[0:00] We've got the go-ahead that we're ready

[0:01] to go. Thank you everybody for joining

[0:03] us in council meeting tonight in Spanish

[0:06] Fork City, April 7th, 2026.

[0:09] Everybody joining us in the council

[0:11] chambers uh in person and and online, we

[0:14] appreciate you being involved in your

[0:15] community. Uh we'll start off like we

[0:18] always do in Spanish Fork with a prayer

[0:20] and motivational thought uh given by

[0:22] Councilman Carden and then Councilman

[0:25] Tuk is going to lead us in the pledge.

[0:27] Councilman Carden,

[0:28] >> I just have a prayer tonight. Thank you.

[0:31] Our Father in heaven, we are thankful to

[0:33] bow our heads before thee this night.

[0:34] We're thankful for this great city that

[0:36] we live in and to be neighbors and

[0:37] friends. We're thankful, Father, for um

[0:39] all those in the city that volunteer of

[0:42] their time and efforts to help the city.

[0:44] We're thankful for our servicemen and

[0:47] women who protect us and keep us safe um

[0:50] and help us when we're in need. We ask

[0:51] you, Father, to please bless us tonight.

[0:52] That we can make sound decisions. That

[0:54] we can have our ears open as we as we

[0:56] listen to one another and as we as we

[0:58] speak that we can have um peace in our

[1:01] hearts and as we make or as we um have

[1:04] differing thoughts that we can use um

[1:05] words to help um deliver what we what we

[1:08] mean. And we say this in the name of our

[1:09] savior Jesus Christ. Amen.

[1:11] >> Amen.

[1:12] >> Please stand and repeat after me.

[1:16] I aliance to the flag of the United

[1:19] States of America and to the republic

[1:22] for which it stands. One nation under

[1:25] God, indivisible, with liberty and

[1:28] justice for all.

[1:32] » Thank you. Uh we'll get on to item C,

[1:36] the oath of office tonight. Mr. Chief

[1:39] Matt Johnson.

[1:43] » Yes. Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Council.

[1:45] It's always a privilege for me to take

[1:48] the opportunity to introduce to you our

[1:51] uh newest officers here at the police

[1:53] department. We have three great

[1:55] individuals this evening that you'll be

[1:57] administering the oath of office to. And

[2:00] I'd like to first start by introducing

[2:02] Kurt Dunn.

[2:11] So Kurt comes to us from the San Juan

[2:13] County Sheriff's Office. He says it's a

[2:15] little bit different experience

[2:17] patrolling Spanish Fort than San Juan

[2:19] County. He responds to a call in 5

[2:22] minutes here instead of an hour and a

[2:24] half like he did in San Juan County.

[2:27] Backup's really close here in Spanish

[2:29] Fork instead of 30 minutes away like it

[2:32] was in San Juan. But uh he's resided in

[2:35] Monaceel.

[2:36] just recently moved up here to the area.

[2:39] Originally grew up in San Anton in San

[2:41] Antonio, Texas. Four years law

[2:44] enforcement experience. Uh he's

[2:46] currently in our field training officer

[2:48] program right now doing a phenomenal job

[2:51] and I'm just hearing lots of positive

[2:53] things about Kurt and we just want to

[2:55] welcome you here to Spanish Fork. So,

[2:58] welcome. You can just have a seat right

[3:00] there. Uh Trevor Maguire

[3:07] So Trevor comes to us from uh the Jwab

[3:10] County Sheriff's Office where he has had

[3:12] two years experience. Uh he has a

[3:15] bachelor's degree in forensic science.

[3:18] Uh speak Spanish. Uh great addition to

[3:21] the police department, a Spanish Fork

[3:23] native here in Spanish Fork. Uh his

[3:27] uncle Phil Nelson just recently retired

[3:29] from the police department after 26

[3:32] years of service. Uh Trevor's doing a

[3:35] phenomenal job as well. Uh matter of

[3:38] fact, I was giving him accolades for the

[3:41] other night at the Sugarbeat Factory. He

[3:44] caught some trespassers there that were

[3:45] stripping wire from the building. So

[3:49] >> So he's uh he's been on graveyards and

[3:51] swing shifts, but doing a great job. And

[3:54] we just want to welcome Trevor here to

[3:55] the Spanish Fork City Police Department.

[3:59] Moises Fernandez.

[4:08] Moises uh started with us about three

[4:10] months ago as a part-time officer. He

[4:12] worked for the Mapleton City Police

[4:14] Department for about a year and a half

[4:17] and uh he grew up in Jab County,

[4:20] currently resides here in Spanish Fork

[4:23] and is just doing a great job for us. uh

[4:26] positive things are being said about him

[4:28] as well as our other two new officers.

[4:31] And as I looked through their background

[4:34] packets when we were hiring them, all

[4:36] three of them uh had several great

[4:39] comments from their previous employers,

[4:41] commendations, life-saving awards, just

[4:45] some great accolades just to show the

[4:47] caliber of people that they are. So,

[4:49] Spanish Fork's in good hands with these

[4:51] three individuals and we're excited to

[4:54] bring them on board.

[4:58] That being said, I'll turn the time over

[5:00] to you.

[5:01] >> All right, we're going to try to do

[5:02] three at a time here, Pete. Is that the

[5:04] idea, Chief?

[5:06] >> Yes, that would be Chiefs

[5:15] from mayor who can barely walk and chew

[5:17] gum at the same time. We're going to try

[5:19] to do three of these at the same time.

[5:20] If you'll come over here by the chief

[5:28] When I when I say I, we'll start with

[5:31] you, then you, then you, and then we'll

[5:35] go on with the rest of the office. Is

[5:38] that clear instructions?

[5:40] >> Very clear.

[5:42] >> All right. Raise your right arm for

[5:43] this.

[5:45] All of you say I.

[5:47] >> I.

[5:50] Officer Fernandez.

[5:51] >> Magguire. Kurt. do solemnly swear

[5:55] >> Doly swear

[5:56] >> that I will to the best of my ability

[5:58] >> I will to the best of my ability

[6:00] >> and with the highest level of integrity

[6:02] >> the highest level of integrity

[6:03] >> serve the people of Spanish city

[6:07] >> and preserve protect

[6:10] >> and defend the constitution of the

[6:12] United States

[6:13] >> and defend the constitution of the

[6:14] United States

[6:15] >> and the Constitution of the state of

[6:16] Utah

[6:17] >> and the Constitution of the State of

[6:18] Utah.

[6:19] >> Congratulations

[6:39] Chief, did we want them to speak in

[6:40] front of their family that's here or uh

[6:42] or are they are they going to politely

[6:44] decline that?

[6:45] >> If they're want to say a few words, I'm

[6:47] more than happy.

[6:49] None of you ran to the microphone.

[6:51] You'll make uh you'll make good

[6:54] officers, maybe not good politicians.

[6:56] So, thank you for your service. Uh thank

[6:59] you for coming to Spanish Fork. And uh

[7:01] like we always say in Spanish Fork, we it's not lost on us that it's a

[7:06] family commitment. So, those of you that

[7:09] uh are are family members of of Moyesus

[7:11] and Trevor and Kurt, thank you. Um, this

[7:15] is u it's a family affair and uh we uh

[7:19] we will do the best as a community to

[7:21] support your loved ones and and make

[7:23] sure uh they're safe while they keep us

[7:26] safe. So, thank you for sharing with

[7:27] them with us and and thank you guys for

[7:29] being here tonight. We appreciate it.

[7:33] And if you'd like to stay for the hoursl

[7:35] long meeting, we're we're we're happy,

[7:37] but we're not offended if that's the

[7:38] part that you like to get out and enjoy

[7:41] the sunshine, too. So, thank you.

[7:46] Okay. Anything council that you want to

[7:48] add to that? How many officer? Oh, chief

[7:51] left us. So, I'm not sure the count, but

[7:54] uh feels like we're just replacing

[7:56] officers that are retiring.

[7:58] >> So, I know we're in our 40s something,

[8:00] right? Manager parents.

[8:03] >> Yeah, I think uh 42 is the number of

[8:06] officers. And yeah, we're

[8:09] it's been a wonderful ride with a number

[8:11] of great officers.

[8:13] and sadly they get to the end of their

[8:16] years. They ready to do something else.

[8:19] So, we're grateful for them and and uh

[8:22] excited for the those that we bring on.

[8:24] These are really good. These three are

[8:25] really good good people. And I'm not

[8:28] going to guess ages, but I think these

[8:31] are some people that could be here for

[8:33] quite some time actually. Right. These

[8:36] are not these guys are not in their 40s.

[8:38] They look like they got their licenses

[8:41] last year. I'm just kidding. But um

[8:44] >> they're not here to defend themselves.

[8:45] >> Yeah, you're okay.

[8:48] >> Um but yeah, I I concurred, Seth. That's

[8:51] a good point. We do have a department

[8:52] where people stick around for a long time and uh and thank you residents

[8:56] for that's that's partly due to our

[8:59] community that supports law enforcement

[9:01] and has always done that. So, thank you.

[9:04] Okay. Uh item D, follow up to previous

[9:06] comments, comments from last council

[9:07] meeting. Anything?

[9:08] >> Just one. Uh and this is kind of a a

[9:11] half comment. We are uh we had a a

[9:15] comment from resident about uh the

[9:17] swimming pool, the temperatures of the

[9:19] water at the swimming pool and and

[9:21] Dale's not here to give more in depth,

[9:22] but but they are looking at um a couple

[9:26] of issues u trying to resolve and and

[9:29] also I've asked them to do some some

[9:32] research and and study and understand

[9:33] what what other pool temperatures are.

[9:38] Uh that's certainly been a common theme

[9:39] that we've heard and and candidly I

[9:41] think we need to be um we need to be

[9:43] responsive. Uh we want people swimming

[9:46] in our pool and uh so Dale and Dale and

[9:49] his team are looking at that and um so I

[9:53] don't have all of the information yet

[9:54] but but they are working on and and

[9:56] studying that.

[9:57] >> Okay,

[9:59] thank you for that. Uh okay, that takes

[10:01] us to the public comment section of our

[10:04] agenda tonight. This is not for the

[10:06] items that are on public hearing. If

[10:07] anybody's for that, we'll get to those

[10:09] in just a little bit. But any general

[10:11] public comments from the public that

[10:12] would like to address the mayor and

[10:14] council, this is your time to do so.

[10:16] Please feel free to do it. Jack is our

[10:18] timekeeper that tries to keep us to

[10:19] three minutes so we're fair to everybody

[10:22] and you'll hear a beep when you get

[10:23] close to three minutes. But anybody that

[10:25] would like to address the mayor and

[10:26] council, please come up and do so at

[10:28] public comment section.

[10:34] This ought to be good

[10:35] >> except for except for him.

[10:37] >> State your name, rank, and serial number

[10:40] as well. I apologize, mayor and city

[10:42] council. No. Uh Tyler Mendenhal. Um I'm

[10:46] here tonight on behalf of the Utah State

[10:49] Junior Livestock Show. I represent the booster club. I've been put in

[10:54] charge of that a few years ago and

[10:57] represent that on the board of directors

[10:58] and chairman over that at the stock

[11:00] show. And quite honestly, I'll make my

[11:03] comments uh short tonight. I just wanted

[11:05] to approach the mayor and the council

[11:08] city tonight in an act of gratitude and

[11:11] thank you for the partnership and the

[11:14] good work that Spanish Fork City has

[11:17] done in partnership with the Utah State

[11:20] Junior Livestock Show. I know it gets

[11:22] talked about a lot here that um the show

[11:25] is in its 102nd year this year. It was

[11:29] started in 1924.

[11:31] Mayor Mendal and and I's grandpa Frank

[11:34] Gaul was born in 1925 and it wasn't that

[11:37] many long many years after he was old

[11:39] enough to do it that he was involved in

[11:41] the stock show. Our mother Lena was

[11:43] involved in the stock show. Mike one

[11:46] year um I was involved.

[11:49] >> It was a good year. his pig got sifted.

[11:52] Um, I I've I've been involved in the

[11:55] stock show my entire life. Now, my kids

[11:57] are involved in the stock show. Um,

[11:59] suffice it to say, the Menhal family in

[12:02] one way or another's been involved in in

[12:04] the stock show for a long, long time.

[12:07] And the entity itself been going on for

[12:10] over a hundred years now. And there's

[12:12] not many things like that around the the

[12:15] in in my opinion that are of this nature

[12:18] that have lasted as long and as strong

[12:21] as as this entity. We continue to grow

[12:25] every year with kids that uh the the

[12:28] number of animals that get shown grow

[12:30] the number of animals that sell to the

[12:32] public at sale day grow every year. Um,

[12:37] my job as the booster club president is

[12:39] to um go around to the good families and

[12:42] businesses around our town to get

[12:45] donations in order to help those kids

[12:48] during the sale time when they're when

[12:50] they're parting with their animal

[12:51] project. And so, um, and Spanish Fork

[12:54] City, I won't go into the details, but

[12:56] is a major major partner with the stock

[12:58] show with the fairgrounds and the

[13:01] investment that is going in majorly for

[13:04] next year's I I don't know of a single

[13:06] family that's not excited and amped to

[13:09] be able to be in a state-of-the-art

[13:10] facility next year. And that comes uh

[13:14] not unnoticed by by the people in in the

[13:17] groups that I associate with. Spanish

[13:20] Fork City puts their money where their

[13:21] mouth is when it comes to agg and

[13:24] there's not a lot of there's a lot of

[13:25] people that talk about it but don't do

[13:27] anything about it. Spanish Fork City

[13:29] does. They put their foot forward and

[13:32] out of just appreciation and thank you.

[13:34] Um I've had just a hopefully something

[13:38] that can hang proudly somewhere for

[13:41] Spanish Fork City to um have just as uh

[13:45] just as an act of of thank you. It just

[13:47] says, "In appreciation to Spanish Fork

[13:49] City, thank you for more than a hundred

[13:52] years of support to the Utah State

[13:54] Junior Livestock Show." In the middle,

[13:57] it's got our hundred-year buckle that

[13:59] was made a couple of years ago, and

[14:01] surrounding it has got uh some highlight

[14:03] pictures of some great kids in action.

[14:06] So, thank you, Spanish Fork City. That's

[14:09] awesome.

[14:16] You want me to get a picture or somebody

[14:18] get a

[14:21] >> You want to stand here with a picture?

[14:23] You should stand here with a picture.

[14:24] Hold this down there.

[14:25] >> That's pretty cool.

[14:26] >> That's very cool.

[14:29] >> All right. Show it off to these. Yeah.

[14:31] Before I drop it.

[14:36] » All right.

[14:45] Mayor, should we put that perhaps

[14:46] somewhere maybe in like the high shop

[14:48] aisle or something or what would you

[14:49] like to do with that?

[14:50] >> Could could I say one more thing? I

[14:52] meant to say the show this year, the

[14:54] dates are this this month, April 29th

[14:58] through May 2nd. So, anybody that from

[15:00] the public from the city that wants to

[15:01] come on down and uh see the good

[15:04] donations at work, especially on sale

[15:06] day on May 2nd, there's a lot of fun

[15:09] happening around there. There are a lot

[15:10] of kids that are uh getting their payoff

[15:12] at that time. So, April 29th through May

[15:15] 2nd.

[15:16] >> Some kids used to use that as the excuse

[15:18] to not go to class because it's ending

[15:21] close to school year. They

[15:22] >> still do.

[15:23] >> Yeah. But but there are that was me. But

[15:26] there are other kids that are really

[15:28] down there working all day, too. I mean,

[15:30] they're having a good time with their

[15:31] friends, but they're down there working

[15:32] their animals and pretty fun to see.

[15:34] >> Monday on the I guess that would be the

[15:37] 27th. on Monday. There's well over a

[15:40] hundred kids and and 4 and FFA advisers

[15:44] that are down there that are setting up

[15:45] the entire ring, spreading the spreading

[15:47] the shavings, setting up pens. Then they

[15:50] weigh in their animals on Tuesday and

[15:52] then the shows start on Wednesday,

[15:53] Thursday, Friday. And yeah, those kids

[15:56] are are working their tails off, keeping

[15:58] the animals clean, um keeping the pens

[16:01] clean, right? And uh competing. And then

[16:05] uh their payoff is is Saturday. So,

[16:08] Tyler, if you've got a resident that

[16:09] wants to come down, but they can't come

[16:11] down for the three days, what day and

[16:14] time would you recommend that somebody

[16:16] come down?

[16:17] >> Honestly, great question, Councilman

[16:19] Oiler. Um, from Wednesday morning

[16:22] through Friday afternoon, there is

[16:24] virtually action happening.

[16:26] >> All four species tend to not overlap

[16:28] with each other, so there is a show that

[16:31] is happening. Um there is a schedule out

[16:34] on the Utah State Junior Livestock Shows

[16:37] uh Facebook page. So there is a public

[16:40] uh schedule if somebody was interested

[16:42] in seeing a specific species show. Um

[16:46] but from 8:00 in the morning until

[16:48] virtually about 5:00 in the afternoon on

[16:51] Friday afternoon starting uh Wednesday

[16:54] morning to Friday afternoon, there's

[16:56] shows going all along.

[16:58] >> Great.

[16:59] >> So yeah, thanks. You raised funds at

[17:01] your banquet. Again, I can't remember

[17:03] the number. I think I said it last

[17:04] council meeting, but you you guys keep

[17:06] raising money every year.

[17:07] >> Close to $22,000 raised at the legacy

[17:10] dinner uh a couple of weeks ago. And

[17:12] that money goes strictly to scholarships

[17:15] for kids that are graduating in the in whatever industry it is. It goes to a

[17:19] lot of cool kids. And that now being in

[17:23] its third year has has raised well over

[17:26] $100,000 for that. Um, at the sale ring,

[17:30] there's there's well over 300 animals

[17:33] that go through the sale all day long

[17:35] and and with the help of of good people

[17:38] around the community and businesses

[17:40] around the community. Um, who also put

[17:43] their money where their mouth is with

[17:45] agg they uh they come together and these

[17:47] kids walk away with a healthy paycheck

[17:50] to be able to reinvest in their next

[17:51] animal or into their future, whatever

[17:53] they're doing. So, it's pretty pretty

[17:56] fun, pretty pretty awesome to be part

[17:57] of. So again, Spanish Fork um in my

[18:01] opinion deserves a a big round of

[18:03] applause for that. So just appreciate

[18:05] you.

[18:05] >> Thank you, Tyler. Appreciate that.

[18:08] >> Something that a lot of communities may

[18:10] be foreign to them, but it's pretty

[18:12] cool. It's part of our history and

[18:13] heritage, those businesses that do that

[18:15] every year and you go around and raise

[18:17] that money and and uh those kids get to

[18:20] sell their animal for usually much more

[18:22] than what it's worth and they put it

[18:24] into doing it again or or into their

[18:27] future. It's a really really cool local

[18:29] economic thing to see and and uh in our

[18:33] history and heritage. So, very cool.

[18:35] Yeah, you'll have to fight me for that.

[18:36] should maybe go in the mayor's

[18:37] office or down in the

[18:39] >> or down in the chapel.

[18:40] >> You you decide. Okay, maybe it can rove.

[18:43] It can be a floating thing, but very

[18:45] cool. Thank you. Thank you. Uh thank you

[18:48] to the the livestock show committee and the booster club and very good

[18:52] stuff. Okay. Uh any other public

[18:54] comments? Anybody that would like to

[18:55] address the mayor and council?

[18:59] You don't have to all bring a cool

[19:00] buckle if you but Yes, sir. Yes.

[19:05] >> Don't want to take too much of your

[19:06] time. My name is Matt Durant. I just

[19:08] I've spoken to a few of you and I

[19:10] appreciate that. I'm a candidate for

[19:12] House District 64. So, just briefly

[19:14] wanted to introduce myself and say that

[19:17] if I get elected, I look forward to

[19:18] working with you. So, thank you.

[19:20] >> Thank you, Matt.

[19:21] >> Thanks, Matt.

[19:21] >> Thanks for coming.

[19:22] >> Thank you.

[19:25] » Anyone else for public comment?

[19:29] >> Okay. Thank you. Seeing none, uh we'll

[19:32] go to council comments next. Uh, we'll

[19:34] start on I think we started on your end

[19:36] last time, Councilman Tuk. So, we'll

[19:38] start on

[19:39] >> this end. I hope you were ready. And

[19:41] then I'm ready. We'll end with

[19:43] Councilman Tuk over here.

[19:46] >> Three quick things. Uh, the Easter egg

[19:47] hunt went amazingly well. I'm going to

[19:51] take a little bit. I'm just going to say

[19:52] thank you and let Jesse do the rest. Um,

[19:55] thank you to Emily and staff. Crushed

[19:57] it. Um, thank you for the chamber for

[19:59] letting us take it on. We appreciate it.

[20:02] Um the staff did an amazing job. It was well well received. So thank you

[20:06] for that. Um got to that same day got to

[20:09] attend Miss Spanish Fork. Um

[20:12] thank you Councilman Tuk. It's uh it was pretty cool to watch. Um some

[20:17] young ladies were trying really hard to

[20:20] uh show all of their talents. Um every

[20:24] time someone would come up to do a

[20:25] talent, I'm thinking I'm just so happy

[20:26] that's not me. So happy. Um, amazing.

[20:30] Well represented. Callie, what's

[20:32] Callie's last name?

[20:33] >> Yeah. Meguiire.

[20:34] >> Magguire. She was just here.

[20:35] >> She was here. Yes.

[20:36] >> Yeah. Um, she won. Amazing. It it

[20:38] they're going to do a great job. Um,

[20:40] Veterans Council was last Tuesday as

[20:43] well. Um, we talked about Thank you,

[20:46] Seth, for the A and Dell for the great

[20:49] work up with the memorial. It's going to

[20:50] be ready in time for Memorial Day. Um,

[20:53] they have everything really well planned

[20:54] out on Memorial Day. Um hopefully you

[20:57] all can attend the ceremonies up there.

[20:59] Um the freedom walk is Jack, remember

[21:02] the day at the Freedom Walk? The 14th,

[21:05] >> I think.

[21:06] it's the 14th. Yeah,

[21:09] >> I'll stall for a minute. Um we'll get

[21:11] you data on that. One thing that we

[21:14] talked about and they're concerned about

[21:15] is as we move forward with with the fire

[21:18] station and that corner, what do we do?

[21:21] Um how do we meet their needs? they just

[21:23] want to sit down with us and talk to us

[21:24] about what they use the the building for

[21:27] um and how we can potentially

[21:30] accommodate them moving forward. So, as

[21:31] we get closer, let's if you wouldn't

[21:33] mind, let's bring them in and out

[21:35] because they're

[21:36] >> they're nervous about it. Um and then

[21:38] just a pitch for anyone that's a veteran

[21:41] out there that could help participate in

[21:43] that committee, please do.

[21:44] >> Um a little bit of newer blood into

[21:48] there would be great. when it's time to

[21:50] talk about who the new chairperson is,

[21:52] they go, "Was it your turn last time?"

[21:53] "Okay, it's your turn this time and then

[21:55] you'll be at next time." Like, there's

[21:56] four people to choose from and they they

[21:58] need some help. So, if you're a veteran

[22:00] and want to help the community, please

[22:02] volunteer. They would love to see your

[22:04] time and they do some really good things

[22:05] for the veterans in our community.

[22:08] >> The 12th 12th and 13th 12th 13th Freedom

[22:11] Walk. Okay, that's it for me.

[22:14] >> Perfect. Thank you, Councilman Marshall.

[22:16] Councilwoman Beck,

[22:18] >> thank you. Um, I don't want to be so

[22:20] repetitive because I know we're all

[22:21] going to talk a lot about the Easter egg

[22:23] hunt and Miss Spanish Fork. So, maybe I

[22:25] will just thank Maddie Smith for

[22:27] representing Spanish for the last year.

[22:29] Thank you for her time and I look

[22:30] forward to working with Cali Maguire.

[22:33] Thanks to all the volunteers with that

[22:34] as well. and Landon and I in the middle

[22:37] of the day Saturday after the Easter egg

[22:39] hunt, but before Miss Spanish Fork, we

[22:41] were able to go over with um the Fiesta

[22:45] Day's contestants for the Miss Fiesta

[22:48] Day's rodeo loyalty. And Landon and I

[22:52] were able to just do interview questions

[22:54] with them. And there were only three

[22:57] this year, but easily any three could

[23:00] have won. They were so sharp and poised

[23:04] and

[23:06] so educational. Landon and I sat and

[23:08] talked with them and we learned a lot.

[23:10] Right.

[23:10] >> Yeah, truly.

[23:11] >> They know their stuff. So, that was

[23:13] really fun. It was a busy day, but that

[23:15] was definitely a highlight.

[23:16] >> Um, and I think Oh, one other thing for

[23:20] staff. I know a couple of us met with

[23:22] the residents and kind of did a little

[23:24] ride along with some maybe we need to

[23:27] look at our ordinances on

[23:30] all the junk in people's yard.

[23:32] Basically, there's some yards out there

[23:35] that don't I'm I'm bypassing you to

[23:37] Seth.

[23:38] >> She's looking at me.

[23:39] So heads up, we may want to look at some

[23:42] ordinances and see what we can implement

[23:45] be before it gets out of hand in Spanish

[23:47] work because just in a what three or

[23:50] four block radius um Kevin and I were

[23:53] driving around and it was really

[23:55] shocking of how many things we we might

[23:58] need to look at. So I I appreciated that resident the

[24:03] manner in which they approached us

[24:05] calmly. Hey, come meet with us. Talk to

[24:08] us. It was much better way than

[24:11] reaming us on Facebook where we don't

[24:13] listen. So, I appreciated that.

[24:15] >> Yeah, it was good.

[24:16] >> Thanks.

[24:17] >> And that's coming from the yard of the

[24:19] We're about to start yard of the week,

[24:21] right? So, there's some room for people

[24:23] is what you're saying.

[24:24] >> He suggested put yard of the week up

[24:26] sign and then your yard

[24:29] >> not of the week.

[24:30] >> Potential potential

[24:32] >> bigger sign. And why?

[24:35] That might not go over very well.

[24:36] >> That probably wouldn't be good.

[24:38] >> Yeah, if we put it there.

[24:40] >> Thank you, Councilwoman Beck. Councilman

[24:42] Oiler.

[24:42] >> Thank you, Mayor. Just real quick,

[24:44] Friday, I had the chance to go down the

[24:45] senior center, visit with our seniors.

[24:48] Uh, another full house. They love the

[24:50] food. They love the social atmosphere

[24:53] that they get down there. Had the chance

[24:55] to share with them some of the changes

[24:57] that we're making with the Fit City Fit

[25:00] 60 Plus pass starting in August. Um, for

[25:03] the most part, I think they

[25:06] understood what the change was. Um,

[25:09] didn't have too many concerns, too many

[25:11] questions. But if anybody watching in

[25:14] our senior community does have

[25:16] questions, please reach out to me or

[25:18] reach out to any of our our staff that

[25:20] are down at the Fit City Center. They

[25:21] love to we'd love to help answer those

[25:23] and make sure that you're all

[25:24] comfortable with the changes that are

[25:26] taking place. That's all I've got.

[25:28] Mayor,

[25:28] >> thank you, Councilman Oiler. Councilman

[25:31] Carden.

[25:31] >> Thank you, Mayor. Um just a couple of

[25:33] things. First, um a couple of I guess it

[25:35] was a week ago, um Councilwoman Beck and

[25:37] I were able to meet with city staff and

[25:40] several of our legislators, uh

[25:42] legislators, um at the Fit City Center

[25:45] to talk about the last session that we

[25:46] had, some of the things that impacted

[25:48] cities, some of the things that we, you

[25:50] know, the collaboration that we had

[25:52] throughout the session trying to work

[25:53] together and the questions answers. So

[25:55] again, thank you to them. Um 45 days of

[25:58] a marathon sprint, I don't know what you

[26:00] want to call it. It's crazy. And for

[26:01] those of you that are running for it,

[26:03] good luck. Um, and then it was really

[26:06] good just to kind of talk through some

[26:07] of those things and some of the issues

[26:08] that we continually see come towards us

[26:10] as cities um, from the leg legislature

[26:13] and how we can kind of approach those

[26:14] maybe in a more proactive way. And thank

[26:16] you, Seth, again for the time that you

[26:18] put into that 45 days. And it was

[26:21] awesome to hear that um how that

[26:24] partnership is working, having Seth in

[26:26] there um but also having um them hearing

[26:29] what we're saying and then also maybe

[26:31] taking that and talking to their

[26:33] colleagues about the problems that we're

[26:34] seeing because they know that we're not

[26:35] just going with them with, you know,

[26:37] false things. Um next, um like has been

[26:40] said, the Easter egg hunt. What an

[26:41] awesome event. um uh an event that takes

[26:44] months to plan, lots of hands to make

[26:47] happen, and ends in 30 seconds. Um it is

[26:51] awesome. We um had a committee that

[26:55] volunteers that had helped run it for

[26:57] years in the past um through the chamber

[27:00] and through different different ways

[27:02] come together to kind of help make that

[27:04] happen. Emily did an awesome job um

[27:06] logistically making sure everything was

[27:08] good. I think we only had three kids

[27:10] that I know of that got lost and they

[27:11] were found or their parents were found

[27:13] fairly quickly which was awesome. Um,

[27:16] one area of feedback that we did receive

[27:17] is that our sound system is not you

[27:20] can't hear on the back fence lines. So,

[27:21] we're going to figure something out with

[27:23] that. Um, which will be great. But I

[27:25] really want to thank our again our staff

[27:27] that really stepped up with that. The

[27:29] YCC always stepping in to make that

[27:32] happen. Um, there was a lot of

[27:34] volunteers that signed up through I

[27:35] don't know if it was through Just Serve.

[27:37] I think that's where we put that out.

[27:38] But we had a ton of volunteers that I

[27:41] haven't really seen at events before,

[27:42] but they wanted to just help. It was

[27:44] awesome.

[27:45] >> That's great.

[27:46] >> And um and then the business community

[27:48] stepping in and sponsoring it. It was

[27:50] awesome to see them come together. Um we

[27:52] had a food truck there. It was it was

[27:54] crazy. It was fun. Um but again, it was

[27:57] a great day. Uh speaking of YCC, um

[28:00] applications are open for next school

[28:02] year. So, if you have someone who is

[28:04] going into their freshman year um here

[28:06] in Spanish Fork, they can apply for

[28:08] that. And then those that are wanting to

[28:10] apply for council positions, mayor, um

[28:13] planning commissioner, there's there's a

[28:15] lot of different commissioners, PIO, um

[28:17] those will happen in May and voted on in

[28:19] June. But though, get those applications

[28:21] in now. It's just on the city's website.

[28:24] Um or you can go, you can just Google

[28:26] Spanish Fork City Council and it's right

[28:28] there.

[28:28] >> Hey, Jesse, go ahead.

[28:30] >> Some people might not know that acronym.

[28:32] youth, city council.

[28:34] >> Thanks.

[28:34] >> They should know. They listen to council

[28:35] all the time though, right?

[28:36] >> I don't know. There might be a new face

[28:38] today. So, just wanted to clarify.

[28:40] >> And then again, echoing thank you to um

[28:43] Landon for the help that he did with

[28:45] Miss Spanish Fork and then going to that

[28:47] one awesome event. And like Shane said,

[28:50] those talents, I don't know how they get

[28:51] up there and just put themselves out

[28:52] there that way, but it's awesome. So,

[28:54] thank you to all those that participate

[28:56] in that. That's all I got. Mayor,

[28:58] >> thank you, Councilman Carden. Councilman

[29:00] Tuk. Thank you, mayor. Uh, excellent.

[29:03] Everything's been excellent. So, I'll

[29:04] just kind of touch on a couple things

[29:06] and and by the way, good evening,

[29:07] Spanish for great to see you all. Thanks

[29:08] for being here. Um, so yeah, the Easter

[29:10] egg hunt was was phenomenal. It was fun

[29:12] to see the years working with the

[29:14] Chamber of Commerce and the the great

[29:15] thing they built and then to see the

[29:16] city did and Councilman Carden to just

[29:19] really um, you know, just even make it

[29:22] better, which is crazy. So, something so

[29:23] good and just a wonderful city

[29:24] tradition. So, that was so wonderful on

[29:26] Saturday. Uh and then followed like

[29:28] Councilman Beck said with the Miss

[29:30] Fiesta Days rodeo pageant. Um amazing uh

[29:33] contestants and any of them could have

[29:35] served our city well. They'll be a great

[29:36] royalty and um it just really got me

[29:39] excited for Fiesta Days. It's kind of

[29:41] that fun kickoff earlier in the year. So

[29:43] uh and then Miss Spanish Fork and

[29:45] Councilwoman Beck couple pictures. I'm

[29:47] sorry Jack. I'm flying through these.

[29:50] Apologize. So, we we were able to attend

[29:52] a a special reception before the pageant

[29:54] for our forever Miss Spanish Forks, and

[29:57] that's our Miss Spanish Forks we've had

[29:58] over the past 100 years. Now, not all

[30:00] 100 were there, of course, but many many

[30:02] were. And we just had a great time

[30:04] chatting with them, thanking them for

[30:06] their service to the city over the

[30:08] decades, and it was just so fun to see

[30:10] all of those amazing women, where where

[30:12] they've gone, what they've done. Uh, and

[30:14] then with the pageant, it was uh it was

[30:17] wonderful. Mayor, thank you for letting

[30:18] me fill in for you. uh giving the um

[30:21] scholarships to our our royalty that

[30:23] just finished their service. That was uh

[30:26] wonderful. And then we have our new

[30:27] royalty, Cali Magcguire, is is the new

[30:29] queen. She was in the royalty this last

[30:30] year. So, um I will work to get uh her

[30:33] and her royalty here in the next couple

[30:35] uh council sessions. We'll get to know

[30:37] them and have them introduce themselves

[30:38] to the city. But um yeah, got the crown

[30:41] box to the the previous the outgoing

[30:44] queen and the scholarships. And it's

[30:45] just a special event. If you're not

[30:47] familiar with the Miss Spanish Spanish

[30:49] Fort program, and just quick side note,

[30:51] Cali Magcguire, our new queen, her um

[30:53] her service initiative for this next

[30:54] year will be supporting our heroes and I

[30:58] like that it's unique. It's there's a

[30:59] lot to be done with that and I am

[31:01] excited to see what she will do with

[31:02] that um here in Spanish Fork and

[31:05] supporting our heroes. And so um that's

[31:09] all I have, but I know Kathleen Levit is

[31:10] here with the Chamber of Commerce and

[31:11] we'd love to hear if you have anything

[31:13] for us.

[31:14] >> Thank you so much.

[31:19] everyone. I am deeply

[31:23] grateful to the city for taking the

[31:26] Easter egg hunt over from us. We greatly

[31:28] appreciate it and I'm so happy um that

[31:31] it was successful. I unfortunately

[31:33] wasn't able to make it. I took my kids

[31:35] on spring break for the first time in

[31:36] five years. So, but I watched everything

[31:40] um and Emily just did a fantastic job

[31:42] and I'm so so grateful to her um and for

[31:45] the resources that the city has to

[31:47] continue improving it and making it

[31:49] better over the years. So, very proud of

[31:51] you and grateful. Um coming up this

[31:54] month at the chamber on April 14th is a

[31:58] big day for us. We are celebrating

[32:00] business of the month which is Sandstone

[32:02] Psychology in Salem. Um, on the fourth

[32:06] Wednesday of each month, I just wanted

[32:08] to note that Sandstone Psychology is

[32:10] offering a free mental health workshop

[32:13] here at the library at 6:30 p.m. Very

[32:17] collaborative, an open concept type

[32:19] thing. People can submit um topics that

[32:22] they'd like to discuss, but that's on

[32:24] the fourth Wednesday of every month here

[32:27] in the Heritage Room at 6:30. Uh, also

[32:30] on April 14th, we have our women in

[32:32] business activity. We're having a social

[32:35] at Hotworks in Spanish Fork, which will

[32:37] be really fun. Uh, April 16th is the new

[32:41] networking for this month. We'll be at

[32:43] Mountain Mike's Pizza and it's being

[32:45] sponsored by Spanish Fork's CC Bank. So,

[32:48] we're really excited to hear more from

[32:49] them and learn about their ground baking

[32:52] groundbreaking ceremony coming up soon.

[32:55] Uh, just FYI, the estimated arrival date

[32:58] for the Spanish Work and Salem Area

[33:00] Guide magazine for 2026 is April 20th.

[33:04] Um, so be on the lookout for those in

[33:07] your mailboxes. This year, we did

[33:08] partner with 101 things to experience in

[33:12] Spanish Fork and Salem. So the magazines

[33:14] will be combined which I think will

[33:16] provide greater value to our businesses

[33:19] by having that be hopefully having a

[33:22] longevity where people want to hold on

[33:24] to the magazine for the 101 things to do

[33:26] as well as you know review those ads and

[33:29] learn about the chamber of commerce and

[33:31] the city. Um so we're hoping that'll be

[33:33] a really valuable resource guide for the

[33:34] residents here in town. Uh May 1st is a

[33:39] tentative ribbon cutting and grand

[33:41] opening for Waffle Love uh here in

[33:44] Spanish Fork. So I know a lot of people

[33:45] are very excited to have our own Waffle

[33:47] Love uh tentatively for May 1st. Still

[33:51] working out the details for that. And

[33:53] then May 13th is the Chamber Rotary

[33:56] Scholarship Golf Tournament. Another

[33:58] really valuable tradition that we have

[34:01] here. Um, we have more involvement than

[34:03] we've ever had before and we're really

[34:05] excited to continue this partnership to

[34:08] benefit the students in the area. Uh,

[34:10] please do advise all of the senior

[34:12] students in Spanish Fork, Salem, and

[34:14] Pacin high schools to speak to their

[34:16] counselors for the application for those

[34:18] scholarships. Um, we're hoping to give

[34:20] out quite a few this year. And that's

[34:23] all I've got for you guys. Thanks.

[34:25] >> Thanks, guys.

[34:29] » That it?

[34:29] >> That's it.

[34:30] >> Perfect. Thank you, Councilman Tuk. Uh I

[34:31] won't belabor what's already been said

[34:33] about the Easter egg hunt, but uh thank

[34:34] you to the businesses. Thank you to to

[34:37] Susan, Brenda, and Carrie. They those

[34:39] were great faces to see back in involved

[34:41] uh in in pulling that off and and

[34:44] obviously Emily and and the the

[34:46] recreation department, you city council,

[34:49] uh doing their their job, too. I don't,

[34:51] you know, when you think about stuff

[34:52] like that, no, it's not a requirement of

[34:53] local government to make sure you have

[34:55] an Easter egg hunt in your community,

[34:56] but the minute you don't you you stop

[34:58] doing that stuff is the minute you don't

[35:01] see each other uh out and about. And um

[35:04] and so it's just fun to see family and friends and and kids all having a

[35:09] good time and and that's u that's part

[35:11] of what makes Spanish Fork special. So,

[35:13] thank you for the businesses continuing

[35:16] on that tradition. I don't think it's a return on your investment for donating

[35:21] money or donating goods. Uh so so kids,

[35:24] you know, get to Easter basket or a few

[35:26] walked away with bikes and scooters. Uh

[35:29] I don't know. I'll bet the math doesn't

[35:31] work out, but what does you keep a

[35:34] community uh although it's growing all

[35:37] the time, you keep it small uh by being

[35:39] involved. So So from me to you, from the

[35:41] council to you, uh thank you. Uh, thank

[35:44] you for your your donations and thank

[35:47] you for for being in in our city. Um,

[35:50] Jack, let me know let us know before

[35:52] this meeting. I thought it worth

[35:54] mentioning that it is a public knowledge

[35:56] now that there was an accident earlier

[35:59] this week in Springville uh that um that

[36:03] it was a pretty bad accident that

[36:06] claimed the life tragically of one of

[36:08] our community members uh Karuda that uh

[36:13] is head of the Krishna organization at

[36:15] the Krishna temple um uh tragically

[36:20] passed away in that accident. And so our

[36:22] thoughts as a community, our prayers as

[36:25] a community to him, his family, and his

[36:27] congregation. He's been here many times

[36:30] over the years giving the spiritual

[36:32] thought and uh always been um one to

[36:36] invite us to to celebrate in their um

[36:39] spring celebration down there. And I'm

[36:41] sure they'll they'll be feeling a loss

[36:44] with without him there. So, our thoughts

[36:46] and and prayers uh and condolences are

[36:49] out to to him, his family, and and um

[36:52] the Krishna congregation down there.

[36:56] Okay. Uh any other things that come to

[36:59] mind, council, for council comments uh

[37:01] before we go on to the next items?

[37:05] Okay. Uh taking it to staff reports. Um

[37:09] manager parents has a few things to

[37:12] update us about. Hey, uh you guys have

[37:14] covered it all. It's spring break. It's

[37:17] quiet around town. Uh it's a wonderful

[37:20] week. So,

[37:21] >> nothing. You don't do anything. The

[37:23] Easter egg hunt was a lot of fun and and

[37:25] my hats off to uh Susan and and uh to

[37:29] chat with her there at the Easter egg

[37:31] hunt was pretty cool to she was really

[37:33] energized and um I was so impressed with the love that she has of community

[37:38] and and everything that she had to share

[37:41] both you know historical as well as

[37:43] today that was really fun but not

[37:45] nothing else.

[37:46] >> Yeah. You think about those those three

[37:48] women pretty much retired from their

[37:50] day-to-day operations of doing business,

[37:52] but they're not retired from serving

[37:54] their community and they came out of the

[37:55] woodwork to uh to kill it for for

[37:58] everybody. So, thank you. Okay. Uh no

[38:01] other staff reports. Uh takes us to

[38:04] consent items. There's A and B on the

[38:06] consent items tonight. The minutes of

[38:07] our last meeting and the release of

[38:09] sewer easement in Whispering Pine

[38:10] subdivision. If there's any questions

[38:12] from the council on consent items,

[38:14] please let us know. If not, I'd

[38:16] entertain a motion approving the consent

[38:18] items.

[38:19] >> I move to approve the consent items. Amy

[38:21] >> motion made by Councilman Carden.

[38:24] >> Second.

[38:24] >> A second by Councilwoman Beck. All in

[38:26] favor say yes.

[38:27] >> Yes.

[38:28] >> The consent items are approved. It takes

[38:30] us to the public hearing section of our

[38:32] agenda tonight. We have three items on

[38:34] the public hearing uh agenda A, B, and

[38:37] C. The first one is the ordinance to

[38:39] adopt the updated land use element of

[38:41] the general plan. Mr. David G. Anderson.

[38:46] We've never seen this. Dave,

[38:50] » Mr. Mayor, thank you.

[38:53] I'm gonna turn things over to Mr. David

[38:55] Man. Okay. He does not have a middle

[38:58] initial. Do you not have a middle

[38:59] initial?

[39:00] >> I do. It's M in case you're in case

[39:02] you're wondering.

[39:02] >> Thank you, David M. But he'll still say

[39:05] David G.

[39:07] >> How the default.

[39:09] So tonight we have the public hearing

[39:12] for the land use element that uh has

[39:15] been a long time coming to this point.

[39:19] Um once again we wanted to uh remind

[39:22] everyone that there was a motto or a slogan that uh kind of led

[39:31] this effort to uh amend the land use

[39:34] element for the city. uh being today's

[39:37] progress and tomorrow's pride. So

[39:40] looking at uh making practical

[39:41] forwardlooking choices. This will

[39:44] support uh sustainable growth and

[39:46] opportunity

[39:48] while also ensuring that uh growth

[39:50] enhances the city's character, preserves

[39:52] natural beauty and strengthens the sense

[39:55] of place that defines Spanish Fort.

[39:59] This is a state requirement that's in

[40:01] code that municipalities are required to

[40:05] have a long range comprehensive general

[40:08] plan. The land use element being uh a

[40:10] key component of that.

[40:12] Um

[40:15] and also includes uh some elements to

[40:18] that uh part of the plan that can be

[40:22] included and discussed uh to help plan

[40:25] for the future of the city.

[40:28] So we wanted to cover exactly what the

[40:30] land use element is. So we often refer

[40:33] to it as a living document can be

[40:36] refined and updated as conditions

[40:38] change, needs are identified,

[40:40] infrastructure is built, and the greater

[40:42] region evolves. And that's something

[40:44] that we've seen since the last uh major

[40:47] update to the general plan in 2011

[40:50] uh was a was uh adopted.

[40:53] There's been a number of changes uh over

[40:55] the years where uh elements of of that

[40:58] plan have been updated and it's gotten

[41:00] to us to this point where we uh wanted

[41:03] to do uh a major look at at where the

[41:07] city has grown and become uh at this

[41:10] time.

[41:13] So it's also a long range vision uh for

[41:16] how Spanish Fort can develop over the

[41:19] next couple decades. uh it guides

[41:21] policy.

[41:23] It has a a map component to it that

[41:27] shows the land use elements uh sorry the

[41:30] land use designations throughout the

[41:32] city uh demonstrating how the city could

[41:36] grow and change over the years. Um it's

[41:39] also a tool for preserving what the

[41:42] community already values and what has

[41:44] valued over a number of years. And it,

[41:47] like I said, is a key component to the

[41:49] general plan.

[41:52] There's also things that it's not. It's

[41:54] not zoning. It doesn't uh give any

[41:57] entitlements for development. Uh it

[42:00] doesn't approve any types of development

[42:02] uh on properties. And it's also not a

[42:05] buildout schedule. We're not uh it's not

[42:08] something that the city is leading

[42:09] development and encouraging growth um

[42:13] beyond what uh the city can uh maintain

[42:17] and infrastructure can serve.

[42:20] There's been a number of community

[42:23] engagement efforts uh over the past

[42:25] couple years from focus groups, a number

[42:28] of surveys.

[42:30] Um and then most recently last Monday we

[42:33] held an open house and gave uh residents

[42:36] and anyone else that wanted to come an

[42:38] opportunity to ask questions, gain more

[42:41] insights, uh express their thoughts uh

[42:44] once again so that we could continue to

[42:48] uh collaborate with the public.

[42:51] We also want to include a timeline to

[42:54] kind of show where we've come. So, like

[42:56] I said, we've started with a lot of

[42:58] these public engagement efforts to help

[43:02] build a baseline of uh what what Spanish

[43:05] Fork is and to be able to build a

[43:09] foundation where we could create a plan

[43:12] that will hopefully serve and uh grow

[43:15] and change over time.

[43:19] Um

[43:21] this past year uh in 2025 is where a lot

[43:25] of the work uh was done by the planning

[43:27] commission and staff

[43:30] uh discussing um uh parts of that plan

[43:35] and how they could be uh addressed. uh

[43:38] as well as um identifying things that we

[43:41] want to include in the plan um based on

[43:45] kind of those state recommendations for

[43:47] things that could be included.

[43:49] Uh we had a survey uh also at the end of

[43:53] last year where we presented the first

[43:56] real draft of the plan and were able to

[43:59] get a lot of good feedback from over 50

[44:02] uh individuals.

[44:05] Um and then this year we started the

[44:08] public hearing process with the planning

[44:09] commission holding one in February and

[44:12] then they uh gave their recommendation

[44:15] to adopt uh and passed it on to the city

[44:18] council which is where we are tonight.

[44:21] And so at that point um like to move on

[44:24] to our fearless leader.

[44:28] >> Hey David. David. Wait back up.

[44:31] >> David M.

[44:33] before young David G.

[44:36] >> You gotta do M and G. That's why

[44:37] >> young David.

[44:38] >> Big David.

[44:39] >> Senior David. David. Um the

[44:42] recommendation from the planning

[44:44] commission.

[44:45] What was it? Was it to adopt? Was it

[44:48] >> Yes.

[44:48] >> With comments?

[44:49] >> To adopt by a vote of four to one.

[44:51] >> Okay. Were there comments that they

[44:52] wanted to address? Address um

[44:55] >> as is as the document that we presented

[44:57] to the public last week. Same document

[45:00] that they voted to approve.

[45:03] Uh I don't believe there was any

[45:04] specific uh uh conditions or anything.

[45:09] There were some statements made by

[45:11] members of the council to uh to kind of

[45:15] aid and assist the council uh to take it

[45:18] on to this next stage.

[45:20] >> Okay. All right. Thank you.

[45:23] >> Yeah. Yeah, maybe just to follow up on

[45:24] that relative to the planning

[45:25] commission's recommendation,

[45:27] the draft that is before the council

[45:29] tonight,

[45:31] we published first as and this is just

[45:34] the dates a way for us to keep track of

[45:37] the different iterations that have been

[45:38] produced and well

[45:40] >> and that's just when we started

[45:41] counting. Exactly.

[45:43] >> Um I think there were a few I'd call

[45:45] them almost like clerical type changes

[45:47] that were made to that version from what

[45:50] the planning commission made their

[45:52] recommendation on. There was, I think,

[45:55] the most significant discussion in the

[45:57] planning commission meeting about

[45:59] properties along 900 South on the

[46:02] southwest part of the community as you

[46:03] approach I-15 and whether or not

[46:06] properties along that corridor should be

[46:08] designated with the particular

[46:11] residential designation that they have

[46:12] now or something different. Um,

[46:16] so that's what I remember as kind of

[46:18] being the bulk of of what the commission

[46:21] discussed that night is um maybe

[46:24] something that uh that warranted some

[46:27] additional thought.

[46:31] But as Mr. Man mentioned, the planning

[46:33] commission recommended that

[46:36] the draft land use element be approved.

[46:40] They also had a public hearing the same

[46:41] night to discuss

[46:46] the growth management boundary

[46:49] which is something that's unique to

[46:51] Spanish Fork at least in Utah and uh in

[46:57] the way that we look at it is part of

[46:59] the general plan as well. So you can see

[47:01] on your agenda tonight that there are

[47:03] two separate items. They are very very

[47:06] closely connected. Um, I would say

[47:09] particularly the growth management

[47:10] boundary really doesn't work that well

[47:11] without the land use element and

[47:13] considering that boundary in concert

[47:16] with things that are in the land use

[47:17] element. Um, it's a distinct item which

[47:21] is why we've listed it that way on the

[47:23] agenda. But in as much as we've prepared

[47:26] to hold a public hearing on the land use

[47:28] element tonight, we've also done that

[47:29] for the growth management boundary. Um,

[47:32] it was rather weird in the planning

[47:34] commission meeting to discuss the land

[47:37] use element and the growth management

[47:39] boundary together for some amount of

[47:42] time after holding a public hearing that

[47:44] was devoted to the land use element

[47:47] to have the planning commission then

[47:49] close the public hearing, discuss it

[47:51] more, make a recommendation on the land

[47:53] use element, and then open up a public

[47:57] hearing again for the second item, the

[47:59] growth management boundary. So, you may

[48:01] want to consider tonight opening up a

[48:04] public hearing to take comment on both

[48:07] items. You could do that together. Um, I

[48:10] wish we would have suggested that the

[48:12] planning commission consider that. It

[48:14] would have seemed, I think, a little bit

[48:16] uh less odd had we done it that way. Um,

[48:23] I I think the planning commission's

[48:25] action was really a a big step in a

[48:28] project and as Mr. man described the

[48:31] timeline that we followed with this. I

[48:34] both went

[48:36] understanding that we're probably about

[48:38] a year past what we originally

[48:40] anticipated in terms of being finished

[48:42] with the project when we were first out

[48:44] of the gate. I think we're looking at

[48:46] like 18 months is the maximum amount of

[48:49] time that we would have wanted to put

[48:53] you and the planning commission through

[48:54] to get this project done. But also, I'm

[48:57] really happy to be here tonight to to

[49:00] genuinely feel like this is not in any

[49:03] way halfbaked. Like there are so many

[49:06] different aspects of what's before you

[49:08] tonight, both with the growth growth

[49:10] management boundary

[49:11] and the land use element that I mean

[49:14] it's been vetted in all kinds of

[49:16] different forums and contexts. Um the

[49:20] timeline

[49:21] identifies a number of different kind of

[49:24] benchmark events or discussions that

[49:28] have happened over the course of the

[49:30] past couple of years and it still fails

[49:35] to reflect so many different uh

[49:38] discussions that have happened and uh

[49:40] different times at which input has been

[49:42] taken on the the project.

[49:46] I and I really appreciate that there

[49:48] have been many many hands involved as

[49:51] much as anything. I think the planning

[49:54] commission's involvement really has

[49:55] helped shape what in my opinion uh

[49:59] certainly could serve as a very valuable

[50:02] vision for the community's future.

[50:05] Now that being said, uh, and I'll try to

[50:08] provide a little bit of context to one

[50:10] thing that is still something of a

[50:12] conflict with the document and some

[50:16] active proposals that we have. And the

[50:19] context I provide is that

[50:22] even though what we're talking about is

[50:23] an advisory document, you know, it it is

[50:26] not necessarily intended to have, for

[50:28] example, you as the decision makers

[50:31] always follow explicitly, but I think

[50:34] for us as staff, uh, I do feel like it's

[50:37] marching orders from you as the the

[50:41] legislative body. And we have two

[50:44] annexations.

[50:46] One is the 1050 West annexation. Clayton

[50:48] Rackom is with us here tonight. I think

[50:51] he plans on commenting at some point.

[50:54] Uh, and that annexation

[50:58] is located, I'll describe it instead of

[51:00] using the map, on the north side of 400

[51:03] North, right on the other side of I-15.

[51:06] Um, Clayton presented with some

[51:08] consultants here a couple of months ago

[51:10] a concept plan that I think was very, well prepared. you know, should

[51:14] that area develop residentially anytime

[51:16] soon. Um, the other annexation is just

[51:20] north of that, uh, north, it's on the

[51:23] west side of the airport, west of the

[51:25] rather large building that the Richie

[51:27] Group has just finished up. We know that

[51:29] is the Stevens Hill annexation. We've

[51:30] talked with the council about that a few

[51:33] times, including here just in the last

[51:34] couple of months.

[51:36] Um, now

[51:39] I think part of my uh desire to discuss

[51:42] this with the council goes back to some

[51:45] lengthy conversations that we now had

[51:48] over a year ago. Um,

[51:52] uh, and they're kind of two different

[51:53] issues here, but a big one for me is

[51:55] when should Spanish Fork start to have

[51:59] residential development happen on the

[52:00] west side of I-15?

[52:03] the meteor training that we had in 2025

[52:07] um ended up uh being devoted you know

[52:10] significant part of that to kind of just

[52:12] a philosophical discussion about that.

[52:15] After that conversation,

[52:18] um, we created some draft policy

[52:19] language that's in the document now that

[52:21] I'll summarize it and then we'll look at

[52:23] it briefly um, verbatim. But I until,

[52:27] for example,

[52:29] we know when there's going to be better

[52:31] transportation access on the west side

[52:33] of I-15 like you would get with a new

[52:36] center street interchange.

[52:38] Don't put houses over there. Um, or

[52:41] maybe it's not the interchange, but it's

[52:43] a commuter rail stop, something like

[52:44] that. Improve access on the west side of

[52:46] I-15. And that's been in

[52:49] drafts of what we're talking about

[52:51] tonight for more than the past year. Um,

[52:54] and as of now, we still don't have a

[52:56] timeline for any any significant

[52:59] transportation improvements that would

[53:01] provide better access over there. And at

[53:04] the same time, we have an active

[53:07] annexation proposal that's been accepted

[53:10] by the city council for further study. I

[53:13] know Mr. Rackom's group, they continue

[53:14] to work on that and to progress forward

[53:16] with it. Um, and that is the conflict.

[53:21] uh maybe more explicitly

[53:24] uh language that for example suggests

[53:27] that boundary expansions talking about

[53:29] the growth boundary um only happen and

[53:34] this is an excerpt directly from the

[53:36] document we're talking about page 47

[53:39] that uh on the west side of I-15 those

[53:43] expansions only happen after what I just

[53:46] mentioned is in the works

[53:49] uh major transportation improvements and

[53:53] that uh

[53:56] you know furthermore

[54:01] the growth management boundary only be

[54:04] expanded when properties are taken out

[54:08] of agricultural protection which has

[54:10] really become a key aspect of of the

[54:13] proposal using the growth management

[54:15] boundary as a signal to the world that

[54:18] properties that are in a protection are

[54:20] not going to be eligible for any kind of

[54:22] development approval. This part is what

[54:25] applies more to the Stevens Hill

[54:26] annexation to the north.

[54:29] So again, excerpts of the draft that's

[54:33] before the council tonight and the

[54:35] growth management boundary map. Um,

[54:40] this being what we're talking about here

[54:42] with the annexation that the Clyde

[54:44] company's working on, uh, west of I-15

[54:48] currently outside of the growth

[54:50] management boundary.

[54:52] But because we have an active annexation

[54:56] application there for purposes of what's

[55:00] there for you to consider tonight as the

[55:02] city council, we've included that

[55:06] in the proposed growth management

[55:08] boundary.

[55:10] Um, and I just want to stop right there.

[55:15] Are you guys following what I'm saying

[55:16] in terms of just that the kind of

[55:18] funmental nature of that conflict then

[55:21] with the Stevens Hill annexation to the

[55:23] north which is it's maybe better seen

[55:26] here. It's this green area here

[55:31] that uh likewise the proposal that's

[55:34] before the council tonight would have

[55:37] that area entirely included within the

[55:39] growth management boundary but those

[55:41] properties are still all in a protection

[55:43] areas.

[55:45] So on one hand we're saying if you're in

[55:47] a protection you're not eligible to be

[55:49] included in the growth management

[55:51] boundary and therefore the city

[55:52] shouldn't annex it.

[55:55] Um and yet we have that that active

[55:57] application which frankly has been in

[55:58] the works in one form or another for a

[56:01] few years. And we have the more recent

[56:03] one with the client annexation in there.

[56:05] It's more when is the transportation

[56:07] investment going to come along.

[56:09] Now, I believe there are fairly easy

[56:13] fixes for this. If you'd like us maybe

[56:16] just to soften the language that we have

[56:19] here in these policies, maybe to make it

[56:23] um

[56:25] less absolute in terms of maybe thou

[56:29] shalt not, but you know, maybe only in

[56:32] limited circumstances or something like

[56:34] that. We could do that. And I think

[56:37] that's that's an easy way for me then as

[56:40] staff to consider to continue to help

[56:42] the applicant move through the process

[56:45] to have a conversation with the planning

[56:47] commission about the annexation. Maybe

[56:50] to have it considered on its own merit

[56:53] and to not feel like as we do that we're

[56:56] doing something that directly conflicts

[56:58] with something that the city council

[57:00] hopefully will have adopted in the very

[57:02] near future.

[57:04] I think the same thing could be done

[57:06] with the Stevens Hill annexation. Maybe

[57:07] by way of softening some language. Um or

[57:11] you as the council maybe as you um do

[57:15] adopt this document could simply give us

[57:18] as staff some direction to to put this

[57:24] into play with future annexations.

[57:28] And for me, I would really appreciate

[57:30] that if that were were your desire, just

[57:33] to to take what's in process,

[57:37] kind of playing with the the current

[57:40] advisory type language that we have. Um,

[57:43] but I know that on both of those two

[57:46] annexations,

[57:47] the people that are involved as the

[57:49] applicants have really put a lot of

[57:50] effort into them. And uh um I think this

[57:54] is an appropriate time maybe to have a

[57:55] little bit of discussion about exactly

[57:56] how you'd like us to proceed with those

[57:59] and how uh that would impact what's

[58:02] before the the council tonight.

[58:06] There have been a lot of things like I

[58:07] said that have been uh almost discussed

[58:11] I think at nauseium at this point in

[58:13] terms of the draft that's before you.

[58:16] Um, that really is the last thing that I

[58:19] think from my perspective we're down to

[58:21] where at least there's there's a

[58:24] conflict in different actions that have

[58:27] taken place and where we might be

[58:28] headed. That's not to say that

[58:30] everything's been ironed out perfectly

[58:31] or that there's complete consensus on

[58:33] everything. I don't think that is the

[58:34] case at all. But, um, I really

[58:36] appreciate, you know, like I said, the

[58:38] work that's gone into getting this to

[58:40] this point. Happy to present it tonight

[58:42] to Mr. for mayor and council um teed up

[58:46] for the public hearing. Everything's

[58:47] been noticed properly and uh upon

[58:50] holding

[58:52] uh a public hearing tonight on those two

[58:53] items. Uh it's my understanding that the

[58:56] council can act tonight in some future

[58:59] meeting. Um and in all cander, it's it's

[59:03] a hefty hefty lift. And just from my

[59:07] perspective, if the council wanted to

[59:09] take some time to think things over,

[59:11] have some additional discussion, I think

[59:12] that would be entirely appropriate, that

[59:14] essentially is what the planning

[59:15] commission did. They held a public

[59:17] hearing one night and and uh reconvened

[59:20] before they made a decision.

[59:22] Um, so there it is. Do you have any

[59:26] questions for me before we

[59:31] » questions for Dave?

[59:32] >> Oh, yes. Public hearing. Um, I do before

[59:35] the public hearing just just to clarify

[59:37] some things. So, I sent an email to to

[59:39] Seth and Vaughn today about a section of

[59:42] code that I am I'm not sure how to

[59:45] interpret it. Um, just Jack, can you

[59:48] pull it out for me?

[59:52] » So, there's a section of Utah code that

[59:54] says this is how you do general plans.

[59:57] And in that piece, there's this piece.

[1:00:00] Um, so when you're drafting a land use

[1:00:01] element,

[1:00:03] um, number two, avoid proposing use of

[1:00:05] land within an egg protection area that

[1:00:08] is inconsistent with or detrimental to farming.

[1:00:12] So, prior to me reading this, I always

[1:00:15] thought of we don't want to put things

[1:00:18] around an APA that would cause

[1:00:22] detrimental harm to the APA. But this

[1:00:24] says within it.

[1:00:27] I look at our map today and it shows

[1:00:29] development, future development in an

[1:00:32] APA.

[1:00:34] Are we consistent with Utah code

[1:00:38] and our plan?

[1:00:41] I don't know how to reconcile this.

[1:00:42] That's why I'm I'm asking.

[1:00:46] » I'd love to jump in. You guys mind? Uh

[1:00:50] >> they don't have a good answer either.

[1:00:52] >> No. Oh, we have a good

[1:00:54] >> They will correct me when I get off path

[1:00:56] here,

[1:00:56] >> but uh this is a section of code that's

[1:01:00] been in place for quite a while and I

[1:01:05] actually quite familiar with it. It's

[1:01:07] been discussed in a number

[1:01:09] >> there instructions on how to do a

[1:01:10] general plan. I would hope that you

[1:01:12] there backwards and forwards. Yeah.

[1:01:13] >> And they really haven't changed, right,

[1:01:15] >> for quite a while.

[1:01:17] um

[1:01:18] this is I think great guidance and yet

[1:01:23] the language is far from explicit. So a

[1:01:26] phrase like avoid for example uh the

[1:01:30] preceding statement where it talks about

[1:01:31] identifying um maybe let's just start

[1:01:34] with that. Uh, and

[1:01:38] I I don't think anybody is necessarily

[1:01:41] more familiar with a protection areas

[1:01:43] than you as the council member, but we

[1:01:46] we've had we've had a lot of discussions

[1:01:49] about

[1:01:49] >> I didn't when we were talking about AVAs

[1:01:51] before, I did not realize this piece of

[1:01:53] code existed and I think for me it

[1:01:55] changes the when to approve an APA

[1:01:58] potentially, but keep going.

[1:02:00] Um I think we've done a very good job of

[1:02:03] identifying them and the manner in which

[1:02:07] the growth management boundary is

[1:02:09] presented tonight both in its form in

[1:02:13] terms of just the geography that it does

[1:02:15] and doesn't cover you know the idea that

[1:02:18] we've given uh the existence of

[1:02:21] agriculture protection areas in and

[1:02:24] around for that matter as well Spanish

[1:02:26] Fork enough thought to have deliberately

[1:02:29] modified a document because of them. In

[1:02:32] my mind, I think we've done a very good

[1:02:35] job of identifying them as, you know,

[1:02:37] kind of the first step. The next part,

[1:02:40] avoid proposing a land use that's either

[1:02:43] inconsistent with or that would somehow

[1:02:45] harm an agricultural operation.

[1:02:50] I I'm not aware of what that would be

[1:02:54] truthfully to start with. So that in my

[1:02:58] opinion is a little bit of a flaw with

[1:03:00] the language here. It doesn't say what

[1:03:03] that would look like in terms of being

[1:03:04] detrimental or or again that that

[1:03:08] inconsistency.

[1:03:10] I do believe that the different and I

[1:03:12] think um in areas that are designated

[1:03:17] um or sorry that are are currently part

[1:03:20] of agriculture protection areas today.

[1:03:24] Um the future land use map shows those

[1:03:28] either becoming residential development

[1:03:31] in some cases commercial or industrial

[1:03:34] and particularly speaking to

[1:03:38] residential and industrial designations.

[1:03:41] Um, I think all we know in Spanish Fork

[1:03:44] are situations where we have farms,

[1:03:47] whether they're fields or fields that

[1:03:50] sometimes livestock are kept on and

[1:03:53] homes or businesses cohabitating really well together to the point that I

[1:03:59] think most often when um a property

[1:04:03] owner is ready, excuse me, a property

[1:04:05] owner is ready to have their field

[1:04:08] develop, typically that's when we hear

[1:04:11] neighbors say we hate to lose the field

[1:04:14] and we love having our homes back onto

[1:04:15] that etc etc etc. So um I I'm really

[1:04:20] comfortable just from my perspective

[1:04:22] saying that I think we've done an

[1:04:25] excellent job in the regard of following

[1:04:29] this part of the state code. Um, and I

[1:04:31] think we've taken it a lot farther than

[1:04:33] that with the way the growth management

[1:04:34] boundary is intended to to help um give

[1:04:38] people a reason maybe to continue to

[1:04:39] farm for more years to come, which as we

[1:04:43] heard from the public uh going back to

[1:04:46] the first outreach effort that we made

[1:04:48] where we had more than 3,000

[1:04:50] respondents.

[1:04:52] People really like that that part of

[1:04:54] living in Spanish Fork, that part of the

[1:04:56] community. People hate to see it

[1:04:58] >> change and and that to

[1:05:00] >> to become any less significant than it

[1:05:02] is now and yet there's the other side as

[1:05:06] well, right? Which is property owners

[1:05:08] occasionally feel like it's time to move

[1:05:09] on and and we plan for that as well. So

[1:05:12] that I

[1:05:13] >> that balance has been difficult, right?

[1:05:16] >> Von,

[1:05:17] >> Mr. Vaughn,

[1:05:18] >> a couple other things. Um

[1:05:21] I would I would add that you know a

[1:05:24] future land use designation for

[1:05:26] residential as you mentioned or

[1:05:27] industrial commercial is not

[1:05:30] inconsistent because the act

[1:05:31] protectionary may re remain in act

[1:05:33] protection so long as the property owner

[1:05:35] wants to um

[1:05:38] and because the city cannot reszone

[1:05:40] without their written consent. So for

[1:05:42] that last phrase of the highlighted

[1:05:44] line, it's not detrimental to the use of

[1:05:46] the land for agriculture because they

[1:05:48] can do that as long as they would like.

[1:05:51] It's just a future land use designation

[1:05:53] for when they decide to discontinue.

[1:05:58] » Okay.

[1:06:01] I don't have a whole lot of value to

[1:06:03] add, but let me maybe just summarize

[1:06:06] with the word avoid is something that we

[1:06:10] used in a recent conversation about a

[1:06:15] annexation

[1:06:17] uh proposal with a neighboring

[1:06:20] community. And if you recall, one of the arguments that we were having

[1:06:24] about that discussion, it included some

[1:06:25] discussions about it says a growth

[1:06:28] boundary, not a growth boundary, but a

[1:06:31] uation policy boundary should avoid

[1:06:34] certain things. Um, it's it's it's not a

[1:06:38] thou shalt, which is which is a solid

[1:06:40] word, right? It really provides clear

[1:06:42] direction. As we as we discussed this

[1:06:45] today, we looked around the city at

[1:06:47] various areas where there are a

[1:06:49] protections and where there are land

[1:06:51] uses um over those

[1:06:56] a protections and around those and I

[1:06:59] think Dave said it well especially as

[1:07:02] you consider residential u there's a lot

[1:07:05] of residential that happens in some a

[1:07:07] protected areas and around them and so

[1:07:10] it's hard to say it's detrimental and then coupling that with what bond

[1:07:13] said uh specifically to the land within

[1:07:17] an APA, the land owner has a lot of uh

[1:07:21] specific say that was given to them

[1:07:23] always first and foremost because land

[1:07:25] owners decide if they sell their farm to

[1:07:28] be developed, right? So, I think you

[1:07:30] have the ability to plan and and I would

[1:07:32] say this um

[1:07:37] the and correct me if I'm saying this

[1:07:40] incorrectly, Von, but because the

[1:07:42] landowner participates maybe at a higher

[1:07:45] level in zone change processes uh in an

[1:07:48] APA,

[1:07:50] um in some regards,

[1:07:52] the designation that you put in a

[1:07:54] general plan over the APA becomes a

[1:07:57] little bit less

[1:07:59] in in the APA area a little less potent

[1:08:02] in that APA area than in other areas

[1:08:05] because nothing will change there but

[1:08:07] for the permission of the land owner

[1:08:09] >> and so then it's something I know that

[1:08:11] you and I have talked about maybe others

[1:08:13] don't know won't know the conversations

[1:08:15] you and I have talked about but then it

[1:08:17] really shifts then to a focus on how do

[1:08:20] you then master plan around and with

[1:08:22] that maybe providing that that becomes

[1:08:24] more important because the general plan at least while the APA is

[1:08:29] there has less but the master plan for

[1:08:31] the utilities still is important

[1:08:34] >> right

[1:08:37] I appreciate the the feedback I'm still

[1:08:40] struggling to be

[1:08:44] grasp this concept in my head I don't

[1:08:46] know how anything other and I don't know

[1:08:48] if this was the intent of the verbiage

[1:08:50] of the law I don't know how anything

[1:08:52] other than a land use designation of

[1:08:54] agriculture is not inconsistent with an

[1:08:57] APA.

[1:08:58] >> Well, Shane, I'd be curious to know how

[1:09:01] do other entities deal with that state

[1:09:02] law like MAG when MAG does their trans

[1:09:05] 50 plan and they're putting highways

[1:09:08] through

[1:09:09] farmland, some of which is in an APA.

[1:09:13] How does that apply with them as well?

[1:09:15] >> They don't do general planning, so

[1:09:17] that's MAG does not, but other cities

[1:09:20] certainly do. I'm I'm sure Lehi has

[1:09:22] plenty of APAs that they've had to deal

[1:09:24] with. I don't know. Um,

[1:09:27] I've always assumed that that statement

[1:09:29] was meant to to protect a little bit of

[1:09:33] the APA by not developing anything

[1:09:35] around it that was inconsistent with

[1:09:36] farming. But I read it again and I'm

[1:09:39] like,

[1:09:41] so the argument you the three of you

[1:09:43] just made basically there's no land use

[1:09:46] that's inconsistent that you could put

[1:09:48] over top of it because at some point the

[1:09:51] farmer chooses to develop whether it's

[1:09:55] industry, residential, or whatever it

[1:09:57] could be. the the cases you all made was

[1:10:02] it's okay for us to put whatever on it

[1:10:03] because at some point the farmer is

[1:10:05] going to choose and not the city. I'm

[1:10:07] not sure that is that could be the

[1:10:10] intent of the law. I don't know how

[1:10:11] that's that's not how I'm reading it.

[1:10:13] And can I can I maybe walk back a little

[1:10:16] bit. Um I don't know what those land

[1:10:19] uses necessarily would be that that

[1:10:21] might damage, you know, somebody's

[1:10:23] ability to to farm. I haven't been able

[1:10:26] to think of them yet, but clearly I

[1:10:28] think whoever wrote this had something

[1:10:29] in mind. They envisioned something,

[1:10:31] right?

[1:10:32] >> So, uh, I wouldn't I'm just speaking for

[1:10:35] myself. I wouldn't say that it's

[1:10:37] impossible to envision there being some

[1:10:40] land use designation that could lead to

[1:10:42] something that you wouldn't want to have

[1:10:44] in an area where you're trying to

[1:10:46] protect farms. I haven't been able to

[1:10:48] think of what that necessarily is yet.

[1:10:51] And I I think we have experience with

[1:10:53] the designations that we're talking

[1:10:54] about here to where and you have some

[1:10:57] insight as well in terms of the care

[1:10:59] that's given when properties do develop

[1:11:01] and and how different things are are uh

[1:11:05] maintained to allow for farming to

[1:11:07] continue. So I I appreciate the thought

[1:11:09] and I agree it's

[1:11:10] >> I don't I don't know that we resolve it

[1:11:12] tonight. I'm just is one of those things

[1:11:14] as we move into the public comment

[1:11:16] period. I'm just something that sparks

[1:11:19] some dilemma in my head. I don't like

[1:11:22] dilemma in my head. I'm an engineer. I

[1:11:25] want some black and white stuff and this

[1:11:27] is not it.

[1:11:28] >> Can I share one other thought?

[1:11:29] >> Yeah, I mean the logical path then

[1:11:32] >> nothing can ever be put there

[1:11:34] >> and planning for that seems like that is

[1:11:36] >> that's my problem too.

[1:11:37] >> That's Seth and I had this conversation

[1:11:39] I don't know how many times about does

[1:11:41] it make sense to I mean want we've all

[1:11:44] said it up here. We want the farmer to

[1:11:46] continue to farm for as long as they

[1:11:47] want to farm and it's their decision to

[1:11:48] make when they choose to to change. Um

[1:11:52] but that day that when they do change um

[1:11:55] that 18inch pipe in front of their in

[1:11:58] the road in front of the farm should be

[1:12:00] sized for them to be able to access

[1:12:02] excess access it um and if we don't plan

[1:12:06] accordingly it won't be. And so I that

[1:12:08] is the dilemma that I've been struggling

[1:12:10] with since we've had this conversation.

[1:12:11] So I get it. I'm not trying to poke. I'm

[1:12:15] just trying to resolve it in my head as

[1:12:16] we move forward. Sure.

[1:12:20] >> I have one more unless you guys want to

[1:12:22] stop.

[1:12:22] >> No, will Yeah, get it.

[1:12:24] >> Um, I'm glad this slide is up. Uh, we

[1:12:27] have been talking about the concept of a

[1:12:30] front runner stop now for a long time

[1:12:32] and I will be super transparent with

[1:12:34] everyone in here. Before I was on the

[1:12:36] city council, I was part of a study that

[1:12:38] recommended from a planning perspective

[1:12:41] a stop at Center Street in Spanish Fork.

[1:12:44] Fast forward several years, fast forward

[1:12:46] through the analysis that UD do and the

[1:12:48] UTA has done at that location. Um, and

[1:12:53] there's a lot of work to do before

[1:12:55] there's a front runner stop at Center

[1:12:57] Street in Spanish Fork.

[1:12:59] And I believe that now that I know more

[1:13:02] about how the city develops and and

[1:13:04] where land uses and things like that

[1:13:06] should be. I believe that station should

[1:13:08] be on the north end of our community. I

[1:13:10] believe it should be out by the new

[1:13:12] interchange where there is access and we

[1:13:15] can get something in place much much

[1:13:16] quicker than the only way there's a

[1:13:18] front runner stop is if there's an

[1:13:20] interchange. So we are $250 million

[1:13:23] behind before we can get to an

[1:13:24] interchange or to a front runner stop. I

[1:13:27] would love for us if we agree to propose

[1:13:31] putting something in writing to UTA to

[1:13:33] say we want you to look harder at moving

[1:13:35] our stop to the north end of our

[1:13:37] community where we can access it today

[1:13:39] where we can get people to and from it

[1:13:42] from an interchange today and not wait

[1:13:45] 15 years before there's a stop in

[1:13:47] Spanish Fork and Center Street. So,

[1:13:50] >> so Shane, your belief is that we could

[1:13:53] save 10 to 15 years of people not having

[1:13:56] a front runner if we just

[1:13:58] >> if we could convince if UTA said yes to

[1:14:00] it. Yes.

[1:14:01] >> And when you say today, you mean you

[1:14:03] mean three years from now soonest? But

[1:14:05] >> yeah, for sure.

[1:14:06] >> At least a decade or

[1:14:07] >> at the very very least. I don't think

[1:14:09] we've weighed in as a council and said

[1:14:12] >> I we would prefer and this may not carry

[1:14:14] a ton of weight because they're the

[1:14:15] decision maker 100%. But should we not

[1:14:19] make it known if that is our desire that

[1:14:21] that's where we want the station to go

[1:14:22] because I don't think we have.

[1:14:24] >> So two questions for you with your

[1:14:27] engineering experience with your

[1:14:28] experience with UD do your history

[1:14:30] working there.

[1:14:32] >> First question when you say north end of

[1:14:34] town where are you where are you

[1:14:37] thinking logistically

[1:14:39] >> then so by the new exit but in Spanish

[1:14:42] city limits.

[1:14:43] >> Yeah I mean it's right there. It's a

[1:14:47] blur between Spanish Fork and Spring. I

[1:14:48] wouldn't care if it was in Springville

[1:14:50] necessarily, but south of 2600.

[1:14:54] >> Dry Creek Parkway.

[1:14:56] >> So, we know where Springville's proposed

[1:14:58] to go, right?

[1:14:59] >> Mhm. Behind the DI.

[1:15:00] >> Okay. So, you're thinking just on the

[1:15:02] south end of of the new the new overpass

[1:15:06] that goes over the over the railroad.

[1:15:07] >> Yep.

[1:15:08] >> Okay.

[1:15:08] >> Yep.

[1:15:08] >> Okay. So, that's where you're looking.

[1:15:10] >> And how many proposals have we seen with

[1:15:12] a ton of density right there?

[1:15:13] >> Yeah. A lot.

[1:15:14] >> Right. and having that density access

[1:15:16] that station right next to the freeway

[1:15:19] could speed that project up for us.

[1:15:22] >> Okay. Yeah. I would be curious to know

[1:15:26] like you said it's not not our choice to

[1:15:28] make. I'd be curious to know how they

[1:15:31] decide

[1:15:32] you know between distance between

[1:15:34] stations right spacing and everything

[1:15:36] else. So

[1:15:37] >> yeah.

[1:15:37] >> So second question

[1:15:40] with your experience at UD do what

[1:15:42] likelihood is there that

[1:15:46] having a proposed station west of Center

[1:15:48] Street also pushes

[1:15:51] the construction of that interchange

[1:15:54] quicker than not having the the transit

[1:15:57] station west of Center Street. Do you

[1:15:59] feel like they're connected in any way

[1:16:01] or are they completely separate

[1:16:02] entities? What I'm fearful of is that

[1:16:05] someone connects them and the $250

[1:16:08] million center street interchange turns

[1:16:10] into a $500 million station extension of

[1:16:14] Frontr Runner and interchange and it

[1:16:16] goes even further.

[1:16:18] I think I don't think it speeds it up in

[1:16:21] any way to have the station there.

[1:16:24] >> Yeah, that was what I was looking for.

[1:16:27] Why don't you?

[1:16:28] >> In fact, I think what's going to h if if

[1:16:30] we if UTA says that's the location, I

[1:16:33] think the most likely outcome is Front

[1:16:35] Runner extends to PAC and there's a stop

[1:16:38] in Springville and PAC and we don't have

[1:16:39] one until this interchange is built.

[1:16:41] >> Did they ever build a station prior to

[1:16:43] having the

[1:16:45] >> access to access?

[1:16:47] >> Um, American Fork a little bit. American

[1:16:49] Forks one was out there where it was

[1:16:52] tough to access.

[1:16:53] >> It's caused a ton of problems too.

[1:16:54] >> It has. The flip side of that is is

[1:16:57] vineyard station where they built it

[1:16:59] after once development came in and

[1:17:02] access was there then they built it. So

[1:17:05] it has gone both ways. It is

[1:17:06] problematic. I mean American Forks was

[1:17:08] tough to access for the first 10 years

[1:17:12] of service.

[1:17:15] » I have a question for Shane. Would we

[1:17:18] also have

[1:17:19] >> No, I opened it up so I appreciate it.

[1:17:21] >> Would we have to have or Yeah. Would we

[1:17:24] need Springville Mayor and Council to

[1:17:26] also agree to release their idea of

[1:17:29] having it by the

[1:17:31] >> DI and

[1:17:32] >> to make it to make to take away one of

[1:17:35] the arguments from UTA that that station

[1:17:38] would be too close to Springfield bills?

[1:17:40] Yes.

[1:17:40] >> Okay. So, we would need Springville to

[1:17:43] also agree

[1:17:44] >> or UTA just has to say, okay, it is

[1:17:47] close. It's doesn't meet our traditional

[1:17:50] distances, but we can accommodate it.

[1:17:52] >> Okay. There's no reason that they can't

[1:17:54] stop a train half a mile away from the

[1:17:57] station

[1:17:58] >> and

[1:17:59] >> it's just less efficient.

[1:18:00] >> Is it worth a phone call by you?

[1:18:02] >> I've tried.

[1:18:03] >> Okay. Is there any sort of like we might

[1:18:07] consider it or what what kind of

[1:18:08] response are you getting?

[1:18:10] >> Um

[1:18:14] years been a few years that you and I

[1:18:16] talked about it with

[1:18:17] >> Who are we talking to? Are we talking to

[1:18:18] Springville doing it? Oh,

[1:18:19] >> UTA.

[1:18:20] Um, UTA is not super receptive of

[1:18:23] it.

[1:18:24] >> So, it would be a a hard hill to climb.

[1:18:26] >> It would be hard hill to climb. But

[1:18:28] again, I think that part of it is one,

[1:18:30] UTA's not finished with the analysis,

[1:18:32] right? They have they've kind of put it

[1:18:33] on pause because they have no money to

[1:18:35] extend Front Runner South. And so, they

[1:18:37] can't get an environmental document

[1:18:38] approved without some money to do the

[1:18:40] construction. So, they've put it on

[1:18:41] pause. And so, there's that. But, I

[1:18:44] don't think they've hurt us.

[1:18:46] Frankly, I think they've heard Mike and

[1:18:48] I a little bit, but I don't think

[1:18:49] they've heard the will of the the the

[1:18:51] council to say this is where we would

[1:18:53] prefer it. You better come prepared to

[1:18:56] talk about why it can't happen.

[1:18:57] >> But I don't know that we've had we

[1:18:59] >> I don't know that we agree.

[1:19:01] >> Yeah, we've not had that discussion to weigh and measure does it make sense

[1:19:05] to put it there compared to here. We've

[1:19:07] not had that discussion.

[1:19:08] >> I think the purpose of this conversation

[1:19:10] is because of what it is in the in the

[1:19:13] general plan, right?

[1:19:14] >> Yep. Correct. There is a lot of

[1:19:15] assumptions built into our general plan

[1:19:18] around the station location

[1:19:20] >> which

[1:19:21] >> and that's why I bring it up.

[1:19:22] >> I think should make a point that talking

[1:19:25] about that area talking about a couple

[1:19:27] of specific areas in the general plan

[1:19:30] could go back to the the very first

[1:19:33] slide shown on this that the general

[1:19:34] plan is a living document 100%.

[1:19:36] >> Right. And so to say, well, let's, you

[1:19:40] know, let's discuss debate like we like

[1:19:43] we do and like we are and have a public

[1:19:45] hearing on it, but let's not again let good or let perfect be the enemy of

[1:19:52] good,

[1:19:52] >> right?

[1:19:53] >> Because as soon as we adopt a general

[1:19:55] plan, there are going to be I I wouldn't

[1:19:58] blame land owners or people or us

[1:20:01] ourselves to say, "Now, wait a second.

[1:20:03] Here's why we think there ought to be an

[1:20:05] amendment here because we've amended the

[1:20:07] general plan and we'll continue to amend

[1:20:09] the general plan. And so I would say as

[1:20:12] a as a council, just like the commission

[1:20:14] had had good discussions and debates on

[1:20:16] it as well and public input that we we

[1:20:19] don't just not adopt something because

[1:20:21] it's I agree completely, Mike. Mayor, I

[1:20:24] think that part of what I wanted to say

[1:20:27] to the public tonight is there are

[1:20:29] things in this plan if it was adopted

[1:20:30] right now that we would change in the

[1:20:33] future potentially and we're committed

[1:20:35] to listening to those things, having the

[1:20:37] good dialogue around them and making a

[1:20:40] change even if it's next week.

[1:20:41] >> Right. Y I think that's what I just

[1:20:43] heard you say as well. So I think that

[1:20:44] is good for all you out there to realize

[1:20:46] that it's not a one and done deal. And

[1:20:49] in the last 10 years since we've adopted

[1:20:51] a plan, it's been changed a bunch of

[1:20:53] times. So that said though, we often

[1:20:56] say, we're approving this because it's

[1:20:58] in the general plan. And so we do it

[1:21:00] does carry some weight. It's it's not

[1:21:02] just,

[1:21:03] >> you know,

[1:21:03] >> yep,

[1:21:04] >> just the guiding document. It is we we

[1:21:06] want to honor as much as we can. But

[1:21:09] >> there are going to be holes and we're

[1:21:10] going to hear some from some folks

[1:21:11] tonight saying you have holes here and here. We just figure out how to

[1:21:14] deal with them. So

[1:21:15] >> I think also moving forward with that if

[1:21:17] we name the holes and staff knows

[1:21:21] to tell developers the council knows

[1:21:23] that A, B, and C are holes, they're willing to look at this, but

[1:21:27] maybe another area they don't want to

[1:21:29] look at this immediately. That would be

[1:21:31] helpful for you guys, right?

[1:21:33] >> We'd love to know as much about how you

[1:21:35] look at it as possible, for sure. And

[1:21:38] can I provide just a little bit more

[1:21:40] background on what Councilman Marshall's

[1:21:41] talking about? Not that you don't

[1:21:43] understand it really really well, but

[1:21:46] just for the benefit maybe of anybody

[1:21:47] that's kind of hopping in right now, if

[1:21:49] we went back three years ago,

[1:21:52] um, and Shane or anybody else, tell me

[1:21:55] if you see it differently than I do, we

[1:21:59] really believed that a center street

[1:22:02] interchange and therefore a frontr

[1:22:04] runner stop were much more certain and

[1:22:07] imminent than we have reason to believe

[1:22:10] today. So we started down the path of

[1:22:14] doing a really detailed plan for the

[1:22:16] area among other things to try to help

[1:22:18] facilitate the right kind of development

[1:22:20] and to encourage that big transportation

[1:22:23] investment to come. So, as we've learned

[1:22:27] over the course of the past few years

[1:22:28] that vision's probably not that

[1:22:31] realistic, we have pulled back and we've

[1:22:36] made our best effort with the draft

[1:22:37] that's before the council tonight to

[1:22:40] keep an opportunity open. you know,

[1:22:43] should that concept come to fruition for

[1:22:45] an area that is almost and this is a

[1:22:49] phrase that a consultant working with

[1:22:52] this I think first mentioned

[1:22:55] today in my view the document is just a

[1:22:58] plan to preserve that space

[1:23:01] period

[1:23:03] just in case you have that big

[1:23:05] transportation investment that comes

[1:23:07] over there. don't approve a bunch of

[1:23:09] quarter acre lot subdivisions that

[1:23:12] doesn't really jive very well or doesn't

[1:23:15] support jive well with

[1:23:18] um a big transportation investment or

[1:23:21] doesn't support the kind of wrership

[1:23:22] that you need to make uh frontr runner

[1:23:25] work um as if you know maybe that area

[1:23:28] shouldn't develop for some period of

[1:23:30] time until you know there's more

[1:23:32] certainty or until something real

[1:23:34] happens. So I I really appreciate the

[1:23:36] thought. I have to ask, we've talked as

[1:23:39] staff about

[1:23:41] for a variety of reasons. We have not

[1:23:43] had anybody from UTA come to speak with

[1:23:48] you or anybody else in Spanish Fork. Uh

[1:23:52] the environmental project that

[1:23:54] Councilman Marshall's referring to,

[1:23:56] that's been going on, I want to say, for

[1:23:58] three years in and of itself. We

[1:24:00] expected that to be done some time ago.

[1:24:03] Personally,

[1:24:04] I feel like uh it's reasonable to to

[1:24:07] expect UTA to provide more insight and

[1:24:11] you know, maybe to be engaged right now

[1:24:13] on the kind of discussion that you're

[1:24:15] suggesting. So, I'd be happy. We'd be

[1:24:18] happy. Might take some clout to get the

[1:24:20] right people here, but if the council

[1:24:22] wanted to have that kind of discussion

[1:24:24] with decision makers, we could. So just

[1:24:27] to put it in perspective, the shortest

[1:24:30] station distance right now is between

[1:24:31] Vineyard and ORM. It's about two and a

[1:24:34] half miles. If we were to look at the

[1:24:36] distance between the DI and the north

[1:24:40] end of town, you're at about a mile and

[1:24:41] a quarter. So it' be half Yep.

[1:24:43] >> the distance. So that's going to be a

[1:24:45] big lift for sure. I think with

[1:24:48] >> 70,

[1:24:49] >> right? It stays at 45 and slows down.

[1:24:52] >> It's doable. So,

[1:24:55] >> is that worth pursuing the idea of

[1:24:56] trying to get them?

[1:24:58] >> Uh, I can't remember the director's name

[1:24:59] off the top of my head now and I know

[1:25:01] >> the leadership is changing, right?

[1:25:03] >> Governance is changing in January or

[1:25:04] July. So, it might be worth having a

[1:25:07] conversation once their government

[1:25:08] governance changes.

[1:25:10] >> So,

[1:25:10] >> before then, do you see any value?

[1:25:12] >> No,

[1:25:13] >> after is what you're saying.

[1:25:14] >> After then. Sorry, my bad. Yeah, after.

[1:25:16] No, I don't see

[1:25:16] >> I understood after. I was just asking.

[1:25:18] >> I appreciate it.

[1:25:18] >> No, I don't see any value yet. But I

[1:25:21] mean I I'm one of five six. So

[1:25:26] >> I think that's

[1:25:27] >> yeah that's something that is I think

[1:25:29] super important that up until this well

[1:25:34] now including this moment the direction

[1:25:36] I think from the environmental is it's

[1:25:38] going to be in this general area

[1:25:40] >> and that's the sheet of music that we're

[1:25:41] playing from. If we want to try to move

[1:25:43] it I think

[1:25:45] >> I think we have time.

[1:25:47] >> We do. I think I don't think they're not

[1:25:49] the night. No, but

[1:25:50] >> I say it because it's on the board,

[1:25:52] >> right? And I also think we have time

[1:25:53] because I don't think they're going to

[1:25:54] build it for 10 years,

[1:25:55] >> right? Oh, yeah.

[1:25:56] >> Right. So, we've got time and

[1:25:57] understanding the lay of the land and all the rules. I mean, it'll

[1:26:02] probably be a really big big lift to get

[1:26:05] Springville to do anything other than

[1:26:06] what their plan has been. Um, but

[1:26:11] I also know that I could see Frontr

[1:26:13] Runner being built in Springville,

[1:26:15] skipping Spanish Fork and having a

[1:26:17] station somewhere else for a time just

[1:26:19] simply because of the lack of

[1:26:20] infrastructure on the freeway. Right. So

[1:26:23] again, I think we have time. Um,

[1:26:25] >> is there any concern with UTA saying,

[1:26:27] you know what, Spanish Fork, the vibe

[1:26:30] we're getting is that they just don't

[1:26:32] want one, so let's just do Springville

[1:26:34] and Pac and not even worry about Spanish

[1:26:36] for

[1:26:36] >> they're not going to build it unless you

[1:26:38] have access to it. Plain and simple.

[1:26:40] >> And I think that's a consideration you

[1:26:42] have to always have, but I don't think

[1:26:44] anybody's saying that.

[1:26:46] >> I think the vibe is we want to make sure

[1:26:48] that it gets in the right place and we

[1:26:50] want to be able to maximize it. And so,

[1:26:53] you know, UTA, are you legitimately

[1:26:56] going to build it? And, you know, does a

[1:26:59] curve matter? Right? Because I think

[1:27:00] we've all heard you can't do it on a

[1:27:02] curve and stuff like that or right after

[1:27:03] a curve or whatever. Like, help us

[1:27:05] understand that because we

[1:27:09] if and if UTA had the ability to put one

[1:27:12] in this place and skip two, I that maybe

[1:27:14] saves them money. Maybe that is

[1:27:15] something they want. Maybe they don't

[1:27:18] want that. But I think I think having

[1:27:20] the conversation doesn't hurt. Um,

[1:27:24] and we probably have time,

[1:27:29] but I think to your comment, Councilman

[1:27:31] Oiler, the last thing we want to say is

[1:27:34] or the last vibe we want to give is we

[1:27:36] don't want to

[1:27:37] >> skip this. Yeah.

[1:27:39] >> That's not the case, I think.

[1:27:41] >> All right, I'll shut up.

[1:27:42] >> No, good, good, good discussion. Good

[1:27:44] questions. Anything else, Dave? Before

[1:27:47] we go to public comment and maybe have

[1:27:49] you back up public hearing? Nope.

[1:27:51] >> Anything else council you want to ask of

[1:27:53] Dave before we go into public hearing?

[1:27:55] >> Thank you.

[1:27:56] >> Okay.

[1:27:57] >> Thank you, Dave. Appreciate it, Dave's.

[1:27:59] Uh, thank you. Um, we'll um let me set

[1:28:02] the stage a little bit before we're

[1:28:03] going to entertain a motion to go into

[1:28:05] public hearing here because we've had uh

[1:28:08] some discussions and and uh and

[1:28:11] engineers like words and they like black

[1:28:13] and white words and I'm a simple guy

[1:28:16] that was more picture books rather than

[1:28:18] too many words. So, I asked Jack, I sent

[1:28:20] Jack a picture that I took on Sunday.

[1:28:22] Actually, my nine-year-old took it.

[1:28:24] Jagger took it, but this was on the way

[1:28:26] home from grandma and grandpa's house.

[1:28:27] And so, I want to set the stage with the

[1:28:29] public hearing just a little bit because

[1:28:30] we've already had a discussion of of

[1:28:32] development uh in conjunction with how

[1:28:36] that works in a general plan and how

[1:28:37] that maybe uh works with uh agriculture

[1:28:41] as well. I'll I'll orient you. Where

[1:28:43] you're looking at here is a a farmer's

[1:28:46] field inside Spanish Fork. It's not in a

[1:28:50] protection, but it but it is a and it's

[1:28:53] been egg for as long as I can remember.

[1:28:55] Um I asked Jagger to take that picture

[1:28:58] because if you look closely there's a

[1:29:00] basketball and I think to the right a

[1:29:02] little football uh there as well.

[1:29:04] There's the basketball. I think the

[1:29:06] football's to the right. Isn't that a

[1:29:07] football in the white? Yeah, something

[1:29:09] like that.

[1:29:10] >> So ask Jagger. This is the school Jagger

[1:29:11] goes to. uh Riverview Elementary and and

[1:29:14] I said, "Hey, what happens when the ball

[1:29:16] goes over uh into the farmer's field

[1:29:19] there?" And if it's during recess and

[1:29:21] they're out, then they say the teacher

[1:29:23] watches a kid and make sure they safely

[1:29:26] get uh out in the field and throw the

[1:29:28] ball back over. Uh and uh if it's after

[1:29:31] school, which this is after school, uh

[1:29:34] Mr. Kanto, the the the janitor, gets

[1:29:37] over there and gets the gets the balls

[1:29:39] that come over from recess and and

[1:29:41] chucks them back over. Um, my reason uh

[1:29:45] for for thinking about this and and just

[1:29:47] to set the stage of of public uh comment

[1:29:50] tonight regarding the general plan is uh

[1:29:52] that school's been there,

[1:29:55] I don't know, 12, 15 years maybe. Is it

[1:29:58] that long?

[1:29:59] >> Yeah,

[1:29:59] >> probably close to 20, but we we'll find

[1:30:01] out.

[1:30:01] >> Maybe 20. Uh if you panned out from

[1:30:04] here, there is a medium density

[1:30:07] subdivision to the west. There's a

[1:30:09] medium density subdivision to the east.

[1:30:12] Uh there's uh there's the our our city

[1:30:15] park directly south of this and some

[1:30:18] commercial development to the to the

[1:30:20] north of it. Um this this is operated um

[1:30:25] besides a few you know balls in recess

[1:30:28] over in this field uh which which I know

[1:30:32] farmers the kind of the most persistent

[1:30:34] and and uh hardy type of folks can take

[1:30:38] care of that stuff over the years and

[1:30:40] they have here this has operated well

[1:30:42] with everything that's been grown in it

[1:30:44] including sheep that are fun to look at

[1:30:47] in the in the spring and and fall there.

[1:30:50] Um, and so, uh, the in in my line of

[1:30:55] work, I'm not a planner that has to deal

[1:30:57] with land. I'm not a land planner. I am

[1:30:59] a financial planner. And so some of the

[1:31:01] disclosures that I want the public to

[1:31:03] kind of keep in mind as we discuss the

[1:31:05] general plan as a whole uh is if you see

[1:31:08] some of the documents financially that that go out in my line of work uh

[1:31:13] and and it's said sometimes verbally is uh um past uh performance is not a

[1:31:20] guarantee of future results. Uh keep

[1:31:24] that in mind about the general plan. Uh

[1:31:26] it's not always a guarantee of future

[1:31:28] results. But what else are we supposed

[1:31:30] to go off of except the past performance

[1:31:33] of the city? I think this one picture

[1:31:37] can conceptualize a little bit and maybe

[1:31:39] put into visuals

[1:31:41] uh of the verbiage that we're we're

[1:31:43] going to debate and discuss and try to

[1:31:45] talk about and and that the planning

[1:31:46] commission did as well. And the public

[1:31:48] has been involved in this two-year

[1:31:50] process as well is is that um Spanish

[1:31:54] Fork does have a good history of of

[1:31:55] trying to plan correctly, trying to do

[1:31:57] it right, and trying to honor uh

[1:32:00] people's wishes, land owners wishes as

[1:32:02] they operate and do what they want to

[1:32:04] do. the realities are typically more

[1:32:06] like this in our city. So, let's not get

[1:32:09] so caught up in the the whatifs,

[1:32:13] but what has been because the what has

[1:32:15] been should carry some weight um with

[1:32:18] the decisions we're making as a as a

[1:32:20] future. There hasn't been a whole lot of

[1:32:22] misses in our our past general plans.

[1:32:26] Again, I reiterate what I've already

[1:32:28] said. Let's not let uh perfect be the

[1:32:30] enemy of good of updating a plan. But if

[1:32:34] it's not perfect, it's okay. Land

[1:32:36] owners, especially farmers and other

[1:32:39] people that own land, can certainly come

[1:32:42] and and uh and petition their

[1:32:44] government, their local government for

[1:32:46] an adjustment to to that general plan.

[1:32:48] So, um just again, let's make sure and I

[1:32:52] we always are respectful in our comments

[1:32:54] and everything else, but let's keep in

[1:32:55] mind that that uh we can be consistent

[1:32:58] about about the the whatifs. what if

[1:33:01] might happen. But but what has been

[1:33:03] happening is a lot of land uses

[1:33:05] coinciding right next to each other for decades and that'll continue to

[1:33:10] happen in in our in our city uh with land wishes. So um

[1:33:16] >> okay, any other questions or comments?

[1:33:19] Yes.

[1:33:19] >> For this public hearing, are we going

[1:33:20] into public hearing for both the general

[1:33:22] plan and the growth boundary or just

[1:33:23] one?

[1:33:23] >> Unless you have a

[1:33:25] >> I think those separate.

[1:33:26] >> Yeah, unless you have a reason of of not

[1:33:27] doing that. I think that's a good

[1:33:28] suggestion. And so we're not kind of

[1:33:30] mixing that up and having to have people

[1:33:32] wait for another opening.

[1:33:35] >> So I' I'd entertain a motion like Dave

[1:33:37] suggested to to open up uh public

[1:33:40] hearing for the land use element of the

[1:33:42] general plan and the growth boundary

[1:33:44] amendment together.

[1:33:46] >> Yep. Do them together.

[1:33:47] >> Questions or comments before a motion?

[1:33:50] >> Okay. I'd entertain a motion to go into

[1:33:52] public hearing for A and B together.

[1:33:54] >> I move that we go into public hearing

[1:33:56] for item A and item B.

[1:33:59] Motion made by Councilman Oiler. Second.

[1:34:02] >> Second by Councilman Tuk. All in favor

[1:34:04] to go on public hearing, say yes.

[1:34:06] >> Yes.

[1:34:07] >> We're in public hearing. Uh for A and B,

[1:34:09] just make sure like like same thing in

[1:34:11] public comment. Come up and state your

[1:34:13] name. So uh Shelley gets it in the

[1:34:15] minutes and uh try to keep it to to

[1:34:17] three minutes. Uh we'll let you know

[1:34:19] when it when it gets close to there and

[1:34:21] if you need some reasons to go longer,

[1:34:23] you can you can ask.

[1:34:27] Seeing none, I propose we go out of

[1:34:29] public hearing.

[1:34:31] >> Stacy's quick on the trigger. She's

[1:34:33] always been trigger happy.

[1:34:34] >> Can I be bold and be first? Is that all

[1:34:35] right?

[1:34:36] >> You can go first. You bet.

[1:34:37] >> Well, mayor and uh council members Seth

[1:34:40] Dave particularly. I I appreciate the

[1:34:43] opportunity to share some thoughts name.

[1:34:46] >> For those What's that?

[1:34:47] >> Oh, sorry. Go ahead.

[1:34:48] >> Yeah, your name.

[1:34:49] >> For those that don't know me, my name is

[1:34:50] Ladson. Lifelong resident of Spanish

[1:34:52] Fork City. Um, aside from mission and

[1:34:57] graduate school, I've lived here for

[1:34:59] many years and uh, my my uh, comments

[1:35:03] have to do with the land use map and

[1:35:05] changes to the land use map that may

[1:35:07] impact a development of which I'm we

[1:35:10] have land that's a part of. Um, and I'll

[1:35:13] give you a little history. Six years ago

[1:35:15] when my dad Bert Timson died um I

[1:35:19] discovered that he had um designated me

[1:35:22] as the executive

[1:35:24] um of his trust in the state uh with a

[1:35:27] note that I always do what's best for

[1:35:29] his family

[1:35:31] and uh among other responsibilities

[1:35:34] um there's a parcel of land that we that

[1:35:38] my siblings and I uh inherited and uh

[1:35:42] after some consideration and

[1:35:44] conversation with my siblings, we

[1:35:46] decided to develop that land. Um

[1:35:49] although we've continued to lease it to

[1:35:51] local farmers to in the Larsson family

[1:35:53] to uh continue to to do agricultural

[1:35:57] activities on that. Now I had no

[1:36:00] experience in land development.

[1:36:03] Um,

[1:36:05] but I soon felt the burden, if I can use

[1:36:08] a metaphor, of kind of being on the

[1:36:10] first yard line, my first yard line,

[1:36:13] looking 95 or 99 yards down the field,

[1:36:17] saying, I have no idea what I'm getting

[1:36:19] myself into. And I have to say that

[1:36:22] there have been some defensive schemes

[1:36:23] that have been put before me, some that

[1:36:26] been a little bit tougher to overcome

[1:36:27] than others. Um, not the least of which

[1:36:30] were road expansions with the uh State

[1:36:33] Route 164 and the Loaf Mountain Parkway,

[1:36:37] with the Salem Exchange, etc. of which

[1:36:39] the county was really great to work

[1:36:41] with. Um, Glenn Tanner, um, Richard

[1:36:45] Nlson were were awesome to work with. We

[1:36:47] got some many things resolved.

[1:36:50] uh based on the prime location of this

[1:36:52] and I'll just say it's it's in the south

[1:36:56] wet south southwest part of town in what

[1:36:59] was annexed as west meadows

[1:37:03] and um once again our property is a part

[1:37:06] of a bigger development um and when when

[1:37:10] I first looked at land development I um

[1:37:13] approached or was approached by manner

[1:37:15] developers and decided to go with

[1:37:17] Holiday Oil and Fieldstone Homes soon

[1:37:20] learned that that's not a winning

[1:37:21] proposition based on the land use map at

[1:37:24] that time. Something that I wasn't

[1:37:26] familiar with but soon became familiar

[1:37:28] with. And so they graciously got out of

[1:37:31] the contract with me. And at that time I

[1:37:34] asked Mayor Mendenhal if there were

[1:37:36] possibly any developers that he knew

[1:37:37] that I could work with that would

[1:37:40] develop a plan that was congruent with

[1:37:42] the master plan and the land use map.

[1:37:44] And he pointed me in the direction of

[1:37:46] Elevate Development. And I've been

[1:37:48] working with them. Wow. Already I've

[1:37:49] been working with them for some time

[1:37:51] now. Um we've developed a plan um that

[1:37:56] includes my property which would be all

[1:37:58] commercial and uh and then adjacent

[1:38:01] properties that would be residential uh

[1:38:04] mixed use etc. Um we have signed a

[1:38:08] purchase agreement with a reputable um

[1:38:10] commercial and retail developer and are

[1:38:13] ready to move forward. Yet, of course,

[1:38:15] we need uh to go through uh DRC uh get

[1:38:18] approval from the council for the final

[1:38:20] plat etc. But with the new land use map,

[1:38:24] it designates the area in which we're

[1:38:26] located as all commercial

[1:38:30] and that presents a bit of a challenge

[1:38:33] obviously uh to develop that much

[1:38:35] commercial in 50 acres right off the

[1:38:38] bat. And so, um, I guess while I've got

[1:38:43] we've got this bird in the hand of this

[1:38:45] retail developer that's ready to go, I

[1:38:48] would suggest that we can accomp

[1:38:50] mutually accomplish um something that

[1:38:53] has a beneficial outcome uh with three

[1:38:56] elements. Number one, we bring revenue

[1:38:58] producing commercial retail center to

[1:39:00] this area with visibility and three

[1:39:02] major transportation corridors uh

[1:39:05] centered at the development at the point

[1:39:07] of development.

[1:39:09] We could help overcome the city's

[1:39:10] challenge of dwindling dwindling

[1:39:12] residential development areas and also

[1:39:16] help the state and city meet mandates

[1:39:17] for moderate income housing as defined

[1:39:20] in the city's plan for moderate income

[1:39:22] housing.

[1:39:24] The ball has reached the red zone. Um we

[1:39:29] have a chance to score. I would just

[1:39:31] hope that the opportunity would exist

[1:39:33] when we do go to DRC, we we do come

[1:39:36] before the council that

[1:39:39] um the playing field or the goalpost

[1:39:41] doesn't move so far away that we can at

[1:39:44] least score a field goal and stay in the

[1:39:46] game. And so I hope that we consider

[1:39:49] that and and those are my thoughts and I

[1:39:51] appreciate you hearing me out. Thank you

[1:39:53] so much.

[1:39:53] >> Thanks L. Thanks.

[1:39:57] And don't let lad set the precedent for

[1:39:59] everybody to take six minutes, but

[1:40:01] >> I'll try to be a minute under. Okay. Uh

[1:40:03] Tate Murphy, Elevate Development, um

[1:40:05] partnering with the Timson family and

[1:40:07] LAD on that piece. Uh they're at the

[1:40:09] Benjamin exit. So Lad did a great job of expressing our concern on it. I mean,

[1:40:15] my bigger concern is even 20 years from

[1:40:18] now when there is if that turns into a

[1:40:20] state street and that flies over the

[1:40:22] freeway, the property that we're looking

[1:40:24] at for residential, that's where it

[1:40:26] starts to build and cross the freeway.

[1:40:28] And so, even in 20 years from now, it

[1:40:30] will have really poor access for

[1:40:32] commercial. We talked to our retail

[1:40:34] developer that's working on it and said,

[1:40:36] "We would never touch this for a retail

[1:40:38] piece. There's going to be one small,

[1:40:40] you know, entrance in and out of it."

[1:40:42] And that's a lot of commercial there.

[1:40:43] And so I know you guys have to look at

[1:40:45] this with a long-term plan in mind, but

[1:40:47] even in the long-term plan, because that

[1:40:49] is going to cross the freeway and

[1:40:50] there's going to start being that

[1:40:52] buildup, we would propose that instead

[1:40:55] of having to go through another hoop and

[1:40:57] try to talk through the general plan

[1:40:59] again that you guys hopefully will, as

[1:41:01] you're making these adjustments, look at

[1:41:03] that and and express and take into

[1:41:06] account our concern. Um, we have

[1:41:08] submitted a new concept plan that

[1:41:10] hopefully will be uh will be in front of

[1:41:11] the DRC I think on the 21st and then

[1:41:13] hopefully in front of you all again. I

[1:41:15] know we've already talked about this

[1:41:16] once and we have expanded the

[1:41:18] commercial. We we we're listening. We're

[1:41:20] trying to work together. We just don't

[1:41:22] want it to be hey you know this your

[1:41:24] pigeon hold at this point because we've

[1:41:26] now adopted this right and so we just

[1:41:27] want to keep the the conversation going

[1:41:29] with all of you. But thank you.

[1:41:30] >> Thank you Tate.

[1:41:36] Hello, my name is Clayton Rackom with

[1:41:38] the Clyde Capital Group and excited to

[1:41:41] echo the words of Mayor Menden Hall in

[1:41:43] Spanish Fork has done a great job in all

[1:41:45] their general plans that I've seen in

[1:41:47] the past which is only one but

[1:41:50] >> that existing plan want to speak to that

[1:41:53] and the new plan and how it affects

[1:41:55] where we're caught in that Clyde

[1:41:57] annexation the 1050 west annexation

[1:41:59] caught between Yeah, there's

[1:42:03] we got got a unanimous approval from the

[1:42:04] council to move forward to study our

[1:42:06] annexation while at the same time

[1:42:08] there's draft policy that contradicts

[1:42:11] development, residential development on

[1:42:13] the west side. Um, speaking to the old

[1:42:17] general plan and APA's,

[1:42:19] it's interesting because that general

[1:42:22] plan includes a lot of land use

[1:42:24] designations within APA. So I agree with

[1:42:26] Dave that even the growth management

[1:42:30] boundary as it's presented and the

[1:42:31] removal of a significant amount of land

[1:42:33] that is in APAs is is a step far beyond

[1:42:37] I think what I see most cities doing and

[1:42:40] then also wanted to speak more in line

[1:42:43] with our annexation also recognizing

[1:42:45] this is a general plan discussion and

[1:42:48] comment um

[1:42:50] we've we've had this has been my life

[1:42:53] for three years looking at this piece of land to this area, how to

[1:42:57] create it into a sustainable community

[1:42:59] because that's the vision of Clyde

[1:43:01] Capital Group and we've worked with you

[1:43:05] do. I've appreciated being in those

[1:43:07] meetings over the last three years

[1:43:09] participating with the planners you have

[1:43:12] hired with the help of MAG.

[1:43:15] Um, I'd like to say that I know that

[1:43:18] it's MAG, the Mountainland Association

[1:43:20] of Government's responsibility to plan

[1:43:22] for future infrastructure outside of the

[1:43:24] city's control and decisions. I've been

[1:43:27] able to sit with them, meet with them,

[1:43:29] meet with UTA board members, discuss

[1:43:32] this with project managers of UD do of

[1:43:35] the infrastructure that will eventually

[1:43:37] come in. And yeah, funding's hard. I

[1:43:40] think state funding for large whether

[1:43:43] it's a h 100red million or 192 and you

[1:43:45] tack on a UTA station and it does end up

[1:43:48] being in the ballpark of 500 million. I

[1:43:51] think it's it's a significant sum of

[1:43:53] money and it's a big decision. At the

[1:43:56] same time I I think I think a lot of

[1:43:59] that's well down the way as far as I've

[1:44:02] seen in the meetings I've had over the

[1:44:03] past three years. Um, so I'd love, and I

[1:44:07] believe we've requested this in the

[1:44:09] past, I'd love to meet with MAG and the

[1:44:12] council or the mayor and discuss how do

[1:44:15] we accelerate a center street

[1:44:16] interchange that's needed. And the

[1:44:19] environmental assessment that has been

[1:44:21] completed has shown that if that

[1:44:22] interchange isn't built, there's

[1:44:24] significant issues along Main Street.

[1:44:26] There already are. Uh, I used to live

[1:44:28] here for 2 and 1/2 years and that was

[1:44:32] four years ago and there were

[1:44:33] significant traffic problems along Main

[1:44:35] Street because there is no center street

[1:44:37] interchange. So, hoping to hoping to see

[1:44:40] this general plan adopted, hoping to see

[1:44:42] the community continue to grow as it's

[1:44:45] required to by population growth and

[1:44:48] other things. But thanks for your time,

[1:44:49] council.

[1:44:51] Thanks, sir.

[1:45:02] Hello, my name is Lisa Olsen and I am a

[1:45:06] lifelong member or member resident of

[1:45:09] Spanish Fork and I did send an email to

[1:45:13] the council members so they all already

[1:45:16] know

[1:45:17] my thoughts on this, but I wanted to

[1:45:20] just let the public know, I guess. Um,

[1:45:23] so concerning

[1:45:26] uh the general plan in the Leland area

[1:45:28] or near the Benjamin exit or I believe

[1:45:31] that's what 8,000 South uh it's always

[1:45:34] been Benjamin exit to me.

[1:45:36] Um I feel that often times when like um

[1:45:44] Councilman Marshall mentioned we go by

[1:45:46] the general plan when when we can and

[1:45:50] when we can't we can change it but often

[1:45:53] times when that general plan says it's

[1:45:56] zone not necessarily I don't know if

[1:45:58] zone I don't know what the wording all

[1:46:00] is but it says it's supposed to be a

[1:46:02] certain zone or density.

[1:46:05] um we rarely go down from that but

[1:46:09] typically go up. I rarely see it go from

[1:46:12] a high density down to a lower density

[1:46:16] um situation. So in that area where

[1:46:20] there is a protected um areas as well in

[1:46:23] there and I would love to see that um

[1:46:28] kind of gateway into our city look a

[1:46:30] little different anyway um to bringing

[1:46:33] down that medium density residential

[1:46:36] that's proposed in there to even the

[1:46:39] estate because we all know that that's

[1:46:42] going to possibly bounce up from there.

[1:46:44] So why not bounce up rather than start

[1:46:47] up if that makes sense.

[1:46:50] Um so that was my thoughts on that as

[1:46:53] far and also

[1:46:55] even on the other side on the west side

[1:46:57] of the freeway it's um proposed to be

[1:47:01] low density why that couldn't also be a

[1:47:05] state density where we're bordering all

[1:47:07] of agriculture along there. So, thank

[1:47:10] you.

[1:47:24] Hello, my name is Jackie Larson. I am

[1:47:26] the owner and manager of SevenBar

[1:47:27] Farming and my parents are Gary and Su

[1:47:29] Larsen and they Larson Cow Company. So,

[1:47:32] I'm going to try to be go as quickly as

[1:47:34] possible, but with it being a 70-page

[1:47:36] document, there's no way I can get

[1:47:37] through it all in three minutes. So, in

[1:47:39] respect of everybody's time, I'll try to

[1:47:41] summarize it by listing a few main

[1:47:42] points and when I sit down, I will email

[1:47:45] um you all a copy of the PDF comments

[1:47:47] that I made um and then ask you to

[1:47:49] incorporate some of that into the final

[1:47:51] version before you adopt it. So, first,

[1:47:54] my family's property, I ask for it to be

[1:47:56] general plan as agriculture, and that's

[1:47:58] east and west of I-15. Um next,

[1:48:01] agriculture and how it's defined

[1:48:02] throughout this document is not correct.

[1:48:05] And third, the a protection area laws

[1:48:07] are not implemented um in this according

[1:48:09] to statute. And I have addressed that in

[1:48:11] detail in the PDF that I'm going to send

[1:48:12] you guys once I sit back down. Um and in

[1:48:15] the goals, uh Councilman Marshall and

[1:48:17] Carden, you both came out to my family's

[1:48:19] farm in Leland just last year and met

[1:48:21] with a number of farmers from that area.

[1:48:23] Um I think it's appropriate to include

[1:48:24] in the objectives and strategies that

[1:48:26] there are several changes to be made to

[1:48:28] title 15 for agriculture. Along with

[1:48:31] that, a better incorporation of a

[1:48:32] protected areas, agriculture as a

[1:48:35] working operation and not only limited

[1:48:36] to the river bottoms and aggra tourism

[1:48:38] west of I-15. Um, next,

[1:48:42] state law does define some time frames

[1:48:45] so that the annexation policy boundary

[1:48:47] is within the next 20 years. Uh, station

[1:48:50] area plan once certified is within a

[1:48:52] 15-year horizon with reporting every 5

[1:48:54] years and act protection is a minimum 20

[1:48:56] years which renews automatically for

[1:48:58] additional 20 years. So where there is

[1:49:00] an APA agriculture is a long-term lenus

[1:49:02] that the city should plan for and that

[1:49:04] is a collective landowner driven

[1:49:06] commitment that they made and if

[1:49:08] somebody wants to remove their parcel

[1:49:09] from act protection that the remaining

[1:49:11] area remains an APA since that

[1:49:13] geographic area of the APA which we have

[1:49:15] thousands of contiguous acres of are

[1:49:17] significantly larger than one individual

[1:49:19] parcel. So that's where the living

[1:49:21] document aspect of the lenus element

[1:49:23] comes into place. So if somebody wants

[1:49:25] to go up in density when removed from an

[1:49:27] APA, then that change in the designation

[1:49:29] for their parcel should be considered

[1:49:31] later if that time ever comes. Mayor

[1:49:33] Minhal,

[1:49:36] not the whatifs, but the what has been

[1:49:39] in agriculture and an APA. So a couple

[1:49:42] more things. The separation into

[1:49:44] established neighborhoods and focused

[1:49:46] growth centers. What the draft is doing

[1:49:48] is structurally has placed agriculture

[1:49:49] outside the core planning framework.

[1:49:51] That draft sets up two real planning

[1:49:53] categories on page 10 of established

[1:49:56] neighborhoods and focused growth

[1:49:58] centers. So the draft explicitly says or

[1:50:01] says at the very end of that page this

[1:50:03] structure forms the basis for the lines

[1:50:06] map and the policies that follow. So

[1:50:09] from the very beginning those two

[1:50:10] categories drive everything that comes

[1:50:11] after by which this functionally

[1:50:14] collapses agriculture into the future

[1:50:15] growth area system. It is treated as

[1:50:17] future growth land, not as protected and

[1:50:20] not as a long-term land use. And that's

[1:50:23] exactly why the growth management

[1:50:24] boundary policy ends up managing its

[1:50:26] conversion instead of protecting it. Can

[1:50:28] I just like go into my next three

[1:50:29] minutes for like the growth management

[1:50:30] boundary? That's the last thing I have.

[1:50:32] Okay. So, the growth management boundary

[1:50:35] um does not meet the city's legal

[1:50:36] obligation to APA law and it does not

[1:50:38] avoid proposing land uses that are

[1:50:39] inconsistent with or detrimental to

[1:50:42] agriculture. This draft is planning a

[1:50:44] future development on agricultural land

[1:50:46] and then using the growth and management

[1:50:47] boundary to say just not yet. So the

[1:50:51] simple way to understand the problem

[1:50:54] imagine somebody tells you we respect

[1:50:55] your farm. We're just going to map it

[1:50:58] for future subdivisions but don't worry

[1:50:59] we won't build them right right away.

[1:51:02] That's what this language does. The lang

[1:51:04] the land use map already designates your

[1:51:06] land for development. The growth

[1:51:07] management boundary might delay when it

[1:51:09] happens. So agriculture isn't being

[1:51:11] protected. it's being scheduled for

[1:51:12] transition to a land use that's not

[1:51:13] agriculture. State law does not say

[1:51:16] don't develop APAs right now. It says

[1:51:18] don't plant incompatible land uses on

[1:51:20] them in the first place. So the issue

[1:51:23] isn't timing, it's what is being mapped.

[1:51:26] The hidden switch this language makes

[1:51:28] quietly trans tries to change the rules

[1:51:30] from avoid uh planning incompatible land

[1:51:32] uses on agriculture land to you can plan

[1:51:36] incompatible uses as long as you phase

[1:51:38] them outside the growth boundary for

[1:51:39] now. That's a big shift. So why the

[1:51:42] identify and consider line matters? The

[1:51:44] city says we identified and considered

[1:51:45] all APAs, but that's only part of the

[1:51:48] requirement. What's missing is you can't

[1:51:51] map land uses that conflict with

[1:51:53] agriculture. So this becomes we

[1:51:55] considered it while still planning

[1:51:57] something different. So in plain

[1:51:59] language, the current approach treats

[1:52:01] agriculture land like a future

[1:52:03] development reserve instead of protected

[1:52:04] ongoing use. Um there is a land use of

[1:52:08] agricultural in this draft findings

[1:52:10] element. I wish I would have got the

[1:52:11] exact page number.

[1:52:14] So apply that agriculture designation to

[1:52:16] all APAs. The draft language says that

[1:52:18] it tells property owners that

[1:52:19] agriculture will continue quote for the

[1:52:21] time being. But at the same time it

[1:52:23] tells UD do UTA and MAG to plan for

[1:52:25] roads infrastructure um and such through

[1:52:28] those same areas even outside the growth

[1:52:30] management boundary. That's a direct

[1:52:31] contradiction of act protection. This is

[1:52:33] not active. This is active urbanization

[1:52:36] planning, not agriculture preservation

[1:52:37] because the land use map is what drives

[1:52:39] regional modeling. Those infrastructure

[1:52:41] decisions are being based on land use

[1:52:43] designations that ignore APA areas

[1:52:45] entirely. So what happens? Roads get

[1:52:48] planned, utilities get built, and then

[1:52:49] the city says growth is inevitable and

[1:52:51] moves the boundary. That's not

[1:52:53] preservation. That's a self-fulfilling

[1:52:56] conversion process. And agriculture gets

[1:52:58] pushed out not by choice but by policy

[1:53:00] and process. Thanks.

[1:53:03] Jackie,

[1:53:03] >> thank you.

[1:53:10] » Hi, Richard Mendenhal with the Canyon

[1:53:13] Creek Commercial Center. Um,

[1:53:17] uh, we would like to address a few of

[1:53:19] the elements of the general plan tonight

[1:53:21] that are, uh, consequential in terms of

[1:53:25] the transition that they're going

[1:53:26] through. with what $150 million or

[1:53:29] something of that nature that's

[1:53:30] committed to the um Dry Creek Parkway,

[1:53:33] the interchange and the improvements

[1:53:34] from I-15 to SR-51.

[1:53:38] In addition to that, Canyon Creek

[1:53:40] Parkway is scheduled for a realignment

[1:53:43] that will begin later this year and will

[1:53:46] take the current Canyon Creek alignment

[1:53:48] to 1200 West in Springville. And that

[1:53:52] will be the permanent alignment with the

[1:53:53] full service access there that will feed

[1:53:55] the freeway traffic from I-15 along Ken

[1:53:59] Creek Park or Dry Creek Parkway down

[1:54:02] through the Canyon Creek Parkway to US6

[1:54:06] and vice versa. So two freeway accesses

[1:54:08] will be fully operational facilitating

[1:54:10] the commercial traffic between the two

[1:54:13] corridors. Um the current forecast for

[1:54:16] the traffic volumes on that are moving

[1:54:19] towards 20,000 cars a day. Today on

[1:54:22] North Canyon Creek Parkway north of of

[1:54:24] where IHC is is in the four to 5,000

[1:54:27] cars a day range. So we're talking about

[1:54:29] a material change with the realignment

[1:54:31] that enables commercial development to

[1:54:34] occur up and down the corridor that

[1:54:35] would be similar to what is already

[1:54:38] existing within the Canyon Creek

[1:54:40] Shopping Center. So there's about 136

[1:54:43] acres that's in Spanish Fork City,

[1:54:46] including land that's owned by the city

[1:54:48] for a depth of approximately 1,000 ft

[1:54:50] from the center line of the Canyon the

[1:54:54] Canyon Creek commercial Canyon Creek

[1:54:56] Parkway, which would be eligible and

[1:54:58] there's current market demand to support

[1:55:01] commercial development that would be

[1:55:03] retail and corporate officebased that

[1:55:05] will enable tax base to be enhanced in

[1:55:08] addition to what's already happening in

[1:55:10] the Canyon Creek shopping center. We

[1:55:12] like the idea and we think it makes

[1:55:13] perfect sense when the city's talking

[1:55:15] about your gateway districts and you're

[1:55:17] talking about uh the d the combination

[1:55:20] of development there. Uh just to echo

[1:55:22] back to the council some of the

[1:55:24] concepts, the gateway designation

[1:55:26] combines highdensity housing with

[1:55:28] commercial uses to create vibrant

[1:55:29] mixeduse neighborhoods that mark key

[1:55:31] entrances to the city. Unlike the

[1:55:33] mixeduse designation areas where this

[1:55:36] designation accommodates taller

[1:55:38] buildings and greater residential

[1:55:39] intensity uh with a focus on modern

[1:55:42] integrated mixeduse development. These

[1:55:44] areas are strategically positioned along

[1:55:45] major transportation corridors such as

[1:55:47] I-15 to maximize accessibility.

[1:55:51] This arrangement promotes walkability,

[1:55:54] encourages active streetscapes, and

[1:55:56] supports live work play lifestyle. This

[1:55:59] designated land use accommodates future

[1:56:01] growth by prioritizing sub uh sub

[1:56:04] substantial transit oriented development

[1:56:05] to create dynamic attractive spaces that

[1:56:08] integrate housing, shopping, dining, and

[1:56:10] personal services. Right now, there's

[1:56:12] about a million w within the next year,

[1:56:14] we'll have about a million3 in square

[1:56:17] footage that's completed with retail,

[1:56:19] dining, entertainment,

[1:56:21] uh uh services as well as the hospital.

[1:56:25] In our view, that corridor ought to be

[1:56:27] focused as commercial with the gateway

[1:56:31] district designations on the periphery

[1:56:33] of that to bring the residential

[1:56:35] intensity in that will then support the

[1:56:36] commercial and create the live work

[1:56:38] environments that you're talking about.

[1:56:40] Specifically, our request is that the 12

[1:56:42] acres at the northwest corner of

[1:56:45] Marketplace and Expressway be designated

[1:56:47] as gateway and that the corridor in its

[1:56:52] future alignment for Canyon Creek

[1:56:54] Parkway be designated as commercial to

[1:56:57] facilitate the continuation of

[1:56:58] commercial from Dry Creek Parkway to

[1:57:02] US6.

[1:57:05] » Thank you, Richard.

[1:57:06] >> Thank you.

[1:57:13] It's been a while.

[1:57:16] >> My name is Jackie Smith and um my family

[1:57:19] owns a substantial amount of land in the

[1:57:21] Spanish Fork River Bottoms and on the

[1:57:22] Spanish Fork East bench and I am here to

[1:57:25] address the land use policy. Um I'm in a

[1:57:28] unique position because both sections of

[1:57:30] my ground are affected by this new land

[1:57:33] use. Um, I can't think of what to call

[1:57:36] it, but I'm here because I have concerns

[1:57:38] about the process and the impact of this

[1:57:40] plan. Many of the land owners who were

[1:57:42] directly affected, particularly in the

[1:57:44] river bottoms, were not meaningly

[1:57:47] included. I would ask why that's been

[1:57:49] and how that's going to be addressed

[1:57:51] moving forward. This plan creates

[1:57:53] disparities between neighboring

[1:57:55] properties. Similar ground is being

[1:57:56] treated very differently, which directly

[1:57:58] affects both the value and long-term

[1:58:00] potential of the ground. The zoning

[1:58:03] difference applies to both the bench and

[1:58:05] in the river bottoms. For example, there

[1:58:07] is property in the river bottoms where

[1:58:09] the plan now will allow up to three

[1:58:11] homes per acre. While adjacent ground,

[1:58:14] which from what I can tell on the map

[1:58:15] would be my ground, is limited to one

[1:58:18] home per 40 acre. Although today that

[1:58:21] same ground, all of that ground is one

[1:58:23] home per five acres.

[1:58:26] Why would I why as a land owner would I

[1:58:29] be supportive of this? Um, that's a

[1:58:32] significant change that creates a very

[1:58:35] real disparity between neighboring

[1:58:36] properties. I also want to address

[1:58:38] something similar on the east bench. The

[1:58:41] surrounding properties on the east bench

[1:58:42] to ours are zoned low density and medium

[1:58:45] density housing. It's been recommended

[1:58:47] that the remaining undeveloped ground on

[1:58:49] the east bench, our family's ground, is

[1:58:52] being recommended for estate zoning.

[1:58:54] that res represents a reduction in

[1:58:56] density compared to the surrounding

[1:58:58] properties and directly impacts its

[1:59:01] value and potential. When ground is

[1:59:03] zoned similar to surrounding properties,

[1:59:06] the offers come in. They're strong and

[1:59:08] they're competitive. When the zoning is

[1:59:11] restrictive,

[1:59:13] nobody wants it. Okay. You um New Dave,

[1:59:17] I'm calling you new Dave because I don't

[1:59:18] know you. You specifically asked how can

[1:59:22] this this plan doesn't affect value but

[1:59:24] it does. I am living it today and I am

[1:59:28] telling you that it does. Okay. I want

[1:59:31] to also clarify something because we

[1:59:33] keep saying this is a farming plan. This

[1:59:34] is a farming town. Earlier we were

[1:59:37] saying how great we are because we

[1:59:38] support the stock show. Land value is

[1:59:42] what allows farmers to operate. It

[1:59:45] supports financing for equipment,

[1:59:47] rebuilding after loss, and continuing

[1:59:49] day-to-day operations. If land values

[1:59:52] are reduced, it becomes harder to secure

[1:59:54] the credit and investment needed to keep

[1:59:56] farming viable. It doesn't get easier

[1:59:59] when our property values go down. It's

[2:00:01] important to ask to me personally, why

[2:00:04] are we making so many decisions for

[2:00:06] ground that may never be annexed? And

[2:00:09] why is is anyone taking into account

[2:00:11] that it is decreasing the value of

[2:00:12] ground that may never fall within your

[2:00:15] city limits? If this is the plan, what

[2:00:17] is the city's plan to offset that? If I

[2:00:20] can keep going, I understand and I read

[2:00:22] in here TDRs may be back, but those

[2:00:25] programs are not fixed or guaranteed and

[2:00:28] their value depends on future market

[2:00:30] decisions and policies that can change

[2:00:32] over time, just like this changed from

[2:00:35] last week to today. Okay. So, if the

[2:00:39] city's not willing to stand up and back

[2:00:41] those and establish a value, it just

[2:00:43] leads to a loss for everyone overall. At

[2:00:46] this point, I would urge everyone to

[2:00:48] take a moment and deny this ordinance.

[2:00:51] At least delay a consideration until

[2:00:53] there are clear, concrete answers to

[2:00:55] questions my family and many many other

[2:00:57] people here have asked. One thing I'd

[2:01:00] like to point out is the land can't

[2:01:01] support a farmer financially. that land

[2:01:04] in the river bottoms will not be

[2:01:05] farmland for long.

[2:01:08] Um, I want to thank Shane for Councilman

[2:01:11] Marshall for asking some questions, that I feel like we've been

[2:01:14] asking for years. And you know, Dave

[2:01:18] said, I can't come up, this is Dave

[2:01:21] Anderson, I can't see how this would

[2:01:23] hurt a farmer. Well, I can tell you

[2:01:25] right now for my family, if the value of

[2:01:28] our property in the river bottoms goes

[2:01:30] down, we can't afford to invest in new

[2:01:32] equipment, new equipment. We can't

[2:01:34] afford to have the next generation go on

[2:01:38] and do that farming. And it's taking

[2:01:40] that value away if you go from I can't

[2:01:42] go get a loan against something with a

[2:01:45] TDR on it where I can go get a loan

[2:01:47] against property as it sits right now.

[2:01:51] >> Thank you.

[2:01:52] >> Thanks, Jackie.

[2:01:53] >> Thank you. Anyone

[2:02:00] else for public hearing?

[2:02:12] Hello friends. I have my This is uh I'm

[2:02:15] Shauna Warick and I'm wearing my

[2:02:17] planning commissioner hat tonight. It's

[2:02:20] good to see all of you. Um, thank you so

[2:02:22] much for supporting the uh land use

[2:02:25] element update of the general plan. It's

[2:02:28] been a uh a really exciting and

[2:02:31] interesting thing to be a part of. Um,

[2:02:33] thank you to Dave Anderson and David Man

[2:02:35] and Brandon and the staff for all the

[2:02:38] diligent work and detailed refinement.

[2:02:41] It's a good product. Uh, from the things

[2:02:43] you've heard tonight, it's not a perfect

[2:02:45] product and uh, it's been interesting to

[2:02:48] be part of the process. I've loved

[2:02:49] listening and discussing with the

[2:02:51] public, particularly with um quite a few

[2:02:55] different people, but uh it's part of a

[2:02:57] one with high school students and

[2:03:00] hearing their perspective on things. Um

[2:03:03] I'm surprised that uh I'm surprised that

[2:03:06] there's people that feel like they

[2:03:08] haven't been invited to be part of the

[2:03:10] process and give their input because

[2:03:12] I've seen it on many

[2:03:14] in many different ways. Um but uh I'm

[2:03:18] glad that they can come and and comment

[2:03:20] now and and be part of the process now

[2:03:24] too. Um as you know most of um most

[2:03:27] people think of the general plan as the

[2:03:30] map and I appreciate the map updates and

[2:03:32] the sections that describe land uses.

[2:03:35] Super interesting. That's the first half

[2:03:37] of the of the land use element. Um, I

[2:03:41] appreciate that as time goes on there's

[2:03:42] provision to make changes and updates uh

[2:03:45] with uh the times and that the changes

[2:03:48] should have pertinent and compelling

[2:03:50] reasons to do so. Um, my favorite part

[2:03:53] of this is the second half of the land

[2:03:55] use element. It's the policy goals that

[2:03:58] show good practice and our values for

[2:04:00] our city development. It's uh very good

[2:04:03] pride in progress. Um the plan I one

[2:04:06] thing I wanted to tell you is the

[2:04:08] planning commission chose not to address

[2:04:10] a couple of issues that um that Dave

[2:04:13] brought before you tonight. One is um

[2:04:16] the part where the growth management

[2:04:19] boundary map conflicts with um with the

[2:04:22] second half in that policy because we

[2:04:24] felt that this was a city council

[2:04:26] discussion. Um, and and also you know

[2:04:31] this and I know this, but I think the

[2:04:32] public should also remember that the

[2:04:34] growth management boundary

[2:04:36] is an area that the city is willing to

[2:04:39] annex because that's where we can

[2:04:42] reasonably provide utilities if landover

[2:04:45] owners apply um or petition to be

[2:04:49] annexed to the city. Um I think that's

[2:04:53] right, Mr. Anderson. um we felt comfort.

[2:04:57] There's also one other space that um

[2:05:01] that is along the 900 South corridor.

[2:05:04] The land designation has been um on

[2:05:08] medium density and there's members of

[2:05:11] the commission that had thought that area should be a lower density. So,

[2:05:16] um we thought that would be a council

[2:05:18] decision, too. Thank you so much,

[2:05:19] friends.

[2:05:21] >> Thank you, Commissioner.

[2:05:28] Anyone else?

[2:05:33] Seeing none, I'd entertain a motion to

[2:05:34] go out of public hearing for item A and

[2:05:36] B. So moved.

[2:05:38] >> Motion made by Councilman Cardon.

[2:05:40] Second by Councilwoman Beck. All in

[2:05:42] favor say yes.

[2:05:43] >> Yes.

[2:05:45] >> Thank you public for your uh questions

[2:05:48] and your comments and insights. Uh,

[2:05:51] anybody want to uh from notes that we've

[2:05:53] all taken like we do uh during public

[2:05:55] hearings all the time? Any council

[2:05:57] members have questions or comments that

[2:06:00] they'd like to make uh from what the

[2:06:02] public brought up?

[2:06:02] >> I'll start with a comment.

[2:06:05] Just a thought.

[2:06:08] Um maybe for anybody that's not familiar

[2:06:11] with a general plan update and what the

[2:06:14] city is going through at this point,

[2:06:16] maybe the public that are watching,

[2:06:19] you might get the sense that the city's

[2:06:20] starting from scratch. Um which we're

[2:06:23] not. We're actually doing a general plan

[2:06:25] update, which means there's a plan that

[2:06:28] already exists and has existed for 20

[2:06:31] plus years. And you know, sometimes I

[2:06:34] think it would be easy to just kick the

[2:06:36] ball down the road and say, "Let's not

[2:06:38] do anything. Let's leave the plan

[2:06:40] exactly the way it is today." And in

[2:06:44] many cases, if you actually look at the

[2:06:46] changes between what exists today in the

[2:06:49] general plan and what's being proposed,

[2:06:52] there are not a lot of changes. Not a

[2:06:55] lot. Um, obviously those that it does

[2:06:57] affect are here and they're discussing

[2:06:59] that and and we are glad that you glad

[2:07:02] that you are. But if you look at the

[2:07:04] overall picture of the entire city and

[2:07:06] the changes that's being proposed

[2:07:08] between our current plan that actually

[2:07:11] exists and has existed and I don't know

[2:07:14] how that's affected your properties over

[2:07:17] the past 20 years to have the plan

[2:07:19] that's been in place for for as long as

[2:07:21] it has but it's been there compared to

[2:07:24] the plan that we're proposing there

[2:07:26] again there's not a lot of changes. So I

[2:07:28] just wanted to start with that.

[2:07:31] >> Thank you.

[2:07:33] I have a quick question for staff. Um,

[2:07:36] there was that meeting that would happen

[2:07:37] last Monday. I know you talked about it,

[2:07:39] but were there any comments made that

[2:07:42] night and also were there any changes

[2:07:44] made due to that meeting? What was

[2:07:46] brought up in that meeting? I I wasn't

[2:07:47] able to attend. I meant to ask that

[2:07:50] earlier and I forgot.

[2:07:50] >> Where were you?

[2:07:51] >> I don't remember.

[2:07:53] >> Probably know we're good.

[2:07:57] » Had it been possible, you would have

[2:07:58] been there, right? I'll vouch for you.

[2:08:00] don't miss much. So, um, the purpose

[2:08:03] of that meeting was for us to share

[2:08:04] information with people with the

[2:08:06] understanding that the council had this

[2:08:08] opportunity for people to provide input,

[2:08:10] you know, just a week later. So, we

[2:08:14] weren't there gathering comment or

[2:08:17] really doing anything other than

[2:08:20] explaining the process and the document

[2:08:23] and its purpose and answering questions.

[2:08:27] So,

[2:08:28] uh, if I understood your question right,

[2:08:31] no, we didn't we didn't take notes

[2:08:34] relative to maybe issues that people

[2:08:36] wanted us to look into further or

[2:08:38] anything like that with the

[2:08:39] understanding that this is this was the

[2:08:41] forum for that. So,

[2:08:44] >> thank you. And then I had a maybe a

[2:08:46] second question. Shane, you had sent an

[2:08:47] email, I don't remember when that was.

[2:08:49] You've sent a lot. Um, it was like a

[2:08:52] week and a half ago, two weeks ago

[2:08:54] >> with some verbiage changed specifically.

[2:08:57] I couldn't tell if any of those were

[2:08:59] addressed. I I don't know if they have

[2:09:01] been. Seth, you're shaking your head no.

[2:09:03] So, I'm assuming no, they haven't.

[2:09:04] >> Not yet. No, I think specifically we

[2:09:08] where Sorry, I just put an Eminem in my

[2:09:10] mouth.

[2:09:11] >> As you were shaking your head, no. So,

[2:09:13] perfect.

[2:09:13] >> Caught me.

[2:09:15] um where this is coming to you I think

[2:09:18] and from the staff's perspective it's

[2:09:20] difficult to have the one-off

[2:09:22] conversation in an email but really

[2:09:25] appreciated that that was shared broadly

[2:09:27] so I think from our perspective we're

[2:09:28] waiting for these conversations and just

[2:09:30] we've noted them they're a part of it

[2:09:32] but we'll take that from from the body

[2:09:36] >> this has been a difficult

[2:09:40] thing to comment on as it evolves right

[2:09:44] You're right. I have sent a couple of

[2:09:46] emails. Um, I appreciate the absolute

[2:09:48] silence from all of you on the comments

[2:09:50] that I've had. Um, but it's it's and I I

[2:09:54] don't know that I expected any um

[2:09:56] because it's Seth is right. It's a it

[2:09:59] needs to be a broader conversation with

[2:10:01] us, but it's a 71page document and it's

[2:10:04] hard to have detailed conversations

[2:10:06] about every single page. So, um,

[2:10:10] my plan was to come tonight, listen to

[2:10:13] folks, take the emails that we've

[2:10:15] gotten. Um, I'm surprised I don't have

[2:10:18] them from one from the second Jackie

[2:10:20] yet, but it might be coming.

[2:10:22] >> If it is,

[2:10:23] >> okay, perfect.

[2:10:24] >> Know until yesterday.

[2:10:25] >> Perfect. Um,

[2:10:26] >> city bill. I'm active with on the

[2:10:29] Facebook page. I gave city updates. I

[2:10:32] have not heard much about this until

[2:10:33] yesterday. So I I appreciate the the the emails because it's it's hard to say

[2:10:38] what you need to say in three minutes um

[2:10:41] or six minutes, whatever we give

[2:10:42] somebody. It's it's difficult.

[2:10:44] >> It's floating up to 10 and 12 sometimes

[2:10:46] we continue.

[2:10:47] >> Right. Right. And but I think what

[2:10:49] what's important is you've come you've

[2:10:51] expressed it. Um Richard has an email to

[2:10:54] us that is is more detailed than what he

[2:10:57] was able to say tonight too. And Jackie

[2:10:58] is the same way. And so I think for me

[2:11:00] it's okay. I heard some things tonight.

[2:11:01] I need to internalize this a bit. read

[2:11:03] the emails a bit, get to the comments

[2:11:06] that I addressed, and then sort of like

[2:11:08] how do we move forward though from where

[2:11:11] we're at today to any comments that we

[2:11:12] want to put into the document. I think

[2:11:14] is the to your point, Mike, is

[2:11:17] don't let the don't let perfect get in

[2:11:19] the way of good.

[2:11:20] >> Um, but there are there are some things

[2:11:24] in here that we've heard tonight that we

[2:11:27] probably should debate, talk about. I

[2:11:29] don't know when and how to bring those

[2:11:31] up to be honest with you. Maybe you

[2:11:33] Jesse or

[2:11:34] >> my thought maybe is similar is because I

[2:11:37] think there was very specific land use

[2:11:40] >> I don't want to say issues but um

[2:11:42] problems with different places and I

[2:11:44] think that it would be naive for me I'll

[2:11:47] speak for myself to say oh I know what

[2:11:49] you're talking about and we already have

[2:11:50] that figured out. I think we have to

[2:11:52] look at those on those oneoff basis just

[2:11:54] like we would do with any other general

[2:11:56] plan change. Um, but with it being so

[2:11:59] vast, it's hard to say in one meeting

[2:12:03] that we're going to be able to address

[2:12:04] those or even address them at all in

[2:12:06] some ways. So, my thought would be

[2:12:08] similar to yours, I guess, Shane, is to

[2:12:09] take all of the inputs that we're

[2:12:11] hearing, the emails, the different

[2:12:12] things, come back and say or even on the

[2:12:15] one-offs, talk with city staff, say,

[2:12:17] "Hey, this is what I'm thinking about

[2:12:18] that." They can kind of get where that's

[2:12:20] at, bring it back here, and then we say,

[2:12:22] "Let's debate it again." And then then

[2:12:24] hopefully we're to a point where we can

[2:12:25] approve something or move something

[2:12:27] forward because I think

[2:12:29] >> there are so many things in this

[2:12:31] document that are good that are headed

[2:12:33] the right way.

[2:12:34] >> Sure.

[2:12:34] >> There are probably those ones and twos

[2:12:36] that we need to fix and they're going to

[2:12:37] continue to happen. But I think that

[2:12:39] when we have land owners coming to us

[2:12:40] and saying, "Hey, this is something you

[2:12:42] need to look at." I think it would

[2:12:44] behoove us to take that time to look at

[2:12:45] it. I

[2:12:46] >> think it's good to recognize as well

[2:12:48] that this has been a process. We've been

[2:12:49] looking at this for a very long time.

[2:12:52] We're not done yet.

[2:12:53] No matter what we end up with, we're not

[2:12:56] going to make everybody happy. We've

[2:12:57] already had here tonight two separate

[2:13:00] individuals that want differing things

[2:13:02] with the area that they're talking

[2:13:03] about. So, if we do one for one person,

[2:13:06] it's going to upset another person.

[2:13:08] We're never going to be able to to get a

[2:13:10] plan put together that will make

[2:13:11] everybody happy. As a council member, my goal or my purpose is to focus on the

[2:13:19] residents of Spanish Fork and do what's

[2:13:21] best for the community of Spanish Fork.

[2:13:24] And you know what what that ends up

[2:13:27] being, you know, we'll find out. We're

[2:13:29] still going to have some discussions,

[2:13:31] but either way either way you look at

[2:13:33] it, no matter what we end up with at the

[2:13:35] end, um it's not going to make everybody

[2:13:38] happy. We could say, "Let's scratch the

[2:13:40] whole thing, not not vote on it at all,

[2:13:44] just deny it and and leave the plan

[2:13:46] that's there right now." That's not

[2:13:48] going to make people happy. And so, no

[2:13:50] matter what we do, um, we try and try

[2:13:54] and make the best plan for the benefit

[2:13:57] of the whole of Spanish Fork City.

[2:14:01] Yeah, I would say welcome to planning,

[2:14:02] welcome to, you know, welcome to time in in public service is what we hear

[2:14:08] from from uh public hearing on a again a

[2:14:12] general plan. So,

[2:14:14] make sure to note the the general uh

[2:14:17] nature of a plan is uh one landowner

[2:14:22] getting up and saying, "I'd like this to

[2:14:25] be downzone to to just very low low

[2:14:28] density." And the three comments later,

[2:14:31] I'd like it to be upzoned uh in a

[2:14:34] different geographical section of of the

[2:14:37] city uh for for purposes that are

[2:14:40] completely reasonable for for for their

[2:14:44] property or or or their outlook or or

[2:14:47] what uh what it may be. Um, again,

[2:14:52] council, I would say, and three of you

[2:14:54] have been commissioners before, council

[2:14:56] members, I'd say maybe that's a decent

[2:14:58] sign that you've struck the right

[2:15:00] balance, is everybody that comes is mad

[2:15:02] about what you're what we're what we're

[2:15:03] talking about. Um, it it it hasn't been

[2:15:07] uh one-off decisions. It has been it has

[2:15:10] been uh the the studies of of again

[2:15:14] listening to people and and and and

[2:15:16] saying things. I I I'll say this about

[2:15:19] because it's uh it's discussed when

[2:15:21] you're talking about general plans is

[2:15:23] the agriculture nature and the

[2:15:24] agriculture heritage. You've already

[2:15:25] seen it tonight that boy, how how has it

[2:15:29] lasted a hundred years in a in a stock

[2:15:31] show and how's it going to last the next

[2:15:32] hundred years? Well, it's it's going to

[2:15:35] um and and I don't believe that there's

[2:15:39] a landowner, in here that regardless of

[2:15:44] the protection, they want to do their

[2:15:47] own thing,

[2:15:49] wants to control

[2:15:51] what happens across the fence line from

[2:15:54] them. I I hope I'm hearing that

[2:15:57] correctly because as the elected

[2:15:59] official, I think it's unwise

[2:16:03] that we say, "Well, this is protected."

[2:16:07] And the way we need to afford

[2:16:09] protections for this business, this

[2:16:12] economically viable and heritage-based

[2:16:15] business to continue is to not have

[2:16:18] anybody else do anything around it. That

[2:16:20] is not the heritage of Spanish Fork and

[2:16:23] that's not the progress of Spanish Fork

[2:16:25] like the picture I showed you, but like

[2:16:27] many pictures you could take around this

[2:16:29] community.

[2:16:31] Those those those uses have been

[2:16:34] compatible for decades and decades. And

[2:16:36] that's where I'm getting at. What has

[2:16:38] been what has been has happened

[2:16:41] successfully and and will continue to be

[2:16:44] successful uh w with good planning. Does

[2:16:48] that mean there could be some extra

[2:16:50] traffic on roads in front of farms? Yep,

[2:16:54] it does. That that happens. Um,

[2:16:58] you know, um, that's already the case. I

[2:17:00] can tell you there's agurism places

[2:17:04] where my quick way to get to the the

[2:17:07] freeway

[2:17:09] is not very quick in September and

[2:17:11] October because there's people headed to

[2:17:13] the same place to to get their pumpkins

[2:17:15] and and and and go on the the hay rides

[2:17:18] and stuff. Um so so that's an element

[2:17:22] that of this plan that that is going to

[2:17:24] move. Um I I think that's the one

[2:17:26] overarching

[2:17:28] admonition or or direction I'd give the

[2:17:30] council is as we discuss and debate this

[2:17:34] um continuing and now we've had a public

[2:17:36] hearing and I count I don't know about

[2:17:38] seven or eight you know people that have

[2:17:40] come here that does pale into Lynn you

[2:17:43] can you and I can talk after why didn't

[2:17:45] you get up when we had the public

[2:17:46] hearing my goodness we have a public

[2:17:48] hearing coming up on disposition of

[2:17:50] surplus land you could get up on on that

[2:17:52] next

[2:17:55] I don't care what he says when he gets

[2:17:56] up here, but uh but but we're going to

[2:17:59] have a public hearing. We got one left.

[2:18:01] Um but uh but but I will tell you again,

[2:18:04] my admonition

[2:18:06] um is that uh we are a heritage where no

[2:18:10] one if they are making the case they

[2:18:13] should rethink it

[2:18:16] about trying to control someone's ground

[2:18:19] to do something different next to them.

[2:18:21] one of our oldest uh oldest council

[2:18:24] members that was here when we first cut

[2:18:26] the ribbon in this space um came and

[2:18:30] spoke to us and I don't know how many

[2:18:31] were here or not but you know when a

[2:18:34] development was happening across the

[2:18:36] fence from him uh he said well I've got

[2:18:39] rights on my side of the fence and they

[2:18:41] have rights on on their side of the

[2:18:43] fence and I think we need to make sure

[2:18:45] we're respecting that and and honoring

[2:18:47] that because that's the heritage that

[2:18:49] this document continues to uh to to

[2:18:52] protect and foster frankly uh as an

[2:18:55] update like you like you mentioned

[2:18:57] Councilman Norther. I think that's an

[2:18:58] important part too. It's an update of a

[2:19:00] plan that's been here for a long long

[2:19:03] time and we'll have another update

[2:19:06] within another decade too. So uh

[2:19:11] I don't know if I had a question at the

[2:19:12] end of that or just the comments of it.

[2:19:14] Councilwoman Beck,

[2:19:16] >> do you have anything? I think it sounds

[2:19:18] to me like we want to table this and

[2:19:20] think more about it. For how long do

[2:19:23] does staff need to know? Do we want to

[2:19:25] come back in two weeks when Seth Parin

[2:19:27] is not here? No, we want him here. So, I

[2:19:29] think we'd have to go into May. Another

[2:19:32] question I'd have with Lad. He's ready

[2:19:34] to go to DRC. Does he just stall

[2:19:38] everything or does he just keep moving?

[2:19:39] >> We have a general plan in front of us

[2:19:41] right now. Go.

[2:19:41] >> Okay, keep going then. Lad, is that fair

[2:19:44] direction for you right now?

[2:19:46] >> He's getting

[2:19:47] Yes, I won't

[2:19:50] develop at the DRC.

[2:19:52] >> Okay.

[2:19:52] >> I would suspect that Yeah, they would go

[2:19:56] out.

[2:19:57] >> Perfect.

[2:19:58] >> The land use map that we had when we

[2:20:01] joined our partnership.

[2:20:02] >> Great. I just wanted

[2:20:03] >> Yeah, I would still expect them to go.

[2:20:05] >> No different than what they've done in

[2:20:06] the past.

[2:20:07] >> Okay. I just wanted to make that clear

[2:20:08] if we're going to table this for a month

[2:20:10] that you guys don't feel like you can't

[2:20:12] do anything. So, keep moving forward.

[2:20:15] Okay,

[2:20:18] >> manager, you look like you're grabbing

[2:20:20] the mic before

[2:20:20] >> I've got a couple of things I want to

[2:20:21] say, but I don't want to

[2:20:23] >> taint the jury pool.

[2:20:25] >> Well, I don't want to mute anything that

[2:20:26] anybody's got. So, yeah, keep talking

[2:20:29] and then um

[2:20:30] >> I want to sum up a few thoughts. So to Jesse's point

[2:20:34] going back listening or sort of

[2:20:36] internalizing this what I'm planning to

[2:20:39] do is and you all staff here are the

[2:20:42] five things that I want to talk about in

[2:20:45] public at the next meeting to debate and

[2:20:48] get some resolution on so that it's not

[2:20:50] here's 25 comments from Shenanigan.

[2:20:53] That's not working right.

[2:20:56] >> Still you're gonna

[2:20:57] >> you didn't read them. Give me that.

[2:20:58] >> You're going to have them.

[2:20:59] >> No, it's totally fine. Um, Seth and I

[2:21:01] sat down in span.

[2:21:03] >> I don't know, there was 80 comments on

[2:21:04] the first round. Seth and I sat down. We

[2:21:07] walked through most of them. Um, we

[2:21:09] disagreed on some, we agreed on some,

[2:21:11] but now is the time to be like, okay,

[2:21:13] here's the things that I want to talk

[2:21:14] about in front of the public with you

[2:21:16] all and I'm just going to list them out,

[2:21:18] >> right?

[2:21:19] >> Then Sounds great.

[2:21:20] >> Is that okay?

[2:21:20] >> But I think it's fair to say like

[2:21:21] >> I think it would be good for all of us

[2:21:22] to say this is what I'm missing

[2:21:24] >> from March 24th, which was the last

[2:21:25] update, right? Till anything that we're

[2:21:27] going to change. I think that we should

[2:21:28] have like a conversation about like

[2:21:30] because we're saying we had a public

[2:21:31] hearing on this document. Here are the

[2:21:32] changes we've made since that date.

[2:21:34] >> Yep.

[2:21:34] >> I Yeah. I would almost recommend or

[2:21:38] suggest that I think the email is good.

[2:21:40] I think it'd be good to go in and sit

[2:21:42] down with staff, sit down with Dave and

[2:21:44] his office and and hash out your

[2:21:47] thoughts and your ideas with him. Um,

[2:21:51] maybe have Dave be the one that runs

[2:21:54] that discussion next time next time it

[2:21:56] comes up.

[2:21:58] >> I if I that makes me really

[2:22:01] uncomfortable. I think that probably

[2:22:02] makes Dave really uncomfortable. Um, I

[2:22:06] here's what I was going to say and maybe

[2:22:07] this will change the the direction. I

[2:22:12] don't know what your issues are that you

[2:22:16] want to talk about. Shane suggested, you

[2:22:18] know, maybe five things and that number

[2:22:19] is probably not the exact number, but

[2:22:20] he's got a couple of items. From what I

[2:22:23] can gather based on the conversations

[2:22:25] tonight, at least from the public that

[2:22:27] was here and expressed their thoughts

[2:22:29] about it, there were really four, five

[2:22:32] areas, but I'm going to actually boil

[2:22:34] them down to three. The Leland area

[2:22:37] generally um and I mean that's all over

[2:22:40] the place, right? I don't want medium

[2:22:43] density residential. I want medium

[2:22:45] density residential. So, the Leland

[2:22:47] area, at least from comments from the

[2:22:48] public here,

[2:22:49] >> I don't think I heard anyone say, "I

[2:22:51] want medium density."

[2:22:52] >> Well, I guess you had you had the

[2:22:53] Elevate Group saying they wanted

[2:22:55] housing.

[2:22:55] >> Yeah, they want housing, not commercial.

[2:22:57] >> The housing in that in that area. Sorry.

[2:23:00] Um, and then you have the 1050 West area

[2:23:03] and that concept of the growth boundary.

[2:23:05] Um, and do you want to consider that? Do

[2:23:07] you want to consider the the Stevens

[2:23:09] area?

[2:23:11] You got the Canyon Creek Parkway

[2:23:12] corridor. Those were the three areas

[2:23:14] that were talked about. And then there's

[2:23:15] one kind of area that that uh Miss Smith

[2:23:19] talked about that

[2:23:22] I'm I don't mean to be I certainly don't

[2:23:25] want to inflame with what I'm about to

[2:23:26] say, but as I was looking at the old

[2:23:28] general plan and I'm looking at the new

[2:23:30] general plan, there's absolutely no

[2:23:32] change

[2:23:33] >> between what was the general plan and

[2:23:35] what is the current proposal of the

[2:23:37] general plan. So, I actually don't see a

[2:23:40] whole lot of

[2:23:44] room to talk about that. We we aren't

[2:23:46] proposing to do anything different in

[2:23:47] the proposal that's in front of you

[2:23:49] today with what has been the general

[2:23:51] plan for the last 10 years. So, I don't

[2:23:54] know what more to suggest talking about

[2:23:56] with that one. Sounds like she has some

[2:23:58] concerns, I guess. But, but in terms of

[2:24:00] what was proposed, there isn't a

[2:24:02] difference. There's not a delta between

[2:24:04] yesterday and today. So, so three main

[2:24:08] areas that that at least are being

[2:24:09] suggested by those here that we should

[2:24:12] that they would like you to talk about

[2:24:14] more. I'm not saying that's what you

[2:24:16] want to talk about, but those are the

[2:24:17] three kind of the three general areas

[2:24:19] that I'm hearing.

[2:24:20] >> Seth and Dave, real quick, while we're

[2:24:22] discussing Miss Smith, she brought up

[2:24:24] the concern or the question about TDRs.

[2:24:27] Can we just maybe address that real

[2:24:28] quick? Is there anything in the new plan

[2:24:30] that discusses or talks about TDRs?

[2:24:33] Yeah, the new plan, if you look at the

[2:24:34] goals and objectives section, it talks

[2:24:36] about in the back that you could

[2:24:38] possibly use the tool of TDR. And I

[2:24:40] think that's the only mention of it of

[2:24:42] TDRs.

[2:24:43] >> But have we actually

[2:24:45] >> approved any kind of TDR policy? So

[2:24:48] there's nothing on the books that we

[2:24:50] could even do with TDRs?

[2:24:51] >> Nope. You had the public hearing and

[2:24:53] then you you've not acted on that since.

[2:24:56] >> Can you also confirm their property up

[2:24:58] on the ridge? Is that different in I

[2:25:01] think it's a state density

[2:25:03] >> now?

[2:25:04] >> It's not different than what the current

[2:25:05] general plan says and and that's what is

[2:25:08] to the west of it um on the not the Fred

[2:25:14] Vincent farm but the Dean Vincent. Yeah.

[2:25:17] The Dean Vincent property that's estate

[2:25:19] density that's within the estate

[2:25:21] density. And then what's on the high sky

[2:25:23] estates to the east of it is also in

[2:25:25] that same category. So that whole ridge

[2:25:28] that whole space if you will from let's

[2:25:30] call it 1900 south

[2:25:32] >> right

[2:25:32] >> and from yeah 1900 south on the north

[2:25:35] end of it 1700 east on the west end of

[2:25:38] it and then the brow of the hill all the

[2:25:40] way up to Spanish oaks elementary

[2:25:42] >> it's all ed or

[2:25:44] >> yeah in the general plan it says that

[2:25:45] and in the in the land use designation

[2:25:48] that's what you've done okay so I it

[2:25:51] would be helpful I think for staff to

[2:25:54] really focus in and so

[2:25:56] Well, and I I think I'm happy to to stay

[2:25:58] after and talk to anyone that would like

[2:26:01] to talk, but just to get some clarity, I

[2:26:03] think the two separate pieces of land

[2:26:05] when you start going off into the river

[2:26:07] bottoms

[2:26:08] >> different where maybe our general plan

[2:26:11] is discussing, hey, if that was ever to

[2:26:12] come into the city, it's not inside the

[2:26:15] city. If that was to ever come into the

[2:26:17] city, then that general plan might be a

[2:26:20] home per 40 acres or something or

[2:26:22] whatever Miss Smith said where currently

[2:26:26] in the

[2:26:26] >> county it's a home every five acres with

[2:26:29] enough frontage is is how it's you know

[2:26:32] is how the county probably has it. Happy

[2:26:34] having to discuss that you know further

[2:26:37] and and and what that is but I think I

[2:26:39] think that's what

[2:26:39] >> Yeah. And I don't know that I don't know

[2:26:41] that the general plan would say it's one

[2:26:43] in 40. I think one in five is probably

[2:26:46] within the purview of the I

[2:26:47] >> think for the a for the a zoning

[2:26:50] >> a general plan. a general I think is 140

[2:26:53] >> general plan doesn't have any zoning

[2:26:56] attached but if it were to

[2:26:58] >> so if somebody

[2:27:00] say hey I want to come into the city

[2:27:01] here's the zone I'm requesting is

[2:27:04] probably more of

[2:27:06] >> uh at that time requesting I want a home

[2:27:09] for every five and a quarter like is

[2:27:12] >> which raises the question then why a

[2:27:15] general plan if the plan eventually is

[2:27:18] to do something different than the

[2:27:20] general plan Why general plan it a

[2:27:21] certain way? That would be my question.

[2:27:24] >> Well, I think in all in all seriousness,

[2:27:28] I think you're saying with the general

[2:27:30] plan, you want to keep that

[2:27:32] agricultural.

[2:27:32] >> Correct.

[2:27:33] >> And so if you're

[2:27:33] >> So to her point, why would you if you're

[2:27:36] wanting to develop your land if that's

[2:27:38] the intent? Why would you come into the

[2:27:41] city?

[2:27:41] >> You wouldn't

[2:27:42] >> knowing you're going to be zoned 1 to 40

[2:27:45] compared to staying in the county at 1

[2:27:46] to5.

[2:27:47] >> Yeah. And some people will want to come

[2:27:48] into the city so they can have access to

[2:27:50] utilities and and

[2:27:54] do something different than wells and

[2:27:56] septic systems

[2:27:56] >> which maybe should be a point about

[2:27:58] again we're hopping around geographical

[2:28:01] areas but it's the areas that have been

[2:28:02] discussed tonight. I mean again we've said this in planning before and

[2:28:07] discussion of land owners that have come

[2:28:09] and requested things. The reason it has

[2:28:13] been requested in the Leland area as far

[2:28:15] as stuff

[2:28:17] is because infrastructure has been

[2:28:19] installed. Uh people have sold property

[2:28:22] to the city for lift stations for

[2:28:26] utilities.

[2:28:28] They didn't we didn't take it. It was it was sold for dollars and cents.

[2:28:35] And it wasn't sold because the idea was

[2:28:40] a home on 50 acres down there to be on

[2:28:43] our sew sewer system. It was it was

[2:28:45] because uh of the general plan of what

[2:28:49] people were requesting to do. And so us

[2:28:52] as a city,

[2:28:53] >> if you're if you're entertaining selling

[2:28:55] some property for a sewer lift station,

[2:28:57] the sewer could go that way.

[2:28:59] >> Uh and it was sold infrastructure,

[2:29:02] millions of dollars of public money

[2:29:04] >> put down in that area. So, Seth, back to

[2:29:07] what you said earlier, if we as council

[2:29:09] have our thoughts that we want to put

[2:29:12] together rather than coming in in person

[2:29:14] and and discussing those, you would just

[2:29:16] prefer an email.

[2:29:18] >> It would be great and it would be great

[2:29:19] to do that here

[2:29:20] >> to do that

[2:29:21] >> just during the meeting, just save it

[2:29:23] and do it. I think for the sake of

[2:29:24] everybody like you

[2:29:25] >> it's you guys that need to talk through

[2:29:27] it and if you want if you have questions

[2:29:29] for us to fill in the blanks or whatever

[2:29:31] if you want us to prepare in some way

[2:29:33] like giving us some clarity about these areas are the areas I'm concerned

[2:29:38] about my guess is that 95% of the

[2:29:41] document is good

[2:29:43] >> you know whatever that percent is but

[2:29:44] I'm guessing it's high percentage and

[2:29:45] really you want to focus in on a couple

[2:29:47] of areas

[2:29:48] >> so just share that with each other and

[2:29:50] come prepared in the next meeting to

[2:29:52] discuss

[2:29:53] Yeah. And then I probably would say I

[2:29:55] don't think you will debate all of that

[2:29:57] in one night. I think that's too much,

[2:29:59] you know, and so it might be we're going

[2:30:01] to talk about these two at this council

[2:30:03] meeting. We're going to talk about these

[2:30:04] two at this council meeting. And it

[2:30:06] might take, you know, three or four

[2:30:07] council meetings. But I think if you if

[2:30:10] you can identify what those are, we can

[2:30:13] then schedule out um for you on a

[2:30:16] counsel and it can be easier more more

[2:30:18] manageable and you know you don't have

[2:30:20] to go till midnight one night and

[2:30:22] >> Yeah. And I prefer

[2:30:22] >> at 10 o'clock you're not you're not

[2:30:24] useful anyways. Right.

[2:30:25] >> Right. Yeah.

[2:30:26] >> Be honest with us.

[2:30:27] >> You're not making good comments at 10

[2:30:28] o'clock. Right.

[2:30:29] >> I think like you say I think it makes

[2:30:30] sense in this meeting not in work

[2:30:32] session.

[2:30:33] >> Oh yeah. I would not suggest in work

[2:30:35] session. I think here's the better place

[2:30:36] for it.

[2:30:37] >> Okay.

[2:30:37] >> Yeah. That way there's u you know that

[2:30:42] the public is able to participate in the

[2:30:44] hearing side of it. Right. The public

[2:30:45] hearing portion is done. Um that's

[2:30:48] sometimes a question mark that I think

[2:30:50] the public has of public hearing versus

[2:30:52] a public meeting and and to work

[2:30:54] sessions are public but they're not

[2:30:56] always well attended and and for

[2:30:58] logistical reasons we don't televise

[2:31:00] those. But having it here I think is the

[2:31:02] better better approach.

[2:31:05] >> Yeah. If you if you have anything other

[2:31:08] than those three that I listed and if

[2:31:10] those three aren't on your list, like

[2:31:13] give those to us and then we'll kind of

[2:31:14] plot those out. We'll try to create if

[2:31:16] there's the ability to do one or more

[2:31:19] than one topic, then we'll try to group

[2:31:20] a couple that are similar. If there's

[2:31:23] one that we think is really meaty, then

[2:31:25] we'll, you know, put it on its own. But

[2:31:28] I think it'd be helpful.

[2:31:29] >> Yeah.

[2:31:30] >> I'm curious with the council mayor

[2:31:32] tonight. We discussed the general plan,

[2:31:34] the land use, but didn't really discuss

[2:31:36] anything about the growth policy

[2:31:39] adjustment. Does anybody have comments

[2:31:41] or concerns about that that they want to

[2:31:43] bring up tonight?

[2:31:46] >> At this point, they're so intertwined.

[2:31:49] It's one and the same. They are two

[2:31:52] specifically different legislative

[2:31:54] actions we have to take for sure. But

[2:31:57] the way we have tried to use it in this

[2:31:59] general plan, it's

[2:32:01] sort of baked into it,

[2:32:03] >> right?

[2:32:04] >> Yeah. And I I think the question to be

[2:32:06] independent

[2:32:07] >> tell me if I'm off, but I think the

[2:32:08] question that I was thinking about when

[2:32:10] Dave was mentioning it about some of the

[2:32:11] verbiage that gets intertwined and hey,

[2:32:13] are we following this and stuff? I think

[2:32:15] of I don't own land but I would think if

[2:32:18] I'm the land owner and talking about

[2:32:20] well I want I'm requesting to adjust the

[2:32:23] growth boundary and here's why and I'm

[2:32:25] in APA but I don't know that I'm I don't

[2:32:28] know that I'm you know going to request

[2:32:31] to bring myself out of APA until I know

[2:32:34] are you you know legislative body are

[2:32:37] you going to adjust the growth boundary

[2:32:39] because this this and this here's my

[2:32:41] case and now I'm coming out of APA so

[2:32:44] it's a little

[2:32:45] you know, cart horse conundrum there

[2:32:48] that I I don't think if we just get

[2:32:50] completely tripped up over the details

[2:32:52] of the language, it's not dealing in

[2:32:54] reality of what those people that

[2:32:56] actually own the land are probably

[2:32:58] thinking in their head. They they they

[2:33:00] probably don't want to come out until

[2:33:01] it's adjusted the growth boundary,

[2:33:03] right?

[2:33:03] >> Maybe not. And that's okay. My since

[2:33:06] we're talking about it anyways, I think

[2:33:09] we need to be very clear and consistent

[2:33:11] with whatever it ends up being. I don't

[2:33:13] like

[2:33:15] hear hear a little and pick one and

[2:33:18] don't pick another and you know I think think whatever we decide on it

[2:33:22] needs to be consistent and clear. Well,

[2:33:24] and then I think and then I'm when I'm

[2:33:26] confusing myself with that, we are

[2:33:28] talking about an APA. That's the county

[2:33:30] APA.

[2:33:31] >> Correct.

[2:33:32] >> We have an APA inside the city. So,

[2:33:35] let's not

[2:33:36] >> Yeah.

[2:33:36] >> conflate the two. This is a this is a

[2:33:39] county APA that, you know, somebody's

[2:33:41] typically asking to adjust the goat

[2:33:42] growth boundary where we've approved APA

[2:33:45] an APA inside of Spanish Fork, which is

[2:33:48] a different

[2:33:49] >> Yeah. And then we've annexed historic

[2:33:51] we've annexed some pre-existing APAs as

[2:33:54] well.

[2:33:54] >> Yeah.

[2:33:54] So that's what the change is.

[2:33:56] >> Yeah. And I think that's a serious

[2:33:57] consideration that Dave suggested in his

[2:33:59] commentary at the beginning that that do

[2:34:02] you do you want to annex

[2:34:07] properties that have APA and that's not

[2:34:10] meant to be any kind of a we don't want

[2:34:13] to support a but if you aren't

[2:34:14] interested in having development do you

[2:34:17] as a city then want if a land owner is

[2:34:19] not interested in having development do

[2:34:20] you as a city want to annex them?

[2:34:22] >> Yeah. So that need

[2:34:23] >> why would you annex somebody if they

[2:34:25] don't want to

[2:34:25] >> if they're not going to be within the

[2:34:27] growth boundary. Why would we

[2:34:28] >> not looking to

[2:34:30] >> that needs to be a big part of the

[2:34:31] discussion as well?

[2:34:33] >> Yeah.

[2:34:34] >> I think I'll just reiterate Stacy's good

[2:34:37] point of uh you saw the one of the first

[2:34:41] screens that Dave brought up. I I

[2:34:43] remember the meeting of putting dots out

[2:34:47] and different things with the public. I

[2:34:49] can't believe that's April 8th, 2024.

[2:34:52] So, it's a two years in a day. Uh let's

[2:34:56] not do two years in a day to get back to

[2:34:59] adoption of a general plan. You've got

[2:35:01] people that are are requesting and and

[2:35:04] they do have as much invested here as as

[2:35:07] far as themselves and their their family

[2:35:09] history and heritage that that we can we

[2:35:12] can discuss this, we can debate this,

[2:35:14] continue in public and and the public

[2:35:16] can continue engage with us and and and

[2:35:18] make your case as well. But um we're

[2:35:22] going to get this to a point here in

[2:35:24] 2026

[2:35:26] uh and and the first part of 2026 that we can adopt a general plan and

[2:35:31] have some clarity uh moving forward with

[2:35:34] uh with then people requesting to amend

[2:35:37] it if they need to. So that that would

[2:35:40] be my you know my admonition of the

[2:35:42] legislative body too.

[2:35:43] >> I I agree with you, mayor. Um but in

[2:35:46] Lad's case, neither plan accommodates

[2:35:48] them. So there's a general plan update

[2:35:50] to do what they want to do period.

[2:35:52] >> Yeah.

[2:35:52] >> So if we want to focus specifically

[2:35:54] there over the next couple weeks, we can

[2:35:55] do that too. But neither plan currently

[2:35:58] accommodates what they want to do. So

[2:36:00] >> So they got to start amending now.

[2:36:02] >> Exactly. Process.

[2:36:03] >> It's a it's a it's it's a different set

[2:36:05] of

[2:36:06] >> design something we love

[2:36:08] >> and and maybe to that point, Councilman,

[2:36:11] that probably is a good idea. It forces

[2:36:15] us because somebody makes an application

[2:36:18] to put a spotlight in a microscope on

[2:36:20] these parcels, right? My guess is that

[2:36:22] we're going to be talking a little bit

[2:36:23] higher level. Maybe not, but but you're

[2:36:26] going to be talking more policy and

[2:36:28] broad than than you know parcel by

[2:36:30] parcel in some of the things you want to

[2:36:31] review. If somebody wants to if somebody

[2:36:34] wants to call the question, they can

[2:36:38] submit a general plan request change and

[2:36:40] they and then they have the due process

[2:36:44] associated with that. I think that's a

[2:36:46] great idea.

[2:36:46] >> We're not we have a approved plan.

[2:36:49] >> Yeah. And and I think you you all know

[2:36:52] this, but we have in the last two years

[2:36:54] processed I don't know how many, but

[2:36:56] it's at least two, but maybe four or

[2:36:58] five

[2:36:59] >> general plan changes

[2:37:01] outside of this general plan process,

[2:37:04] right? Some fairly significant because

[2:37:07] somebody said, "I don't I can't wait for

[2:37:08] that. I don't want to wait for that. I'm

[2:37:09] going to put a spotlight on this and a

[2:37:11] microscope rather on this and and I want

[2:37:13] you to focus on it." They fill out an

[2:37:15] application. and they go through that

[2:37:16] pro that application and the the

[2:37:20] structure of that that requires you to

[2:37:23] give them the due process and I think

[2:37:25] that's

[2:37:27] the prerogative of any land owner

[2:37:30] >> uh to to

[2:37:32] nudge you in that direction for them.

[2:37:34] >> Y agreed agreed. Well, as we move

[2:37:38] forward and discuss this these things,

[2:37:39] Richard, I would just ask you email

[2:37:41] mayor and Councilman Marshall and I your

[2:37:44] thoughts and ideas, will you make sure

[2:37:46] you send those to the other three as

[2:37:48] well so they can be looking over that as

[2:37:50] we're discussing them?

[2:37:51] >> Okay. And staff,

[2:37:54] >> that'd be great.

[2:37:54] >> Okay. Yeah, probably Dave and Seth.

[2:37:56] Yeah. And then with Jackie Smith,

[2:38:02] do does are we gonna talk about what her

[2:38:04] issues are or does she just need to have

[2:38:06] maybe a private conversation

[2:38:09] with staff about

[2:38:11] not a lot of changes or

[2:38:14] >> Yeah, at the moment I don't know.

[2:38:16] >> Okay.

[2:38:17] >> Where the general plan is proposing to

[2:38:19] not change at all there. I mean it

[2:38:21] sounds like she has issues with the

[2:38:22] general plan.

[2:38:23] >> Okay.

[2:38:23] >> Right. Whether it's the old or the new.

[2:38:25] Um, and if she wants to

[2:38:29] I that I think Shane's comment probably

[2:38:31] applies there too. Like there's not

[2:38:33] something that we're considering at the

[2:38:34] moment that addresses the concerns that

[2:38:36] she's expressing, right? Because both

[2:38:37] plan the old and the and the proposed.

[2:38:40] >> Then those three to four things you

[2:38:42] mentioned, I'm comfortable moving

[2:38:43] forward with having open discussions.

[2:38:46] But I think Jackie, if Smith, if if you

[2:38:50] want to clarify in writing to us,

[2:38:53] whether it's the old plan or the new

[2:38:55] plan, go ahead and do that.

[2:38:58] >> Absolutely.

[2:39:00] Just because we haven't changed

[2:39:01] something does not mean you don't have

[2:39:03] an issue with it. So look through it

[2:39:06] again.

[2:39:08] Let us again. It's hard to do it in six

[2:39:10] minutes. So if you want to clarify

[2:39:13] stuff, please do.

[2:39:15] Four other people in the room have.

[2:39:20] » Perfect. Um

[2:39:22] questions or comments up here? It sounds

[2:39:25] like somebody was some maybe putting

[2:39:27] together a motion. Uh we've had the

[2:39:30] public hearing on A and B and we can uh

[2:39:33] motion to I believe we need one.

[2:39:35] >> Do we need a motion? You don't have to

[2:39:37] anything. Just

[2:39:38] >> you satisfied the requirement of of

[2:39:40] holding a public hearing and and no

[2:39:42] action is required. You're going to you

[2:39:44] don't need to table anything. You're

[2:39:45] just going to keep working on it.

[2:39:46] >> Okay, perfect.

[2:39:49] >> For 18 months.

[2:39:50] >> No, not for 18 months.

[2:39:51] >> I think a motion of time certain

[2:39:54] decision is probably good based on what

[2:39:56] he just said.

[2:39:57] >> I kind of verbalized that motion.

[2:39:58] >> Well, you can't make one.

[2:40:00] >> We'll move on.

[2:40:03] >> Thank you everybody for coming. Thanks

[2:40:05] for keep keep an eye on uh you know uh

[2:40:08] it's the most exciting Tuesday nights uh

[2:40:10] ever is is city council meetings and uh

[2:40:14] Wednesday night's planning commission

[2:40:15] but this will be continue to be

[2:40:17] discussed uh and uh and you can you can

[2:40:21] make your um you know your your points

[2:40:24] to us obviously we're all available via

[2:40:26] text and email and and staff as well. So

[2:40:29] thank you all for for the public hearing

[2:40:31] tonight. Um, item C is a public hearing,

[2:40:34] too. Um, Mr. Swinson was here, probably

[2:40:38] not gonna talk about that item, but I

[2:40:41] might invite him up when we go to public

[2:40:42] hearing. Who's talking about the

[2:40:44] disposition?

[2:40:47] » Okay, talk then. Okay, perfect.

[2:40:55] Um, item C is the disposition of surplus

[2:40:58] land located at 1172 South Bradford

[2:41:01] Lane.

[2:41:01] >> Oh, yeah. I'll leave it. Huh? Uhhuh.

[2:41:03] >> Only It's only one more item, guys, and

[2:41:06] then we go to close session.

[2:41:08] >> This is the last item. Exciting stuff.

[2:41:12] >> Mr. Von Pel,

[2:41:13] >> don't take it personal, Von.

[2:41:15] >> No, that's I mean, just because you

[2:41:17] stood up, everyone left. Don't take it

[2:41:19] personal.

[2:41:20] >> Attorney effect.

[2:41:23] Do you have any graphics?

[2:41:25] >> Uh, I can. Sure.

[2:41:27] >> Let me see if I can share that. I

[2:41:29] apologize.

[2:41:30] >> What do you mean you can? Either you do

[2:41:32] or you don't.

[2:41:33] >> Just pull up a map.

[2:41:35] >> It's in the

[2:41:36] >> Make sure you zoom way out though.

[2:41:37] >> I know where we are.

[2:41:38] >> Yeah, it's in the Yeah. Okay.

[2:41:41] >> It's on the agenda. There's an exhibit

[2:41:43] that shows

[2:41:44] >> Yep.

[2:41:45] >> the area that's being disposed of.

[2:41:48] Anyway, this uh this property was

[2:41:51] acquired by the city through some MAG

[2:41:53] funding to for the 300 East corridor. Um

[2:41:57] we only need a portion of the property

[2:41:58] for a roadway development for both

[2:42:00] Volunteer Drive and then the Bradford

[2:42:02] Lane intersection. Um so there's

[2:42:05] approximately an acre and 1.45 acres

[2:42:09] that is surplus and can be disposed of.

[2:42:12] The proceeds of that sale would then be

[2:42:13] returned to MAG since that was the

[2:42:15] source of the funds to begin with. Um,

[2:42:19] >> in the right spot.

[2:42:19] >> Yep, you're right in the right spot.

[2:42:21] There at the intersection of River

[2:42:23] Bottoms Road and and Bradford Lane.

[2:42:26] >> That property that says 1172 on the

[2:42:29] house

[2:42:29] >> logo to me.

[2:42:30] >> That piece of property.

[2:42:32] >> Which one?

[2:42:34] >> 1172 down below.

[2:42:36] >> Just Just

[2:42:40] click it.

[2:42:43] » That's it.

[2:42:46] >> Um, Yeah, in your in your agenda packet,

[2:42:49] there's a a graphic that's showing the property to be disposed of and also

[2:42:55] um the notice that was posted for the

[2:42:59] property,

[2:43:01] >> they go back on the market just for

[2:43:03] whoever to buy

[2:43:04] >> um

[2:43:05] >> take bids.

[2:43:06] >> Yeah, anybody could make a bid on it.

[2:43:08] Yeah, for sure.

[2:43:10] >> Questions. We talked about this in a

[2:43:12] previous council meeting, but questions

[2:43:13] for Vaughn before public hearing about

[2:43:16] this.

[2:43:17] >> I'd entertain a motion to go in a public

[2:43:18] hearing for item C.

[2:43:21] >> So moved.

[2:43:22] >> Motion made by Councilman Marshall.

[2:43:24] >> Second.

[2:43:24] by Councilman Oiler. All in favor

[2:43:26] say yes.

[2:43:27] >> Yes.

[2:43:28] >> Public hearing for item C. Surplus land

[2:43:30] at 1172 South Bratford Lane. Anybody

[2:43:32] want to talk to that?

[2:43:34] >> Don't all stand up.

[2:43:36] >> Going once, twice.

[2:43:39] auction out of public hearing.

[2:43:40] >> Motion made by Councilman Marshall.

[2:43:43] >> Second.

[2:43:43] by Councilman Tuk. All in favor

[2:43:45] say yes.

[2:43:46] >> Yes.

[2:43:46] >> Discussion back up here. Does anybody

[2:43:48] have any reason why we should hold on to

[2:43:51] surplus property except sell it and get

[2:43:54] the public's money back?

[2:43:55] >> Yeah, let's sell it.

[2:43:58] >> I would entertain a motion for item C.

[2:44:00] >> There's no motion.

[2:44:01] >> Oh, there's not. Just a public hearing.

[2:44:03] >> Yeah, just public hearing tonight. We'll

[2:44:04] bring back offer later.

[2:44:06] >> Makes sense.

[2:44:07] >> Get that. Boy, guys,

[2:44:08] >> we've had some discussions with some

[2:44:09] property owners surrounding it to

[2:44:12] potentially involve the land into their

[2:44:15] developments that are immediately

[2:44:16] adjacent to it. Those discussions have

[2:44:19] been productive and

[2:44:22] >> but anyone can buy this.

[2:44:23] >> Anybody can anybody can buy it. Anybody

[2:44:26] can put an offer on it.

[2:44:27] >> Offer on it.

[2:44:27] >> Yeah.

[2:44:28] >> You interested?

[2:44:31] >> We have not had any interest from

[2:44:33] anybody else. asking if Shane

[2:44:35] He's asking

[2:44:37] if he's

[2:44:38] >> he wants to make an offer on it, he can.

[2:44:40] We will excuse him from

[2:44:41] >> some horse property or something. I do

[2:44:43] not.

[2:44:44] >> Full disclosure, I was just curious.

[2:44:46] >> He's just having fun.

[2:44:46] >> If someone could.

[2:44:48] >> Yep.

[2:44:48] >> Okay.

[2:44:48] >> Yep. You will be the body that sells it

[2:44:51] even though the funds go back to MAG. Uh

[2:44:54] the fund the property is in your name

[2:44:56] and you're the steward of that. So, you

[2:44:58] would you will at a at a future close

[2:45:02] session review any offers, discuss the

[2:45:05] possible uses of that land, and then

[2:45:06] decide

[2:45:08] uh from there what to do.

[2:45:10] >> Perfect.

[2:45:12] Questions on that?

[2:45:15] >> Makes sense. Thank you, council.

[2:45:17] Anything that needs to come uh in front

[2:45:18] of this body before we go into close

[2:45:20] session for I believe land transaction.

[2:45:22] Is that right? Nothing else I'd

[2:45:25] entertain of staff. anything that you

[2:45:27] need to get in front of council before

[2:45:29] adjourning close session just to close

[2:45:32] session.

[2:45:32] >> I'd entertain a motion.

[2:45:33] >> I move to adjourn to close uh meeting

[2:45:35] for a strategy session to discuss the

[2:45:36] purchase exchange or release of real

[2:45:38] property including any form of water

[2:45:40] right or water shares to or discuss a

[2:45:41] proposed development agreement or propo

[2:45:43] project proposal in the explorer room

[2:45:45] provided by Utah code 52-4-205.

[2:45:48] >> Well done. Second.

[2:45:49] >> That's why he is our Easter egg MC.

[2:45:53] Thank you Councilman Carden. Motion to

[2:45:55] Councilman Carden. Second by Councilman

[2:45:56] Oiler. All in roll call vote to go into

[2:45:58] close session. Councilman Tuk,

[2:46:00] Councilman Carden, Councilman Oiler,

[2:46:02] Councilwoman Beck, and Councilman

[2:46:03] Marshall.

[2:46:04] >> Yes.

[2:46:04] >> We're in close session. Thank you

[2:46:05] everybody for joining us. Appreciate you

[2:46:07] being here. forward. Thank you.

Spanish Fork City Council | April 7, 2026

Transcript