[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.