[7:31] there started question three out I'll give them a few more minutes and have not

[10:26] Okay.

[10:30] Um, Marty will not be joining us tonight. He forgot. Oh, maybe it was.

[10:40] Welcome everyone. Sorry it was late. Um, let's see. We will get started. Um,

[10:48] welcome to the planning commission meeting on Wednesday, not Thursday,

[10:52] August 19th. Um, we will start with the pledge of allegiance led by Brad

[11:03] to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands.

[11:10] One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

[11:21] All right, we will open for public comment. Um, just a reminder,

[11:27] we will have clock 3 minutes or less on your time. Um, please state your name and

[11:35] the council will not respond to anything at this time. Um we do have a public hearing.

[11:39] So if it is anything in direct relation to the reszone that you will have an opportunity for

[11:45] that point at that point to talk as well. So um we'll now open up for public comment

[11:58] and we will close the public comment. Um, we'll move in action item number three,

[12:05] the consent agenda from July 9th, 2026 minutes.

[12:11] I don't have anything. No. Um, can I get a make a motion to approve the consent agenda on July 9th,

[12:24] 2026 minutes um as presented? I'll second that. All in favor? Yes. Yes. And yes.

[12:35] All right. Now, we will open the public hearing for the Stark doll reszone. Um, do we want to have

[12:44] do you want to say can I can I just give a quick overview? Yeah, let's do that then. So, this is a

[12:49] request to reszone 5.9 acres from agricultural to uh residential. See a mistake there. Uh, moderate

[13:03] flags it in there. Uh residential moderate as their proposal is to put in a culde-sac with

[13:10] 12 homes on it. It's the uh northern portion of the Stark doll properties. So, it's taking the

[13:16] existing Stark parcel with an existing home and a portion of the doll property that's further to the

[13:23] south uh to put this culac in. Uh the other big element is it would be completing the uh street

[13:30] there at 7600 uh to allow for it uh to connect through which is a connection that the city's been

[13:39] waiting for for a long time. Um staff has reviewed it. It's compliant with the general plan. It's

[13:47] consistent with the general plan. Um the the laws appear to work at the at least at a high level.

[13:53] We'll get into much more detail on the subdivision process if the reszone is approved. Um,

[13:59] and you know, staff recommends approval. Um, and I think that's it. Any questions for staff on that?

[14:18] And now we'll open the public hearing. Can I get a motion open? I'll make a motion to open public

[14:24] hearing. I'll second. All in favor? Yes. Yes. Yes. Hearing is open. Same rules apply to the

[14:33] three minutes or less. So go ahead and make sure to state your name and city as well or address

[14:38] whatever we do. Uh Nelen Hig South Weaver. So just to clarify, you've got it corrected then that it's

[14:44] not multif family part of my speech for that. Okay. I'll edit that part out. Um sorry. What's

[14:51] that? I just want to make sure the notice wasn't that way. I can't remember if it was or not,

[14:56] but okay. So, I'll skip that part, but since you've already got that corrected, but anyway. So,

[15:01] I reviewed the city's adopted 2020 general plan, not the proposed, and I believe that there's an

[15:07] important transportation issue that needs to be addressed. The city has identified a connection

[15:11] between 1650 East and 7775 South. Um, General Fan on notes. I can get you guys copies of this too,

[15:21] but you can look it up because it is the adopted um that calls it for a future collector roadway

[15:28] and at the same time 7600 South is identified as a local residential future. Um on the general plan,

[15:35] so here on the adopted transportation plan, sorry it's not super huge, but there you go. Um it does

[15:43] show that and highlight it up for what each road identifies. Anyway, those designations

[15:48] exist for a reason. So, a local residential street is identified primarily to serve the

[15:52] neighborhood and the collectors intended to move traffic through the community. Yet, the proposed

[15:57] access for this development comes directly onto 7600 South. It does not connect this development

[16:02] to the plan 1650 and the 7775 South collector corridor. So, furthermore, 7600 South isn't

[16:09] highlighted going east from 1750 on the general plan because the city and all of us residents know

[16:15] that it's not wide enough for more traffic. So, I believe the city needs to answer a straightforward

[16:20] question. Um, why are we putting additional development traffic on a roadway identified

[16:24] as a local residential rather than preserving and utilizing the corridor the city has identified for

[16:29] the future collector traffic? This is especially important because the proposed connection will

[16:34] change existing traffic pattern. It creates more direct route toward the elementary school and will

[16:40] attract additional neighborhood and school related traffic onto 7600. The reason for the concern is

[16:46] this. I've also measured the existing roadway. Um the section of 7600 south between 1750 and 1900

[16:55] east. So going east is only 31 feet wide back of curb. Got some pictures I can show you guys too.

[17:01] Um, so that photograph documents and measurement. I've also photographed showing actual conditions

[17:07] on 7600 with cars and everything on there. Sorry, grab with that other note taken off.

[17:14] I had to redo. So there you can see cars trying to go between multiple pictures to show that just

[17:23] with cars parked on the street. Is anybody has any traffic there or any parties or anything going on?

[17:29] Um, so to show that and in between when cars are parked on either side, there's only 14 feet

[17:36] between two cars. Also along that same stretch of road, the sidewalk connectivity is incomplete for

[17:43] approximately six lots on the south side and roughly equivalent to two lots on the north

[17:47] side. So, if we're going to be increasing traffic on a relatively narrow roadway with

[17:52] existing pedestrian gra gaps near children traveling to and from an elementary school,

[17:57] the general plan calls for a connected streets, evaluating traffic in circulation before major

[18:02] development and coordinating tra transportation improvements with with uh development timing. So,

[18:08] I'm asking the planning commission and city staff to consider three questions. First,

[18:11] is 7600 South capable of serving safely serving traffic that this connection will generate and

[18:18] attract? Second, how will pedestrian safety and existing sidewalk gaps be addressed? And third,

[18:25] why would we place additional traffic on a roadway designated for local residential use when the city

[18:30] zone general plan identifies a separate corridor for future collector traffic? And that corridor

[18:36] is not even part of this development but owned by the same applicants of the zoning request

[18:40] change. So once again, I'm asking the city to [clears throat] make sure growth is connected

[18:46] to the community in the right place at the right roadway and consistent with the 2020 general plan

[18:51] that the city itself adopted from all of us citizens input. And we all took the time to do

[18:56] it because once these homes are built and this connection is made, we don't get to undo that

[19:01] traffic pattern very easily. For reference, look at 6650 south and 475 east. That would be changed

[19:07] to a dead end with how narrow it street is. So, I respectfully ask the planning commission and

[19:12] city staff to answer those questions and take a hard look at the proposed 7600 South access and

[19:18] the existing roadway and pedestrian conditions and additional traffic it will attract against

[19:23] the planned 1650 east and 7775 south collector connection before allowing this to go forward.

[19:31] Growth should not simply add homes. It should add infrastructure that is

[19:35] appropriate for the traffic those homes and the connections serving them will create. Thanks.

[19:58] Well, you can I don't know whether my questions are quite as detailed to that,

[20:02] but I I I guess I have questions about the actual development when it gets if it gets approved. Uh I

[20:07] own a lot right next to the Stark property on the east side, the northeast side of that is where my

[20:15] lot's at. I have a power line that comes right across that property. It's a with a on a power

[20:22] pole. I'm concerned about how the process is going to be and what it shouldn't be any cost

[20:28] cost to me to change that power that I've had that's been in service there for 70 years. So I

[20:36] I want to make sure that's considered and maybe that's what you said earlier as I get into the

[20:40] detail of that. I expect to be contacted or at least informed of what's happening there. Also,

[20:46] uh secondary water line that goes across there and services that area. I hope that it's got the

[20:51] capacity to add these 12 homes to it. When it was first developed, there was a farm and three

[20:56] houses down there down below. They added the subdivision to the west of the start property

[21:03] plus the Wendy up there in the field that's been added. So, the line that comes across the

[21:09] uh all of that subdivisions over there, I hope that's big enough to service all of that. Um

[21:16] curious about where the holding pond is for that property. Uh where was the runoff plan to be going

[21:22] down? Uh did that come across our property as well or is it coming down to the west somehow? Um

[21:34] just curious if the if there's going to be putting new fences in there for us or the existing fence

[21:40] is going to stay where they're at. Also curious about any existing buildings that are there along

[21:47] that road. If it get if the road goes in where it's at, what those those existing buildings

[21:52] should be left standing where there there shouldn't be any need for them to be taken down,

[21:56] I would say. And that's on our property. U you've already said 7600. I'm I'm glad to

[22:06] hear that you might be considering making that a common road number across there. In the past,

[22:11] it's been 7650 on that side of the fence and 7600 on our side of the fence. And Amazon can't find us

[22:19] if we use 7650, which is what our house number is, but Rory's house number on the other side

[22:23] of the street is 7600. So, there's been some confusing there. Let's get that cleaned up.

[22:30] Um, looks like there's a park strip that's designed to go up there on the east side

[22:37] of that road as it goes up into up toward that field. Who's going to maintain that

[22:42] park strip? There's sidewalk and a park strip there. Who's going to maintain that?

[22:53] You can maybe answer that right now. I don't know.

[22:58] Certainly, we are concerned about the additional traffic as well. I

[23:02] just echo what they've said. Thank you. Thank you.

[23:17] Uh Chat Thomas, South 7629 South. I'm on the corner right there. So,

[23:22] um love development, prodevelopment. We've been in that home since 2013. We were actually the

[23:27] second to the last home built right there. But I would echo what uh Nelden said on 7600. There's a

[23:35] bus stop at the top of 1900 where kids walk down 7600. That is definitely a safety issue first and

[23:41] foremost. Uh in my mind, my kid actually rides the bus and so they take that route as well. Um,

[23:47] so I would just make sure that this development plan doesn't just benefit a developer that wants

[23:52] to put another lot at the top and not have a road cut through to benefit them. That the city's,

[23:58] you know, putting a conscious effort on the safety of of children and and cars getting

[24:03] through there. Like he echoed, it is a nightmare when there's parties, cars on

[24:07] both sides of the road. It's nearly impossible to get through it. One lane road. Thank you.

[24:22] Uh, good evening. My name is Jeremy Cummings. I live at 1820 East, 7600 South. So,

[24:30] I oppose obviously this entire plan. Uh because I would be actually, you know, east of the what

[24:38] you're showing right now, the short uh piece of what they're talking about of how many cars can

[24:44] actually fit through there. So that would affect, you know, my property because it hasn't been

[24:50] opened up where it is, you know, past Chad's house or anything else. So that roadway would be very,

[24:56] very slim. And as we mentioned, we get kids walking to the school bus, which is actually

[25:00] the end of 7600. So, there's a a pickup place for all the children and obviously there's a

[25:08] park there and there's not a stretch of sidewalk all the way through there if you can uh look on

[25:14] the map. So oppose that the council um deny this proposal for now is there continues to be more

[25:22] studies of the road way and obviously the through traffic that that's going to create for 7600.

[25:42] I'm Dan Jones. I'm on 1750 East and my concern also is the 7600 access. Um I've been out here

[25:52] for 40 years. I know there's been studies on 7600 in the past where they've taken measurements and

[25:59] the fire department has deemed they can't get a fire truck through. If you've got cars on

[26:04] both sides of the road, they will have to hit the car to get through. And so that's

[26:10] my main concern of this whole development. I'm fine if they build houses back there,

[26:15] but let's do it smart. And either we've got to take care of 7600 to accommodate the new

[26:21] traffic or like uh Nelen said, the road behind that goes in front of the doll's

[26:28] house. Something has to be improved before we can add development there. Thank you.

[26:46] Can we get a motion to close public hearing? Motion to close public hearing

[26:52] for the start zone. I'll second. All in favor? Yes. Yes. Yes. And yes.

[27:02] Um action item number five, the stall stark doll reszone at approximately

[27:08] 1675E 7650 South. The change from agricultural to residential moderate on approximately 5.9

[27:18] acres. Um the applicant is Russ Wilson of Symphony Development.

[27:26] Um, can we hear from the is the developer here? Hello. Thanks for your time tonight. Uh,

[27:35] my name is Russ Wilson. I work for Symphony Development, which is

[27:39] uh the land development companies or part of Symphony Homes. Um, I don't know if I

[27:45] have a lot to add, but I'm happy to answer any questions that you might have for me.

[27:54] Questions? I just know if you wanted to say anything or have anything to respond with

[27:58] anything that anybody said or anything. No, I I guess one thing that I'll say is the the

[28:03] 7600 South discussion. This is actually the first time I've heard that people are opposed to that.

[28:10] Ever ever since we um have been working on this, all all I've heard is that the city would really

[28:16] like to make that connection, have it go through. We are planning to build it to city spec and and

[28:23] the you know matching the widths that are that are already there. Um we are contracted to buy the the

[28:31] portion of the property that's shown in green on on this um from the doll and the Stark families,

[28:36] but we we don't have uh any commitment to purchase any more land from them. They're

[28:41] they're planning to maintain their their home and the remainder of their property on the south side.

[28:48] Other than that, I don't have much much else to mention. Awesome. Thank you. Thank you.

[28:57] We we

[29:00] That was Yeah, that was your opportunity when we had the hearing open to answer ask the question.

[29:05] So, right now we're off. Thanks. Since I've heard the question, I'll I'll just answer

[29:10] real quick. The the existing homes that are there, there are two existing homes and some

[29:14] out buildings as well. Our plan is to demolish those and to build new homes on on the lot shown.

[29:22] Thank you. Um and then just reminder this is just the reszone from agriculture to

[29:30] residential. So nothing is final with anything else on it. Right. Correct. Correct. Yeah. I

[29:38] just had a point of clarification. I know with the acreage the 5.9 that they have available

[29:43] given the residential moderate zone they are actually allowed 18 homes correct or is it 16

[29:50] I think I got 16 but 16 but they're not asking for 16 they're only asking for the 12 that are

[29:57] kind of showing on that plot so they're actually asking for less residences so larger lots than

[30:03] what they could be asking for correct it that is what the concept plan shows Um, this is not

[30:11] with the reszone then I guess the concept plan is there just as an illustration. It's their intent.

[30:18] I'm I'm 90% sure that's what they do. But what is H this request is to reszone to RM. So they

[30:25] could come back redesign and get some more lots in there if they wanted. Technically it would be

[30:31] zone to RM. That's this action. We just asked for the concept plan to be an indicator and anyway.

[30:38] So it's not it's not 100% binding, I guess, would be my point. That's what I want to make

[30:43] clear is that they could come back and actually shrink a lot and go with the higher, you know,

[30:50] allowable density if the residential if they can make it fit. If they can make it fit. How much how

[30:56] many homes in residential low moderate could they do? If you did RL meaning would be less than 12 or

[31:07] [clears throat]

[31:16] RL or RLM? RLM. Sorry. RLM. Okay.

[31:33] So that density is 1.5 building lots per acre.

[31:41] I can barely do math. People are looking at me. I really can't. We're all looking away right now.

[31:52] I get 10. It's 10.9 but very close.

[32:05] um with it and I know general plan the future land use for this whole area is residential moderate so

[32:10] it's not like they're going outside of what the general plan indicated for any future reszoning.

[32:15] That's correct. I do think there is an opportunity just because there was a lot of questions and

[32:19] comments tonight about the roads um when the development actually comes forward. That's where

[32:25] you'll get to see what the developers actually doing where the road specifications there'll

[32:29] be a lot more detail provided. So definitely if you're paying attention pay attention to that and

[32:35] if there's something that you see that impacts the safety and doesn't address the concerns you have

[32:39] that's going to be when you're going to want to come back up and make sure we're paying attention.

[32:44] We are but Would you like me to answer some of the questions that came up if you want? Oh, yeah,

[32:51] sure. So, u is is 7600 capable and safe u of handling the additional traffic? Um,

[33:02] initially we didn't think it was an issue at all, but we could uh get in and do a little

[33:06] more traffic analysis, but at a at a glance, city engineer didn't feel that that was an additional

[33:12] traffic study would be required. Um so yes it should the sidewalk gaps um will they be

[33:19] filled? How will that be addressed? That would be a a future project that would just happen as

[33:25] um you know city funds were made available. Um it's very hard to tie those improvements to this

[33:33] project, but it would be something that could get uh elevated on the city's project list to

[33:38] fill that to make sure that that happens. Um, and when you think gaps, what are we talking

[33:44] about in terms of I I think that the parcels there's a gap at 7600 um just to the east uh at

[33:56] about 1780s. There's a gap there between Erica Ways Homes and there's a couple homes and then

[34:06] um it's I think it's actually HOA property. Yeah, it's a HOA for Ericson Meadows PUB down

[34:12] below. There's no sidewalk there. I believe that's what they're referring to. Yeah.

[34:20] And then Yeah. So those and that's that's a function of um cities grow and and when

[34:27] those things went in that was not a an issue and wasn't required and and cities generally try and

[34:33] come back in and fill those in as needed. So, um, this might, you know, if this development goes in,

[34:40] that would become a higher priority, I would imagine, for the city to fill in those gaps

[34:44] so that there is that safe walk. Uh, the roadway width, the paving is adequate. Um,

[34:51] again, we could double check with the the fire department. No issues were raised though when

[34:54] we initially discussed this. They So, uh, we'll have to do some double-checking before we go too

[35:00] much further. Um, it was really hard to come back and retrofit that. So, we'd have have to see um

[35:08] about that. Uh the power line would modification would work with uh that's a Rocky Mountain power

[35:14] call where they want to pull their power from and all that. That's part of the development process

[35:17] to look in and analyze that. Uh as as well as the secondary water capacity. I don't know what

[35:24] they need to do. They're a separate district. They would look at their s their improvements.

[35:29] any improvements that they need as part of this specific subdivision they could do um and require

[35:35] but not overall infrastructure that would not be the burden of this developer necessarily.

[35:42] uh you know the details of the holding pond location um and buildings that would be the

[35:48] development process um as and the subdivision process looking at those standards and what's

[35:54] required to meet the engineering and flow rates and all that kind of thing uh the storm drain

[35:59] impacts. So those details we'll get into it. The subdivision should this be approved. Um as far

[36:06] as who maintains the sidewalk in the park strip I believe is a public road that's going to be

[36:10] put in. It's not going to be private. So this this that culde-sac that's would be proposed

[36:16] the sidewalk and park strip are the city's responsibility. Now sidewalks and park strips

[36:21] per city code. It's public right away but the adjacent land owners responsible for maintaining

[36:26] and keeping the sidewalk but um would be a new sidewalk and be okay. Um very very typical. Um,

[36:39] yeah. And then the road name, we we do need to make sure we address that and make sure that

[36:43] that happens appropriately. That's a good thought. Um, I think that's what I got. So,

[36:52] there's more details to come, but there's some issues there. We definitely will look into more,

[36:57] but a lot of them are handled at subdivision where we get into those details if this is approved.

[37:03] Um, I just have kind of a point of clarification question. Just if there's 12 lots that's being

[37:08] presented, can we make that a condition of the reason to lock in that number and not have it

[37:14] potentially high? You could you could make it a condition a condition of approval. Yeah.

[37:38] for the res. Oh, I was just she was doing math and I was waiting to see if that was going to

[37:45] go and I guess there's nothing on this resone that impacts the potential future connection

[37:50] of that 1650 east over to Yeah, that's a big one. Sorry, my math cut off. So I don't even

[37:57] know what the road that could potentially be. It would be 7775. Yeah. Yeah. All these dead

[38:04] ends in the same. Sorry. In our discussions, we did say that the plat amendment uh would

[38:11] because this is being split off. But we would ask that when that property is developed,

[38:17] there's a specific plat that would say it is um that that road extension would go through when

[38:24] the future connections would still be okay. Yeah. Can you identify the road? The road is 7775 South.

[38:45] Just south of the off this map 1650 east.

[38:53] Yeah. Yeah. 9750. Yeah, we're there is we can I'm I'm just looking at the county park map.

[39:03] 7775. It's not the time for this conver that part of the Yeah, we're good. We're sorry. No,

[39:10] you're fine. Um Yes. Yeah. 100% is um just a reminder like so every all your concerns

[39:20] have been noted. None of the decisions that are being made today are saying no to those.

[39:26] Um this is just simply reszoning it for the opportunity to to build this and then we will

[39:32] still discuss everything else. But I think that if you're ready to make a motion with

[39:37] your condition then we'll do that. Um I'm going to move to recommend the city council to start doll

[39:42] reszone at approximately 675 east um 7650 south um a change from agricultural um to residential

[39:50] moderate sorry fixing um at approximately 5.6 6 acres. Um applicant Russ Wilson with

[39:59] Symphony Development with the condition that the reszone recommendation is contingent on 12 lots

[40:06] only or less. I'm fine if you go lower. And can I get a second? Oh yeah. Yeah.

[40:21] Were you making Was that your That was my motion. Yeah. You

[40:24] didn't hear me? I did. Okay. And then do we get a We need a second. Second.

[40:31] I'll second. And then we'll do a roll call. Yes. Yes. Yes. And yes.

[40:42] When do we think that we'll get the actual um plat or the sorry blank on the name of

[40:49] it. the next step when they actually bring the development proposal forward. Well,

[40:56] the preliminary plat application would be the next step. I don't know what the developers timeline

[41:01] is. Okay. I imagine there would like to go as fast as possible usually. I would think so. Keep paying

[41:06] attention to public notices because there will be another that'll be a public meeting where we

[41:12] will look over the criteria for the subdivision. And just why we have an opportunity to make sure

[41:18] everybody understands it's a meeting. So there's not a an opportunity to speak to it specifically.

[41:25] Um but there is the opportunity when that meeting comes up, get your comments to staff and uh and

[41:31] plan commission or whoever ahead of time. Yeah. Um and then we can hopefully address them better. So

[41:36] absolutely period that you can comment on during that. Yes, you could. Yes. I just wanted to say

[41:45] thanks to you for uh the comments because now we can research them. Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely. Good.

[41:56] Hey, plan amendment discussion.

[42:30] any want to do this part. I you guys discussion I I uh tried to put together you know a summary

[42:38] of our last conversation and the priorities um of the of the general plan discussion and the

[42:44] amendments we wanted to go forward. So, we have that short list of the seven items in order. Um,

[42:52] and I kind of just basically we I broke it down into number one is is just general plan map

[42:59] amendments. There's five of them there. Those are things that staff at least my recollection of the

[43:05] conversation with staff was going to work on those uh and then bring them back when we do a general

[43:10] plan amendment, one of the other amendments so that we can have all those addressed at that time.

[43:15] Um, we would bring drafts to you guys to make sure we're we're uh on board and and have the draft

[43:23] uh or have your issues identified and and the changes you want and then that would go actually

[43:31] so we [clears throat] let me slow down. We'll staff will draft it. planning commission would

[43:40] give public would give comments in a meeting to say what they did and didn't want and make sure

[43:45] that it's what you want and your would like to recommend. Then we would begin an application

[43:51] officially to amend the general plan and um and then that would have a public hearing with the

[43:59] planning commission with a recommendation of city council to approve it. And and my thinking has

[44:05] been and the process we kind of discussed is that we bring forward two or three amendments

[44:10] so we could discuss them all at once, but there'd be three, you know, multiple amendments. The maps

[44:15] would all be one uh per request and then maybe it's annexation and I don't know whatever other

[44:21] changes we end up going for. U so that would be the process and that's that's item number one.

[44:29] Staff's working on those changes uh to address all that stuff. That's the sensitive lands, the the

[44:35] land use and the RP clouds and that type of thing. U then um then I put together a little background

[44:44] information on the annexation um uh with the southbench area kind of you asked requested for

[44:52] pros cons. There's a table in there discussing that. I can read through it if you want or just

[44:58] answer questions however you guys want to handle it. And then the other item I put together was

[45:04] the central uh part of future downtown. And and I what I did here was just kind of looked at other

[45:10] cities and other jurisdictions and criteria that they had out there because it is such a high level

[45:16] thing and such a um I mean it's down the road. Um I mean I don't anticipate lots of land use changes

[45:26] but we all want to have that plan ready. So what I put in there I just everything's in there.

[45:31] correct uh that I could think of to put in there that you know maybe we want to address this. We

[45:36] can certainly delete. Maybe there's stuff I've missed. I tried to throw in everything

[45:40] and then we can it's easier to pair it down. Uh but looking at design criteria, land uses,

[45:46] you know, those types of things. And it's and it's the verbiage especially in a general plan

[45:52] is we should do these things. We want to look for these things. And as I was reviewing it today,

[45:57] it almost reads like an RFP, a request for proposals of we want somebody to do a small area

[46:03] plan or a central downtown plan that addresses all these elements. And that might be how it goes

[46:10] forward. But the first step would be say this is our vision for that downtown area. And so that's

[46:15] that's that document. Like I said, just trying to throw everything I could think of in there. I had

[46:20] a question and I don't it was the um annexation I think is what this just the three pages that

[46:26] were inserted into the packet. Was that meant to just kind of be an example of how discussion has

[46:32] taken place when a land owner has approached South Beaver City wanting to discuss annexation was that

[46:39] way those three pages the minutes from the city council meeting. Yeah, it was it was one just an

[46:46] example of somebody that had come in and actually made the request. I also kept it in there because

[46:51] um it it was talking about the specific area and a concept that somebody had brought forward.

[46:57] Okay. And and we got some feedback that's that's why I included the minutes of from the council

[47:02] discussion regarding those different elements and what was important. Um I mean it boils down to

[47:08] just a couple pages, but okay. Um, I just wanted the context as to why that was in there because I

[47:13] didn't see anything that really explained it and it was at first I was like, was this supposed to

[47:17] be in there? City council minutes, not our stuff. Thank you for that. Well, yeah. And so, yeah, page

[47:24] 20 of 38 is just kind of here's what I heard we want to talk about. There's the elements we should

[47:29] address and kind of the procons of of whether we should or should not annex it, that specific area.

[47:35] Then the actual then pages 21 and 22 23 are the the current general plan language and we'd have to

[47:43] find something to merge it together. And then 24 is the map and the and the council discussion is

[47:49] 25 26. Anyway, so that was just kind of background information and kind of what was been proposed

[47:57] um in the past and discussed. they went away. Uh, but I think they're out there kind of still

[48:03] working on a plan for potential annexation and what they what they want to do. And a lot of the

[48:10] comments in there is kind of stuff we've talked about about having control over future access.

[48:16] And so that No, I like that. Sorry, I should label better background information. Yes. Well,

[48:25] do we just go down the list? Um, do we do we keep if we don't need to change? Okay, I know.

[48:39] I mean, I think some of it just comes down to Are we doing anything with it? Yeah.

[48:47] Yeah, that's still seven topics. I mean, if we would the I think discussing the the city square,

[48:58] whatever we're calling it thing is Central Park future. Central Park. I feel like that's an easy

[49:05] Chad. Will you speak into the mic? Oh, the Yeah, that the Central Park area. Does that sound like

[49:14] a easy place to start talking about? any concerns or questions on I mean like you said it's going

[49:22] to be future enough because that's a lot of money that and big change doesn't really exist yet it's

[49:29] just but planning for the idea but that's the idea is yeah let's what do we want that to look like

[49:35] what's what are the important critical elements uh and I like I think that's such a long list that we

[49:40] could say yeah these are important things and we want to address them or not so how does that work

[49:48] in the realm of if the large parcel to the west goes for sale. I mean then we say okay we want

[49:55] this part of the downtown district but we don't have the whole land like can you buy it in parcels

[50:00] can you you know how would that work in the future? Well, by having it in the general plan,

[50:05] we've laid out the vision and what we want to see. um as as we I mean this is a very high

[50:12] level. Yes. And just that question alone, maybe we create another zone that has more teeth uh that we

[50:19] would say, "Yeah, this parcel is if somebody else bought it and they said we want to develop it and

[50:25] they came in with single family homes, we would have the zone criteria and and the uh language in

[50:31] the general plan and maybe a zoning district that would implement this is the city's vision for this

[50:37] property. we only get one chance at it. And so we even though it's just one part of it, how does how

[50:43] can we make it move toward that vision? And then and and that's the Utah development process is

[50:50] they come in parcel by parcel and like we kind of just have to line up the parts and get what we can

[50:56] with each one as they come in. So we could make a zone that's central park zoning and then we could

[51:02] define what that zone means and what can be on it. So whether or not we own the properties or not,

[51:08] we could have them zoned in a fashion that we want. So if somebody comes and presents something,

[51:13] it's like that would to have it zone, the city would have to initiate and and kind of do that

[51:20] without the landowner's permission potentially. Would that future land use map be updated to show

[51:25] that the future land use for this parcel is to be a central park zone and not have the other

[51:34] options because like we don't want to sell it and then lose that opportunity. That would be

[51:38] a change to a future land use map. So yeah, so we would just like tonight's discussion,

[51:43] we would have on this map when somebody came in or the preliminary discussions, we would, you know,

[51:48] if they came in with that property to the east, south of the church, north, south of the church,

[51:53] um we would just say, "Yeah, this is the vision the city has for that. This is what we want to

[51:58] see. Uh and this is the zoning district we've developed to implement it." and but that process

[52:05] is with a general plan amendment that has um you know maybe some to-do items in it. Then we

[52:13] actually had create the zone district. Going to this final step of actually reszoning a property

[52:19] is kind of a big deal in Utah. We wouldn't do that without the land owner's permission generally,

[52:24] but you know, we'd have it sitting there ready and saying this is the criteria we want to see in this

[52:29] property when it gets if any redevelopment recurs. Does that make sense? Like I'm just

[52:46] any thoughts? No. all those items on the list. Yeah, look good.

[52:57] I mean, I feel like we've broken down each of the top hoods enough. Like, I don't feel like there's

[53:00] anything that needs to be added. It's just probably more of a how are we going to attack

[53:04] these because I know we've kind of skipped over number three, the transportation connections. I

[53:08] I do think that one might turn into a bigger, you know, the connection issues because again,

[53:13] we're kind of dependent upon, you know, those deadend roads and the property that's in between

[53:19] where we would like to see those connections take place. Until those properties actually come up

[53:24] for development, we can't really say, "Hey, put this connection here." But do we have a plan?

[53:31] Do we have those connections written down somewhere on our future transportation map

[53:36] or wherever is the best location just to make sure they're being identified? Well,

[53:41] and then annexation is part of that. We want to control that between us and Leighton, you know,

[53:49] and I would like currently what the our annexation plan and the annexation chapter is. Yes,

[53:54] we want to annex it and it's open space. Well, that's that's a that's a big ask. Uh might be

[54:03] challenging to just get them to do open space and annex. Yeah. So anyway, it'd be challenging.

[54:13] Yeah. And there's a little related with Leighton. Yeah. And then part of it was we discussed that

[54:18] that what was that company up there? Was it? Yeah, that was annexing that into us,

[54:27] right? Yeah, cuz that would incorp look at incorporating that. Yes. Right.

[54:38] I don't have anything really to add or change to this list. But I don't either. So, I mean,

[54:42] that's the direction I think we want to go forward with this.

[54:50] Yeah. I don't Is there any crossover between items number three and items number seven?

[54:58] What was that? Um because it says for the transportation connectivity element. Is that

[55:05] something that can maybe be absorbed into one single topic or is there something that keeps

[55:11] it separate? I think those could be combined into discussing the transportation element itself. Just

[55:18] to maybe give us one last thing. I mean still covering what needs to be discussed but our our

[55:22] current general plan is is very high level. So we might we might add more depth to it. Okay.

[55:33] So I guess that's my only let's merge number three and number seven together just for cohesive

[55:41] and then going forward it's just picking one or two and and that's what start yeah what's

[55:49] I mean number one as I've stated staff's going to start working on um it seems like

[55:56] and and this is this is building a city the annexation and the transportation go hand in

[56:03] uh you can't discuss one without the other really. You try and separate them as much as you can,

[56:08] but there's there there's going to be overlap in those issues because that

[56:12] road connection up there would be a big part of the annexation, I would think.

[56:22] Yeah. The infrastructure.

[56:26] Yeah.

[56:34] As far as order, is this the order that we you want to tackle them in?

[56:42] If we're tackling them in pairs, I think it makes sense. Oh, yeah. Keep annexation

[56:48] with the transportation. The first two and three transportation connections. It all kind of flow

[56:55] together. Yeah, I think that's good order. I mean, I personally don't feel like the um this is just

[57:03] my two cents. Hold on. The conversation about the it's so far off into the future, we're not going

[57:12] to spend a lot of time getting detail into it. Might just be like potential zoning. And that's

[57:18] all I wanted that one on there for was because it's I think that one's an easy one to just have

[57:24] done. and um whoever brought up I mean last time if if it's zoned as such and if somebody does

[57:32] see a benefit and wants to make them an offer and solves everybody's problem then so be it. I just

[57:39] think we help it look better to potential buyers if it's zoned already appropriately and they don't

[57:48] need to worry about it. So, I think that one's an easy one to just check off the list and and

[57:53] make our choice on that because but you're right. I mean, it's unlikely anything will come of it,

[58:00] but we can at least I guess that maybe ties to the number five topic of the 2,800. Is that 2,800

[58:07] East? Yes. Can we just add that to the Yeah. And cornea just because that I think kind of

[58:14] ties into if we're continued light industrial and commercial uses along that kind of corridor. It

[58:19] ties into where the Yes. the gravel pits are. So they all flow. So what I'm hearing you say

[58:25] is is is draft up similar to our current language and our current general plan. Just kind of and I

[58:33] can't remember what we say about the gravel place now, but I imagine we say something.

[58:37] But we have it at least as commercial on the future land use map partic land use map. Um

[58:45] so just write up a little bit more about we see this as developing down the future. We want to see

[58:52] these types of uses just kind of a high level thing is what then we looked at it basically.

[58:57] Yeah because that is a topic of citizens. I think people are more currently concerned about

[59:04] the the dust still blowing out of it. Yes, sir. And disturbing. Yeah. Use of property.

[59:17] Then I think for Yeah. Yeah. I think I don't need to bring that up right now. I'm just trying to

[59:22] stay focused and not get off on a get off on a tangent. So, I caught myself there because

[59:31] once I start, I mean, keep going. Just ask everybody to work. I can just keep going. Um,

[59:42] okay. Yeah, I'm good. I don't I don't have anything else. Anything else? I think it was

[59:48] just good. Yeah, thanks for providing some more clarity and understanding on that and the process.

[59:55] It just seems bigger now. But thank you. These are big big issues. [laughter]

[1:00:03] They're hard. What's the time frame for inviting public comment on any of these topics? Um

[1:00:14] I feel like some of them once the maps are updated, I mean there's not really going to

[1:00:17] be much commentary except for seeing, you know, the changes that have happened across the various

[1:00:22] maps. I think to get annexation and transportation into a a draft that I'd like to have you guys

[1:00:31] um discuss. I doubt that's September, but you know, maybe maybe that's October. So,

[1:00:38] when you have a draft and you're bringing it back to us, that's the same time it's going to be open

[1:00:44] public to come and Well, no. My thought is that I well I I let me know but my my thought that a way

[1:00:52] that would work well is I come back to you with an actual here's my recommended and I'll work

[1:00:58] with other staff to get this stuff together as well but here's a recommendation of an amendment

[1:01:04] to the general plan regarding transportation and annexation and maybe that's they're two sections

[1:01:10] but they're so overlapping that the discussion will be overlapping so let's tackle them both at

[1:01:15] once which I We're all It's what you guys said and and go through that with you guys uh of here's the

[1:01:21] draft language. You guys say, "Yep, that's what we want. This is what we want tweaked. That's how

[1:01:27] we want to see it changed." Then we say, "Okay, now we're going to do a propose this as an actual

[1:01:33] application or an amendment to the general plan." Then we'd come back uh with any refinements and uh

[1:01:41] come to a public hearing. Okay. With the planning commission. Okay. That's when the public would

[1:01:47] come. Yeah. So each topic is like two meetings. Yeah. And my pause is is maybe we want to do

[1:01:55] something before that rather than go from draft to public hearing. There's an open house there in

[1:02:04] the middle because this is a huge issue. and get allow people to look at it in depth. Discuss with

[1:02:09] planning commission, discuss with council, discuss with staff. Here's my issues. Um, you know,

[1:02:15] if we do this, is this is going to, you know, anyway, get the public a more open opportunity and

[1:02:20] then present a draft. So, your public draft, plan commission, work session comments, uh, community

[1:02:29] work session, and then public hearing adoption. So we could do so if we start I mean granted you

[1:02:39] have time to get it done if not September let's say let's say it's September October whatever

[1:02:42] it doesn't matter what month but so let's say it's September then in October you're going

[1:02:47] to bring back recommendations or any corrections or anything like that we're going to a more firm

[1:02:53] draft more firm draft so we could also tie that one into do we think there's going to be enough

[1:02:59] time to we could tie now the initial conversation you could have your initial draft ready for the

[1:03:06] next topic. So, we could kind of overlap two for that second month rather than just saying we're

[1:03:13] only going to do or is that not enough time for staff to prepare things in between? Um to to get a

[1:03:20] lot of staff um I think the planning aspects could be there. Um getting other staff to weigh in and

[1:03:28] all that would might be a little tricky in that short of time. So, maybe try shoot for it. Yeah,

[1:03:34] if we're not there, we're not there. Then by the time we do the hearing, at least that meeting,

[1:03:39] we could then maybe look at also having so like we're at least starting the next stairst step it,

[1:03:46] right? Yeah. Just so we're not like completely like waiting on the other items while we're

[1:03:50] like try to overlap a little bit, but I get the amendment number one draft is also going to be the

[1:03:55] same meaning as concept number two. Yeah, there you go. That's what I'm getting at. Concept if you

[1:03:59] have the time. Yeah, but that's what we'll plan. We can shoot for that. And if you get it ready,

[1:04:03] you get it ready. I mean, I don't want you to like rush or we get something that's not ready.

[1:04:08] Yeah. I don't want to come in without, you know, engineering hasn't had a chance to even look at

[1:04:13] this, right? Yeah. If we're talking about there's no point doing it. Yeah. We kind of need that to

[1:04:17] weigh in. Okay. So, but but we'll work to we might we'll go for it and see how close we get. And then

[1:04:26] if by some reason one of the meetings ends up turning into four hours and we had that second

[1:04:32] one on there, I mean technically we can we can just push that and do it to the next month. We

[1:04:38] don't we don't need to do it if it's just on the agenda to do it. There's not a a deadline per se.

[1:04:44] Yeah. I mean we do want to move forward and get done, but it's not like this has to be done in 25

[1:04:50] December 25th. like there's not a hard line. Well, not connectivity element is June 27th. Still I

[1:04:59] mean that's still nine months away. So you should be able to do that and actually 2026 not 2025.

[1:05:09] Okay. That all sounds good to me. Um, anything from the that's not related to

[1:05:19] what we've already talked about? No. Did we get enough people to go to the um fall planning? Oh,

[1:05:28] yeah. Conference to get the Oh, you and Marty are the only two I've heard that

[1:05:33] actually responded to the email. Yeah. If it makes you feel better, I saw it and I thought

[1:05:38] about it. So I was I count that as been a lot of parchment. That's what I'm saying.

[1:05:46] Yeah. Oh, that's actually a terrible day for me. I actually I think it's the 10th

[1:05:51] and 11th. 10th and 11th. Yeah. Oh, sorry. 10th. Oh, 10th and 11th. Yeah. So now you

[1:05:56] right. Yeah. Marty is all in. He wants to go. But if we can get two more commissioners,

[1:06:02] we actually get a little break in the cost. So trying to save the city some. Then you

[1:06:05] have two more. We'll we'll sign up three and maybe send staff or somebody. I don't know.

[1:06:11] Maybe a city council member wants to go. I mean, I can for sure do the 11th. Well,

[1:06:17] so I would say so let's sign up three and maybe one of you can come on the 10th. One of Yeah,

[1:06:21] I would say do that. The 11th, I think, is only a half day. Oh, okay. Those Friday afternoons,

[1:06:26] no one shows up. They finally they finally accepted that. And we do have a planning

[1:06:32] commission meeting at Oh, yeah. There's And it's in Leighton. Okay. It's the convention center. So,

[1:06:39] yeah. So, it's actually a shorter commute for some of you. True. Yeah, I can do that.

[1:06:50] Sign up for it. It's a pretty good deal. 100 bucks. Pay for it. Okay. Well,

[1:06:59] and um you know, if you can come to a part of it or a part of half a day,

[1:07:04] you kind of get I looked at the agenda. There's some there's some good stuff. Um

[1:07:09] it's always good to expose new ideas and that type of thing in the playing realm

[1:07:12] and more importantly it checks a big box for the training. So, I mean, we've technically met that,

[1:07:20] but sure be nice to go above. Never hurts. Yeah. Okay. Okay. All we have um a motion.

[1:07:31] You want to make a motion to adjurnn? No. Motion to adjurnn. Second. All in favor? Yes. Any yes?

2026.8.19 Planning Commission Meeting

Transcript