[8:50] Let's
[8:59] start.
[9:15] » Okay.
[9:17] >> No, my husband was
[9:40] Is it time to go? We got a minute.
[9:51] Sorry.
[10:14] » Are we ready? Everybody ready?
[10:15] >> Does everyone have their mics on?
[10:17] >> Can you guys all turn your mics on?
[10:21] >> Mic check.
[10:26] » Yo yo.
[10:28] >> All right. We like to welcome everybody
[10:29] to the planning commission meeting um
[10:31] for South Weaver City on Thursday, July
[10:33] 9th, 2026. Um starting at 6 pm. Um first
[10:37] thing we're going to start with is the
[10:39] pledge of allegiance led by Commissioner
[10:41] McFaten.
[10:45] I aliance to the flag of the United
[10:48] States of America and to the republic
[10:51] for which it stands. One nation under
[10:54] God, indivisible, with liberty and
[10:57] justice for all.
[11:01] >> Thank you for that.
[11:03] And then first thing with the meeting,
[11:05] I'm going to go ahead and just open up
[11:07] our public comment period. Um, and we
[11:09] ask that you please be respectful to the
[11:11] following guidelines. Um each individual
[11:13] can speak for anywhere um from one to
[11:15] three minutes uh or speak once for up to
[11:18] three minutes or less. Uh please do not
[11:20] make comments from the audience. And if
[11:22] you wouldn't mind stating your name and
[11:24] your city of residents and please direct
[11:27] comments to the entire commission
[11:28] knowing that we will not respond to any
[11:30] questions that are asked. Um the time is
[11:32] now yours for any public comments that
[11:35] you would like to make.
[11:41] You need jeopardy me?
[11:44] >> Hey, and seeing as there's no public
[11:46] comments, we're going to go ahead and
[11:47] close that section of the agenda and
[11:49] move straight on into the consent
[11:51] agenda. Um, we have the June 11th, 2026
[11:55] minutes. Um, are there any comments or
[11:57] remarks from the commission?
[12:01] >> No. Um, I had two and one of them was
[12:04] just part of our discussion was based on
[12:06] that handout that you gave us, um,
[12:09] Lance, that was never included in the
[12:11] packet and I didn't see that being added
[12:14] as an amendment to the packet. Is there
[12:17] a way just because a lot of our
[12:18] conversation was referencing the
[12:20] numbered items on that original list, I
[12:24] just would really like to see that added
[12:26] to this the meeting minutes as an agenda
[12:29] um, amendment. Is that okay? Perfect.
[12:32] And the only other thing is I know in
[12:34] the agenda it's referencing the road to
[12:36] Leighton and part of the conversation
[12:38] was trying to call it something else.
[12:40] Just trying not to
[12:42] >> north south access.
[12:43] >> North south actions southw connectivity
[12:46] inner city connectivity. I don't know
[12:48] what we need to call it. I just I don't
[12:50] like seeing road.
[12:52] Well,
[12:54] >> in the notes,
[12:55] >> just I guess it's I would just say
[12:59] the minute a reflection of what we
[13:01] talked about.
[13:02] >> True.
[13:02] >> And we talked about what
[13:03] >> renaming it.
[13:05] >> Okay.
[13:05] >> So I I mean I don't think we it's not
[13:08] editing it to what we want. You know
[13:10] what I'm
[13:10] >> as long as I guess that was clearly
[13:12] referenced that it's not a latent
[13:15] connection. It is a south Weieber north
[13:18] south but I also think it was east west
[13:21] was discussed as well.
[13:23] >> So that was it. Those were my only
[13:25] remarks. Otherwise I think everything
[13:27] else was fine
[13:32] » and nothing else.
[13:33] >> Nope.
[13:34] >> Okay. And then I ask for a motion on
[13:36] that agenda.
[13:37] >> I'll move to approve the consent agenda
[13:39] from June 11th 26. Minutes as presented.
[13:43] >> No things that I requested.
[13:45] >> You want both? Wait. item on that last
[13:46] one.
[13:46] >> The first one
[13:47] >> um with adding the amendment for the
[13:49] action items or the items for the
[13:52] general amendment general plan
[13:55] amendments
[13:56] >> doing it as an addendum
[13:58] >> as an addendum. Is
[13:59] >> that clear?
[14:02] >> I'll second that.
[14:03] >> Okay. All in favor?
[14:05] >> Yes.
[14:06] >> And yes.
[14:08] >> Okay. Um next item on the agenda is we
[14:11] have a cup for an external accessory
[14:14] dwelling unit. um which is E A DU um on
[14:18] 413 acres at 1974 East um 7775 South. Um
[14:25] property is currently zoned residential
[14:27] low and it does allow for an external
[14:29] accessory dwelling unit um per the land
[14:31] use matrix and the proposal is for one
[14:35] 1,62
[14:37] ft residential building um that will be
[14:39] used as an accessory dwelling unit. Um,
[14:42] and Lance, do you want to kind of talk
[14:43] about that one first?
[14:45] >> Yes. I I it's pretty straightforward.
[14:48] Um, we they have a site plan. They just
[14:50] want to add this unit in the back. The
[14:52] architecture matches. It meets the the
[14:54] lot meets the requirements coming
[14:56] through all those elements for the
[14:58] internal accessory dwelling unit and
[15:02] it it meets everything. Um, I do have a
[15:06] conditional approval that I'd like to
[15:08] request that they need to provide one
[15:10] more parking space that could either be
[15:13] to the side of the house or put the
[15:15] driveway in back.
[15:16] >> So,
[15:18] cannot be in the front setback of the
[15:21] structure. We can't we don't have can't
[15:24] count the front 25 ft as a part of the
[15:26] space. So, it has to be outside of that.
[15:31] You answered my one question.
[15:34] >> Is one more parking space sufficient if
[15:36] it's a two bed?
[15:39] >> That's what's required by your required
[15:42] >> single family homes are required to have
[15:43] two.
[15:44] >> Those would be the two in the garage
[15:46] >> and then the two
[15:47] >> any accessory dwelling unit requires
[15:49] additional.
[15:51] >> The only other thing that would be a um
[15:55] when they get the permit and stuff is
[15:57] that our code says that has to be cement
[15:59] or asphalt. on the surface.
[16:02] >> The driveway.
[16:04] >> Yeah.
[16:06] Yep. Not like a dirt road or gravel or
[16:09] anything,
[16:11] >> but the walkway to the house.
[16:14] >> I didn't see anything on that, but
[16:15] specifically on the Just checking.
[16:18] >> Does it say what the driveway has to be?
[16:21] >> It says hard surface, cement or asphalt.
[16:23] >> Cement or asphalt. Okay.
[16:31] There wasn't an existing building yet.
[16:33] It's just a
[16:37] » big backyard.
[16:38] >> A very big backyard.
[16:42] Looking at the surrounding area, it
[16:44] looks like some of the neighbors have
[16:46] some pretty large sheds that are about
[16:49] the same approximate size. Um, I like
[16:53] that this one is actually set more
[16:55] interior to the yard. So, at least it's
[16:57] not right directly abuing um the
[16:59] property line. So, there gives some of
[17:00] that easement space. So, I appreciate
[17:03] that.
[17:04] >> Can I clarify something just at point of
[17:06] education information you call? Yeah.
[17:09] >> Anyway, uh we South Weaver City Code and
[17:13] I point this out because it's quite low.
[17:16] We only a detached structure can be one
[17:18] foot from the property line. Should they
[17:20] stay out of any easements that they
[17:22] would incur on most lots? Yes, they
[17:24] should.
[17:25] >> We require one foot. So, that's what
[17:27] you're seeing when you see those
[17:29] >> is that's what our code allows. It's
[17:32] very unique.
[17:33] >> I think me and my neighbor actually
[17:35] share the same foot between our two
[17:37] sheds.
[17:40] Yeah. Right. Six inches. Six inches.
[17:43] That's how it goes.
[17:45] And it's been that way for 30 years. So,
[17:47] I don't think it's changing.
[17:50] Um, is the applicant here? No.
[17:56] >> Did they know the meeting was happening
[17:57] tonight?
[17:58] >> They sure did.
[18:01] >> Isn't that interesting?
[18:04] >> So, at this point, uh, are we into the
[18:07] discussion phase?
[18:08] >> Yes.
[18:10] >> Ask your questions. Bring your comments.
[18:12] >> I I really don't have much.
[18:14] >> Okay. I I mean this this feels like an
[18:17] appropriate uh uh use of this code uh
[18:22] for an AEDU. Um
[18:26] and I I I'm very grateful for the city
[18:29] staff and um digesting
[18:32] the requirements and and compliance to
[18:35] it. Um, I guess the only thing that um
[18:40] I I I just want clarification on is does
[18:45] this extra parking stall uh need to be
[18:50] uh highlighted and mentioned in this
[18:53] approval or is that in a following step
[18:57] because this is just a conditional use
[18:59] permit for the building.
[19:00] >> Correct.
[19:01] um
[19:05] you add I guess the the practice in Utah
[19:08] is that you would add the condition uh
[19:11] just so it doesn't get missed.
[19:12] >> Okay.
[19:13] >> Uh but technically it's a code
[19:15] requirement and we wouldn't issue a
[19:17] building permit for this without them
[19:20] showing a new site plan that says this
[19:21] is where
[19:23] >> where they're designating the parking
[19:24] space to actually go in. But it's it's
[19:27] kind of an abundance of communication
[19:29] and letting everybody know.
[19:31] >> Yeah, because it's not it's not it's not
[19:34] on the current site. The current site
[19:36] plan has to change.
[19:37] >> It does say on the agenda yet though,
[19:39] but they did mention it or whoever
[19:43] mention
[19:44] >> they need to add one and it's not on the
[19:46] current site plan. So
[19:49] assume that city council will see that.
[19:52] >> You guys are the final approved ones.
[19:54] >> Yeah, this is us. It doesn't go to city
[19:56] council.
[19:56] >> Okay.
[19:57] >> Um
[19:58] >> but I think for public, you know,
[20:00] >> awareness
[20:00] >> vision. Yeah. To be able to see that it
[20:03] was on there. So,
[20:05] >> can you continue a conditional use
[20:06] permit till those changes are made and
[20:08] we can review it or no?
[20:09] >> Well, I mean you you could
[20:11] >> it's a procedural. That's what I'm
[20:12] asking for.
[20:13] >> But it's that's a very minor thing I
[20:15] don't
[20:15] >> to do.
[20:16] >> Yeah. To make them wait another month so
[20:18] they can start the structure.
[20:19] >> Sure.
[20:20] >> I I think we could accomplish the same
[20:22] thing today. Just I think we can
[20:25] accomplish the same thing today by just
[20:27] stipulating this is approval pending
[20:31] conditions.
[20:31] >> Yeah. These conditions.
[20:33] >> I have a question and you've obviously
[20:34] met with the applicant and the owner and
[20:36] everything. Have they specified why
[20:39] they're wanting this external accessory
[20:41] dwelling unit? Do you know?
[20:43] >> I don't know.
[20:43] >> Yeah, we'll send the code.
[20:45] >> My my question is it for extended family
[20:47] or is it to be used as a rental is what
[20:49] I'm trying to understand.
[20:52] >> Um
[20:58] might be on their narrative. I don't
[20:59] think they've said
[21:02] >> and part of the reason and you just
[21:04] pointed that out and I didn't realize
[21:05] it. The project name
[21:08] is, and I apologize if I butcher this,
[21:12] Quarante South, we retire and service
[21:14] center.
[21:15] >> That's a staff report typo.
[21:18] >> Okay,
[21:18] >> I throw one of those in every time
[21:20] >> just to see if we're reading it.
[21:22] Well, I had no idea that was a typo. I
[21:24] just thought it was a some sort of
[21:26] >> blue.
[21:27] >> Yeah. Some sort of entity
[21:32] tire and service back there.
[21:34] >> What's What's supposed to be there?
[21:36] >> Yeah.
[21:37] >> Okay.
[21:38] >> So, it is not a tire and service.
[21:40] >> Thank you for the record. I appreciate
[21:42] that.
[21:42] >> Okay.
[21:42] >> Please get that.
[21:44] >> Yeah.
[21:45] >> Sorry.
[21:46] >> Okay.
[21:49] But does mind bringing that up like in
[21:50] ter if it's family member that this is
[21:52] intended for or somebody that's going to
[21:54] be a more long-term type living
[21:58] >> residence versus rentals where you might
[22:00] have turnover. You might have I don't
[22:03] know.
[22:04] >> Is that something we need to consider?
[22:06] >> No,
[22:06] >> I don't think it's something you can
[22:08] consider. It's not shouldn't be looking
[22:10] at that.
[22:11] >> That's not even on our perview.
[22:13] It's not to
[22:15] >> strike all that from the conversation.
[22:16] >> We do get into that into a lot of
[22:18] conversations that go into the well,
[22:20] we're just curious. We'd like to know
[22:21] what's going on.
[22:23] >> But really, we shouldn't even we're not
[22:25] basing any decisions on
[22:26] >> Okay.
[22:27] >> who's living there or anything like
[22:28] that.
[22:29] >> This is it fast.
[22:31] >> Use permit for the land use.
[22:33] >> All
[22:35] that's right.
[22:36] >> All right. Well, with that, any other
[22:37] questions, comments, input?
[22:40] >> No. And I would change on this project
[22:41] information. It says general plan use
[22:44] classification is commercial highway. I
[22:46] maybe change that to I don't think
[22:47] that's correct.
[22:48] >> Yeah, that stays residential low.
[22:50] Correct.
[22:50] >> Correct.
[22:50] Yeah.
[22:52] >> So, does anybody want to
[22:55] take this one on?
[22:58] >> I will.
[23:00] >> It's not going to council. You're either
[23:02] approving, continuing, or denying.
[23:05] >> I move to
[23:06] >> Yeah. I move to recommend to the city
[23:08] council. No.
[23:10] >> So that's that's wrong. Yeah.
[23:11] >> I move
[23:12] >> just recommend to approve
[23:13] >> to approve
[23:15] >> the conditional use permit for an ex
[23:18] external accessory dwelling unit on a
[23:21] 0.413 acre property located at 1974 East
[23:26] 770 uh 7775 South. The property is zoned
[23:32] RL residential low and external
[23:35] accessory dwelling units are permitted
[23:37] through the conditional use permit
[23:39] process under the city's land use
[23:41] matrix. This proposal consists of
[23:43] constructing a 1,62 ft accessory
[23:47] dwelling unit. Um,
[23:51] and I do this with the condition that a
[23:55] hard surface parking uh
[23:59] >> driveway hard surface driveway is is
[24:01] added
[24:03] >> and the one more parking space.
[24:04] >> That's right.
[24:05] >> Well,
[24:06] >> that's the condition
[24:07] >> for one more parking space.
[24:16] » Do we like that verbiage? Michelle, do
[24:18] you want to maybe read that back just so
[24:19] we can all hear it?
[24:21] >> The last part.
[24:23] >> I I um with the condition that a hard
[24:26] service cement or asphalt parking space
[24:28] be installed to the side or rear of the
[24:30] primary building.
[24:33] >> Nailed it.
[24:35] >> Okay. And who seconded that?
[24:37] >> Is anyone seconding?
[24:38] >> I second it.
[24:41] >> And then roll call vote starting with
[24:42] Commissioner McFaden.
[24:43] >> Yes.
[24:45] >> And I'm a yes.
[24:47] even though they're not here.
[24:54] Um, okay. So, moving on. Do you need
[24:57] time to write anything? You good,
[24:59] Michelle? Okay. Um, discussion items.
[25:02] Looks like we've got some general plan
[25:04] discussion happening tonight. So, I will
[25:06] turn that over to Lance.
[25:09] So, I think we're continuing on and um
[25:14] we had the work session uh the joint
[25:17] work session
[25:18] and we want to look at a few amendments.
[25:20] We talked and got a little more in depth
[25:22] on some of these. I've tried to
[25:23] summarize them here um and kind of cut
[25:26] down to the nitty-gritty.
[25:28] Here's what I think I'm hearing from you
[25:30] all and make sure we get it all.
[25:32] >> Could we scroll these screens up to the bullet points?
[25:39] Are these in the packet?
[25:40] >> Yeah. Oh, no. What's that? Okay. So, so
[25:44] we've got those issues and then uh I had
[25:46] a phone call with Marty and brought up
[25:48] that maybe everybody doesn't understand
[25:51] and I think it's a very common thing
[25:54] that people
[25:58] the process for a general plan amendment
[26:00] it is not a it's an open process. It's
[26:02] very u
[26:06] it's meant to be an open discussion and
[26:09] get lots of public input. Um and I know
[26:12] that based on other people have said
[26:16] Gary's leaving and things like that that
[26:18] the last time that the city did his
[26:20] general plan amendment or general plan
[26:23] it was kind of contentious and and harsh
[26:26] and we don't need to be that way. We
[26:29] want to and I don't think anybody really
[26:30] is. I just think we've got
[26:33] but um so this is just meant to be a
[26:36] general overview of the process so that
[26:39] we can um
[26:41] you know everybody can see that hey
[26:43] we're going to walk through this I'll
[26:44] get a I'll get a chance to look at it
[26:46] here here and here and um and so that's
[26:49] this is very high level it's not in
[26:51] depth but um for amendments this is
[26:54] would be good if we were I actually had
[26:56] a scope written up for a whole general
[26:58] plan amendment but um obviously ly we're
[27:01] just doing amendments, so I think we can
[27:02] shorten it and just get to these. Um, so
[27:06] we had the agend the work session to get
[27:07] the direction. You guys had a meeting
[27:09] last month. You'll have a meeting this
[27:10] month to further refine those
[27:12] amendments. My hope is tonight that we
[27:15] pick a couple for me to work on, come
[27:18] back with a draft, and you guys can pick
[27:20] it apart at the next meeting,
[27:23] and then make a recommendation to go
[27:25] forward. Um, I threw in an open house
[27:29] for the community to look at draft
[27:31] amendments. That open house might be um
[27:34] a bit much for an amendment, but
[27:37] depending on what the amendment is, a
[27:40] north south road down the road um
[27:45] would be, you know, maybe we do want to
[27:47] have an open house for that amendment.
[27:49] And that's the opportunity there would
[27:51] be to give people more chance.
[27:54] a public hearing or a public meeting.
[27:56] Very hard to have a good dialogue and
[27:58] discuss things. And so it would just be
[28:01] here's the information, staff's here, uh
[28:04] planning commissioners are here. We
[28:06] let's talk about it. Let's answer
[28:08] everybody's questions. U and at least
[28:12] most of the uh general plan amendments
[28:14] processes that I've worked on over the
[28:16] years. We also have written comments. So
[28:19] there's there's however you want to
[28:21] communicate to us, you can. And then the
[28:24] outcome of that would be here's staff
[28:27] would write up a summary of here's what
[28:28] we heard. Here were the top 10 concerns.
[28:31] We also heard these other things and and
[28:33] it's reflected back and and at least
[28:35] explain. Now not everybody's going to
[28:37] agree, of course, but it's an open
[28:39] process and it's a back and forth so you
[28:41] at least understand why
[28:43] the options are being looked at the way
[28:45] they are. you know,
[28:48] who knows wherever the issue is. Maybe
[28:50] it didn't move forward, but at least
[28:51] you'd have that discussion. And so I and
[28:53] I think that that's a good step that we
[28:55] need to have in this depending on the
[28:57] amendment that we do. And then it would
[28:59] just go to a public hearing which is
[29:02] advertised. It's on the web.
[29:04] >> I'll comment again
[29:05] >> and and so that would be a public
[29:07] hearing to amend the general plan.
[29:10] Um, you guys of course will deliberate
[29:12] that and then make a recommendation to
[29:14] the city council who makes the final
[29:16] determination. Um, I just I just drafted
[29:20] this really quick to kind of give
[29:21] everybody an idea of the process. Lots
[29:23] of opportunity. Um, does that kind of
[29:26] hit with what we were talking about?
[29:28] >> Yeah. Yeah, absolutely. Um,
[29:32] yeah, spot on.
[29:34] >> Okay, good. for the open house. Do we
[29:37] have kind of I know obviously right now
[29:38] we're still in like the planning
[29:40] commission discussion and development of
[29:41] the draft amendments. Do we have kind of
[29:44] an idea of when we're thinking that
[29:46] timing like month is it really just
[29:49] dependent upon how
[29:50] >> depend how we go and
[29:53] >> we're not under any time frame pressure
[29:56] to like if this isn't done by this date
[29:58] then we're in trouble with anybody like
[30:00] statewise the
[30:01] >> current the current general plan meets
[30:03] state code. Okay,
[30:05] >> double check. I'm double checking that
[30:07] checklist through
[30:10] >> confident, but we the size the city we
[30:12] are, the things that we're doing. We did
[30:14] do the updates for moderate income
[30:16] housing and things like that. So,
[30:19] hopefully we've we've hit all those
[30:21] things. I believe we have, but we'll
[30:23] double check go through it, make sure um
[30:27] in case we need to do it. Uh
[30:30] so, and then we have all these these
[30:33] items. Let me just at a higher level um
[30:37] grant um I guess staff is going to look
[30:40] at um just the maps in general and do a
[30:46] general update on them and then bring
[30:48] those back to you guys and
[30:51] so you can look at it say yeah that's
[30:53] you know are is everything we want to
[30:55] represent here on here and we have the
[30:58] five general plan maps the projected
[31:00] land use transportation active
[31:02] transportation sensitive lands
[31:06] annexation. So,
[31:09] thank you. So, I think that's
[31:13] I think staff can take a stab at that
[31:15] first. If Well, I I'll say it this way.
[31:17] Are you okay if staff takes a a shot at
[31:20] that, throws it in there, does what we
[31:23] think based on just kind of update those
[31:24] things. It's not going to be big policy
[31:26] shifts or changes. It's going to be just
[31:28] adding more detail and refining it and
[31:31] then bringing it back to you guys.
[31:33] >> I don't have any problem with that. Do
[31:34] >> That's I'm in favor of that.
[31:37] >> Especially because I think you're going
[31:38] to have the most accurate information in
[31:40] terms of getting those maps updated with
[31:42] Brandon to be reflective of what's
[31:44] happened in the last five years since
[31:46] we've done one of these updates. So
[31:48] yeah, I'm go forth and do
[31:52] Brandon's like, "Yay!"
[32:00] » Hopefully it should go pretty easy.
[32:05] » Yes.
[32:07] >> Brian, what should
[32:10] my my plan is to just show side by side
[32:12] like this is what it was. This is what
[32:14] it is now. um kind of zoomed in areas,
[32:18] any area, anything that I perceive to be
[32:22] controversial kind of thing, then I
[32:24] would just say
[32:26] this is up to you to
[32:27] >> what would you like to see here? And I
[32:29] actually do I appreciate that. I think
[32:31] it's going to be good to show this is
[32:32] what we had. This is what the new map is
[32:35] kind of showing. And also, you now get
[32:39] to decide and weigh in, give us your
[32:41] opinion. especially for those open
[32:42] houses. I know one of the things I
[32:44] remembered from the last time we went
[32:46] through this when it really was a big
[32:47] process was that openhouse meeting where
[32:49] we had the maps and you could literally
[32:52] go and you could talk to city council
[32:54] members, you could talk to you, you
[32:56] could talk to the planning commission
[32:57] and you could just engage in a
[32:59] conversation and I felt like that was
[33:01] very helpful because a lot of people
[33:03] their questions were just misinformation
[33:06] and not fully understanding things and
[33:08] by having that dialogue it cleared up so
[33:10] much of what they were maybe coming in
[33:12] frustrated it to be like, "Oh, that's actually not so bad." Like, you
[33:16] actually have addressed my concern. So,
[33:18] I I'm good with that.
[33:19] >> 100%.
[33:21] Absolutely.
[33:23] >> A followup question. Sometimes
[33:27] it's not very helpful
[33:32] if there's just a well, we need to do
[33:34] something here. What do you want to do?
[33:36] Mhm.
[33:38] >> Um,
[33:39] I'm okay as long as you tell me to do
[33:42] this
[33:43] >> to list maybe a couple of different
[33:46] options of things that may be something
[33:49] to entertain.
[33:50] >> Brilliant.
[33:51] >> So that then you that would foster like
[33:54] I like this, I don't like that. Or you
[33:55] can say I don't like either of them.
[33:56] That's fine.
[33:57] >> I actually like that better just because
[33:59] you can't give them a blank space
[34:00] because they're not going to know what
[34:01] code permits. They're not going to know
[34:03] what maintenance. they're not going to
[34:04] know and understand to that level that
[34:07] you do. So, if you give them an option
[34:09] and say, "Here's some things that we
[34:10] know are permitted that we know we're
[34:12] not going to get in trouble with anybody
[34:14] for potentially proposing." So, I think
[34:18] a great idea.
[34:19] >> I just don't want to be perceived that
[34:20] I'm driving any kind of agenda.
[34:24] >> There's no agenda. There's you just
[34:26] giving options and everybody can come up
[34:29] and say, "I hate every single one of
[34:30] them. Give us something else. What would
[34:32] you like to see here?" So, I I think
[34:34] that could be the nothing or none of the
[34:37] above can be the other option. I don't
[34:39] like any of those. None of the above.
[34:40] >> Okay.
[34:42] >> All right. We'll work on it.
[34:43] >> Yeah. We could have somebody comes in
[34:45] and says, "All undeveloped space needs
[34:47] to be a public park." And you're like,
[34:50] "Okay, you're uh
[34:52] >> Yeah, that's me.
[34:54] your taxes are going to go up
[34:56] >> and you're going to pay the watering
[34:57] bill to keep it green and usable and not
[35:00] up and you know fire space
[35:01] >> and uh it's like well you know this is
[35:03] the and I guess I make that point to
[35:06] maybe
[35:09] uh possibly add
[35:12] uh
[35:14] cost and benefits to each of those
[35:16] options
[35:17] so it makes sense to people because I
[35:20] mean like like I said like my kids would
[35:22] eat cotton candy for dinner every night.
[35:25] >> Sure.
[35:26] >> If you gave him the choice. The choice.
[35:29] >> Um, that's a really good point, but we
[35:32] might be a little preliminary.
[35:34] >> Am I asking too much right now? Well, it
[35:37] would be best to probably hone in on
[35:40] what the the critical issues are and
[35:42] then then you can decide,
[35:45] well, do we really I mean, is this is
[35:48] this u
[35:50] enough of an issue that we need to
[35:52] really do a deeper dive into and analyze
[35:55] what we should do here?
[35:56] >> Yeah. um versus me
[36:01] trying to to maybe guess what those
[36:03] things would be when it may not be it
[36:05] may not be an issue for anyone.
[36:08] >> If if if I if I could maybe simplify the
[36:12] I guess where we're at like way up here
[36:14] and kind of bring it down like
[36:16] essentially it's like do we want to
[36:18] bring business into the into the uh city
[36:20] or not? Like that's really the the crux
[36:24] of all of the general plan appendages.
[36:28] >> Or do we just want to be the bedroom
[36:30] community that we are knowing that in
[36:31] order to pay for and maintain our city,
[36:36] it's going to be taxes and it's going to
[36:38] be an increase. And I think that's where
[36:40] your pros and your cons comes in. And I
[36:42] obviously I'm not trying to get into one
[36:44] specific area and like dial in on that
[36:46] conversation, but in terms of your
[36:48] options, we've got a lot of land. I'm
[36:50] not going to reference it, but what
[36:52] would be viable here? What is an option
[36:54] that would bring in tax benefits,
[36:57] hotels, liquor stores, like the things
[36:59] that actually are going to generate
[37:02] revenue that really means something to
[37:04] the city.
[37:05] >> Yeah. And I think those kinds of
[37:06] discussions are probably more for you
[37:09] guys to to talk through. All I'm going
[37:11] to bring
[37:12] >> like on let's say for the for example on
[37:15] the uh projected land use map. Um I
[37:18] don't like on that one in particular.
[37:20] >> Yeah.
[37:21] >> I don't we just would update that.
[37:23] There's there's nothing
[37:26] like we there's not there's no areas
[37:28] where what's currently there needs to
[37:30] have some additional decisions made. It
[37:32] just is more of a do you want to change
[37:35] any of this kind of
[37:36] >> a prevent something. We know we don't
[37:39] want this. So
[37:41] >> right. But the you you guys have to
[37:43] drive where you feel like those issues
[37:45] are.
[37:46] >> Okay. Well, I'm thinking
[37:48] >> a lot of what I may be talking about is
[37:50] more like transportation because a um
[37:54] alignment of
[37:56] >> a particular thing and how things
[37:57] connect. Um, of course, this is the
[38:00] general plan. So, it's not like it goes
[38:01] exactly there, but you you are showing
[38:04] that we want this to connect to here.
[38:07] >> Where does this make sense and where
[38:09] does this provide the most benefit for
[38:11] again our citizens to get through and
[38:13] navigate our city?
[38:15] >> Right? So that's where um I I have
[38:20] probably some suggestions of some things
[38:22] that you can just look at and say,
[38:24] "Yeah, we like it or we don't." And then
[38:26] >> perfect.
[38:26] >> Um but it it probably will be mostly the
[38:30] transportation map because I think all the others are things. It's like,
[38:35] well, nothing's really broken unless you
[38:38] think broken and you want to fix some
[38:40] areas, you know, like on the um
[38:45] sensitive lands map.
[38:47] Are do you want to show other things on
[38:49] there or do you like it being a little
[38:52] more generic
[38:53] >> and allowing for, you know, whatever
[38:56] studies are determined to be necessary
[38:59] in that specific area rather than
[39:01] dialing it into a specific one. But
[39:03] those are like kind of a
[39:08] policy or you know how do how do you
[39:09] want to see it
[39:11] >> more
[39:12] >> kinds of discussions where I'm I I don't
[39:16] what what we currently have in my
[39:18] opinion is already really good. So I'm
[39:21] not going to make any suggestions there.
[39:23] >> Yeah. Which is fair.
[39:25] >> Yeah.
[39:25] >> And I think you're going to know where
[39:26] the suggestions are going to be
[39:28] beneficial and where they're not. So
[39:31] >> Right. So things that that just don't
[39:33] change,
[39:34] I'm not showing anything, right? If just
[39:38] if partial information updates, I'm not
[39:40] going to show that because that that's
[39:43] just it's already that way. Mhm.
[39:45] >> I'm only going to show things that are
[39:47] like potential changes to what's already
[39:52] on the current plan because something
[39:54] has happened,
[39:56] >> you know,
[39:57] >> like all of the developments that have
[39:59] been approved that have had res on now
[40:01] here, right,
[40:02] >> with this current zoning. I think that's
[40:05] helpful.
[40:06] >> Yes. So, if that all makes sense, that's
[40:08] that would be what
[40:10] >> we'll we'll work on.
[40:12] >> I approve that. you guys.
[40:14] >> Okay. Thank you.
[40:16] >> Yeah. Thank you.
[40:18] Brandon.
[40:22] >> Hey, Lance, anything else on this you
[40:23] want to talk about?
[40:25] >> Switch culture one by one or what do you
[40:26] want to do?
[40:27] >> That's what I recommend. Let's just
[40:30] >> kind of walk down this list
[40:34] down one or two for next meeting
[40:38] >> draft.
[40:40] >> Yeah. Like for example for one I think
[40:42] for sure I would like the clouds you
[40:45] know
[40:47] >> I think that's number
[40:48] >> that's number one
[40:50] >> that's what
[40:51] >> that's say perfect yeah that that's an
[40:52] easy one I think that's yes we want to
[40:54] just do a comparison here it was a cloud
[40:55] and then now here it's a residential
[40:58] moderate
[40:58] >> it's this zone yeah
[40:59] >> is what we're recommending
[41:02] >> is the uh sorry real quick is the 2020
[41:05] annexation map is that the most current
[41:08] >> yeah
[41:10] thanks
[41:13] We good with one?
[41:14] >> I'm good.
[41:15] >> Does that make sense?
[41:17] >> Yeah. I say annexation. The southbench
[41:19] evergreen barlo properties does South
[41:21] Weaver want to expand? What land uses
[41:23] and controls would the city need to put
[41:25] in place? Um do we need studies in terms
[41:28] of city utility cost viability and land
[41:30] uses?
[41:31] >> So my question on that more is one you
[41:35] know what is the benefit to us to get
[41:37] that? Is there anyone?
[41:39] But on the flip side, is it benefit us
[41:41] to get it before Leighton does like for
[41:45] the north south road or you know like I
[41:47] don't know if we want to control that or
[41:49] not, but what could we ever do anything
[41:52] with it? So that's just like this. I
[41:54] don't know if you know.
[41:55] >> So um I I have some comments about that.
[41:58] So um
[42:03] just broaching the subject uh a little
[42:06] not prematurely but but kind of diving
[42:08] into three a little bit. The road you
[42:10] know some of the options of this
[42:13] potential access north south access is
[42:17] um to just put in a a number one a a
[42:21] regular road that has free access or
[42:24] possibly a toll road. Now um a toll road
[42:27] cannot be managed by a city without the
[42:31] express permission and authority from UD
[42:34] do
[42:36] >> and in the example of Adam's uh toll
[42:39] road uh they have they are operate under
[42:43] the opaces of the UD do that the UDOT
[42:45] has given them permission to do that um
[42:48] but a private company could also manage
[42:51] a road and so tying that into this
[42:55] conversation about um the annexation of
[42:58] that property. Um a a viable uh access
[43:02] point that does not, you know, disturb,
[43:05] you know, huge uh components of of
[43:08] residential area would potentially go
[43:11] through that area. and and and and that if we do annex it, that could open
[43:16] the door to potentially um you know
[43:19] finding some sort of cross cross access
[43:21] agreement that allows for them to um
[43:25] facilitate a road or toll road in in
[43:27] either case. Um so so yes, the answer is
[43:31] yes. Um there there is there is some
[43:33] benefits there. Now granted, I mean
[43:35] annexation is a costly endeavor and um
[43:39] what are the cost benefits to that? Um,
[43:42] I guess a follow-up question to the
[43:44] staff is is there is is there bandwidth
[43:49] with the city staff to do some market
[43:52] research to find out um kind of um
[43:56] possible pros and cons of that
[43:58] annexation process.
[44:01] >> Yeah. So after I've reached out to the
[44:02] Davis County Economic Development and
[44:04] the Northern Utah Economic
[44:07] Development Association, NEA, whatever
[44:10] it is, and we haven't got a meeting set
[44:13] yet, but they're working on a date. Uh
[44:16] they're I mean they're experts in the
[44:17] field. They know the market. They know
[44:19] the demands. And so we're going to have
[44:21] exactly that conversation, try and get
[44:24] the experts opinions on what can South
[44:27] Beaver do to to do that generation.
[44:30] What's the viability of the annexation
[44:32] area? What's the pros and cons to to
[44:34] doing exactly that? So,
[44:35] >> have there been conversations with the
[44:37] Evergreen Barlo properties to see if
[44:39] they even have any interest in being
[44:40] annexed?
[44:41] >> They do have an interest. They're
[44:42] >> they do
[44:44] >> probably going to submit something at
[44:46] some point. Of course, they said that a
[44:48] year ago, too. So,
[44:50] but it it's it is it's you know, I
[44:54] talked about a SWAT analysis. that's a
[44:56] threat or an opportunity hanging out
[44:58] there for us
[44:59] >> depending upon
[44:59] >> depending on where what we want to do
[45:02] >> and you know cost the benefits the pros
[45:04] cons
[45:05] >> at least we control it and we get you
[45:08] know get something out of it maybe we
[45:10] don't and they have to connect otherwise
[45:13] >> well and I want to be really careful
[45:15] about not having the annexation
[45:17] conversation also become the the the
[45:22] transportation connection because I kind
[45:24] of feel like that always tends to focus
[45:27] on one area that we already have so much
[45:30] information and data and reports on that
[45:31] it's not viable but are there maybe
[45:34] other opportunities and connection
[45:36] points that would still make it viable
[45:38] and I guess that's kind of part of on
[45:40] number three what I would like to
[45:42] explore is instead of focusing where
[45:45] previous discussions have been are there
[45:48] other areas less steep less polluted
[45:51] less controversial less established
[45:54] neighborhoods
[45:55] that could become a viable connection to
[45:58] other cities, surrounding cities. I
[46:00] won't even just say Leon, I'll say
[46:02] surrounding cities. So,
[46:06] » yeah, I think that when you reach out to
[46:08] those people, those will be the key on
[46:10] this. They're the experts to understand
[46:12] all that
[46:13] >> and that's what
[46:16] >> Davis County Economic Development and
[46:18] Northern Utah Economic Alliance.
[46:20] >> Okay,
[46:22] >> that will be key. It's going to be an
[46:24] important one.
[46:25] >> Thanks.
[46:31] » Okay. Any other conversations about
[46:33] annexation? We like that one as
[46:36] >> Yeah. more. Yeah.
[46:38] >> I think that one will be important
[46:39] though for this general plan
[46:41] >> in my eyes.
[46:42] >> Yeah, that data that's good. like I
[46:45] think that the city
[46:48] would expect us to to be um reviewing
[46:53] those points of data to make the
[46:55] decision, not just Vibes.
[46:57] >> Um and so I I'm I'm excited about that.
[47:00] >> Perfect.
[47:02] >> All right. Number three, we kind of
[47:03] talked about it a little bit. Is there
[47:04] anything I think in terms of the review
[47:06] update the transportation maps um you
[47:09] know staff review present Brennan's
[47:10] going to do that the S-curve 475 um
[47:13] obviously I think the only thing I would
[47:16] add to that is just making sure that any
[47:18] roads in approved developments that have
[47:22] also been approved um are represented on
[47:25] the maps just because there's new
[47:27] connection points. So that's my only ad.
[47:32] >> We'll see.
[47:33] >> Yeah.
[47:35] Oh, and can Yeah. Just change that
[47:38] B to just be intercity connections. What
[47:42] do we feel about that?
[47:43] >> That's good.
[47:44] >> Yeah. North south.
[47:44] >> North south connections.
[47:47] >> Transportation connections. Like just
[47:50] >> access. Yeah.
[47:51] >> I know people see that and they see
[47:52] that.
[47:53] >> Solidify it.
[47:54] >> What do we want?
[47:55] to call it? Let's name
[47:56] it right now.
[47:58] North south connections
[48:00] >> or or do you want to go more general
[48:03] like you said transportation
[48:04] >> transportation connections I like
[48:06] transportation connection
[48:07] >> sends a message of it's all open
[48:10] >> it's all open anywhere any kind of
[48:12] helping you navigate the city
[48:14] transportation connections
[48:16] >> that's a good general term
[48:18] >> all in favor say yes
[48:19] >> yes it is
[48:20] >> that was an unofficial okay um can you
[48:23] scroll so we can see the next little
[48:26] topics
[48:26] >> my screen doesn't charge.
[48:28] >> Well, you're not in charge.
[48:32] >> So, right on the um
[48:34] >> right on the cusp there is Central Park
[48:36] future downtown
[48:38] um the downtown core area that we
[48:40] discussed uh by the fire station doing a
[48:43] master plan for that. Um
[48:47] I mean we kind of said that we like the
[48:48] idea of it. I think um
[48:51] >> is it is it even possible at this point?
[48:54] because I know the land is getting kind
[48:55] of bought up all around there. Like is
[48:58] it even an option? I guess we're going
[48:59] to look at higher level without tearing
[49:01] down houses and going crazy.
[49:03] >> Well, I would like to know what the area
[49:05] is because it says
[49:07] >> Central Park and then you know future
[49:10] downtown and it says what is the vision
[49:12] for the area?
[49:14] >> What area are we talking about? I would
[49:16] like that maybe
[49:18] defined um because then I think you can
[49:21] kind of go into what are the needs that
[49:22] can be met. What are the options? How do
[49:24] we master plan? What do we really want
[49:26] that area to look like if we actually
[49:29] know what section of the city we're
[49:32] actually talking about for this item?
[49:35] >> Are you wanting Who do you want to
[49:37] clarify that? Because I feel like
[49:41] u based on discussions I've been in,
[49:44] it's basically the area between 1250
[49:46] East, 1375 East, Lester Drive to South
[49:50] Weaver Drive.
[49:51] >> I think you just clarified it.
[49:53] Yeah, that whole block area. That
[49:55] doesn't mean you would do like that
[49:57] whole block. It just means that's the
[49:59] target.
[49:59] >> This is the target area that we're kind
[50:01] of considering.
[50:03] >> It's Central Park, the fire station
[50:05] area.
[50:06] >> Perfect.
[50:06] >> Well, and essentially um how that I mean
[50:09] how I see that tying into this general
[50:11] plan discussion
[50:12] >> Yeah. is that we can recommend saying
[50:17] this area.
[50:19] We're going to change the zoning of this
[50:21] area to be a central business district
[50:25] area central business district area
[50:28] being defined such as with these these
[50:31] provisions. Um so that when those people
[50:36] with those pieces of land
[50:38] >> um are looking at either developing
[50:40] their own land or selling it to somebody
[50:42] else um they have now some direction on
[50:46] what could be built there to make it to basically uh
[50:54] >> implement that that downtown city
[50:58] >> vision to purchase. Does that does that
[51:00] make sense?
[51:01] >> I was going to say almost exactly that.
[51:04] We're setting out a vision and and and
[51:06] establishing those parameters so we so
[51:08] as the property develops we can get it
[51:12] twist pointed in the direction we want
[51:14] it to go.
[51:14] >> Yeah.
[51:15] >> So that we don't have something else
[51:16] going there that you know once the
[51:18] building goes in that's 50 years at
[51:20] least. Right.
[51:26] >> Sorry. We're just looking at the area
[51:27] trying to Yeah. Okay.
[51:30] >> You said 1250, right? 1250 to 1375. Is
[51:33] that what you said?
[51:34] >> Correct. Okay.
[51:39] » I think that's that's the area. That's
[51:41] perfect. Yeah.
[51:42] >> Then at least now it's defined and
[51:44] people know when we're talking about the
[51:45] area what we're actually talking about.
[51:47] >> Yeah.
[51:47] >> Instead of just there another place.
[51:50] Well, and just to I don't know go maybe
[51:53] too much, but so what the amendment
[51:55] would be, we're looking at this area and
[51:58] these uses
[51:59] >> and and I put together some, you know,
[52:01] here's some commercial viability, here's
[52:03] what staff sees as um pros and cons, uh
[52:06] issues, you know, and outline that and
[52:09] then we come and discuss it with you
[52:11] guys. Uh and then we refine it and then
[52:14] we take it to the public and say what do
[52:16] you think here?
[52:17] >> And also what's future land use
[52:19] designation does align with what we're
[52:21] now talking about in terms of doing a
[52:22] downtown city center type area. So
[52:25] >> there probably be an amendment there.
[52:27] >> Um and and on a specific one like this
[52:30] where you're getting kind of into the
[52:32] actual parcel lines
[52:34] traditionally well we would do a meeting
[52:37] with the property owners
[52:38] >> so they can discuss their concerns. We
[52:40] want to reach out to people directly
[52:42] affected. Everybody has an opinion, but
[52:45] when it's actually your land, it's it's
[52:47] a little more personal and and and we
[52:50] would get them in the room.
[52:51] >> Well, I think their opinion weighs most
[52:53] because they're the ones most infected.
[52:54] Yes, the city's all going to benefit
[52:56] from something like this, but let's not
[52:58] make it at a negative or a detriment to
[53:00] the people that are there every day. So,
[53:04] okay. Um, anything else on number four
[53:07] that you guys see want added?
[53:10] think should be taken off.
[53:12] I think it's pretty good.
[53:17] » Um, so number five is sensitive lands
[53:19] map. Um, updating the area and criteria.
[53:22] My biggest thing on this one is just
[53:23] clarifying what the development
[53:24] standards in these areas are supposed to
[53:26] be because I feel like it's so vague
[53:28] that when we've had developments come in
[53:30] that have fallen within the sensitive
[53:32] land use, we've not really had the
[53:34] direction and known the courses of
[53:37] actions that we can take. um in terms of
[53:40] specifying mitigation for sensitive
[53:42] plants.
[53:44] >> Do you want me to
[53:46] respond to that?
[53:48] >> So there's a
[53:50] >> a section of the code
[53:52] >> that is for sensitive lands.
[53:54] >> The map is just simply to say are you in
[53:57] or are you out? That's the way it's
[53:59] currently used.
[54:01] And if you're in, then it's up to uh
[54:06] geologists and geotechnical engineers
[54:09] >> to specify what the hazards are present
[54:12] on that ground and what their
[54:16] recommended mitigation measures are and
[54:18] that's what we go off of.
[54:20] >> Do you feel like that is insufficient?
[54:23] So essentially they're the ones that uh
[54:26] go in during a developer due diligence
[54:28] that says this needs phase one, phase
[54:30] two, phase one, two and three uh
[54:33] remediation or whatever and that comes
[54:37] as part of the report
[54:38] >> if if necessary. the I mean the first report that usually comes back
[54:44] um if there's a need for more just will
[54:48] identify if there's historically there's
[54:51] been you know a landslide in this area
[54:53] or evidence of historic landslides or
[54:57] things like that that date back to you
[55:00] know
[55:02] 10,000 years ago or whatever. Um it gets
[55:06] really really ancient in those reports.
[55:10] Um
[55:10] >> well I've read some. So, so then but but
[55:14] if there is something that is more
[55:16] recent that is a concern like we rely on
[55:20] their professional
[55:24] uh stamp
[55:26] to represent their, you know, they're
[55:29] doing their their job versus us
[55:34] saying, "Well, we think there's this
[55:36] hazard there or whatever." And we
[55:38] certainly could raise a concern if we
[55:41] don't feel like they have addressed it
[55:43] sufficiently, but for the most part, we
[55:45] rely on their professional expertise
[55:48] >> and I know I had a reason for wanting
[55:51] those development standards clarified
[55:53] and I apologize at the moment. I can't
[55:55] remember the exact reasons for but I
[55:58] kind of feel like in the times like when
[55:59] we've gotten those reports,
[56:01] >> obviously it's paid for by the the
[56:04] applicant. We don't really have the the
[56:07] insight and even when they say well
[56:09] we're gonna do this.
[56:12] >> Well, we can the city in the code it
[56:14] allows for the city to hire a third
[56:16] party
[56:17] >> that
[56:18] >> but it's at our expense. Correct.
[56:19] >> No, it's at the developers expense at
[56:21] the developers and they work for us. We
[56:25] essentially we pay the developer and
[56:28] then I mean we pay the
[56:31] >> third party reviewer and then the
[56:33] developer reimbures the city for that
[56:35] expense.
[56:36] >> Okay.
[56:36] >> And who I mean who who makes these maps
[56:39] or who decides where the map is? Is that
[56:41] the geologist?
[56:43] >> Yes. If you're in or out of that zone.
[56:45] >> We did. Yeah. It's a very broad brush
[56:48] approach. You know, it's just where are
[56:50] there steep slopes? Where historically
[56:53] does it show that there's been, you
[56:54] know, like some wetlands or other other
[56:57] ground that seems like it's might be
[57:00] questionable and then it's just included
[57:03] >> because it could be costly for the
[57:05] homeowner or someone that develop in
[57:07] those maps. Correct.
[57:09] >> It can be if there's if there are things
[57:11] that are identified that need to be
[57:13] mitigated.
[57:14] >> Okay. So, not necessarily your map means
[57:16] you have to mitigate it. Just means you
[57:18] need to look into it. Okay. It just
[57:19] means that they they now have to follow
[57:21] this section of code, instead of this
[57:26] section of code.
[57:27] >> Okay, that makes sense.
[57:29] >> I'm trying to remember. I think this is
[57:30] one of the things that Joel brought up
[57:32] and I'm curious if he had something
[57:34] specific.
[57:35] >> Well, I mean, we've got plenty of time,
[57:38] so if there's more to be discussed,
[57:40] >> keep it on for now and maybe add into
[57:42] that that there just needs to be some
[57:43] discussion because I feel like there was
[57:44] a couple council members that also were
[57:46] like, "Yeah, we want this on there." And
[57:48] I'm I'm not recalling their account.
[57:51] >> So I can tell you what I remember um is
[57:54] that I've seen a number of emails that
[57:56] we've been copied on
[57:58] >> uh where family members are like,
[58:01] >> "How can you sell this property and
[58:04] develop this property that is part of
[58:07] the super fund uh you know cleanup
[58:10] >> pollution sites?"
[58:11] >> Yeah. and and you know it
[58:15] like I have not been able I don't have
[58:18] the time or effort to to go validate any
[58:22] of the claims that are being made.
[58:24] >> Yeah.
[58:25] >> But you know to a point I I I I am
[58:28] concerned about potentially uh there
[58:32] being development on you know
[58:34] >> polluted ground.
[58:35] >> Yeah. Pluto ground.
[58:36] >> And what would be our asks because all
[58:40] we can do is ask. we can't you know
[58:42] inspect anything but what would our list
[58:45] and I guess standards be for if you're
[58:47] developing in an area that it might be
[58:49] sensitive lands but it might also be
[58:51] this how do we yeah
[58:54] >> well you're you are cities are
[58:56] responsible for the health safety and
[58:57] welfare of the community including those
[59:00] who are to come
[59:02] >> and so if there are things that that
[59:05] potentially threaten that like there has
[59:06] to be some kind of mitigation done
[59:10] >> um to rectify that. However, if it's
[59:15] simply a claim
[59:18] but can't be
[59:19] >> substantially substantiated,
[59:22] >> that's when it gets a little gray
[59:24] because now what can you require
[59:27] >> if reports don't show that there is a
[59:30] substantiated issue there? So then, you
[59:34] know, I mean,
[59:36] >> well, a lot of it goes back to what I
[59:38] deal with every day. It's you can
[59:41] word disclose
[59:42] >> disclosure
[59:43] >> and then it's on the other party to then
[59:46] confirm validate deni you know what I'm
[59:48] saying to basically do your due
[59:50] diligence
[59:51] >> right
[59:51] >> but yeah
[59:52] >> I mean we've been operating
[59:55] >> though for a lot of years
[59:58] uh trying to do the very I say we staff
[1:00:02] council planning commission members you
[1:00:04] know historically I think I feel has
[1:00:07] done a their their very best job to make
[1:00:10] good decisions for the health, safety,
[1:00:12] and welfare of of you know, future
[1:00:15] developments. And
[1:00:17] uh some would not agree with that
[1:00:19] comment, but I I feel that they've done
[1:00:23] the best that they could with the
[1:00:25] information that they have. Uh moving
[1:00:28] forward in that same way, I don't think
[1:00:31] is necessarily a problem.
[1:00:35] >> I would agree with what you explained. I
[1:00:36] think we're fine. I mean, the only thing
[1:00:38] we would do is just confirm that those
[1:00:40] areas are still accurate or if they're
[1:00:41] going to be expanded or shrunk, you
[1:00:43] know,
[1:00:44] >> right?
[1:00:44] >> Yeah.
[1:00:46] >> Okay. Are we good on sensitive lands?
[1:00:49] >> Thanks. Okay. Just just because this is
[1:00:51] a good opportunity to say this is an
[1:00:53] example of we don't we were going to
[1:00:55] look at the sensitive lands map at the
[1:00:57] general plan level
[1:00:59] >> and see if it's accurate. If we want to
[1:01:01] get into the code um
[1:01:03] >> different that's a different
[1:01:05] conversation
[1:01:06] >> and that's a different conversation and
[1:01:07] if that's what we need to change fine
[1:01:08] but
[1:01:09] >> that's
[1:01:10] >> so this the conversations we're talking
[1:01:11] about the general plan amendments are
[1:01:13] that higher
[1:01:15] >> broader discussion
[1:01:15] >> get rid of that
[1:01:16] >> not getting into the nitty-gritty
[1:01:18] >> should that be then maybe updating
[1:01:19] number five to just say update the area
[1:01:21] and criteria and getting rid of the
[1:01:23] clarify the development standards in
[1:01:25] these areas and having that be part of a
[1:01:27] separate not general plan
[1:01:29] >> focused discussion.
[1:01:31] >> Yeah, I think it's worth a of look at it
[1:01:33] and that's it.
[1:01:35] >> And that would be where
[1:01:38] probably I'd be looking to you to see if
[1:01:40] you feel like where you think it needs
[1:01:43] to be changed because
[1:01:44] >> you know the general topography of the
[1:01:46] ground and what's existed there for a
[1:01:48] long time I don't think has really
[1:01:50] changed since the 2020.
[1:01:53] So,
[1:01:54] um, if you think that, you know,
[1:01:57] something was missed in 2020 or should
[1:01:58] be included now or excluded, I I would
[1:02:01] just wait for direction from you.
[1:02:03] >> Okay,
[1:02:03] >> I like that.
[1:02:05] >> Perfect. Um, we good on that one. Move
[1:02:08] on to number six. Um, 2100 East South
[1:02:11] Weaver Drive. This is the large parcel
[1:02:14] that goes up the hill. Actually, don't
[1:02:16] doesn't go up the hill. um west of the
[1:02:19] storage units, east of the apartments,
[1:02:23] and then south of residential. That's up
[1:02:25] along the B bluff. Not bluff
[1:02:29] >> north of Yes, thank you. North, not
[1:02:30] south
[1:02:32] >> backwards and south
[1:02:34] >> south of pits on the east end or on the
[1:02:39] >> south end.
[1:02:41] >> You guys know what I'm talking about.
[1:02:44] >> Can I ask what is plume? What's that
[1:02:47] acronym for?
[1:02:49] >> Projected land use.
[1:02:50] >> Oh, thank you. That makes sense. Um,
[1:02:52] what is the best use for the property?
[1:02:53] Balancing community needs, market
[1:02:55] viability, and property owner desires.
[1:02:57] Um, I think this is probably more what
[1:02:59] would you like to see here kind of a
[1:03:01] thing. That's obviously it's commercial
[1:03:03] highway. Um, in that zone, we have a
[1:03:06] long list of things that are actually
[1:03:08] permitted. And so if an developer comes
[1:03:11] in and says I want to build this and it
[1:03:13] is a permitted use, we as the commission
[1:03:16] don't really have a lot of say in saying
[1:03:18] no because it's a permitted use. So do
[1:03:21] we need to maybe look at that commercial
[1:03:23] highway zone to say is there something
[1:03:25] in here we don't want? Is there
[1:03:26] something the citizens don't want to see
[1:03:28] in South Weaver? Like that's our
[1:03:30] opportunity to maybe do that because I
[1:03:32] think this is one of our
[1:03:33] >> Isn't this our desert area for like a I
[1:03:35] don't know what they call that? Could be
[1:03:37] like a marijuana plant or something.
[1:03:38] Don't we have like a designated area?
[1:03:39] The pink area. No, this is No, that's
[1:03:42] not behind the
[1:03:43] >> That's hidden over there.
[1:03:44] >> Yeah, this is right here.
[1:03:46] >> That's behind the map.
[1:03:47] >> So, apartments, that's right here. The
[1:03:49] area you're talking about is right here.
[1:03:52] >> Okay.
[1:03:52] >> That's your pink area.
[1:03:54] >> So, yeah. Not here.
[1:03:58] » Just to clarify, the property is already
[1:04:01] zoned commercial.
[1:04:03] >> That's what I was saying. So the so
[1:04:04] you're suggesting that there might be
[1:04:07] some consideration on the future land
[1:04:09] use map to suggest something other than
[1:04:12] highway commercial. You're not
[1:04:13] suggesting actually reszoning it.
[1:04:16] >> No, I'm not saying reszone it. I'm
[1:04:17] saying make sure that what is permitted
[1:04:19] in our commercial highway zone is what
[1:04:21] you actually want to see there.
[1:04:23] >> But that isn't that more of a code
[1:04:26] >> discussion?
[1:04:27] >> Yeah, probably.
[1:04:28] >> And to be clear, the storage units are
[1:04:30] that pink area as well?
[1:04:32] >> They are.
[1:04:32] >> Okay. Okay. The one that
[1:04:34] >> Oh, yeah. Yeah, they are.
[1:04:35] >> Yes.
[1:04:35] >> Okay.
[1:04:36] >> It's not forbidden.
[1:04:37] >> Transitional light industrialism.
[1:04:41] >> You know, people
[1:04:44] >> CO
[1:04:47] what's zone CO?
[1:04:49] >> No, no, no.
[1:04:50] >> If you're looking at CO, that's way old.
[1:04:53] >> Oh, this is
[1:04:54] >> that's an old
[1:04:55] >> That was the top one
[1:04:56] >> that I looked at.
[1:05:00] » No, I swear. See this one? I just have a
[1:05:03] map. So,
[1:05:03] >> this one again, it keeps coming up the
[1:05:05] same one every time I click on different
[1:05:07] ones.
[1:05:07] >> Anyways, move on.
[1:05:09] >> Your cookies. Yeah, it's your cookies.
[1:05:11] >> Um, I'm fine with that one being there.
[1:05:13] I guess part of it is just
[1:05:15] >> Have we ever had anything? This might be
[1:05:17] a
[1:05:17] >> that was presented to go there.
[1:05:20] >> Church. Uh, yeah. Yeah. Let's see what else was proposed there.
[1:05:27] >> The Cliffords wanted to do a
[1:05:30] ice cream.
[1:05:31] >> Oh, yeah. Ice that
[1:05:32] >> like a shop.
[1:05:33] >> Mhm.
[1:05:33] >> Yeah. A little ice cream.
[1:05:35] >> The challenge with that property is is
[1:05:36] going to be accessed because the
[1:05:40] >> um UD do would not is not going to allow
[1:05:42] a driveway on South Weber Drive
[1:05:45] >> and then you don't have that um hillside
[1:05:47] going up is too steep. Well, it's not I
[1:05:50] mean you it with enough money
[1:05:53] >> I I'm just saying
[1:05:55] >> an access road could be built into
[1:05:57] there, but it will it will eat up a
[1:05:58] bunch of the property or you put, you
[1:06:01] know, big retaining walls on and you
[1:06:03] could you could build into there. So,
[1:06:05] you it can be done, but it's not going
[1:06:08] to come with a a driveway off of South
[1:06:12] Weber Drive. At least not likely unless
[1:06:14] they got an exception, but I don't see
[1:06:16] them granting that. And my understanding
[1:06:18] is that those residential properties
[1:06:20] that are up at the top of View Drive
[1:06:22] that their property line actually is
[1:06:24] that drop down to the bottom. Is that
[1:06:28] correct? Does anyone know?
[1:06:30] >> Um I think it goes down
[1:06:31] >> I don't know exactly
[1:06:32] >> down the hillside.
[1:06:33] >> Okay. But they don't have that hillside
[1:06:36] to my understanding.
[1:06:38] I could be wrong but I don't
[1:06:40] >> undeveloped ground doesn't
[1:06:41] >> the undeveloped ground kind of back
[1:06:43] behind the hillside. The bluff the
[1:06:46] >> Yeah. I believe that belongs to all of
[1:06:48] the properties at the top of the
[1:06:51] >> they do the the the view not even
[1:06:54] >> the residential homes up on view they
[1:06:56] all go down almost to the base of the toe of the slope
[1:07:01] >> I would say roughly
[1:07:04] >> okay
[1:07:06] >> um anything else on number six
[1:07:09] >> I yeah I don't know yeah like you said
[1:07:13] what is what are we looking for just to
[1:07:15] make sure that that's what we
[1:07:16] So yeah, I I guess and we I don't have
[1:07:20] an agenda here. I I'm repeating kind of
[1:07:21] what you guys we discussed, but it seems
[1:07:25] the key issue on this parcel is it's
[1:07:27] zoned for commercial. It's designated as
[1:07:30] commercial. We want commercial. We want
[1:07:32] to keep that there as an opportunity.
[1:07:34] >> Yeah.
[1:07:35] >> Uh do we want to change that? Is that an
[1:07:36] amendment we need to keep on this list?
[1:07:38] >> I I say no, but
[1:07:40] >> I don't think we want to change it.
[1:07:42] >> Yeah. I I don't think this needs to be
[1:07:44] on the list personally because I mean
[1:07:46] the fate of that piece of land I I don't
[1:07:49] think we are going to do a whole lot you
[1:07:52] know even affecting the margins
[1:07:55] >> with with how this property is going to
[1:07:57] be eventually
[1:07:59] >> we're looking at like all these here
[1:08:01] >> do you remember who brought that up when
[1:08:02] we had the joint meeting
[1:08:04] >> Joel I don't
[1:08:06] >> okay
[1:08:06] >> I know he's talked to me before about it
[1:08:10] >> maybe
[1:08:10] >> like a fear of a hotel coming in there
[1:08:12] like
[1:08:13] >> I mean it is around residential so that
[1:08:15] might be a concern being across the
[1:08:16] street from the condos and houses that
[1:08:20] >> no
[1:08:24] » like like the access to that that
[1:08:26] property
[1:08:27] >> I think the access is what's going to
[1:08:28] kill it you could never put anything on
[1:08:30] there
[1:08:31] >> absolutely
[1:08:31] >> and there's no way you do would consider
[1:08:34] uh South Drive
[1:08:35] >> I mean the best
[1:08:37] >> like like the best land use for that in
[1:08:39] my mind although it may not be popular
[1:08:42] is to find out if whatever storage unit
[1:08:45] company is there wants to expand it.
[1:08:49] >> Want a little background on that one?
[1:08:51] >> I would absolutely like that.
[1:08:53] >> Story time.
[1:08:55] >> So, uh, Bright Lock purchased those.
[1:08:57] They've been working with us really
[1:08:58] good. They had had two bright lights
[1:09:00] when they came in. They worked on it,
[1:09:01] got down. Uh, they've been very
[1:09:03] responsive. They are getting pummeled by
[1:09:06] sand.
[1:09:07] >> Is that what's happening?
[1:09:08] >> That they're they can't keep customers.
[1:09:10] They are very very very frustrated. We
[1:09:13] can't do anything to help them.
[1:09:14] >> Is it sand getting into their storage
[1:09:16] units?
[1:09:18] >> I've rented one and it was completely
[1:09:20] full of sand. Completely full.
[1:09:22] >> So,
[1:09:23] >> and I guess I just
[1:09:26] >> what do you do?
[1:09:27] >> That property may change.
[1:09:29] >> You know, we think sometimes we look at
[1:09:31] properties and say, "Well, that's never
[1:09:32] going to change." That could change.
[1:09:34] Give them an access point
[1:09:36] >> at the right time. This could be it. So,
[1:09:38] what's our long-term vision for this
[1:09:41] corner? What do we want to see?
[1:09:42] >> Maybe keep this one on here only in
[1:09:44] terms of, and I don't know, Brandon, if
[1:09:45] this is appropriate for you, like what
[1:09:47] are options, viable options that could
[1:09:49] go in that area that match the
[1:09:51] commercial highway zone or is that not
[1:09:53] an efficient use of your time?
[1:09:55] >> Sure.
[1:09:55] >> I mean, that I I'm I'm happy to do
[1:09:57] whatever. It doesn't don't question
[1:09:59] what's viable use. That's fine. Um the
[1:10:05] But I think when when you're talking
[1:10:06] general plan level,
[1:10:09] you're really just thinking, well, do we
[1:10:11] want it to be commercial?
[1:10:12] >> Yeah.
[1:10:13] >> Or, you know, some kind of institutional
[1:10:17] or residential. And if residential, then
[1:10:20] >> maybe that's the conversation.
[1:10:21] >> Higher density or not higher density.
[1:10:23] >> It's commercial highway. Do we still
[1:10:24] want it to stay commercial highway or do
[1:10:26] we want to change?
[1:10:28] >> That's the only That's the only
[1:10:29] question. That's the only real question
[1:10:31] for the jacket.
[1:10:31] >> You're just looking at the the land use
[1:10:33] map.
[1:10:33] >> Yeah.
[1:10:34] >> Do you want to change something there?
[1:10:35] >> Yeah.
[1:10:36] >> Like that one. No, you're going to have
[1:10:38] to suffer for a second. Go get a jacket.
[1:10:41] >> Can I just interject right here just to
[1:10:44] make sure you you all are looking in the
[1:10:46] right places.
[1:10:48] If you go to the city's um website
[1:10:53] at the at the top there is a dropown
[1:10:56] that says departments.
[1:10:58] When you go down to the very top one
[1:11:00] which says business and planning,
[1:11:03] >> then there's a a link at the bottom that
[1:11:05] says maps. When you click on that,
[1:11:07] there's two sides. One says PDF maps and
[1:11:10] the other says interactive maps.
[1:11:12] >> And then on the interactive maps, it
[1:11:14] gives you a whole bunch of different
[1:11:16] things. Um that's where I would always
[1:11:19] go to look at everything because
[1:11:22] >> those the interactive maps are always
[1:11:24] updated. Um, the PDF maps are hopefully
[1:11:29] are are also getting uploaded when they
[1:11:31] get changed, but you for sure know
[1:11:33] you're right if you're on the
[1:11:34] interactive maps. So, just making sure
[1:11:36] you know where to go.
[1:11:37] >> I go to the website.
[1:11:39] >> Yeah.
[1:11:42] >> Hey, are we ready to move on? Next one.
[1:11:44] Number seven.
[1:11:45] >> Well, what was the decision? I heard
[1:11:47] both. Um, we're going to keep number six
[1:11:49] on there, but the question is more going
[1:11:51] to be related to is commercial highway
[1:11:54] or highway commercial the the zone that
[1:11:57] we want to stay on the projected land
[1:11:58] use, which is the current land use, or
[1:12:01] do they want that changed to consider a
[1:12:03] more residential use or some other use?
[1:12:08] That could be option C. That's what
[1:12:10] that's focused on.
[1:12:14] >> That clear? Okay. um gravel pit um
[1:12:18] development timeline over 20 years
[1:12:20] determine future uses via market and
[1:12:22] need analysis.
[1:12:25] I don't know why we have this one on
[1:12:26] here only because at this point there's
[1:12:29] been no change in activity other than
[1:12:32] gravel pits. Um and if they still have
[1:12:35] the right to develop is am I reading
[1:12:37] this over the next 20 years? Oh, well
[1:12:40] they're right to develop
[1:12:42] >> like are they at their end of use for
[1:12:46] the gravel pits? No.
[1:12:48] >> My understanding is that it's over.
[1:12:51] They've got a long way to go.
[1:12:52] >> Exactly.
[1:12:53] >> And they're not in a hurry. They
[1:12:55] continue to use it. I mean, they're
[1:12:56] barely mining anything now, I think.
[1:12:58] >> So, it's just a demand thing and that's
[1:13:01] their business operation. I I'll say I
[1:13:04] think that's their business operation.
[1:13:05] They're going to hang on to it.
[1:13:06] >> They're not going to change it
[1:13:07] >> down for the city.
[1:13:08] >> I do too. And I don't think it's going
[1:13:10] to hit in this iteration of a general
[1:13:12] plan update. And so to spend the time
[1:13:14] determining future uses via markets and
[1:13:17] analysis and studies, information is
[1:13:19] going to change over the time frame that
[1:13:22] you know the gravel pits continue to
[1:13:23] operate. And I'm not trying to be
[1:13:25] shortsighted. I just don't want to focus
[1:13:29] energy and time unnecessarily.
[1:13:32] >> Been 29 years and nothing has changed.
[1:13:34] Well, I think I think the reason it's on
[1:13:35] here is because that is the top of the
[1:13:37] priority list for the citizens, but it's
[1:13:40] not necessarily things we can change. I
[1:13:41] mean, they want we will talk about it,
[1:13:43] but all we're talking about is not the
[1:13:45] future use of it.
[1:13:46] >> Well, in terms of general plan,
[1:13:48] >> I I can give you maybe a little bit more
[1:13:52] insider information on that because you
[1:13:56] guys have all articulated
[1:13:58] general observations as we drive by it
[1:14:00] every day. But I mean, in a past life
[1:14:04] when I was a developer, I did talk to
[1:14:06] those guys
[1:14:07] >> about possibly um them either selling
[1:14:10] the property or gifting it. Um and uh
[1:14:14] you know, Dak Jenkins was interested in
[1:14:18] uh you know, what what could this
[1:14:20] potentially turn into?
[1:14:22] >> Um that pit is not the only property
[1:14:25] that they can operate out of.
[1:14:27] >> There is also a pit on the other side of
[1:14:29] the freeway. Those are two separate
[1:14:30] companies though
[1:14:31] >> there. So
[1:14:34] as that is true but um they do have a
[1:14:38] wet mix plant that um sterson does
[1:14:41] operate
[1:14:42] >> in the Geneva pit.
[1:14:44] >> Yeah. Yeah. on the other side. I'm not
[1:14:46] exactly sure where,
[1:14:47] >> but um and so so to say that nothing has
[1:14:52] happened, thus nothing will happen, I
[1:14:54] think is I think is not a a a true
[1:14:58] reflection of the of the situation. Um I
[1:15:02] think that uh if given the right
[1:15:05] opportunity uh sticker parsons would be
[1:15:08] willing to uh
[1:15:10] play ball and and so with that you know
[1:15:16] potential appetite there I think that we
[1:15:20] do have the uh capability of uh you know
[1:15:25] pro you know creating a a general plan
[1:15:29] um you know description
[1:15:31] of what we as a city
[1:15:34] envision that pit eventually being,
[1:15:37] which would then, you know, create a a
[1:15:40] an attractive
[1:15:42] environment for somebody to come in and
[1:15:44] say,
[1:15:45] "This is what this pick could be. Let me
[1:15:48] go talk to Sticker Parsons about
[1:15:51] possibly doing those things." And that's
[1:15:54] exactly what this general plan
[1:15:56] discussion is about. Okay, don't laugh
[1:15:58] at me for saying this, but I was kind of
[1:15:59] chuckling to myself because I think
[1:16:01] maybe for the open house that we hold,
[1:16:03] we have a map of the gravel pits and
[1:16:06] kind of like, you know, the flannel
[1:16:07] boards that we used to have in and you
[1:16:10] have options. You have apartments, you
[1:16:11] have houses, you have golf courses, you
[1:16:13] have all the different things,
[1:16:15] >> flannel board, I'm just saying. And then
[1:16:17] you could actually have citizens weigh
[1:16:19] in and say, "Do you like this? Do you
[1:16:21] want do you see residential down here?
[1:16:23] Do you see commercial down here? Do you
[1:16:25] see? You're looking at me with like what
[1:16:28] are you talking about kind of a thing.
[1:16:29] No, not you. Lance
[1:16:30] >> both of your faces. You got to hide.
[1:16:32] >> Lance is like what is
[1:16:33] >> she got to hide it. My nice.
[1:16:36] >> No, that's your like stop talking.
[1:16:40] >> Julie, to your point, um,
[1:16:41] >> it's not a bad idea.
[1:16:43] >> I've been part of open houses in
[1:16:45] previous areas that I've lived outside
[1:16:47] of Utah. Yeah. where a consulting
[1:16:50] company uh gave everybody uh the option
[1:16:54] to put different color postits
[1:16:56] >> to say what they wanted.
[1:16:58] >> Yeah. And and by by by just virtue of
[1:17:01] number of postits,
[1:17:03] >> you could see what people were
[1:17:04] interested in. And I think that's a big
[1:17:06] thing because everybody in the city is
[1:17:07] going to have an opinion about what they
[1:17:10] see the future. And yes, you're going to
[1:17:11] see a lake even though people aren't
[1:17:13] listening when they say that you can't
[1:17:14] have a lake there. Anyways, you got
[1:17:17] going now.
[1:17:18] >> Sure, if you line it, but here's your
[1:17:19] soil's not
[1:17:20] >> The bigger discussion is though, are you
[1:17:22] gonna want to split this up into like
[1:17:23] residential and like split it up? Right
[1:17:26] now, it's commercial. Like,
[1:17:27] >> is it if you're like, well, I want
[1:17:28] residential, I want this. We're not
[1:17:30] going to split it up.
[1:17:30] >> Do you want it to become a master plan
[1:17:32] community? Do you want it to be like
[1:17:34] what um
[1:17:37] down in Lehi with the little pit? Um
[1:17:40] what's that place called? Well, South
[1:17:42] Jordan has day
[1:17:43] >> Thanksgiving point because they've got
[1:17:45] golf courses, they have hiking trails,
[1:17:47] they have
[1:17:48] >> that was built in a gravel pit. And I
[1:17:51] don't know if most people realize that.
[1:17:52] Is that what you see the future of South
[1:17:54] Weaver's gravel pit looking like for
[1:17:57] options? Telling you, Flounderboard, you
[1:17:59] guys are going to come around to the
[1:18:00] idea,
[1:18:00] >> but I just don't know if we want to get
[1:18:01] into detail of what it could be at this
[1:18:04] point. Like we're going to separate half
[1:18:06] his res. Well, the reasoning being is
[1:18:07] because right now with what it's zoned,
[1:18:10] does our future land use align with what
[1:18:13] maybe most people are interested in or
[1:18:15] could we consider a different zoning?
[1:18:18] >> I would love to get as much of the
[1:18:21] community's input on this as possible.
[1:18:23] >> Why not?
[1:18:23] >> I love that.
[1:18:24] >> This is their chance to weigh in.
[1:18:26] >> Yeah.
[1:18:26] >> So,
[1:18:29] >> I just I just don't know. Yeah. I just
[1:18:31] Yeah. There's not much we can do,
[1:18:34] though. like he's saying
[1:18:35] >> as long as it's 100 feet underground
[1:18:38] >> then even then no
[1:18:40] >> so just to help me clarify so I'm
[1:18:42] hearing kind of two camps one is let's
[1:18:46] have a big process and discuss this
[1:18:48] using flannel boards
[1:18:50] >> posted notes post
[1:18:52] >> most of them post notes
[1:18:53] >> I personally like the little stickers
[1:18:55] but whatever stickers
[1:18:56] >> and um and then the other end is this is
[1:18:59] a lower priority it's further out we
[1:19:01] don't want to do it this
[1:19:02] >> well I just don't know if there's much
[1:19:03] we can't I don't want to have this huge
[1:19:04] meeting and there's really nothing we
[1:19:06] can do about it.
[1:19:06] >> I agree.
[1:19:07] >> You know, like I just I don't want to
[1:19:08] get
[1:19:09] >> I think uh
[1:19:12] >> it's two sides of the
[1:19:13] >> It's tough, right? Because like
[1:19:14] >> I Yeah, I I don't disagree with what
[1:19:16] he's saying. I just
[1:19:18] >> Is now the time to be having that
[1:19:19] conversation
[1:19:20] >> forward then let's start.
[1:19:22] >> How about we keep it on the list, but we
[1:19:23] just This is This one's Let's see how
[1:19:25] the first three or four amendments go.
[1:19:28] >> And then keep this one maybe towards the
[1:19:30] end. Well, and and if I could just one
[1:19:32] last comment about this,
[1:19:35] >> you know,
[1:19:37] >> something may not happen for 20 years,
[1:19:40] >> but you know, creating like creating a
[1:19:44] direction I think is very useful
[1:19:48] >> like and and we may have to
[1:19:51] overcommunicate the fact that that you
[1:19:53] know giving us your preferences doesn't
[1:19:55] mean this is all of a sudden magic wand
[1:19:57] going to appear. But what it does is it lets us know what the city wants done
[1:20:04] with their city.
[1:20:05] >> Yeah.
[1:20:06] >> And you know, in in eventuality, maybe
[1:20:08] it's 50 years from today, but you know,
[1:20:12] the I I I I mean, it's a piece of land
[1:20:16] that could be developed in Six Ways to
[1:20:19] Sunshine. And this is a general plan
[1:20:24] amendment.
[1:20:24] >> How many acres is that? The gravel pits.
[1:20:27] Do we know the total acreage on that
[1:20:28] one?
[1:20:30] >> And I think that I I think that to your
[1:20:32] point, you've made your point by saying
[1:20:35] nothing has happened up until this
[1:20:38] point. So we could say that part of the
[1:20:42] zoning that's there right now has
[1:20:44] restricted potential.
[1:20:48] >> Should it change? Should it stay the
[1:20:50] same?
[1:20:52] >> Yeah.
[1:20:52] >> Crosshatching,
[1:20:53] >> right?
[1:20:54] >> Does it have cross-hatching on that one?
[1:20:55] No, right now it's just all shown as
[1:20:58] >> commercial
[1:20:59] >> on the projected landing
[1:21:00] >> highway.
[1:21:01] >> Commercial highway.
[1:21:02] >> Okay.
[1:21:12] I think you've summarized it.
[1:21:15] We're kind of up two things. So maybe we
[1:21:17] just need to put a pin in this one for
[1:21:18] now and then leave it maybe at the end
[1:21:21] of the discussion to see if we want to
[1:21:22] pick it back up. It's not going
[1:21:23] anywhere. It's just
[1:21:26] >> this is just to decide whether it should
[1:21:28] be discussed or not.
[1:21:29] >> Yeah.
[1:21:29] >> And I feel like we've kind of started
[1:21:31] discussing it already.
[1:21:32] >> Yeah.
[1:21:34] >> Um let's move on. Just I don't want to
[1:21:36] have us be here all night. Um entrance
[1:21:39] to the city is number eight. Um talking
[1:21:42] about commercial use north of 2600.
[1:21:45] Um and I believe this is specifically
[1:21:47] the property that was once brought forth
[1:21:49] for like a gymnasium or um something
[1:21:52] like that. um the S curve uses.
[1:21:56] I'm not exactly sure what area that's
[1:21:58] referencing, so I don't know if we can
[1:22:00] maybe give a little more detail on that.
[1:22:02] And then obviously talking about 475
[1:22:04] East and Old Fort Road. Um
[1:22:10] Oh, is the S-curve into the There we go.
[1:22:13] Thank you.
[1:22:14] Yeah, it's undeveloped land that's kind
[1:22:17] of
[1:22:18] >> surrounding the next
[1:22:20] >> south west and and then on the other
[1:22:23] side of the street. Okay. And just what
[1:22:26] do we want that to look like? What do we
[1:22:27] see there? Do we like the zoning
[1:22:29] currently? Do we like the future land
[1:22:31] use zoning for those areas? And is that
[1:22:34] still what we're expecting to see? Is
[1:22:35] that kind of the intention with that
[1:22:37] item?
[1:22:37] >> I think it is worth a discussion.
[1:22:39] >> I do. It's just so you remember that's
[1:22:42] actually property that the city owns.
[1:22:44] >> Yes. On the
[1:22:46] >> west side of the street, correct?
[1:22:48] >> West west of the gravel pits, west of
[1:22:51] South Wever Drive.
[1:22:52] >> So on side of South Wever Drive on that
[1:22:54] curve is all property.
[1:22:56] >> Yeah. Well, there's there's a little bit
[1:22:59] on the east side of South Weaver Drive,
[1:23:01] but most of it is west.
[1:23:02] >> Mostly on the west side. Okay.
[1:23:04] >> That kind of butts up to the um
[1:23:07] >> that community, the kind of
[1:23:10] write the name of it.
[1:23:11] >> Yeah. And that
[1:23:12] >> being in the Cedar Cove,
[1:23:14] >> Cedar Cove area.
[1:23:14] >> Yeah.
[1:23:15] >> Yep. Thank you.
[1:23:16] >> Yeah. Cambridge Crossing is to the
[1:23:18] south.
[1:23:19] >> That's State Apartments.
[1:23:21] >> Uh Cedar Cove's a little bit to the
[1:23:23] west.
[1:23:24] >> And then there's
[1:23:25] >> residential.
[1:23:26] >> Yeah. Residential to to the Yeah.
[1:23:29] Directly west.
[1:23:31] >> There's a detention basin that's owned
[1:23:32] by by uh UD do that's on the east side
[1:23:36] of the road that's not developable.
[1:23:39] because it's our drainage,
[1:23:41] >> right?
[1:23:41] >> Or do drainage for what?
[1:23:43] >> The road.
[1:23:44] >> Just the road.
[1:23:45] >> South River Drive.
[1:23:46] >> Okay.
[1:23:48] >> I didn't realize how much property the
[1:23:50] city does on right there. That is
[1:23:52] >> right now. It's just showing as future
[1:23:54] land shows it as commercial.
[1:23:55] >> Commercial,
[1:23:55] >> not commercial highway, just commercial.
[1:23:59] >> This is all south.
[1:24:00] >> Yeah. Okay.
[1:24:01] >> It's interesting.
[1:24:02] >> And that was the part they were talking.
[1:24:04] This is a perfect example of where like
[1:24:06] I'm not going to my map's not going to
[1:24:08] come forward showing any changes here.
[1:24:11] Yeah.
[1:24:11] >> This would just be things that if you
[1:24:13] think it should be different, you would
[1:24:14] say,
[1:24:15] >> "Yeah,
[1:24:17] >> perfect." Um, and I think this ties
[1:24:19] right into commercial uses east of
[1:24:22] Highway 89. Um, do we want to see any
[1:24:25] future industrial or commercial areas?
[1:24:28] >> I think that was the mayor's bring it up
[1:24:31] area.
[1:24:31] >> Yeah. Uh this
[1:24:34] >> that was that red little zone which that
[1:24:35] was the
[1:24:39] » that's that zone across.
[1:24:41] >> That's the zone. Isn't that the
[1:24:43] commercial uses north of 2600? Isn't
[1:24:45] that the same?
[1:24:48] >> Is that 2600?
[1:24:51] >> That's 2725.
[1:24:53] >> Okay.
[1:24:57] » Are eight and nine the same?
[1:24:59] the road
[1:25:02] >> and that's the last one, right? Nine is
[1:25:03] the last one on the list.
[1:25:06] >> Yeah, it's not 2600.
[1:25:09] >> The road next to Maverick is 2700.
[1:25:13] So I I'm not sure what the underlying
[1:25:16] >> it's not talking about that one area
[1:25:18] between the car wash
[1:25:19] >> and the res.
[1:25:20] >> Yeah, when it talks about that area, I
[1:25:23] think it's really south of I don't know,
[1:25:26] south of the car wash.
[1:25:27] >> South of the car wash. that area is
[1:25:29] undeveloped and and has you know
[1:25:33] >> had a variety of things proposed and
[1:25:36] nothing yet.
[1:25:38] >> I think that was so commissioner Davis
[1:25:40] that was where he was talking about the
[1:25:41] hotel.
[1:25:42] >> Yes.
[1:25:42] >> If I recall from the joint meeting
[1:25:45] >> that he was talking about a hotel
[1:25:47] >> and obviously went on to
[1:25:50] >> talk about like the revenue and the tiff
[1:25:53] tough. What is it that we get for a
[1:25:54] hotel tough?
[1:25:57] What do you mean?
[1:25:59] >> The reason I believe this one's on the
[1:26:01] list was Commissioner Davis was talking
[1:26:03] about a hotel.
[1:26:04] >> Yeah.
[1:26:05] >> And the the revenue that gets generated
[1:26:08] and the tough fee.
[1:26:10] >> Well, I mean, they would have a the
[1:26:12] utility fee.
[1:26:13] >> The transportation
[1:26:14] >> transportation utility fee. I mean, they
[1:26:16] would pay that, but I think he was more
[1:26:18] talking like your transient.
[1:26:20] >> That's what it is.
[1:26:22] >> Uh,
[1:26:23] >> was it transient? What?
[1:26:24] >> Transient tax or transient?
[1:26:26] >> Yeah, it's a tax. It's tax that you
[1:26:27] collect for everybody that stays
[1:26:30] >> in the hotel.
[1:26:31] >> That's significant.
[1:26:32] >> Yeah, if you've ever gone to a hotel,
[1:26:33] you'll see that that that line for that
[1:26:36] tax on there.
[1:26:37] >> Okay,
[1:26:38] >> that's
[1:26:39] >> which and ways and this is where I kind
[1:26:40] of feel like he went off and just
[1:26:41] talking about like as a city like with
[1:26:43] things coming down the pipeline and I
[1:26:44] don't have the specifics, but just we've
[1:26:46] got to start looking at other revenue
[1:26:48] options and streams. And this was why
[1:26:51] this was at the entrance to our city
[1:26:53] where people see it. What do we want
[1:26:55] that to then look like? So I kind of
[1:26:58] feel like eight and nine could be
[1:26:59] combined, but
[1:27:03] maybe keep it separate.
[1:27:04] >> No, that's but that's the east.
[1:27:08] >> Well, just the different areas
[1:27:09] >> over that area based.
[1:27:11] >> Yeah, it's our entrances. I mean, that's
[1:27:13] where we've got
[1:27:16] developable land. Could I summarize it
[1:27:18] that I think I mean I've kind of listed
[1:27:21] this out just because we have but like
[1:27:23] eight and nine are do we want to change
[1:27:26] those areas they kind of tie into the
[1:27:28] overall projected land use map
[1:27:29] discussion
[1:27:31] >> these areas maybe a little special
[1:27:33] anyway I'm thinking put this lower on
[1:27:35] the list as well
[1:27:37] >> to get into more detailed discussion of
[1:27:39] it
[1:27:39] >> on the upper ones
[1:27:40] >> that's not a high priority for change
[1:27:42] >> agree
[1:27:43] >> is that correct I agree that
[1:27:45] >> we're not changing anything the entrance
[1:27:46] to the city to be residential. It's
[1:27:48] going to be a commercial.
[1:27:50] >> And there's that one we do that remind
[1:27:52] that one want to look at the mayor
[1:27:54] brought up. It's kind of that weird area
[1:27:56] we were just looking at.
[1:27:57] >> Um east or west?
[1:27:59] >> It's kind of r wrapped around.
[1:28:01] >> It's east of 89
[1:28:03] >> on the other side.
[1:28:04] >> Yeah.
[1:28:05] No, I think Yeah, that's the red
[1:28:07] one that you're pointing at, Chris. That
[1:28:09] >> it's just on the east side of 2800 East.
[1:28:14] uh undeveloped ground.
[1:28:16] There was has been historically a
[1:28:19] gymnasium
[1:28:21] or gymnastics place proposed there that
[1:28:25] uh never went actually went through. So,
[1:28:28] >> didn't it wasn't that in 2020 why
[1:28:30] everything kind of fell apart on that
[1:28:32] one was just the timing of the year.
[1:28:34] >> Was it before that?
[1:28:35] >> Yeah, it's it was it's been a while ago.
[1:28:37] I I don't know. It came It came around a
[1:28:39] few times. So, I I don't remember
[1:28:40] exactly.
[1:28:42] That's just an area that is still we
[1:28:44] still want to do that or not.
[1:28:45] >> Yeah, the mayor I think the mayor
[1:28:47] specifically asked about that one.
[1:28:48] >> Yes.
[1:28:53] » Yeah, I think so.
[1:28:54] >> Yeah. Okay.
[1:28:55] >> I mean it makes sense. Random question
[1:28:58] that is not unfortunately on anything.
[1:29:00] Did we ever find out with the um
[1:29:02] landscaping company that was operating
[1:29:04] further up that road um towards
[1:29:06] Leighton? Did I know they had some
[1:29:08] requirements?
[1:29:10] Maybe I can do this under the general
[1:29:11] discussion. I'm just wondering if they
[1:29:12] took care of everything that they needed
[1:29:14] since they're obviously operating a
[1:29:15] business out of a residential.
[1:29:18] >> They uh they're complying. I mean, they
[1:29:20] they've cleaned it up a whole bunch.
[1:29:22] >> Yeah.
[1:29:23] >> And anything with the trout farm.
[1:29:27] >> Okay. I thought there was something
[1:29:28] about cleaning up the trout farm.
[1:29:31] >> They're south. We were they not annexed
[1:29:35] because it's
[1:29:36] >> Yeah,
[1:29:37] >> they're they're in the green.
[1:29:40] It's all
[1:29:41] >> Yeah.
[1:29:41] >> All the
[1:29:45] traps
[1:29:47] are
[1:29:48] >> Oh, no.
[1:29:48] >> That might be general discussion. Sorry.
[1:29:50] >> Yeah. Sorry. That's more general
[1:29:51] discussion, not this topic. So, I
[1:29:53] apologize.
[1:29:55] >> I think we're good on that. I mean, less
[1:29:56] I don't know if there's a lot of
[1:29:57] direction on this. Sorry.
[1:29:59] >> Well, step into the maths.
[1:30:02] >> Well, because I kind of made some notes.
[1:30:03] So, I'm hearing that uh just going down
[1:30:06] the list. number one is uh something
[1:30:10] that staff will take a stab at and make
[1:30:12] those changes. Um number two is a higher
[1:30:16] priority uh to discuss annexation. Come
[1:30:19] back with that one. Number three, uh the
[1:30:22] transportation connections is another
[1:30:24] large discussion, but it's a higher
[1:30:26] priority. Um, number four, um, which is
[1:30:31] the central core area. I would say
[1:30:34] that's like number four on I'd say it's
[1:30:37] right in the middle of the list. Um, but
[1:30:40] it needs to be better defined and look
[1:30:42] at options and and we can pursue that in
[1:30:45] time. Number five is also another one
[1:30:48] that staff's going to take a look at the
[1:30:49] sensitive lands map, see if there's any
[1:30:51] technical changes, any
[1:30:54] land changes or anything like that that
[1:30:55] should be updated, but generally it's
[1:30:58] probably going to stay and it'll just be
[1:30:59] a staff
[1:31:01] recommendation and you guys review. Um,
[1:31:06] number six is the high
[1:31:09] 20 2100 uh commercial uses stay for now.
[1:31:14] Um,
[1:31:17] I think the discussion is what's the
[1:31:18] long-term vision for this area? Uh, and
[1:31:21] what's viable. Um, but I think it's like
[1:31:26] number three, four on the list as well.
[1:31:27] >> Yeah.
[1:31:29] >> So, and then the gravel pits lower on
[1:31:31] the list as well. Um,
[1:31:34] >> I think it's three.
[1:31:37] >> Yeah. Kind of three, three, and three
[1:31:41] >> are the first six.
[1:31:42] >> Okay. No, that's right.
[1:31:44] >> So,
[1:31:47] >> okay. Any other comments on any of
[1:31:49] these? Anything else? I think that was a
[1:31:51] good summary.
[1:31:52] >> Yeah.
[1:31:53] >> Okay. Um, final items or just reports?
[1:31:56] Anything from the commission?
[1:31:58] >> Like any
[1:31:59] >> any items you want to bring up?
[1:32:00] >> One thing I didn't want to bring up
[1:32:01] here, but it brings up a good point on
[1:32:03] the 475 entrance to the city. I know I
[1:32:06] just want to spend money. That's just my
[1:32:08] thing. But like can you do like a
[1:32:10] signage or like make it look more
[1:32:12] presentable? You like people say like
[1:32:14] welcome to South Weaver City and there's
[1:32:16] like you know or something like that. We
[1:32:18] have it on Maverick side kind of
[1:32:20] >> that's that's a digital sign. We don't
[1:32:22] need that. But is there something is
[1:32:24] that something we want to do or no?
[1:32:28] >> I want like what a
[1:32:30] >> No recommend. I'm just asking like is
[1:32:32] that something that we like want to look
[1:32:34] down to or is it not really? I don't
[1:32:36] know. Like I'm just that's discussion.
[1:32:37] Do you want to research options for sign
[1:32:39] >> this when this brought up when it said
[1:32:40] entrance to say that's the only reason I
[1:32:42] thought of that and then it's like oh do
[1:32:43] we want to make the entrance more
[1:32:45] >> presentable discussion
[1:32:46] >> I want one of those Ogden signs but it's
[1:32:48] going to say south
[1:32:50] >> and then destination not a drive-thru
[1:32:52] >> side note I I think they should keep the
[1:32:54] flag up on the general RV I like that a
[1:32:56] lot. Did you see that?
[1:32:57] >> Yeah they put I didn't
[1:32:59] >> big huge flag on the big sign. Yeah
[1:33:02] >> that was really cool. And the fact that
[1:33:03] it says Gino RV South Weaver,
[1:33:06] >> that's pretty cool.
[1:33:07] >> You know, they they already gave us a an
[1:33:09] entry sign.
[1:33:09] >> Isn't there a monument that was supposed
[1:33:11] to have been put in over on that
[1:33:12] property that was like one of our
[1:33:13] landmarks? It's still there, right?
[1:33:16] >> But is there anything that's like could
[1:33:18] be built off of that to maybe be like
[1:33:20] welcome to South Weaver?
[1:33:22] >> I'll look into it.
[1:33:23] >> Look into it. Chris is going to do some
[1:33:24] research.
[1:33:26] >> I want to spend more money on parks and
[1:33:28] monuments.
[1:33:31] >> Work on budget. Yeah, that's what I'm
[1:33:32] saying. Okay, I'll put one of those,
[1:33:34] too.
[1:33:35] >> We'll do a gofund me.
[1:33:36] >> I'll put one of those voting signs that
[1:33:37] say, "Welcome to South Bever." Just be
[1:33:39] fine.
[1:33:41] >> Okay. So, really quick. Um, what is the
[1:33:45] next step
[1:33:46] >> as we look at this uh line item, this
[1:33:50] step-by-step process that you wrote out
[1:33:52] for us? We're kind of in a nebulous uh I
[1:33:57] guess we're choose your own adventure
[1:33:59] here between line line items two, three,
[1:34:01] and four.
[1:34:03] Uh
[1:34:04] >> oh, no,
[1:34:04] >> I think we're still in two.
[1:34:06] >> Yeah, we're
[1:34:06] >> we're still very much in two.
[1:34:08] >> We're on number two. Definitely.
[1:34:09] >> We haven't moved anywhere else.
[1:34:11] >> Staff's going to put together a draft
[1:34:13] for you guys to respond to.
[1:34:14] >> So, we have another one of these
[1:34:15] meetings that draft go to the public for
[1:34:17] them to respond to.
[1:34:18] >> Okay.
[1:34:19] >> So, will this be next month?
[1:34:20] >> Right between two and three. We'll and
[1:34:21] we'll go over them next month if that's
[1:34:23] okay.
[1:34:24] >> Okay.
[1:34:24] >> Is anybody planning on not being here
[1:34:26] for that meeting?
[1:34:28] >> I'm just saying
[1:34:29] >> for August.
[1:34:31] >> Hey, it's still summer, you know. I got
[1:34:32] to check in with vacation plans.
[1:34:34] >> Yeah. Yeah,
[1:34:35] >> I will be here.
[1:34:37] >> Okay.
[1:34:39] Then if there is nothing further from
[1:34:41] anyone, um I'm going to ask for a motion
[1:34:44] to journ. Do I need a motion?
[1:34:47] >> Yes, I do need a motion to adjurnn.
[1:34:49] >> Make a motion to adjurnn. and a second.
[1:34:51] >> I second.
[1:34:52] >> All in favor?
[1:34:54] >> Yes.
[1:34:54] Yes. Have a good night.