic- applications

[33:56] we have are commercial and are only

[33:58] through the DRC.

[34:01] Do you have anything?

[34:03] >> Okay, sounds fun. We will look forward

[34:04] to it.

[34:05] >> Yeah.

[34:05] >> Thank you.

[34:06] Okay, um that brings us to the end, my

[34:08] friends. Shall we adjourn?

[34:11] And would anyone like to make a motion

[34:12] to adjourn?

[34:13] >> I'll so

Santaquin City Planning Commission Meeting - June 9, 2026

Transcript