[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?