[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