Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

someone named Jennifer Davis to chair the meeting or anyway we need someone to to take over as chair and get the meeting going she does do a great job yeah there we go let's go ahead and get started then

Mr. Burgess, would you lead us in the pledge?

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

But we don't have a staff forum.

Do we?

We don't what?

They don't need a quorum. They have all power.

Randall wants to be here, but he's probably driving to St. George about right now.

Maybe.

Okay.

Let's go ahead and get started then. Can I get a motion for the approval of the minutes dated May 19th, 2026?

I'll make a motion that we approve the minutes for the previous meeting dated May 19th, 2026.

Second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed?

In the history of the world, have minutes ever not been approved?

Yes.

Really?

They have.

Really?

Yes. I can relay some... Somebody has to read all of them and find the flaw, the one thing that we missed.

There have been a number of times I've seen meetings approved with corrections.

Yeah.

Because there's been a typo or something. Yes. And Randall said, hey, look, can we not approve this? Can we correct this?

Correct. Yes. Yeah, it happens. Okay. So we have a public hearing. It's a development deferral agreement. And that is at 2411 West, 580 North. And do we have, we don't have anybody to speak on this, or is the city going to?

Well, apparently the applicant is not here. But the proposal, if you guys would like to move forward without the applicant, can you point to that little building there, Kent?

Mrs. Horse Alley?

Yep, Mrs. Horse Alley, 580 North. They're essentially rehabbing that building. The building's quite far gone. They're gonna use it for some storage and other miscellaneous things, but in conjunction with a permit, that triggers frontage improvements. So that would be your curb and gutter. There's no sidewalk, I don't think, in Horse Alley required. So the applicant is requesting a deferral. Could you bring up the deferral, Kent? Do we have that? And there's been a number of other deferrals out there. The property, I think, directly to the east has a deferral. There's a couple down the street. And there's a couple triggers, if you'd scroll down.

It's not sidewalks. What do you need to do?

It would be curb and gutter, improve the street. Is there curb and gutter on that whole street? No. No.

There's not.

There's not.

Does that street empty into the prison? It does. Can you get to the prison from it? On the west side?

Yes. But it's gated off, and the sheriff doesn't want to open it because he said Horsetown is not a good road.

Not his words to me. It is their second access, though. I think there's a, what do you call it, Knox Box?

I think it's a required second access for them. So there may be a political struggle there at some point.

Yeah.

Okay. I don't think this is the right one.

Is each cell considered a lot? Like you don't even, and I'm being serious, we're only allowed 80 units on one entrance and one exit? Yeah.

I mean, that's county land.

I don't know what they're... And that's not an agenda item.

They feed onto city land, though.

They do. Yeah. They do. So with only the access coming from, is it 850 North, the other one that comes around? From the north side, I mean, there's already a lot of land uses along that road with only the one way in, and then you add the jail. It puts us well beyond... being able to serve with a single access. Hence the connection to Horse Alley. If the sheriff wants to block that off, I don't know, that could end up being in dispute at some point here.

Even all the new things on 580 North that have had building permits in the last couple years, nothing has curb and gutter.

Right, and there have been a number of deferral agreements processed there. This is intended to be one more. This is something that staff is supportive of having the deferral. We agree that putting in the full improvements right now probably doesn't make a lot of sense. But at such point as if the city were to go in with a project, then all of these people, the deferral agreements would have the responsibility of paying their share of those improvements, right? Or if someone came in and redeveloped a chunk of it or something and was putting it in and now they're adjacent to other improvements that are going in, they would be required to put it in. There are a couple of triggers there for them eventually needing to do the improvements. It may never happen.

Full disclosure, I do own a lot that are fronts for Sally out there.

Do you have a curb and gutter? No, I have a deferment.

Yeah. So these have been somewhat routine on that particular roadway.

It sounds like it. I don't see a single one.

So there's, yeah, there's not anything. Okay, let's see, this is a public hearing. So we will open the public hearing for comments. Ann, help us out. You're our only chance.

question on that um i i with my tiny little development on cole creek i put in curb and gutter and sidewalk and then the rest of it sat for quite some time and then the city decided they wanted to really groom that street up which i think everybody agrees with and so the city put in a lot of curb and gutter and sidewalk that individuals didn't pay for what happens when all of a sudden we want curb and gutter and sidewalk in horse alley and the owners say no i don't think so

Because that's part of this development agreement.

So those who have these agreements would be required.

The county, the city has the right to put them.

I know they have the right. In reality, would that happen? Possibly, yeah.

It would probably just be like a date to anybody who has a deferral that's actually on paper would have to pay. Anybody who had it from before that would probably not.

Correct.

Yeah, it comes back to the same argument with development agreements. Are they enforceable, you know?

They are.

I think anybody that has character would do what they're expected to do. But there's one or two people on this planet that don't have character. So I don't know.

There's no good way to fully enforce that. The deferral agreement, they wouldn't be allowed to further improve their property if they, and like he said, it would be triggered. Yeah. The city does come.

In this situation, I'm fine with the deferment, the deferral, but I just wonder, in reality, if it would happen if they say, okay, we're ready to develop this.

Yeah, so deferral agreements can be difficult to enforce when the trigger is met. If we don't get voluntary compliance, the only option the city has is to take one of their citizens to court, right?

That's not gonna happen.

And so, but it is, I have seen in my last city, I've seen these followed up on and people pony up and we get them done. I don't know what our track record around here is on these. Some of them I think have happened But, yeah, it's tough if they don't voluntarily comply.

Like I say, I think the vast majority would have character and would do it. But, you know, it's almost impossible to enforce, I think. Yeah.

I mean, you could certainly go the legal route.

And if there were a good enough reason, I think council maybe would. Sounds good. Yeah. Thank you.

And what I had on the screen a minute ago, as we discovered, was an old draft. So what's on the screen now is the current proposal for what those trigger events would be.

Right. So that the original document that was in your packet and on the screen is what we received from the applicant. And then this is the city suggestions here.

Okay.

So those triggers would be. when any adjacent property develops, or when the design of 580 North receives city approval, i.e. when we know what we're gonna finally do out there.

Right, okay. Okay, any other questions, comments? Anyone? So seeing that there are no other comments, we'll go ahead and close the public hearing and entertain a motion.

I'll make a motion that we approve the public development agreement at 2411 West 580 North for the deferral.

I'll second it.

Okay. Do we need to say anything further about the new revised cities.

I think that would be helpful if you tie that to the marked up version from staff that was presented to you tonight.

Okay, Tom, do you mind just re-emphasizing your recommendation, restating it? With a caveat. That we adopt this deferment agreement

With, yeah. As presently written. Adopting this development agreement as presently written.

So you'll make a positive recommendation? Yes. Based on, okay, okay.

So did that sound okay? Do you have a suggestion, Don, yourself on how to?

I'm thinking maybe, and I'm shooting from the hip, a positive recommendation for the subject deferral agreement based on what is presented on the screen.

Exactly what Don just said. I make a motion. Okay.

And I'll second what Don just said that he made the motion.

Yes.

I think we got enough. Okay.

Is that okay? Okay. So we have a motion and a second. All in favor?

Aye. Thanks, Don. Made it easy for us.

Any opposed? Okay. Thank you. All right. So moving on, we have another public hearing. This is for an amended plat, and it's a staff decision. This is Temple View Commons Phase 1, lots 18 and 19. And we don't have anybody here for this, but we'll still open the public hearing for this.

And do you mind if I just jump in and let people know what is proposed? Oh, please. And what might be helpful is if I jump over. So all of these twin home lots out here, you see the way each of these others is divided is on this long.

Can you help me out? This is Lund Highway. Lund Highway, 1600 North. Yeah, fire stations right here. On the corner there. Okay, yeah.

Neighbor. Neighbor. So what they have here is all of the other lots are split in this long dimension like that. You know, there's like 86 feet of width, I think, on each of these lots that they're splitting in for two for the twin homes. The ones that are this end portion, the way they originally plotted these, they split them the other direction. So these homes would end up facing out to the west onto this other street, rather than facing south here and north here. They're wanting to switch that up now. you'll get rid of these lines and add in this line here, splitting them. So that's what they're wanting to do. Now, this lot is wider, it's 11 feet wider than the others. I'm not sure if that 11 feet is enough to make up the difference in the setback required from the street versus a side yard setback. So I don't know whether that's wide enough. It certainly won't be wide enough if they put the line straight down the middle, which is what it appears they're doing. they probably need to come 43 feet off of like this lot is come 43 feet off and preserve as much as they can for the to meet the setback from the street but that's an issue that we as staff can work through with them on um but but that that's that's the issue and and uh um it is a staff decision it's here because we need to hold public hearing so so

I have some properties that the lines go in the wrong way and the opinion of staff of the past has been they said we don't care which way the line is going as long as the lot meets the size requirements. That's all we care about is and so they contacted the state, no the county recorder's office I believe it was. Yeah, that's the one on property. The county recorder's office says, we don't care. You can turn it any way you want. Yeah. Because once it gets done, it gets its own legal description. No matter if you do it this way or you do it this way.

Yeah, and the issue here is just that when you look at a front, you know, a setback from the street, right, which is greater than a setback from a side lot line.

Yes.

Right? There leaves some question as to whether they could really build what they want to on these and meet the setback. And so that's something that we'll talk to the applicant about and make sure that they are positioning that line where it'll actually work to build what they want to build. But beyond that, yeah, Don, correct me if I'm wrong, but from a zoning standpoint, it really doesn't make a difference to us.

No, I think you covered it, Ken. And to your point, Tom, we did have that discussion. A lot of those older plats, and even a lot of the recent ones with twin homes, had a note that said it could be reversed. I don't recall if that note was on this plat, but the biggest concern is, is there enough width on that corner side to even get a home in there? And the utilities that are already in the ground. So those are things we'll have to figure out and make sure things work. They may have to shift that line, especially on those corner side yards.

So yeah, and Don brings up a good point when he mentioned the utilities, because those utilities are, The way they're stubbed in now, you wouldn't, if you split it the other way, it doesn't, the only way you can get utilities over to this lot here is to cross that other lot. Otherwise we'd have to allow them to cut into a brand new street. to run new utilities in there and cut into the brand new street out on the other side to disconnect those service lines that would no longer be used. We're not really that interested in having that road all cut up. So whether this will make it to the finish line doing what they want to do or not, it may be, maybe it will, maybe it won't, but the utilities are gonna be a big part of that discussion.

Are these public streets in here? Yes. And a PUD? I guess that's not a PUD, it's a townhouse.

It's a standard subdivision. All right.

Okay. Any other comments? And I opened the public hearing a little early, but still, we don't have any commentators. to that so we'll go ahead and close the public hearing and we'll leave it at staff decision. So is that everything?

I think that's it. Good job Jennifer. Now we can't vote on this and I get it. Is there an appetite to even have a discussion with this board about night sky and potentially the elimination from the ordinance that mandates streetlights, overhead streetlights in subdivisions. Is there even an appetite to have that discussion?

Probably not. And we don't have it on the agenda. Do we need to?

Yeah, you're not noticed to have that discussion tonight.

I don't want to have that. I'm just saying that there's, okay. Perfect timing.

I just don't want to waste. So I will just make a quick comment. As far as the dark sky stuff, depending on what fixtures you specify, you can actually do pretty good on that with the lighting. The wrong fixtures are problematic from a dark sky perspective, but with the right ones you can get there. From a safety standpoint, the idea of not having street lighting within developments isn't very attractive.

Right, okay.

Thank you.

Okay, do we need a motion to adjourn? Okay, can I get a motion?

I'll make a motion that we adjourn this meeting and go somewhere else.

Second.

Okay.

Motion and second.

Thank you. Thanks, you guys.