Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

with this again. We had a problem last night. Didn't do a very good job. Yeah, really like really. It's just got all these going, you know. We are all set. What's that? You can't really change. All right. I'm going to call to order the planning commission of October 22nd at 700 p.m. Well, it says 7:06. Um for uh roll call we have myself, Commissioner Hoth, Commissioner Jenkins, and um who are we missing? Mr. Commissioner Woodward, and Commissioner Jorgensson.

We have Commissioner. Oh, yeah. Commissioner Morris. Um we are uh we if if uh Commissioner Patterson joins, let me know. Um, we're going to go ahead and start today with a legislative prayer and thought from Commissioner Hoth and then we'll do a pledge of allegiance.

All right. Okay. So, I jotted a couple notes down here. Um, I was had the good opportunity to go to Yellowstone this last weekend and my daughter was so excited to go to Yellowstone because she's in fourth grade and she gets a free national parks u pass. So, we were so excited to be able to use this. We printed it out. She was just telling all of us how many times like, "We're getting in free because of me." Yeah.

Okay, good. And then 20 minutes down the road, we're getting in free because of me. Yep, we know. And we continue to go and as we enter in into West Yellowstone, um the city just on the west side on the west entrance, there's a bunch of people holding up all these signs. I mean, I mean, there must have been 30 people holding up all these signs about fascism and all these things. And we're like, what's going on here? And I had known about the government shutdown. And as we approached the gates, there was one gate open and we just went up and he's like, "It's free today. Just come in. The government's shut down. There's nothing. Here's a map. Good luck." Oh, all right. This is good. And we're like, "We were hoping to use this." And he's like, "And we would normally like give you an actual card that she could use, but we don't have that up and going today." So we she was a little bit disappointed as we got into the park. It was it was beautiful nonetheless. It was awesome and we enjoyed it. And as we got around to some of the the um visitors centers and some of the other places they were they were shut some of them were shut down which was unfortunate. One of them was open that and we were glad because at bathrooms um and they were actually decent. Um but um a lot of the places in there had been shut down and they were saying that the only reason that this particular place was open was because there was a a grant from some organization that allowed them this particular group to stay open.

And it struck me how quickly things can start to break down um if u within the nor when the normal systems and people are are not um are not functioning. And it reminds me a little bit about what we do with the planning commission and any any group of the city or any of us within the city and are serving. And that was kind of my takeaway was when the normal um people serving within the community in any form start um receding away and pulling away, how fast things can things can look different. And it did. And it did. And we nonetheless had a good time. We saw Buffalo and, you know, and some, you know, we love the Old Faithful, which is still as faithful as it always is. So, if you guys get a chance and you want to go to Yellowstone for free, make that four and a half hour drive up there and it's free. Well, at least it was Saturday. So, anyway, so that's that was my takeaway is is that, you know, they're with the the government shutting down, it did affect it and normal function of a government needs, you know, needs us, needs the people, needs people working. So that's that's the thought and I will also finish with a prayer. Our father in heaven, we're grateful for this day to be able to be gathered to do the business of the city. We're grateful for the opportunity to serve and we ask that it'll bless us to know know the things that we should we should do. We're thankful for the citizens and the opportunity to be citizens of this good city. And we say this in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.

All right. If you all rise, please. 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. All right. Love the turnout. I'll also note for the record, chair uh Vice Chair Patterson is here. Um Vice Chair, can we test your your mic? Yep. It looks like she's on mute. Lorray, you're on mute.

Hi, I'm here. Can you hear me? Perfect. Thank you so much. Great. All right. Uh, moving on. Welcome everybody. We love the when when people come, so this is a great day for us. Um, we've got two business items. a public hearing on the general plan amendments and then uh continuation from our meeting uh of C CZC 12.51 landscaping and screening. Um who's going to lead us out on item one? I will just do a quick background review uh following the packet documentation. Mr. Thank you.

You're welcome. So uh with the general plan uh the general plan amendment process started in Janu June of 2024. Um the city entered into a uh contract for professional services with SUS Group. They were represented or have been represented by Chris Huff and other associates of that team. Um since that time uh they have worked with the city in multiple efforts to gather um information about the city. They've done tours of the city. They have talked to um stakeholders of the city as well as participated in in different public engagement public engagement activities throughout that process and have also met with um with the planning commission city council and work sessions as well as um other conversations with the planning commission city council. Um throughout all that commentary and process the the uh comprehensive general plan update I I would say the final draft document has been prepared and provided and found in the packet uh with this meeting information. Uh further there was a presentation by Sus at the last planning commission meeting. So those of you who were not in attendance, you could go watch that uh meeting on YouTube from our last planning commission meeting and see some of that presentation information that was provided. Um the summary of the public engagement information is found as well in the background and I'll just quickly cover that. Um there were three engagement opportunities that were presented by some of staff during community sponsored events that were uh moving in the park, the Fourth of July celebration and Christmas tree lighting events. There was a multiple week about one and a half weeks almost two weeks presentation of the general plan update display boards and engagement surveys which provided at city hall in January of 2025 prior to a public openhouse that was held on January 30th. It was advertised and provided for the public provide uh input. We did not have quite

a good attendance at that meeting with various viewpoints and various ideas um and conversations. that there was a residential feedback survey that was sent to every household in April of 2025 uh regarding a general plan survey um that was mailed out and we did receive I believe it was 410 responses that is evidenced by the general plan document and then there's also been that entire time a public online active website that has been available to residents of the community and businesses to post commentary regarding comments, questions, concerns they have on a bunch of maps. Um and that information has also been gathered and tied into this review. Um a public hearing has been advertised in accordance with state and city code requirement. Um there were not any comments received prior to uh the the planning commission packet going out other than we did have a residential notice that they felt that there needed to be a little bit more time for to advertise the public hearing. Um and so that has been noted in here. And then um there have been a few inquiries with um staff regarding tonight's public hearing. just some general information about this event um how the notifications went out and and just some general questions. So um with that the attached document is again the final draft document. It is I will say still a fluid document even though it is in its final draft phases. So that allows the the public to provide commentary the planning commission to provide direction to staff and SUS group with any um directives that you you pursue or desire. um options obviously with it being a recommendation consideration this evening would be recommendation to city council recommendation with any conditions or expectations tableabling or recommendation of denial. So that that's about where your your posture would be through legislative recommendation opportunities tonight and with that I would defer to uh the planning commission for further discussion how you'd like to proceed chairman. Okay, thank you. Perfect. Um,

as uh we move forward, I think it would be helpful to those of you who are here just as a quick orientation about um what our body is, what it does, what we can do, and what um the intent is here and what we would like to hear from you today. As planning commissioners, we're not elected. We are appointed. And so while we represent the interests of the city, we don't represent the people per se like your your uh council people do. So this plan is something we've been working on for I mean it's years at this point, but definitely months. Um and we're really interested in making sure that we capture what's best for the town and what the town wants or what the city wants. And um so when we're we're going to open it up and we're going to open up the floor and I want everybody to have an opportunity to speak. We're going to start with three minutes roughly and when you come up to the podium if you'll say your name, your address, and if you have a particular comment about a section or a page, the the general plan is about 150 pages long. And if you can direct us to something in there for uh specific, that'd be great because remember this is a record and the the city council watches it and it's really great for us to know what parts you're you're talking about. If there is no particular part, that's fine, too. Um, another thing that I uh wanted to note is that this is simply a recommending body. We are not the deciders. Your deciders are your elected officials. And that's going to be at whatever upcoming meeting, whatever happens uh next, if that makes sense. Um, so with that, let's turn to the commission. Do you guys have particular questions or uh features that you'd like to ask more about staff? Last meeting we gosh, it was almost two hours it felt like of going through that. So, we answered a lot of our questions, but what else do you guys have for today

for staff or something? Yes, for staff before we open up the floor. Um, I mean, these obviously it's a 20-year plan. It's a long time. Is there anything in there that maybe I just missed that talks about um aesthetics and like keeping things on, you know, a certain path and in 10 years if we have a whole different planning commission and maybe a different staff like things don't start changing a little bit and it just kind of looks wonky. Is there anything in there that kind of guides that or I I have two answers to that question. So each section is broken out with specific strategies and guidance. So it depends on which section you're looking at.

Okay. Um things like a a park master plan would be a separate process altogether that would be softly represented within the document but itself wouldn't may be characterized specifically those kind of elements. Um there's some general more broad guidance. A general plan is just that it's more of a general development tool. If you want more specifics like a a main street design guide or a trails guide or something like that that would be actually a separate process. It's more drilled down to that.

That's what I was thinking. Yeah. But the one thing I will note too with the general plan, general plan is an organic document. It's living and breathing, right? So at any given time if there's if there's a desire by by the leadership of the community or the community at large to consider an amendment, maybe something is significant changes within the city or the fabric of the community and the culture of the community and the general plan doesn't advise or direct towards that that can bring further amendment to the general plan and update it. So, just because you say it's 20-year document, it's a 20-year organic living document that can be amended with with need and change of the community. Okay.

All right. More questions. Uh, Vice Chair Patterson, if you have anything or anybody else on the D. I.

Okay. Thank you. All right. With that, let's move to the public portion of the meeting. I'm going to go ahead and open up um this public hearing to the public. If uh like I had stated, if you'd like to come to the podium, share your thoughts. Let's see what you would like to tell us about. My name is Craig Preston, resident of Centerville. Um I have been involved with this the not totally but from the beginning. Worked with Mike on some other issues last spring. uh and even going to the legislature and trying to get their help in not passing or passing legislation. Uh I filled out the survey that came out and uh I was at the park where we had they call it the post-it note voting. Um I lived here in the 1970s. At that time we had a Dix, we had a Safeway, we had Albertson's, we had Ernst Hardware, we had Sprouse Ritz, we had a number of banks, we had J C Penney. Now we have Walmart, Target, Dicks, no J C Penney, no Jo-Ann's, and Home Depot. I think Centerville was very smart in what they did in establishing this business park and putting it right next to the freeway. We can see the benefit of that and what has succeeded and what has not. Businesses are not this. Let's see. Businesses on small streets we don't see. We see them in large parking areas. My conclusion in this is to say this town center concept is full is not good because it won't work in this city. We do not have the foot traffic to do that. the J C Penney is a good

situation is a good indicator of that and what we have here. Um I'm also concerned about this main street design uh that's on page 26 where it just showed that and I've had that one a lot where we want to put this pedestrian aisle in the middle and do all this fancy things. But then on page 939, we talk about making Main Street an express route and putting roundabouts possibly on the street. I think those are very conflicting ideas and I brought that up before uh and I understand that because in our neighborhood we're taking if on the parking strip, for example, we're taking trees out of our parking out of our neighborhood parking strips, but we're putting them in along the city. The city's response to that is, well, these are larger parkways. Well, either way, what I'm saying is we need to have some kind of an overall idea of what we're doing, but to have this a pedestrian walkway with children and kids going on it and then put an express bus route on it and an island in the middle so they can run to the middle and watch cars going back and forth, I don't think is a proper idea. Um, I am very concerned about the survey methods, which I've already mentioned to you because I was at the park when it was a post-it note frenzy with the little kids putting them up. I talked with Chris uh after one of the meetings, the Chris from the uh consulting company, and from my understanding uh from that, they put about equal weight on that as they did the responses. Well, that thing that that process with those kids, they had no idea what they were doing. I didn't even know what I was doing. But, you know, you just go and stick up Post-it notes. And the more Post-it notes you had, that indicated more responses. And the kids were out there saying, "Hey, let's just put up all the Post-it notes we can." And I've talked with Chris about the survey process. Uh, I'm I'm very concerned about that one. Um, let's see. You talk about lowincome housing. And so, I'm just trying to give

you an idea of Centerville now, Centerville in the past, but where are we? We're a small community. Uh you talk about lowincome housing and moderate income housing. Uh urban that urban center over there that's no you can't call that low income or medium moderate housing because those are in the 500,000 to get into the premise when we do this of taking away fees impact fees taxes is not the real solution to the problem. The problem is what do we do about the developers? It's like any of you. If you had some money to invest in a bank and you were offered to be paid 3% interest versus 10% interest, where are you going to put your money? A developer is no different. Do they have an opportunity to make 10% on their money or 3% on their money? And 3% for the lowincome moderate housing is not where they're going to be incentivized to go. I'm very concerned also when you talk about this again where it showed these three areas where they're going to do the town centers and we call it the um the Centerville Centerville point or whatever by the Centerville Theater and make that and we're going to include the parking lot of all the of the Home Depot and Kohl's and all that and uh that's now in that town center concept where we're going to go and put housing in there according according to my understanding of that document. That's not true. Okay, good. Because I'm definitely opposed to that. So anyway, I just want to give you that's my two cents worth on this as I've looked through it and my comments is uh there's some concepts in there that's that just will not apply to Centerville. They put a shop along Main Street. Why are they going to want to go there now when there's no foot traffic? The foot traffic is down there. Like I say,

Centerville did a great job. Keep it going and keep it coming down there. Let's make the rest of our city beautiful. But my concern is out of the survey and what we've got. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Preston.

Good evening. My name is Dave Leighton, s citizen in Sanville. I live up near the cemetery. So, just so you have an idea where I'm coming from. Um, first of all, thank you very much for all your service. I know you I I I assume and I'm sure you spend a lot of time uh at this volunteer work that you do. So, thank you so much. I I also appreciate what I've I've I've spent some time reading reading the draft and and number one there's not a lot of time for us to read it. So I've I've done the best that I could at getting through it. But I think I needed just a bit more time to digest it more fully than than I've been given so far. But in what I read so far, I really appreciate that you give a lot of recommendations and I like that word recommendation. I know that um planning chair car care uh said you are made up of a you're a recommending body. Is that what you said? Correct.

So I'm I'm glad that your document shows that in most cases.

Now there there's a couple of cases where I would say that maybe you divert from that just a little bit. For example, you say culdeac should be minimized. Well, I think you maybe should say it is recommended that culdeacs be minimized. You know, I think we need to stay with that with that recommendation uh way of way of talking as opposed to giving giving statements that we may or may not agree with. I also uh think that that that same u concern has to do with with words like the current deficit of 1549 units. Okay. By the way, there's one place says that it's 1549. Another place says that it's 706. And so it's a little bit little bit uh tricky there. I did a little little bit of math uh regarding that topic of of the um of the h housing deficit. Centerville is about 17 17 18,000 people population wise. Utah is 3.5 million. So we are less than half percent of Utah something like that. Okay. Now this report the low end says 706 units deficit in in Centerville. And another report in ksl.com a a a report that was presented partly by the chemcer policy institute says say says that Utah is behind by 44,000 units. Okay. So if you go 706 divided by 44,000 means we're we are we the state of Utah is 1 point or um we the u we we Utah are 1.6% behind

but we're only a half a percent of of uh of of of Utah's population but we need to make up 1.6% of of the deficit. So I think I think we're being asked to make to provide a large number of the deficit. We're asked we're asked to uh provide 706 of the 440,000 which is 1.6%. But we're only a half a percent in in real population. So I think there's a little bit of math there that maybe doesn't make sense to me. And again I haven't had near as much time to digest it as as you have to write it. But again, I think there are some there are some things that that uh I need a little bit more time to understand and and um I think if I need some time to to understand just a bit better than other people probably do as well. I think that I think uh we need more time to digest and and and and obviously we have a you you were saying it's nice to have people here. Well, not many people are here, you know, of of of 17,000 people, you got 17, you know, so not not very many. And so, I think we need to get the word out and let more people see the information and uh digest it just a bit more and give a little more more input. So, thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Leon.

I'll be quick. My name is Tammy Bryson. I live in South Centerville. I'm sitting there and we're sitting there saying a pledge of allegiance to the flag and justice for all. How can we have justice for all in our city if we're pushing this so fast? When I got word of the new plan or this meeting and the plan, my husband was getting ready to go to Spain and I said, "You need to read the plan. He doesn't have time." And I haven't had time and look at there's hardly anybody here because we don't we don't have time. We need more time to read this plan. If it's justice for all, then we need to have time to sit as citizens and read this plan, which I know that you've worked really hard on, but I just don't think it's fair that you're pushing this forward. I think we need to table it and wait a little bit until more of us of the city can read it. And I would especially like all of the the city council to be able to have the time to read every single word of it so they know what they're voting on. I mean, I I love our our city, but sometimes I just and I feel like we live in an apathetic city sometimes, and we're Christians, but I just think we need to get the word out better. And I think we're trying to be peacemakers and we're so worried about being good peacemakers that we're so afraid to put signs in our yard and talk to our neighbors about things so that we're not causing a problem. But, you know, I want peace in our neighborhood. I want to live in a good city, but I would like to have time to to know

what's going on and read these things that we're talking about. So, I'm hoping that you can table this and and have the next council have time and and let them decide instead of pushing it forward so fast. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Bryson.

Nancy Smith, Centerville resident. Um, I'd like I'll pause you there, Miss Smith. Um, so Miss Smith approached me before the meeting and asked me to have uh pictures ready. Yeah, you can either send it out now or pass it out or as part of your comments to that point. And I'm I'm just for the record, I'm going to pass these out as you provide comment.

Thank you. So, I would like to talk about design standards and there's two parts to my comments. Um, I think the gateway corridor should have one design standard, otherwise it causes confusion and appears to give favoritism to different parts of our business sector in the area. I'll consider the gateway corridor as one corridor and I'd like to give you examples of where I'm coming from. When the Carl's Jr. came in um they put up the artificial uh rock and then were later required to take it completely down and put up the weieber granite rock. I think it delayed their business opening by eight months because of that and the incredible expense. You can imagine what happened. Um and then years later and dur that was before 2000. I was on the city council between 2000 and 2004 and we did do we did do a general plan change during those years. But after that and we tried to set some basic standards for the entire corridor. But I think that has been peacemilled over the years and eroded again because when Arby Gas Station, Randall Brothers went into um expand their small gas station into what it is now. They ran into all sorts of trouble. They could not use the Phillips logo because it had red and gray on the um canopy over the gas meters and red was not allowed in that specific location when at the same time red across the street was on the Albertson store, the

same exact color. And down not too many steps was a 7-Eleven that had the canopy with the blue and I think it's blue and red. I'm not sure. And right before the freeway on the other Phillips gas station, they had the red and gray uh logo. So, it was very confusing to them as to why they couldn't have it. And it took them months to get their approval process because they had to go back to Phillips and get an okay from Phillips that they were not going to have the official logo for them to um remodel. So I think it's critical that we have a set design standard along the gateway corridor. That's part one. My second part for me is an even bigger concern. Um because with the recent changes that we have made to allow tattoo establishments in the gateway corridor, I have no issues with tattoo establishments. What I have an issue with is um the location. And if we don't have design standards in the gateway corridor, the following is going to happen. And I'd like you to take a look at the pictures that I submitted.

And I'm going to pause um just for the record because I need to make a record. Um I'll just note that it's five pictures. Uh each of them appear to be what I would call uh storefronts of tattoo parlors, right? Um there where it's sort of block letters with uh either spray paint style um art flourishes or like a World War II style bomb maiden. I don't know. Oh, you have it up there. Oh, perfect. Okay. Well, it's kind of hard to see. It is hard to see. Sorry. Thank you.

But but thank you for that explanation. Well done. The first one to me alludes to the fact that we think graffiti is okay in our city. The second one over there with the tattoo skills actually is one of the milder of the pictures I saw. She's she's fairly well clothed, but some of them are they're more partially nude than clothed. The one down on the bottom um to me represents demonic and violent words. The one in the middle that's hard to see up here again has um forever dead with the needle in the center. And that needle is pretty mild compared to a lot of them. When I saw a lot of the pictures, I couldn't help but think of drugs. And then if you can figure out what the last one is, good luck. Um, but in addition to these, and some of these are right here in the valley or in Salt Lake, other words like six feet below, murder of crows, skin it, poisoned heart, savage tattoo. And my point with all of that is we know psychology has come out and taught us that neuroscience and the mechanics of mental manipulation, the physical changes that actually happen in the brain, especially our younger generation when they are exposed to suggestive words or images. images can imply um meaning without directly expressing it. And so the human brain isn't fully developed, we know, until the age of 25 to 30. And especially with

the younger kids, if they're exposed to these type of things, there's an there is an adverse influence. Um and there's a lot of articles. I would recommend that you try reading some of them. But um my point with that is if you don't have design standards and these type of things come in, I personally walk to Dicks Market with my grandchildren. We walk to Snell Groves. We'll walk to Banberry on this side. We'll walk to Arby's gas station and get an ice cream cone or we'll walk to Walmart. But if these type of images end up in our gateway corridor, I can promise you I will be less likely to drive or walk with my grandchildren in that area. These are not familyfriendly. These are not the values that I moved here for. Um, and the other point with that is adult type shops seem to gravitate together. I took a day and drove around to identify what was next to a tattoo establishment. Typically, you have other adult type shops, which are your vape shops, your smoke shops, your taverns, sometimes uh sexually oriented businesses. And by allowing the one that we have, we are we have opened up the door. So, in your table of uses, I was very happy to see that when you originally sent this to the city council, you had denied the tattoo establishments to be anywhere in the city. Thank you for doing that. Unfortunately, the city council combined t if I understand correctly, they combined the tattoo

establishments in with the definition of body art. And so those are now allowed anywhere in the commercial high on up. I would strongly encourage you to look at the table of uses and perhaps on the east side of Main Street make a recommendation and deny body art on the east side unless you can put in legally stringent design standards that doesn't allow this type of thing and these type of words to take place in our city. um and put in the other uses that will come because we've opened up the door to have adult type shops on the east side of the freeway. I personally would love to see them next to the marijuana shop that we already have on the west side of the freeway. Create a location where maybe it's more appropriate um to have those type of table of uses. Um so the two possible solutions I have are to design standards to avoid these type of unintentional things from happening. the designs, the graphic designs that are on the outside of the buildings that have no place in a familyfriendly business area and other uses that will come as a byproduct. I can guarantee you that the community does not care about red colors, beige colors, um the things that we sometimes put on as requirements as compared to real issues that create

a feel that is way different than what we all moved here for. And the other suggestion is Mrs. Smith, I'm going to say you're at nine minutes. I know. And I'm going to let you keep going. I just want to remind you

Yeah. Thank you. Um or change the table of uses and identify all of the other ones that we do not want to have on the gateway corridor. Lastly, as you debate, um I appreciate the time that has been spent. We I have not had time to read the general plan either. Um, I would ask that you table voting on what you have before you tonight so that you can seriously contemplate not only what I have said, but what other citizens have said and you can have time to seriously consider some of the concerns that we have as citizens. um make a clear statement upfront where some of these businesses should go or create a really tough design standard. You're going to have time to debate and maybe you're going to vote on it tonight. Maybe you'll be willing to make some recommendations and changes, but we won't have a chance to look at those if you vote on it tonight or make any additional comments if you vote on it tonight. And I would absolutely adore it if each of you I would adore each one of you if you would consider having a work meeting where it's not a one-sided conversation, but maybe you would allow us to sit at the table with you in a work session and more thoroughly flush some of these concerns out where it's a a dialogue, not a one-sided conversation. Thank you very much. Appreciate all that you have done. Thank you, Miss Smith.

Andrea Richmond, 327 Windsor Lane. I totally understand that the master plan is a living, breathing document that can be changed, but I also understand that it affects every single person um in Centerville in in an incredible way. And people can sue or not sue over what is in the master plan. And I completely agree with everything that has been said tonight. there are some serious issues um still left in the in the master plan that need to be reviewed and and assessed and and um I agree with everything that has been said but I just would also like to add there's for example I believe it's on page 51 where talks about affordable housing it talks about affordable housing but not necessarily where and so I think there's some very vague things and serious things that we need to think about before we just, you know, pass the master plan on because it's going to affect so many people and I really do appreciate everyone's time that they've put in on this master plan. I know it's been a lot, but I think because it affects so many of us in so many ways, I would just humbly ask you to consider um tableabling it tonight so that we have more time to talk about it as a community and a and a commission. And thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Richmond. I'm sorry, Craig Preston. Again, I got to add a PS. In my nervousness, usually, Mr. Preston, we don't allow double dipping, but I'm going to let you do it. Go ahead. In my nervous nervousness in addressing you, I forgot the bottom line. It's okay. Please table it. Thank you. Thank you, sir. That was a great double dip. That puts you way over. You always sit there and then you think you'll say your name first, please.

Dean Williams, 130 West, 550 South about a stones throw from Mason's house.

Yep. But first, I want to thank you for your time on my dad was on the planning commission a 100red years ago and I know it's a tremendous amount of work. And I also want to thank you for the crossing guards that you have lights that you put by the junior high and by the rock church. Although I did have to dodge a car down there last Sunday. People will learn. Yeah, I I retired from West Valley City Fire Department. When we started in 1980, there were 34 36 of us and their city was 68,000 people. They're running out of three fire stations. Now there are six fire stations. The population is 130,000 and there are 130 firefighters out there. Well, if you look at the growth and I got up here Oh. a year ago and they said, "We'll open it up to public comment, but we don't want to hear about West Valley and Taylor'sville." Well, if you don't hear about them and you don't deal with them now, then they're going to overrun you just like they did Station Park out there. And now Farmington has to add another station to cover out there. West Valley has two stations, 75 and 76, that are also covering helping Taylorville and West Jordan. They're running over 20 calls a day per fire station. This one over here, I haven't heard them go out yet today, but they'll run three, four or five calls a day. But the impact that you guys are deciding is going to be in the city is tremendous. And when a developer comes in here and he says, "Yeah, we can do this and this and this." We'll run it on calls per acre and see what that does

to the call load and the impact on police and fire and school and crossing and my what the last time I was in here and we were talking about the piece of ground down on fourth west where she wanted to develop it and there was controversy over high density housing and I don't know how that finally wound up. But the if you go with the high density, to me, Centerville is built out. If you and what I'd like to do is just single family homes and go with that footprint. And I don't really care what Governor Cox says. I remember back when Legacy Parkway was going in and Rocky Anderson was Salt Lake City's mayor and he was fighting Legacy Highway for some reason. I don't know, it didn't impact his city. And Jim Hansen was a congressman. And I was there when they were doing this interview. And Jim asked him, "Have you ever been down I-15 through Davis County during rush hour?" And Rocky said, "No." And Jim said, "Well, then you don't have any right to say anything about what happens and the density that's happening in Davis County through Centerville and Farmington and Cisville. And that's how I feel. Governor Cox with his build build build that he brought up a few meetings ago. You cannot let that happen here. If you do, you're going to wind up with a West Valley. And if you want a fun time, drive to West Jordan or Mid or Station Park and try and get around. And Centerville doesn't have the geography or the mentality of the people who have lived here for their entire life, which

I have. We don't want that. We want the We don't want the high density, and I like it like it is. If it could stay like it was when I was born here, that'd be fine with me. But that's not going to happen. And I'm a realist on that. But you can control the density. Thanks. Thank you very much, Mr. Williams. I'm Rich Leightton, Centerville uh resident. Um like everybody else, I just really grateful for you guys all you do. It's uh I'm sure it's thankless and and uh I'm not sure why you do it, but but I'm glad you do. Um um I think one thing that just seems to be a little lacking it is maybe just the I know you've made great efforts to get more public input, but I just it just uh not sure that's happened and uh uh just this meeting for example, I you know it kind of came out of nowhere. my wife heard about it and and uh so I just think we need to do a better job informing the public I think of of a lot of the a lot of things. Um I didn't you know I I'm not sure the public was able to really tell you what they wanted from the surveys and things. The surveys that I saw I just didn't think they were great. It just seemed like it was kind of pushing me one direction and not necessarily how I felt. And uh so I felt like that. Um and then I maybe you can educate me. I think as far as uh this meeting you'd like to get it approved or or tabled or whatever you want to do is and then is the attempt

then after that then that goes to the city council is that I heard and uh is the is the goal to get that done this year or is there's no timeline.

No timeline at all. Okay. I'd just like to I think since we got some new city council members, I think it ought to go to the city council when we get a a new city council instead of the the old city council. I think it'd be so I I would vote that we uh that we table this for now and is what I would suggest. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Leon. Brian Plameumber, Centerville City resident. Plumber. Plumber. Thank you, sir.

I appreciate all of your work and uh service to our city. I appreciate this because it is a difficult job. I can relate. I've been on uh the landmark commission for 12 years back in uh the early 2000s and now I serve on the council and so yes we do rely on your recommendations quite heavily and I would uh say that I agree with everything that has been said here today that it is very important that we take this and table it and we need to have time to have the community digest what is being presented. There is a um perception of apathy, but it's not. It's it's the fact that we're all busy living life and doing things, but this is a document that is going to affect our community moving forward. We need to uh really take a a fine tooth comb to this. We need to have uh standards inserted into it that will help guide development in areas that we have been required to do certain things to uh as we face growth in our community. So for me, I there are some things in there that are absolutely uh I I I have a problem with including uh mandates from the state within our own document. This is ridiculous. I agree. We don't need to take cues from Spencer Cox. Uh we are a community that is unique in Utah. We have a very finite amount of space here and it's not just for

a high density purposes. We we have our own community and we should protect it with our lives because that's why we moved here. So we need to uh look at that document that we have before us and compare it to the document that we already have. We have a general plan. We don't need to pass this right now. We need to take the time to have you have the ability to read through it multiple times. I have to read through it multiple times. I've had multiple people say they need to read through it and that's going to take time. So, there is no purpose in pushing this forward tonight. We need to take the time and I would suggest having more uh public uh input on this document.

Uh plus, sorry, did we just lose Lorray? Okay, thank you. She she looks like she might be back. Sorry.

I I am concerned about the uh the public input up to this point with the uh concerns that were said about the uh survey process. I have those same concerns. 400 to close to 500 respondents is not uh it's it's really not a very high percentage of what we would call uh if we have 17,000 folks here. We have about 5,000 households here. We're talking less than uh 10% of the um of the populace responding to that survey. We need more input. So with that, I appreciate all of you and your time. Thank you. And uh I'll end there.

Thank you, Mr. Plumber. La, can you please just verify that you're there with us? I am here. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. County late in Centerville. You're welcome. I live in the southwest section. So, a lot of this general plan impacts us the most. We're the ones that get the consequences or the results of most of the things that happen. So, I suggest that you really give us some consideration

and how we feel down in our area because we're impacted the most. This is a huge big packet and I just got it yesterday and I started reading it and I am concerned with some of the words in it. I on page 12 for ex for for example the page. I thought I had this mark. page 12 um in my book is the vision starting on 11 vision and goals.

Oh, I have my husband. No worries.

I was concerned with some of the words. They're very strong and they're very it on number four it says go for main street will be instead of could be or could could be suggested you're using strong words will be on goal number nine main street will be those are strong words and I don't it's like citizens don't have any choice. I mean, it's you're going to have this or or that. I mean, will be is pretty strong work. The other thing about the um the surveys that I wished or I would have appreciated more was when you suggested or when that survey survey suggested things, it would have been nice with a little sentence that said there could be a tax increase. Would you support this? Would you support these Main Street amenities? Would you meet Would you support this idea if your taxes were increased? A lot of citizens just think that it's just going to happen and that we just get it and our taxes aren't going to be increased. I think they need to be aware that our taxes will be increased with some of these things. Anytime we have a t tax increase, citizens should be aware of that they need. And then also um the communication with um with this. I don't know how long you guys have had this. I mean I don't know when you were given this. How many weeks have you actually had this?

Go ahead. We'll answer. Well, I'll take all of this and then we'll answer at the end.

Um I don't know how many weeks you've had it, but we just heard about it. We just got it. And so it's going to take us time to to go through this a plan if it's supposed to last 15 or 20 years. Let us have the time to absorb it and and go through it and and digest it like the word has been said and and try to understand it and so that we have better feedback for you. We we don't have feedback because people are just barely getting it. So to pass this just doesn't make sense tonight. I would suggest you have a table of contents. I I don't know. This is just an idea, but maybe have maybe have an open hearing on just on your uh I don't even think I have that page. The table of contents. Go through one area. Maybe have a open house in just one area. the housing one time or the transportation one time or the main street one and and somebody said there's no Mike said that there's no rush to this. Is there an incentive if we get it pushed through until December? There's not. Let us have time to to get it right so we don't have to to amend it. That's going to cost the city money. I was on a planning uh u when they did the last general plan, they tried to push it through. It was December and I got called. It was the middle of December. I first part of December. I was at a a word party and I had to leave because they were pushing it through and they wanted us to map. This was the area that we were talking about from Walmart to um where the park is. And I remember thinking, why are they just pushing this? This could have taken time. We're going into a busy holiday

season. This can be tabled for a while. We There's no rush. Let's get it right. Let's let the citizens get, you know, talk about it. Get it get it out there so that we can actually read it. I want to underline it and go through it. There's words and paragraphs, things that don't make sense to me. And let's review it again. If if there's not a rush, let's get it right. Let's just table it. Thank you, Miss. All right.

Rick Banger, Centerville resident. I would just like to make a specific request. uh being participatory in many meetings like this in the past on city council and in planning commissions. Uh often when we have a report of the record, the minutes are are transcribed very succinctly and understandably many times necessarily. So I would just like to make a request that we've had some very good comments tonight. Few people take the extra step when they're trying to review what happened in a meeting to go and listen to the actual transcripts. That's the best. But but I would like to request that the commission consider in reporting this meeting, especially the public comments, uh that those be a little more comprehensive in in identifying what was stated, requested, or reported. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Per. All right, I'm gonna issue last call for public comment and anybody can double dip. Now's now's a good time for double dipping.

I just wanted to say you have to come to the you have to come to the mic. I just wanted to tell these people when I made that said that comment about apathetic centerville. The reason why I felt like they were apathetic is because they don't have the knowledge. They don't have So I don't want you to get the idea that I think we have this terrible community. We're apathetic because we don't have the knowledge. we haven't been told about what's going on. Once we're told, then we won't be so apathetic. Thank you. Thank you for the clarification, Miss Bryson. All right, one more. All right, Mr. Leen.

So, the the design of the main street, one of them was a running path on the side and and I I'm a runner. I've run 30 marathons in my life, and that's what I'm into. But it's going to cost $4 million for that. So again, I think the people need to know those kinds of things cost money, not just to vote for them. So I'm all for it, but it cost too much.

I I got to say one more thing. Sorry, because I I I want to just say it wasn't I would agree that we have a wonderful community and there is that sometimes that perception of apathy because people don't know. But I know this that when I moved here in 1983 and I grew up and I grew amongst the people that taught me, my teachers, my church leaders, and those people are still here. Those people that created the the original the the the general plan that we have now. Those were my leaders back then and they haven't changed. But they trust the people that come and serve that they will represent their interests, what they moved here for. And that's why perhaps we may not see as many people as well is that they have a trust in the process and that is uh going through and and taking this apart. And it it's not a bad thing. We we can do that and debate it and talk about these things that have been pointed out. It's important not to have strong language in this. It's important to understand that things cost money and that uh pedestrian friendly walkways might mean high density. We need to talk about those things. So give us the time to do it. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Plameumber. Last last call. I'll give you seven seconds and time. All right. Thank you so much for your public comments. That's really helpful. Uh I'm going to close the public portion of today's hearing and I'll take it back to the the commission. Um I have taken copious notes and I've heard and I'm just going to summarize um big picture uh what I'm hearing is that uh the town center issue um may not support the kind of business efforts that we we need because of the the uh lack of necessarily the traffic to assist with that. that um there were issues with the survey process that um the low-income housing plan is not developed enough that um we need more time. We need more time and we need more time. Uh that was emphasized and um that there could be a mismatch in the the units. So we would need to check on that. uh 1549 versus 706 that um the unit deficit in Centerville makes up 1.6 of the states total even though our population is.5%. I'd also like to check those numbers. Um that it's not necessarily apathy but it is certainly trust in the process and busy lives. Um the gateway corridor uh standards and approach should be unified as opposed to as peacemeal as it is otherwise we run into problems. um the design standards for more adultoriented businesses need to be addressed. Um that uh this plan affects people in an incredible way uh especially in the southwest.

um that the growth pressures that we're facing need to be addressed um in this plan in a in a better way and to also include a view towards how it affects fire and police that um we may not necessarily like what our um leaders higher up in our organization Utah um say, but we can certainly at least try to preserve our uniqueness here in the city that we need more public engagement that um I'm not going to the the more time was said multiple times that um we need to go through with a a fine tooth comb that we're mostly built out um that there wasn't as high an engagement as would have been helpful that we should potentially review a section uh at a time that there could be a work session to improve uh the general plan that the minutes should be more detailed uh from today's meeting. Um and that um the survey should include some connection to the potential costs so that people give more accurate responses in light of what it could cost them. Um and then to also address some of the mandatory language and soften it. So that's obviously what I've summarized as my takeaway. Um it was far more detailed and uh I'll respond um simply as chair to some of these positions and then we'll open it up for discussion amongst ourselves and then also questions to staff. Um I I hear you about the time. I will push back because I feel like we have given lots of time. um this has been disseminated to the

public. We've been engaging in this for years uh especially in months. However, I also hear what you're saying is that we are all busy and you know it's not like um all of us uh think wow I really need to check the public notice website to see what the planning commission is doing this week. So for me to say we've you've been given time is also should be coupled with the tension of you all have busy lives, right? So for me to say yeah it's been out there and it's been available for weeks if not months um should also be coupled with your actual reality. So, um, now I'm also going to say that I would tend to disagree with some of these positions, but that is my my thought and we can kind of explore those, uh, as we go. Now, I'm going to open it up for commission discussion. What are you guys' thoughts?

The amount of feedback from the the community somewhat bothers me a little bit as well. Um because just in my neighborhood, I've been I guess probably more as a planning commission member just been curious and talked to people and they're like, "Oh, there's a new general plan coming out." I'm like, "We've been advertising this. It's been here and there and everywhere." And maybe I'm just noticing it more because I'm on the planning commission. Um so there I I can see there being more advertisement even though I feel like it's been advertised very well, but I I see that there's note of that. I think it's a very fair position to say that we don't have enough time. Yeah. I also think it's a very fair position for us to say we've given time.

But at the end of the day, what is reality? Uh well, not even what is reality. It doesn't necessarily matter. If people need more time, people need more time. Yeah. Right. So, keep going. I interrupted you.

No, that that's that's my thought on that. And then I think similar to what you were saying as well that the housing um the amount of housing that we have here compared to what we need to provide. I'm curious to see those numbers as well. And then um one other comment was made in regards to the low-income housing and it wasn't um designated a particular area. Having had a little bit experience with low-inccome housing building, it does it does tend to congregate to certain areas. And so I think having maybe a location at which that could be placed would maybe be a good idea. And maybe it is. I just haven't I I may have missed that. Can you Can you affirm that, Mike? It is. It's on maps, multiple maps. I identify it.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Well, one of the problems with low-income housing is that we as planning commissions and cities at large is that um it's sort of like riding a freight train. um you don't have a whole lot of control. You're not the conductor. Um you're not the one that lays the track. And so trying to say that our decisions about housing is going to make a huge difference. I certainly hope it does, but you're also facing down the freight train of money. And it uh I think one of the commenters had a really insightful point. if you've got if you're a developer, why would you be incentivized in low-income housing if you can make more money with other types of housing? And that's always the tension that we see in these documents or in low housing decisions uh or even in the power that we as planning commissions have. Um, we're here to make sure that the code is enforced and we're here to make sure that we are developing ordinances and general plans that will guide, not bind. And so I I take to heart the the comment about some of the mandatory language that's in the general plan. But at the same time, I I I do feel this way. If the general plan isn't strong enough, when the developer comes and we want development to go in a certain direction, if it isn't leashed in some way, then it won't go there. And so there's that difficult balance. So anyway,

language. I agree. I think it's worth reconsidering. About you guys.

Um just logistically moving forward. I mean, obviously it's pretty unanimous that they would like to table it. um for further discussion. So um you know what what are and maybe this is more of a question for the staff, but what are what are options as far as you know renoticing tableabling? Um I mean we heard comments about better surveys, right? I mean is that something we want to invest funds to go do that or or do we have enough surveys and enough input? But um you know now we want to put more detail into this plan and amend it and get it out again. I mean there's there's a lot that we could do with this, right?

Well, you're a recommendation body. Remember that number one. So whatever you you provide will be a recommendation. You do have the authority to make a recommendation however you see you know approve approve with conditions deny or table. So as far as what your authority that's given within this process tonight, those would be your options. You can make a recommendation based on commentary that would be then provided to the city council, right? Um I guess you could make you could optionally table and provide some kind of commentary with that tableling that we could then with the minutes provide to the council. I mean that you have some limitations I guess is what you're hearing me, right? You're a recommendation body and so you need to stay within the confines of that recommendation but that doesn't mean you can't deliberate or have commentary as part of that discussion. Hi, this is Laorray. Can you hear me?

Yes. Go ahead, Vice Chair.

Hey, so um chair here, you said a lot of great things. I wanted to add and maybe missed it because my connection's been a little bit spotty. Sorry, I'm far far away. um talking about the design standards that was mentioned by someone by one of the citizens for the gateway corridor. Um concern about verbiage and um signage on, you know, on these new possible businesses and in the table of uses. So, I'm not sure if that's something that you had written down in your notes, too. That was something that I had. And I agree with, you know, Sean and Tyler on all the things that have been said well with everybody so far and and the concerns of the citizens. Um Tyler was just asking if you know we need more time. I need to do more surveys. And I was really pushing for that before and um talked to a lot of people and passed out flyers all one entire day. Hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of flyers and we still got what correct me was it around like 419 responses or something. Is that correct?

Yes. Share. Yeah, that's

okay. 419 responses. Yeah. from from almost, you know, 17,000 people in the ground and I didn't hit every neighborhood, but I just did it because I wanted people to know. Um, I don't know if doing another survey is what we need. I know that that was pretty costly to the city when they mailed that out and then the responses that they received from that were super low. I wish that the citizens um were more involved and would come to public meetings and would talk to other people and express their concerns um when they know about her when they hear about it. I get that. But I can't remember the amount of how much that last survey was, but um it was pretty costly in comparison to what was received. And tonight I'm hearing we need more time. We need more time. We need more time. And um I I think that that is really valid. I'm I'm hearing what you're saying, the concerned citizens, and I think there are some things that we need to take a look at. I don't think that it should be something that should go meeting by meeting and and take another year necessarily, but um it's something that I think that we need to take a look at some things maybe a little bit closer than we have been. That's all I have to say about that.

Very good. Thank you, vice chair. Appreciate those comments. You're welcome. All right. I'm still leaving open for additional questions, comments.

I I just I mean, as we're kind of discussing here, I really like the idea of having, you know, break down the if if we do have further hearings on this to just have, you know, maybe have various topics and we can issue a hearing on, you know, I mean, it's 150 page document, so to cover everything in one night probably not realistic. So that would be you know I I think it would be advantageous not only for you know for us but for the city at large. Um and then we can have more granular more detailed uh discussions and input possible amendments to the general plan um from the concerned citizens.

How would that work? Like say we decide I mean there was a comment about going through each section of the table of contents. I'm not saying we should do that but say we decide to do that each time. Can we like would we just essentially make a recommendation to make changes and then what you guys go back to the company who's who's helping us out with this and tell them what we want. That that's probably at this point the most costefficient. I mean every time if we were to have them come every meeting and they bill us

Yeah. we're we're well over what the budgetary limitations are of the project, right? So, the only way we could administer that would be the very thing you said that we talk internally. Maybe we give them some kind of summary of of the recording or the minutes and they can check that and then bring those comments into the plan. Um, but again, that the way that those will be brought in, then you have to evaluate the changes within the nature of the document a second time, right, to make sure it matches what you want. So you almost would have to do it not section by section but maybe in blocks of like two or three sections because you're going to realistically do two reviews, right? And have to give commentary and then verify that your comments are being addressed and also obviously allow for public hearings in the setting of those. So just think about that as you evaluate if that is what you want to do.

And is there any constriction with the company that we're working with as far as like no, we're done, we've been working on this too long, we're done or I don't know how to answer that. I I don't I wouldn't think so, but I don't want to put words in the consultant's mouth either. Um, but like I said, I will say the budgetary limitations of the project are there. They're they're close to Yeah. the limit. Since the planning commission is a recommending body, you could also just make a list. So, this is the document and this is the planning commission's recommend recommended change, I guess. Side by side. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. So, I mean, yeah, that could be done if that's how you'd want to proceed. Yeah, it's somewhat of a laborious process, but it whatever you think is in the best interest of the community, we'll do, right? And with this the our consultants they don't have like a time if we drag this on till January, February, March, April, May, they don't like oh just keep track. Again I don't know how to answer that question right without again think they want to see their product through to the end especially.

But again I don't know if they at some point they say we have their clients or other professional needs and they say I don't know. I would hope they'll be professional enough to see it to the end, but I don't know how to answer that question. Okay. Yeah, the contract does have some set time frames and expectations. So, they may not be under contract to

continue to go to go further. That's always the issue is that um anytime you're engaging in a project, you're never going to get 100% buyin, but you have to get past the critical mass necessary to feel like you have captured adequately as many voices or at least struck the right balance between time, expense, and um focus, right? And still land it in the right spot. additional questions or comments from the commission.

I'll just make a comment. Um I'm sorry. Um let me just make a comment first. I I'm fairly new to the planning commission, so I haven't been involved in a lot of the process so far. So for me, um extra time would be helpful. I'm, you know, I'm not that familiar with the document, that familiar with the process, and I've had a chance to review it, but not completely and thoroughly. So, go ahead, vice chair.

Thank you. Um, I was just going to say it was brought up earlier also about the cost of expanding slashchanging the main street corridor. I don't know that I have seen those numbers. if I have I I don't recall. Um I I would like to know that and I know that some some people brought up some numbers tonight and maybe that's something that can be discussed also. I my opinion is that I mean hearing what's going on tonight and knowing what I know and knowing what I don't know um I think additional time would be great to break it down. uh is it feasible when we have a contractor and you know whatever those rules and regulations are those guidelines of what they've given us for what they'll give us for the amount of money um is going to be like you said there's a certain limit there's there's limitation to it it's not going to be never ending and and going on taking it um if we were to break the general plan down doing it month by month for the year or two years is not going to be feasible. But if we were to take chunks and and possibly talk about the things that are highlighted that like the top 10 things that were brought up tonight or the top seven things that were brought up tonight and address those, my feeling is that we could do that in, you know, a couple of chunks, two or three chunks. I don't know how many chunks, but um maybe not leaving it open-ended because then that's problematic.

Yeah. but saying, you know, defining it whatever it's going to be, giving it some more time so we have a few more answers, but not leaving it wide open for the next two years. There's seven sections. So, you could just, you know, have a hearing of sections one through four and then sections 5 through seven, something like that, you know, within the next two months. Yeah. Or even two at a time with the appendix. Yeah. Yeah. And then um if you were to entertain something like that then it just comes down to again it was you know public input time would that be enough time and then uh getting the word out obviously we've got a great attendance I mean great relatively speaking no it's great

comparative no this is great it's better than one or two or zero yes the other warning I would tell the planning commission is some of the comments that were made are outside of the scope of what a general plan would address and so we have to be cognizant of that as Well, there's still legitimate comments, but the right place may not be the general plan. It may be like localized planning discussions, um, code code amendment discussions. There's some things that aren't general plan driven, but they're still fair comments that address other documents and other processes the planning commission and the city council would engage in. So, be aware of that, too. That's a great point. Thanks, Mike.

Yeah. So my comment is that um I feel like uh dithering on this is going to be more uh unhelpful than helpful. Um personally, and this is um I I I actually wouldn't vote this way, but personally, I want this to go up to the city council and let them uh get their hands around this and start working on it because they haven't even gotten it yet. and it's going to take weeks and months for it to be addressed up there. I I look at this as sort of with the 8020 rule. Um the first 80% of a project generally takes, you know, 20% of the time. The last 20% of a project usually takes 80% of the time. I think that we're past the 80%. And it's time to push it up to our council persons to allow them to really uh start the process. We've been doing this for years and months in greater emphasis uh in the last few months. I think it's time. However, um we've heard loud and clear that um our citizens want more time to engage with this and with us on potential red lines and amendments. The balance between how I personally feel versus how the public feels and how the commission feels then uh should be taken to into account. So, I I I recognize that I would advocate uh that we do it in rather rather than uh pushing it through nor um that there's a spectrum, voting on it and recommending it tonight and then uh allowing us to go through chunk by chunk by chunk by chunk. I think that both of those would be mistakes in light of everything that we've considered. And so I would say we do this in uh either a work session or two meetings rather than

three, four or five. And we take uh chunks one through four and then chunks five through appendix over two meetings. And I think that creates a better balance. I agree with that. I would agree with that. Well, that was surprising actually. I thought you guys were going to push back. Way to go, Mason. Exactly what I was saying. from a staff clarification position. Would you want then that to be a public hearing process? See, that's what I wanted to discuss. That's a good question. Yeah,

Mr. Egg is is I want to figure out how we can allow citizens to provide comments and be engaged in this process. Even though honestly we have done a ton to allow that already, but we're hearing that we still need more. And I want to allow that, but I don't want to get to a point where there at some point there's always going to be a voice that says I need more time. And so striking that balance to where there's a critical mass that say they need more time versus those who are just barely getting made aware of it and they need more time. I don't want this to be a rolling uh goalpost

because we're already pushing back the goalpost today and I think that that's wise to do so, but I don't want it to be pushed out more and more and more. We've got no we've got November coming up, Thanksgiving, we've got Christmas coming up. We've got, you know, all of this coming up and now we're pushing out into that season. So, yeah, I'm concerned about pushing it. Yeah. So, maybe just some uh guidance, Mr. I get on the process if we were to do public comment. I mean what what are timelines? What are the and maybe least I definitely to answer your question I think it should be a public hearing not a public meeting.

The question I have for the commission is whether or not we feel like a work session is what we would like to do versus just a full-on hearing. But I I think Mr. was asking about public comment, right? Do we want Yeah, that's why Well, I meant like public Yeah, public hearing. Do you still want a public hearing element each time it's reviewed before to your point? Do you want to schedule a work session which is just that would be the planning commission discussing and then taking comments to the public. There's there's different ways this can be right organized. Right. For clarity work sessions we don't take public comments, right? That that's different. Yeah. That's all a regular meeting with a public hearing. Yeah.

Or you could have the two work sessions or one work session with the planning commission and then schedule another public hearing at your next regularly scheduled meeting. So you're getting that public comment. The most amount of comment that we could get would be through the hearing process. Correct. Or through engagement where submissions are made. Correct. And usually the public hearing does allow for written commentary as well, which we would provide. Right. And and this is what I personally would find most helpful is citations to the general plan with proposed red lines. And that might be uh a bit much of an ask, but honestly, the best way for us to feel like we're getting and capturing what um a commenter wants is to see what the commenter wants to change.

You mean when the public brings a comment forward, that'd be helpful. Is that either that in a comment or even just presubmissions

to say, "Hey, look on page so and so." And I really like the comment about how page uh 12 had that was great. I thought that was a great comment about the language on page 12. So what I'm looking for personally is that in the next few meetings if and when we were to do this that we're looking for site cited material that needs remedying and proposals on the remedy. That's what I had in mind too is I agree with that just to have you know and I don't know if you can say that in a in a public hearing to say well no like in a public notice of a future hearing to say hey the the planning commission would like to have

you know red lines written out revisions to any section of the general plan that that sort of language we put in the actual public notice. I don't know if we could do that or not. Right. And I'm not saying that that would be required. I'm saying that I would love to see that coupled with the comments today were spectacular. Um I I really liked some of these and they they pulled into focus items that I hadn't considered before. So that was really good. Yeah.

What are we thinking friends? Personally, I um with the information that we have right now, um I wouldn't mind having a work meeting to find out more information on the things that were brought to our attention before we have the next public hearing. So, by work meeting, um so vice chair, we haven't ever had a work meeting um gosh, in how many years? We've had a joint work meeting with the council. It was four years ago and since I've been here. Yeah, I was gonna say it's been almost three years.

So, for clarity, work sessions are where only we get to talk with staff. Is that is that what you want to do? That's correct. And I Yeah, that would be my vote. How come you wouldn't want to do it as a public hearing where we get to talk with staff and we get to talk with the public? Well, would we be able to get more information and more clarity, possibly a deeper dive if we're just hitting this point by point by point um in a work meeting and then bringing it up? Maybe I'm just totally mistaken. No, you're not.

But in my head, I'm thinking, let's go. Okay, thank you. Let's go and hash these things out. Let's find out all of the nitty-gritty details and then let's bring it to the public. Okay, you said this. we found out this on the other hand we're kind of doing that right now in a public way. Yeah. I don't know. I'm just going to go with my gut session to find out all the details to bring full clarity of all the things that I don't understand to the public's view. That's just my opinion. fair. And

I I personally see it a little bit different. I think it's I think it would be more helpful for, you know, for the public's sake to probably be give them time to just, you know, put their thoughts down on paper. I think some of the folks that are here have already done that preliminarily. Um, but then hearing hearing the comments tonight from from the commission, they can go back and they can, you know, make comments, write something up, even submit it to

to staff and then we can, you know, discuss that. Um, whether we have just one hearing like this for say sections one through four and then we have a subsequent work session on top of that or at the next hearing we we debate that. Um, and then and then we make those recommendations to the council. I think it would be more beneficial to have, you know, public comments uh be put in writing if if if they could and maybe if they would. Yeah. Not as a requirement, just as a suggestion, obviously. Right. So, here's

I see totally see your point on that and I'm okay either way. Here's here's what we're confronting. Um, we've got our next meeting on November 12th and then we've got our last meeting on December 10th. So, we would be addressing the uh what could be potentially some of the greatest revisions from the public over the next two very difficult months and then uh making either a recommendation on December 10th and then uh or potentially the month after JAM whatever that ends up being because obviously if you did 5 through A you would allow us to have time to work with the consultant to give you a new document over

right you have to wait till January if we push this under that framework. We're pushing this to 2026. Sure. Sure. With the hope to get it all finalized probably by April or something like that, right? But again, we don't know what the council would do. But this is that's the problem. So presumably this this has always chronically been the problem is that um we are a recommending body. We do all this work and then the council has distinct views of things and and that's okay, right? That's that's their that's their job and their role. And and what it does is by investing the time here without having a vision of what they want,

we might be making a lot of efforts towards something that ultimately isn't useful to them. It's true, right? So that that is one of the reasons why I personally am motivated to give it to the city council. Yeah. But I also want to be able to incorporate and give to the city council the voice of what we're hearing. And it's that tension. But under this framework, the more we push it, we're now we're in January now.

Yeah. That's kind of I mean what I was saying is a hybrid though where you get very specific recommendations like this page these issues you know this language but it doesn't h I I just think the red line may be

the yeah that they have a document but you could just have a list of here's what or you know or in areas where you know what language where it's easy sure we can do a red line but um I think the council's going to want to know what is it that the planning commission really wants to change based upon the public comment. You know, we have had a lot of really good public comment tonight. Very specific issues that I think you could just dial down. These are the issues. You know, um probably only a handful, but depending. But I think we're going to get more public comment if you have more public hearings. But anyway, I don't think it has to be dialing it down with a complete red line that we pay the consultant to do. No,

I think you can put those topics and be very specific with suggested language and get it to the council and let them, you know, work with it for six months as well. Yep, I think so, too. Yeah, good idea. That makes sense. Have we arrived at a spot where I I can invite a motion? Is anybody ready to lead out on that or do you guys want to talk about what a motion would look like? Yes. Yes,

definitely. So on one end of the spectrum, one motion would be to forward this with with a recommendation today to the city council with a list as noted in the comments from the public of the items that need to be addressed addressed in greater detail that that these are areas of of focus that that the city council should take a uh a weathered eye towards. Right? That's one end of the spectrum. The other end of the spectrum is forget everything, go home. We're not changing the general plan. I'm being glib, obviously. No, the other end of the spectrum is come up with a certain number of set chunks that we want to proceed through, determine that number of chunks, map it out over the next couple of months, and come up with goalposts and milestones, and then execute them. Mason, may I ask a clarity question?

Please do, Vice Chair.

Okay. So, as far as I I understand and I could be misunderstanding and what you just said and from what Lisa said is we could technically pass this on to city council and say, "Hey, like she said, like Lisa said, these are all of the points of concern from the citizens. Um, this is what voice this is Well, she's coming back. Let me be clear. I'm not saying just send these on to the council

tonight. I think the planning commission needs to work with those and and deal with those issues and make some records. You cut out. I'm sorry. That's okay. Vice Chair, uh, if you'll go back, you were saying that as you had understood it, there's there's one approach. What What where were you moving next? Oh, shoot.

Well, since we're just a recommending body and they are the decision body, decision making body, is this something if we were to say these are all of our concerns with the master plan. We're sending it to you, you know, here's the citizens concerns, here's our concerns, these, you know, number of points. Um, and send it to them. Please further look into this. And that because they are the ones making the decisions then is that something that at that point that they can decide if they want to have further public comment or or further public hearings on that. Yeah, they'll have to have Yeah. And not only that, they could send it back.

That's true. They can kick it back to us. I mean, it could be against if it could be. So, if we're making all these decisions and we decide we recommend that we want to bump this out for the next four months and and break it down, we could send it to them and they could say no. Is that correct? Sure. Right. Since they're the deciding factor, right? Correct. Correct. Or we could send it to them and say, "Please look at all of these points of interest and and decide what's going to happen with this because the public is very vested in this and concerned and rightfully so. So then make a decision based on that."

Yes, that's a possible. Am I corre correct? Okay. That would be our recommendation basically is it would be a recommendation that they take the time and dig in. Yeah. Is what I'm hearing. That's that's that's sort of what you're describing, vice chair. Okay. Yes. I just was trying to see if that was correct. Okay. And Lisa, you made a clarifying statement when um vice chair was down, right? You want to just say that again?

Yes. I just wanted it was implying that I was suggesting to just move this on to the council tonight. That was not what I was suggesting. Um, I I would saying that because I think the planning commission has heard public comment and the planning commission should deal with that public comment and decide the points that are valid and the areas that should be changed and send those recommendations on to the council. Just sending the minutes up to the city council is not really dealing with the public comment at this level.

Right. Right. Right. Okay. Thanks, Lisa. So, at a minimum, I think we should we should at least have another meeting where we where we sus out what those recommendations we would make to the city council, whether it's one meeting or a meeting with chunks. Right. But I think even and then determine if you're going to do a public hearing on top of that or not. Right. Right. Exactly. Let's just do it tonight. I think everyone wants to stay a little longer. counted our limit yet.

I mean, you could just table it for tonight and have staff schedule this for your next meeting. Um, whether you want us to schedule a public hearing or not, that's up to you. Um, and obviously you can say we're only dealing with this chunk, but you can also just get through as much as you can, but you know, or focus on the comments. Those those are the areas, you know, you may want to look at as well. Vice chair. Yeah.

So, what I'm hearing is that on the spectrum we've got um theoretically send it up tonight. Uh below that, set it for next meeting. Um address the comments in a uh focused fashion. Uh beyond that, cut it up into chunks and schedule it out over the next few meetings. And I guess that summarizes the current options on the table. Is that fair summary?

And I think if if we're hearing people need more time, my question is how much more time, right? Um so that that's in my mind that's just the question because you're going to be up against like you said you've got holidays. So if we just say hey next meeting is that going to be enough time or is it two meetings out, three meetings out? You know that's I think a question that we can discuss. I think that yeah, you as a planning commission will have to determine what that is. That what are your thoughts on that particular question?

Um I think I think yeah no that's fair enough. I think if we broke it down to you know one through four and we gave another month and you know we we did a notice said hey uh end of November I know that's going to be Thanksgiving time. I don't know when our is do we have meetings in November? Is it November 12th? probably just one, right? One and then December 10th and that's it. So I you could December 10th probably would be enough time. I mean I think you you probably could have but then you'd have to have a notice, right? Well, we'll be giving notices on we do every meeting. You could even do the 12th attempt to afford multiple opportunities early is just how you deem best.

Yeah. Capture that commentary. Yeah. And then the notice would go out how many days before? Minimum 10 days before calendar days, but obviously if if we got direction tonight, we could put it out tomorrow and Friday and get all the resources to get it out there. I think for the second public hearing on the same item, it might not need that long. Like if you tabled it tonight to a date certain, we don't necessarily have to give more notice because we've just given it tonight. So there there may be different noticing days depending on how you decide to deal with this. I guess the point I was making too is we could get it out as soon as possible to give the public adequate time and advertise it appropriately on social media and the website.

And then what kind of notice will that be? I mean, it's going to be online. Yeah. So, so for this one, we did an on on the website notice in two different locations. Social media notice, we did the public meeting, so the Utah State public meeting notice website that we're required to do. Um, sent out to all affected entities. We posted it as just the general agenda um item on the planning commission agenda. So we hit all the required PL stuff that's required by the city job. Plus we added the social media and the website noticing and then there's also a push out from the city that's sent specifically to people who are subscribed and they'll get a specific notice emailed or text to them at their their choice. So there's a lot of broadcasting that is in place with the city

which we've done and we'll continue to do. Correct. Yeah. Yeah. And we would do it again that same way. And I like the idea of just getting the notice out, you know, as soon as possible. Yeah. Then then there next at the next hearing, you know, we'll say, "Hey, we've we've done this. We gave more time. We had, you know, did more notice than we than is even required under the law." And so those sort of comments probably won't be well taken unless, you know, that's probably what my position would be at that point. Well, how about this? What if we say um we set a hybrid uh option A, option B. So option A, we're definitely going to table this and to a date certain November 12th.

We're going to hyperfocus or not hyperfocus, but we will focus on trying to address um at least take up consideration of uh the comments that we've received plus the comments we will receive between now and and November 12th. And then if it's baked, we feel it's ready on the November 12th, we wreck. And if we recommend and if not, then we go to December 10th. But we basically alert uh everybody that December 10th is likely the date if we arrive at a position that is worth recommending that it may not go much farther than that, if at all. And that's only for sections one through. No, not even do sections. We just say, "Listen, let's let's do this."

Yeah. Right. Let's um let's address the concerns rather than go uh section by section. If we have concerns, let's do them rather than retread the tire. And that may or may not be then worth having a representative from Sonus here present for that meeting on the 12th potentially because they might be able to to identify why certain things like I'm not going to be able to tell you why certain comments that were made today maybe are aren't included in certain areas, right? Or they assisted in in writing the document the way that they have. Yep. I can give you conjecture or ideas or opinions, right? But if we have a representative here who can actually say, "Well, this is why or we understand that," then that might be beneficial. How we we're we're close on the budget,

right? We're are we at cap? We're we're exceeding cap. Oh, we're exceeding. Yeah. Okay. But if it gets us to a position where we don't continue to allocate more resource to that, right, there's an understanding that we need to do. We needed to get the project done. Okay. From the city admin or city manager. Well, there's that. There's the there's that. Okay. So, in what you were saying, between now and the 12th, we are actively taking written public comments that will then be given to us to read through and on the 12th we discuss those. That's what you're saying, right? That's an idea. Yeah.

We've often done that. um to keep the record um clean though we recommend those comments go to the community development department and then they will create the record and provide it to the planning commission. Yep. Right. Yes. I like that. Yeah. So we have the record is the city. So in essence that's six weeks roughly. Right. Are you saying that it you mean to November 12th? No. Oh you're saying November? Yeah, we're talking I'm saying if we can address the comments to the commission's satisfaction by November 12th,

then it's time to recommend. If we cannot, then we move to December 10th. That's an idea on the spectrum. Yeah. The other idea obviously still being chunk it up. What do we have on the meeting for November 10th at the moment? I I don't know of anything. It's kind of far enough ahead that if things otherwise were to land on it, we wouldn't know till maybe a week or two further ahead. And that would also include a chair, you're thinking of another public hearing like this.

Yeah. Um my frank uh uh inclination is not to have a public meeting, but to have a public hearing. I think meeting in the public and then just not taking comment would be doing us a disservice because then we wouldn't be able to hear right and obviously them but

even though it's not required but I think it's important. I agree. Well, I'm hearing a bit of a consensus, but I also don't want to lead out given that my inclination is to recommend it tonight. So, I personally think November 10th may be too quick, but that's just me. Well, we're not saying we have to act. That's true. We're trying to Yeah, but if we are able to So, I I'm I'm okay with that. I think let's let's plan for November 12th. All you're doing is you table it tonight, you continue the public hearing and we'll do the same thing next time and hopefully we can make

where you are. But let's talk substant. If not, then we got the next Yeah. meeting. Yeah. And and the further recommendation would be for the planning commission to really dive into it and get to know it. Yeah. Right. see if you can legitimize or, you know, justify or legitimize the the comment of the public or justify your own feelings and see where you come to bring back how you feel about and what might need to be edited from there. Yeah, I think I think that's doable. Yeah, I think that's a good plan. I would agree with that.

Okay, so I'm hearing a consensus. Um, who would like to make a motion? I can't read anything. I don't have anything in front of me to make a legal motion. The audience, unfortunately. Yeah. Yeah. I wish. Right. I'll go ahead and make a motion.

I'll go ahead and make a motion. I move that we table consideration of the general plan to November 12th and that as part of the process between now and then that uh we provide the standard uh notice to the public in as rapid a fashion as we can. That comments come from the public in as rapid a fashion as they can. that they be as specific as they can and that we will do our our level best to try to address them. We may not agree, but we will definitely do our level best to address them and that at the next meeting we have a rep from the consultant here to uh take the slings and arrows as needed. Right.

Sure. As to whether or not we agree one way or another. Do you also want to continue the public hearing and accept written comment throughout? Thank you. So I will as part of the motion continue today's public hearing to November 12th and to continue receiving public comment. It's all legal ease stuff. Just to Well, I second that. Okay. I've got a first and a second. Just for budgetary reasons. I don't know if we necessarily need the the you know the consultant their next meeting. I think if if we can give specific enough recommendations to the city council, then the city council

maybe maybe at that hearing is is and maybe maybe even a subsequent hearing uh or meeting if if the city council is going to say yes, we approve that. That's a fair point, Commissioner. So, we know that he or the rep is going to be there when it goes to city council, right? Yeah. And I guess I guess backing up part of the scope that hasn't been expended is a presentation and the the involvement with city council. So I guess to this point what I'm saying is that any additional room there? Well, because that's the expectation of the scope of the project. But this that's a fair point. Um I'll accept that as a friendly amendment. Um vice chair, are you acceptable? Would you accept that? Yes, I do.

Okay. So to clarify, the motion is no longer to include a request to have the consultant at the next meeting. Understood. All right, we have a motion on the table. We have a second. Any other comment or friendly motions? I'll start down here. I I I I I Okay. And vice chair I obviously I would hope as the second. All right, that passes unanimously. Um, we are going to move on to business item number two, but I'll also comment to all of y'all. Um, well done. Great comments. We want you to stick around, too, if you want. We're going to talk about an ordinance,

but also feel free to leave. Hopefully, we'll see you all in the 12th. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. Uh, who's on um number two? Mr. Yeah, this one I don't have as much to talk about on this one other than it's at our meeting on October 8th. As we discussed that the direction from the planning commission is that we invite a representative of Wever Basin Water Conservancy District to be in attendance tonight. Um Mr. John Perry is in attendance and so we'll invite him to come up in a minute to uh discuss more of whatever questions, ideas, thoughts you have with him. Um but again going over the the the reason for being here um the discussion with with city leadership has been to look at water conservation programs and resources available to the city and residents of the city. Um and programs that have been offered through the Wever Basin Water Conservancy District. Um throughout those meetings there have been discussions about how to accomplish that with our current landscaping and screening ordinance standards but also facilitate water conservation practices that are um I guess required by the state or further enhanced by requirement of the state but also if we are interested by extension in providing Weaver Basin Conservy District resources to residents of the community considering further um amendment to the code to meet and adjust to the programming expectations that we were basically conserv. So with that, I guess that that's pretty much a re reminder of where we're at.

Yep.

And um so in essence, like if I were to phrase my concerns ahead of the commentary from Weaver Basin is that we don't want to end up looking like um you know, where all the strips are sandstone, right, or gravel obviously. Um we want to give our citizens the option of taking advantage of subsidies to their landscaping when when possible, but at the same time, we don't want it to turn into um something that a fair number of citizens don't want it to look like. And um let's go ahead and and I'm going to go ahead and ask the representative from Wever Basin to come to the podium, state your name, your role, and and let's just have a dialogue.

Yeah, absolutely. Uh, John Perry, Weaver Basin Water Conservancy District, Assistant General Manager. So, I'm curious. Uh, we do post our stuff to YouTube and stuff like that. Did you have a chance, not that you had to watch the last

I did. I I I took a look at it a few days ago, and it sounds like some of the the questions that were brought up were regarding the the application of the standards and whether or not people are grandfathered in there. So, you know, who's who's actually held to this standard? And that is a great uh great comment, great question and it's actually a a modification and a change we're going to be making to make it clear. But the the expectation is that these ordinances that we are discussing are applicable to new and redevelopment. Redevelopment being defined by the city when you have permitting requirements for it coming in. So if you have per like expectations as far as when this level of redevelopment is occurring whether it's uh area affected or whatever it might be that we just have that same triggering event require these new development standards.

So tell me a little bit more about triggering events because you know depending uh if they put a pool in I wouldn't anticipate that it it would trigger this right and and we are completely partnering with the cities in this aspect. We're not looking for you guys to modify what your current triggering events are. If you have ordinances, standards, whatever it is that you have in place that have those triggering events based on whatever the standard is, we just want to piggy back on the back of those and say if you're if you are going through a triggering event with permitting and things like that, then this should be applicable as well.

That's what I want to clarify. Triggering events, like there's different levels of triggering events. You're going to need to come in for a permit for a pool. You're going to need to come in for a permit for uh perhaps doing some trench work in your backyard. Tell me more about what you mean by triggering events.

Well, so in all honesty, most of our other communities, it's basically been restricted to kind of that commercial redevelopment aspect of things. So, it hasn't been on the pools. So, we're not necessarily talking residential redevelopment. On the residential side, we'd be talking about development, right? If you split a parcel and you're going to build a new home, you're going to go through a permitting process there. We would expect this to be something that's applicable in the residential side. uh installation of a pool, construction of a shed. Those are not in my mind triggering events and certainly something we can clarify within the context of what your ordinance looks like to make sure that it's clear that that is not a triggering event. Commercial side, institutional, industrial, when you have expansions of those processes and things like that that impact the the area that's that's being used for that site. Those were generally when we're talking about those those those events, those permitting events.

John, so just for a point of clarification for me as staff as I'm hearing what you're saying. So, you're saying new development practices and redevelopment of of non-residential. When I say non-residential, I'm talking single family, maybe two family dwellings, but anything more than that was what you're talking about. Right. Right. And and that is definitely something that we want to clarify as you work through the ordinances to make sure it's something you're comfortable with with the permitting process that you have in place right now. Okay. Well, that answers my questions, but let's I guess my question is though, does that technically make all park strips that don't meet this ordinance non-conforming

if they are now required I mean it sort of meets they're now required to bring it up if they do a triggering event which would be you know

sure if you if you you had I mean based on the the context of the conversation that we just had and I I am not an attorney by any means so I respect I will defer to your your interpretation of a lot of these things but I think we have flexibility within the dialogue that we have between the district and and centerville city to make sure that we aren't doing something beyond what expect to be happening. So, if you're concerned that a a resident a resident comes in and and and changes something in their landscape that they're a they're going to be held to a higher standard. Let's make sure that's not the expectation. Our expectation is new development

is held to the standard and that when we have the standard adopted, existing residents have the opportunity to participate in the program that allows them to dictate when and where within their own landscapes they make a change. But that change isn't held to these standards right here. It's them voluntarily participating and receiving incentive monies to swap out turf and and well turf

uh for water-wise landscaping that once again would be held to a standard that the city is adopting in their ordinances, right? And that's a conversation we have with every community is we certainly have standards within the context of our program. We have vegetation requirements. We're not looking for it to just to be rock. We we require at least 35% vegetative material to be put back in with drip irrigation. If the city wanted something different than that, a higher standard, then we would work that out within your ordinance to make sure that that is the expectation. Right now, now we are going to have conversations when participants come into our program and say, "We want to participate in this program and this is what we're trying to do." we will direct them back to the Centerville city ordinances that say make sure you are complying with whatever vegetative landscape or density requirements they have. We have these minimum standards, but you need to make sure that you're doing what your city has said. And so if if Centerville City doesn't want to have rock scapes everywhere, then we need to make sure that when we adopt the ordinance that limits the amount of turf grass, the areas that aren't turf grass have defined standards that are applicable to those areas. So question if we adopted an ordinance that said if you're in a commercial zone or if you are in raw land new development you have to meet these standards but we don't say that for you know existing residential but we do say in addition to that in the ordinance if you would like to take advantage of uh you know we basin's uh programs you would have to meet these standards. Is that enough so that we don't create non-conforming uh uses? Yeah, I think as long as what we accomplish is is that new development is coming in with that higher standard,

that's all we want to achieve. So if you have recommendations of ensuring that it only restricted to new development and and it's clear that it's new development both residential, multif family, commercial, industrial, everything we've laid out here, then that is acceptable that that's what we need to achieve. So, if it's if we're concerned that uh it needs to be structured a certain way to ensure that we don't lump in a group of residents that shouldn't be lumped into this new requirement, let's make sure that's clear. That's not the intent. The intent is new development, redevelopment on the commercial, industrial, institutional side.

So, I'll I'll just note for the record, Mr. Bangader, because this wasn't noticed up as a public hearing. We're not able to take public comment. Can we talk afterwards? Well, with the gentleman here, can I just ask, is an ADU going to be considered new development? Is that substantial enough to trigger it? So, ADUs in residential applications, no. I I I don't think that it would. In all honesty, an ADU is going to take up landscaping area. So, no. Okay. Okay. Good. Thank you.

All right. Um, so then how we skin the cat is the critical question. what the what the ordinance needs to look like because as written at least some of our that that was basically where our concerns came from is as you probably heard from the meeting we don't want to land every park strip uh to be non-compliant right and we agree with that we the intent of the program is to incentivize existing customer bases to participate while making sure new developments going into the standard so we don't keep dumping good money after landscaping that we're trying to adjust right now

can I ask ask you a question that I I should have researched this before I didn't. Um there's the program where they you know you flip the strip but then there's other programs that reach deeper into the lot.

Well yeah so great question. So a little bit of background the district introduced the flip your strip program in our service area. So Davis Weaver Summit Morgan counties as we engaged in conversations about these standards early on. This was probably four or five years ago we introduced that program and it was at the time completely administered by the district. There were no third-party funds coming in to facilitate what was going on and it was restricted to just the park strip. So that was our flip your strip program. Only the park strips were eligible for cities that we were working with and were adopting ordinances. That was a program that we were able to make available early on. Once the state came on and started being a player and were putting in monies to facilitate what was going on and had expectations of what the ordinance would look like, we basically sun we didn't sunset. We stopped promoting the flip your strip program in deference to the landscape lawn exchange. The landscape lawn exchange is $2.50 a square foot, $1.25 from the the the district, $1.25 from the state, uh, and is applicable to the entirety of the yard. So, park strips, front yards, sideyards, backyards. Uh the the initial program was just the park strip, A125. We've now enhanced the program through state funding and some of these ordinances that we're talking about to the landscape lawn exchange program. And so, that's the entirety of everything.

Landscape lawn exchange. What's that? That's the name of the program. Yep. Landscape Lawn Exchange. The intent being that we're we're exchanging lawn with water wise landscaping. And that those program um guides are actually in your packet. like Cisville had that. Didn't they already have that? Or was it Fruit Heights or?

Yeah, we've got a couple dozen communities that have adopted standards that are participating in our programs right now. We have uh probably two or three that that were participating in the Flip Your Strip. The Flip Your Strip program is still uh a program that's run in their communities, but they haven't gone to the level of having the LA landscape lawn exchange program. Can I put you on the spot and ask you if you would have any recommendations for model ordinances from any one of these particular cities? Oh, that is a good question. And uh I mean I hate to I know if you want you can tell me afterwards.

Yeah, maybe we can send you some that we've we we thought were very well drafted and and took into consideration a lot of things that we recommend be considered. Uh we have worked with some communities where they've basically just taken our draft ordinance which we tell upfront this is a draft ordinance that actually has conflicting information it because there's multiple ways to approach different topics and we present it all those different ways and you've got to kind of dial it in. And so our expectation is not just take what we've presented and and adopt it in it in the form that it's presented, but use it as a template to kind of address, okay, in those areas where we don't have turf grass, what do we want our landscape requirements to be? Like are we okay with pearl?

And to that point, the document you have in your packet was accepted by Weber Basin and the state of Utah. Yeah. It true. Yeah. meaning we can still modify it, but the content that they seek is found within that that proposed amendment like so what change would we need to make to then address it so that it's adding the word new development and redevelopment and non-residential and clarifying what that means and that's pretty much long I mean I'd still want lease to look at it and find ways to simplify it because I think she's already made some commentary where there's a little bit of redundancy and there's ways to simplify it or re maybe even organize the landscaping code in general right

but I I think adding the terms new and I don't know maybe even a definition section of what redevelopment means a new development means for as it relates to landscaping. I don't know if we need to go that far. Well, I think so. We'd have to in order to make it distinguish the but I I think I think that's what it would be is taking those terms establishing what they mean and then adding those terms in front of the other paragraphs that already is this a problem that other cities have had to solve already? Is there a solution out there that we could look at? Uh yeah, I mean there there are cities that have adopted these ordinances and got to this level of of investment. I'm not conformed of this specific problem where it's only new development and it's it's spelled out. Do you do you know?

I I hope that every community that's adopted these ordinances have restricted them to new development and redevelopment because that's the only application that we've had and we've asked them to do. Okay. Um because the model ordinance isn't that specific. That's Well, yes. the the ordinance in front of you certainly could use some clarification recognizing the concerns. What were the cities? Can you just name the cities again really there cities? They're all cities. May 30th, 2024. Okay. And you can see we've got various levels, right? And these are cities that have adopted the the what exactly?

The the standards to qualify for this program. And what's interesting, if you look at all the safe South Davis County, Centerville is the only South Davis County, which I thought was interesting. Farmington and North Salt Lake are all represented on there, which is fascinating. Yeah. Okay. Well, uh, I'll open it up to the commission. Not that we haven't already. What other questions do you guys have? No other questions. I just think, you know, let's make those changes so that it it applies just to new development and and I and commercial. I think that's great. Seems easy.

One question. Um some of the areas in Centerville are not um Weaver Basin. They're dual. That's a good question. Yeah. So actually 95% of your secondary I mean your city is covered by Centerville Dual Creek. Okay. Right. So this is the district is a regional water supplier. So even Centerville, Centerville Dual Creek's water supply is 60% Weaver Basin water that we're supplying in a wholesale contract. Okay. And so this has never been isolated to only district customers or the percentage of district waters that are going into communities. As a regional water supplier, we have made it available to the communities within our service area. Okay. So it would include them as well. Is that what you're saying?

Absolutely. Yeah. If if Yeah. If we come to consensus on what this ordinance looks like and it meets the standards of what we're doing, Centerville City residents would be eligible to participate in the program. But whether they dual creek or re we don't ask the question. Very helpful. Good question. Yeah. So the code rewrite really looks specifically for new development, but then it doesn't take away the rights of individual citizens, you know, single family homes in particular. to request to participate in the program. Is that right? That's what I'm here. Yes.

Yeah. And maybe I will point out because I want to be completely transparent as we have people participate in this program. This is not an inexpensive program, right? For for the the amount of water that we're hoping to save compared to the volume of water and money that's being spent. We do have them sign agreements that essentially say we're going to keep it in this transition state. And if we don't, then the expectation is monies are being uh sent back in at some point. And so I I do want to be clear, and that's we do record those at the county, so hopefully people are aware that this is what the landscape's gone on. Yep.

Uh we are just as flustered about how we actually enforce any of this stuff as anybody else, but it is it is the expectation. So, with that said, um I I don't know what the expectation is for the future of um monitoring um the amount of water that I use on my lawn, but I know that like when I shower, I get a bill for how much how long my showers are. Is what's the long-term plan for that? Because I I love just overwatering my I could tell. Um but HB274 was passed last legislative session. HB274 requires that secondary water providers bill by usage starting in 2030 metering. Okay. I was wondering

so meters have to be installed by 2030 and that's a bill that passed several years ago and HP274 of this last session uh basically up the Annie and said that now that you have meters installed the expectation is that you start billing based off of usage. So with that being the case are you guys going to be like all right now that that's in we're going to pull back that $1.25. Do you have is there any No, in all honesty, I see because the complexity of structuring a tiered water rate structure based on 70 years of precedent of essentially an expectation of unlimited water use is going to be very challenging.

Yeah. And so in all honesty, I think one of the things that I personally and my staff are looking at is that as we transition to these programs that are tiered water rate structures that are trying to balance revenue stability against conservation, we are going to have to have equally aggressive programs that help people transition from maybe a turf ccentric landscape to something different such that we don't aggravate blighted areas of communities and things like that. We still give the the community an opportunity to make a transition to something that's aesthetically pleasing, functional, but uses less water while water continues to be increasingly expensive. Yeah. Awesome. Thank you. Yeah, absolutely.

John, just again a point of clarification when you say new development, that's new development, both residential and commercial, right? New single family, residential. There you go. New single family residential, multifamily, commercial institution. We define new development again for planning commission's verification or clarification all uses new development but then redevelopment only that again non single and we can work through that but yes if you guys have a proposal that we want to restrict it to commercial industrial institutional redevelopment as to find whatever process you have in place that would be acceptable but let's just make sure it's clear.

Okay. Yeah. The one thing I will know, and I don't know if my staff did this, but as as you're looking to just make these final clarifications, please please look at what you have as far as expectations outside of those turfed areas because if you remain silent on it, you you you will get some very creative solutions. David did provide what what examples are those if you would. Well, we seen so Syracuse City didn't have any desire to require any landscaping. So they were essentially like, "We'll let them do whatever they want to do and you can drive through Syracuse City right now and see rock everywhere." Yeah. Yeah. That's what's going to happen.

And so Yes. So you we need to speak to what the expectation is. We do within our program, we do have expectations. We require them to submit a landscaping plan that shows that they're getting at least that 35% vegetative cover. Um, so if you don't want pea gravel in your park strips or you don't want uh mulch in those areas, you need to specifically call it out or people will do things if you don't want them to concrete in your park strips and you probably already have that as an ordinance, but do that. They'll ask follow it in. They'll do things. So,

and and David Rice, his employee, did provide some commentary even saying like this is unrealistic where we have really aggressive standards of certain types of planning expectation. and he's like, "Well, you might want to tone this down a little bit. That's probably unrealistic for a residential homeowner to do." And I don't know the intent of the way it was originally drafted was for homeowners, but with these changes now bringing in the residential, we might have to go in some of those nuanced areas and make it clear what is again non-residential versus what is with some of those points of specificity. And that's something that I think even Lisa brought to my attention when we talked about this offline between meetings. So, okay. And with respect to the

I have a question. Go ahead vice chair. Thanks. In my previous or my notes from the previous meeting, I had written down um 35 or 50% of front land front landscaping. Has that been addressed? because there was a time period of just few minutes where uh he was speaking the gentleman from Weaver and my phone was cutting in and out. So has that been addressed because that was one of the concerns from our last meeting. It's the distinction between you require more than the state. Yeah.

And so it will be the stricter of the standards. So the state is administering these programs in rural Utah and they've established 50% as their requirement. And then also same on the industrial there's there's the 15% with the exception for recreational areas which is again something we'd want to make sure is clear as far as what the expectations for that.

So it is 35% and and great great question 35% new single family residential that is the max front and sideyard and then commercial industrial institutional multif family is limited to 15% of the irrigated space with allowances for designated recreation areas. Okay. Okay. So, thank you for that. And I'm all about making sure that there's clarification that it's new build like you guys have already been discussing. And then also um what he suggested for being very clear in what we don't want in our front park strips. And I I was hearing what Mike was saying about, you know, we can't be too I think he said we can't be too specific, but I think that there are some things in there. I mean, it concerns me if we don't say something. No,

I don't want rocks everywhere. And that's what I'm seeing all over. Laura, as a point of clarification, I think what I was saying is there's actually overly specific codes and almost overly rigid codes already in there that are hard to execute and we need to make more clear what is applicable to non-residential versus residential where we're now bringing more of a residential scope into this ordinance where before it didn't have it. Okay, thank you for that clarification. Right. And then sorry I just had one more question on the eight feet. So they say in any landscaped area less than eight feet. And so the example was if we have a big triangle and you know and it gets down then that's you know

that's less than 8t. Yeah. So can we draft that in a different way that just says the the areas of that landscaped area that are less than 8 feet. Yeah. We are all about being clear in what the expectation is, but it is 8 feet and less and and the reason for behind that is that we just become incredibly inefficient in watering areas less than 8 ft wide. So if you could say any portion of a landscaped area less than 8 ft cannot have water and that that would that would be great. Great. That how you said that Lisa. All right, Commissioner Moss. I think La's question answered, you know, basically was similar. Got it.

Thank you. So my question is about you mentioned the front and sidey yards but you said something about backyards including something to earlier. So if I did I misspoke. So we are we are not getting into people's backyards right now and that's what I would thought but you did say something about backyards and I was confused. I apologize out of my mouth quicker than second the lawn I can't remember what you called it. It's okay. The the truth being sideyard front yard. Yeah, the landscape lawn exchange program would allow people to make changes in their backyards. That's that voluntary program. That's not the I see what you're saying. That's like if you want to go put a soccer turf field in your in your backyard, you can go and participate. Is that

if you have a soccer turf grass field, let's help you do something different back there is is what the expectation is. Now, to be clear, there are limitations. We don't we don't pay people to go and put concrete in. So, if they want to put a sports court, unfortunately, right now, we are not paying people to do that. Yeah. Uh we wouldn't pay somebody to go and put a a patio in. It's got to be a permeable surface. And the expectation is that they're getting that landscape density in in those areas as well. So yeah, artificial turf is also not eligible for reimbursement. And it's $1.25 per square foot. Yeah, we're talking 250. So everything we should be talking about is 250. Thinking a$125 for you guys. But yeah, 250. Yeah. Per square foot. Mhm.

All right. Further questions, vice chair. I do not. Thank you. Awesome. Thanks. Absolutely. That was great. Yeah. Thanks for your meeting. Thank you. Thanks for hanging out. Thanks for hanging around during the public hearing part. All right. Um and if you have comments on the general plan, let us know. Yeah, right. Moving on to the community development director's report.

Just backing up real quick then, uh the consensus expectation is that we take commentary today, refine the ordinance further between myself and Lisa and then bring that back in our next meeting on November 12th. Probably the same or I guess cuz I'm going to be gone next week and you're trying. Okay, sure. Or maybe we could not do that. She's trying watching and waiting. We would have we've got too many people talking at once for our meeting. Pretty consistent. La, your your mic is open. There you go. No, it's not. Um, no, it's not.

Yeah, that's true. Lisa and I will be back to back out of town. So, your professional staff that would work on this might have some So, we might need to bring it back in to the December 10th meeting as the second item on that agenda for you to have a continuation of the general plan that night. if you were to have a continuation. Slowing it down. But regardless, with or without that, we could I think we could easily say we would have something ready to bring back on the 10th. Now, here's the bigger question. Do we bring it back with a public hearing or do you want to see it first and then you can set a public hearing sometime in January? Public hearing. That's why I'm asking.

My my default is always a hearing on this particular point. I see no reason to close. Now, if we were talking about, you know, maybe a a reszone on it, something where we just don't need it, maybe. Not this one. Yeah. Well, you've seen it twice. We're just going to change. Yeah. You're just going to You're going to fix it. So, this will be the third time you're seeing it. We'll set that for a public hearing at that point. So do I. Yeah, let's do it. So do I. Okay. And that's the consensus. Yeah. I Okay, good. I've got clear direction. Thank you. Now, do you want to go to the community development director's report?

I guess so. in in light of the time I don't really have much I think given what we've talked about tonight is sufficient. Uh the only thing I would say um there was a little bit of of discussion at the uh city council meeting work session. Um one thing that that um council has talked about is considering looking at a code enforcement officer, part-time code enforcement officer for the city. M.

So, we'll be bringing that to the city council um as an action item on the 12th. And there was also just some discussions about um caps and and things for for staff as far as um allowances to move forward without council um direction and discretion. So, that's still being discussed, but I thought that was interesting. And then we're working on an AI policy for staff guidance that was discussed during the main session yesterday night. And what was the other item we discussed last night, Lisa, with the council? The action discussion was AI and oh planning commission. No, the city data privacy.

Dave's privacy. Yeah. So, real exciting stuff. I just g report of kind of what's going on the pulse of the city as a report. So, uh other than that, I don't have anything um real exciting from a community development perspective, but I think the code is kind of interesting. So, I share that. Okay, good. Thank you. Start mowing my lawn now. Yeah, they're going to come. That one you're over watering one that I over water. All right, moving on. Anyway, moving on to the minutes. Uh, anybody have any All right, sorry.

Moving on to the minutes. Anybody have any proposed changes? the the one I had a question on was the red line the future potential I added that so um is that considered like so Lisa do we just say um minutes as in the packet or what do you want to do with that red line how do we what's the motion look like yeah I would say as amended with the red line provided in the packet then that highlights for the recording secretary that make Sure. You have this version correct on page two. And she has been notified of these red lines as well. Right.

So, any suggestions beyond that, guys? No. All right. So, I'll make a motion that we adopt the minutes uh as redlinined with the word fase future potential on line 18 of page two as provided in the packet. I second the motion. Got a motion in a second. All in favor say I. I. I. That's unanimous. I'll take a motion. I Oh, thank you, vice chair. Sorry. Make a motion to close. I've got a motion to adjurnn from Commissioner Lane. I second it. Right. I have a motion and a second. All in favor say I. I. I. And we are closed. That's unanimous. I. Thank you, Vice Chair. All right. Stay well. Lay. You're welcome. Goodbye.

There you go. And our thought missed the Oh, no. But we had a party going on even after you got here. No kidding. Yeah, I missed the wall. I like

So what was the two part? All right. Work to be done. You are a great prognosticator of the future. The general. Okay. Okay, you called it almost play by play. What happened? She needs to come back home. 100% called you. You could have given a forecasting playbyplay nailed it. Yeah, we were going to Well, we've we talked about it offline and and our city manager and Lisa is like, "Good luck. Thank you. Thanks everybody. See you. See you landing commissions."

But it's good. I mean, there was a lot of comment.