Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

It's nothing. Nobody from my neighborhood. Yeah. None from None from mine that I recogn. There's that one guy that keeps showing up. Rice, whatever it is, doesn't change anything, but it's acting like he works here. Bryce King. There's one other thing, but at this I don't I

All right, we're going to go ahead and get started. All right, welcome everybody to the planning commission for um November 12th, 2025. Um quick roll call. Looks like we have um well, most everybody, but we're missing let's see, Amanda. Lane and Amanda. So Wayne have to be excused. He he said he was kind of ill. So,

okay, that's fine. No problem. Um, and he had the thought. So, we're going to we're going to skip over the thought and just proceed immediately to the legislative prayer and then we'll stand for the pledge of allegiance. And anybody want to give the legislative prayer or shall I? I can. Go ahead.

Father in heaven, we are grateful for an opportunity to gather together as citizens of this great city, Centerville, that we live in. We're grateful for the opportunity to serve. We're grateful for people that have care and concern and an interest in our city. We ask thee to please be with us to help us make good and proper choices and decisions. And again, we thank thee for this beautiful land that we live in. In the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

Amen. I pledge algiance 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, we have two business items on today. There's a public hearing continued from October 22nd on the general plan amendments and then uh public hearing on the uh water use and preservation element section. And we'll start with number one. They're saying that they can't hear us. Are the mics not on?

You hear that? Can you hear that? Can you hear that better? Now you can hear better. Thanks. I just may have to lean over and talk like this the whole meeting. How's that sound?

He wants you to test to see if he can hear you. Everybody hear me? Sitting back. Normally, you're not going to be able to hear me probably. This was turned it up. All right, off we go. Um, this was continued from October 22nd. Um, we're going to turn to staff first. Uh, do you have any other additional things from last time?

Um, just I will note we did receive a couple of public comments between our last meeting and this meeting. Those commentaries have been provided to the planning commissioners. They all have access to it and they were also shared with the consultant group Chris Hut for his awareness. Uh, so those those comments have been provided and hopefully you've all had a chance to at least see those. I believe believe we received five or so maybe six. So I have two from Chris Preston. Um Craig Preston. Oh, thank you. Yeah, Craig Preston. And then um

yeah, from Dave and Sher Leighton, an annotated one along with an email and then an email from Mr. Plameumber and then an email from Nancy Smith with two attachments. That's correct. Yeah. So, you want to look at it?

Okay. So, we're going to open up um the public hearing again. Well, not open up, but we're going to continue the public hearing. I'd like to invite everybody to come to the microphone one at a time. State your name, uh your location, just near your address or whatever. And then um I don't know let's let's instead of doing round after round like we did last time let's just do one time for each person for each speaker and let's say no more than four minutes and let's go from there. So the time is yours.

Well I I did a send in something today so it's a little late. did, but I I didn't hear it was said that you received it. I did not see anything. What was your name? Richard Leighton. Sorry. I hand it to the girl up front. I said to give it to Mike Egg and the planning commission, but I I never received. I apologize. Okay. It didn't get to us.

Okay. So, I'll uh see if I can read it to you then. Um before I do that, I I just wanted to kind of go over what I remember some of this uh meeting from last time. Um just kind of go over some notes. Um one of the notes was that neighbors were unaware of changes in Centerville City's general plan and that there needed to be more advertisement. I think that was discussed quite a bit. there was stated that one of the commissioner I think it was commissioner Woodward was new to the commission and and uh that I think he said that he uh needed more time to thoroughly study the plan himself and become more familiar with it. Um we talked about more time was needed by residents to review and suggest changes. Several references are made to to dividing the 150 page document into sections or chunks we called them for review over the next two meetings or up to four meetings. I think we talked about several agreed on this statement in in last time um having more work meetings to uh review cited with red lines and proposed changes and we talked about holding more public hearings to deal with citizens concerns. Uh have more detailed discussions for citizens for concerned citizens. It may be laborous process but this may be the best interest of the community. Um I think the city our city attorney uh suggestion was appropriate that I remember says the planning commission has heard public comment and the planning commission should deal with public comments and decide points that are valid and areas that should be changed and send those recommend recommendations on to the city council. Um so I guess my message is let's not rush through our study of the general

plan. uh as we talked about last time, let's get this right and save further time and expense for our community and for our city representatives is uh now the the part I sent I took a picture of. I should have made a copy. Let me just I hope I can keep under my You're you're at two minutes.

Am I at two minutes? Okay. Um, I see discrepancies in the survey of the citizens and what is being proposed. On page 10, it states that the overwhelming majority of residents favor moderate income housing west of I-15. Yet, when we get to page 16 under the heading additional land use practices, we read focus intensity around major intersections and infrastructure. Um to me those that does it just doesn't seem like we're talking about the same thing that there is a real discrepancy there. Is this what I don't think this is what the citizens asked for in the survey. I believe that that uh our major intersections are already too busy and we don't need more focused intensity. Um on page 12 uh oh shoot I hit something here. There we go. On page 12, uh, goal number nine, underutilized, uh, properties, particularly on the Centerpoint Parish Lane and along Main Street, will be revitalized through mixeduse development, creating vibrant town centers that blend commerce, housing, and public spaces. The surveys shows that most citizens favor u favor this kind of development again west of I-15 and not on Main Street and Parish Lane. Um, it's uh it's it's important. It's it's impract Oh, I think I can't read this very well. Sorry. I think it's it's hard for us to sometimes we want to be like Bountiful. It's impractical on our main street due to the due to the a state road and 40 miles per hour. Uh I believe that most uh citizens are not interested in in what some of us old-timers call the the old JC Penney property on u you know a

town center like that is what we're we're not after. I can't read this very well but I'll I'll leave it at that. Thank you. Thank you sir.

My name is Tammy Bryson. I'm from Centerville Utah. I may have an extra minute left over, which if I do, I'm going to grant that to my sister. I want you to know that I have read every word. Citizens, so Miss Bryson, if you could address it to us, not to the audience.

I have read I want them to know that, too. I have read every word of this proposed general plan. It was obvious to me that this plan needs more than one reading. It takes very careful and slow thought processes to interpret it. I found many places that were not clear and not accurate in regards with the words used. Take for instance page two where it states by Utah state law a general plan represents the collective vision of the residents. Was the consultant aware the resident feedback survey was flawed and was not clear enough? How is it that it is called collective vision when there were only 418 or or so responses back from the survey? Continuing on page two, it states that the Centerville City general plan is to establish current resident driven vision. Again, there were only 418 or so responses. How can you call it resident driven vision? I do agree that Centerville is a special place to live. As stated, this new planner document needs careful reading by all of you and the city council and others. Look at every word, every sentence. Now look at page nine, the paragraph under the top right picture. The words that say insured and clear priority are not accurate in my opinion. You can read that statement later, but

to me it's not accurate. Which paragraph? Which paragraph you in? Yeah, that first paragraph right under that picture. Third line.

I don't think those are accurate in my opinion. Clear priority and insured. Moving on. Why is it that so much attention in our general plan is given to increase density and housing? Look at page 115. Now, I think that's where I had all a lot of my yellow marks on this. Okay. So, in 115 it says the state the state legislature has given us 26 strategies that would help with affordable housing. It states that we are required to select three out of these 26 strategies. Some of those strategies are very reasonable and could easil could be easily implemented without having to use density on the east of I-15. If we look at our survey feedback that states 83.5% of what our residents wanted, which was to place moderate housing on the west side of I-15, we can use a few of those strategies and use resident driven vision and solve our so-called housing problem. But now, if you go to page 84, so go to page 84. 84. The plan states that we are to select five out of the 26 strategies. So which is it? Please look at this and state what exactly are we to do. Is it three or five? That's a discrepancy.

It causes me to ask if the consultant noticed a discrepancy and did any of you, that's why this takes careful reading. Did any of you pick up on that? The general plan as it is written needs to be tabled until these issues and others that I have noticed have been resolved and can be easily understood free from confusion. I can't possibly go through the whole book, but there's a lot of things that need to the little bugs that need to come out of this. So, I'm asking you to please table this. Thank you.

Thank you, Miss Bryson. My name is Craig Preston. I'm resident of Centerville and I'm going to read my comments so I can keep right to the point. Uh I have submitted the document to Mike where more of the details are included in there. After reading the proposed Centerville 2025 general plan from pages 1 to 80, I did not read the appendix. I did not have time in a short period to do that. I have summarized my remarks into two areas. a general summary and supporting specifics. To me, this is a very specific plan, not a general plan. It is supposed to guide the city for the next 10 to 15 years. This is not a vision or mission plan as was mentioned. It is a an action plan for the next few years with decisions already made. I am used to preparing a mission plan to guide an an organization for the next five plus years and then have an action plan based on the circumstances for each year through that period of time. This document does not do that. Examples of specifics. On page 24, there's a clause that says we're going to transform underutilized parking into housing. No mention is made of the utilizing the current Young Power Sports property north of Kohl's. Does this mean it can't be used for housing? Because it's not mentioned. Why is it specifically mentioned? They're both very close and in the same zone per the map on page 23. Delete the underutilized parking or housing wording. On page 12 will will be is a wording in goal three, four, five,

eight, and nine. It sounds like this is a mandate as stated. Delete the will be and replace with suggested wording. Many others are included in my submitted document that I don't mention here. examples of leading, misleading, and limiting use limiting pictures and maps. On page 27 and 28, they show many different concept images and suggests that these are the options to select from. In fact, the document states the project team had developed several alternatives. This to me is very limiting and leading. And the image on that one of those pa on that page on page 27 is one that's called 1250 west crosssection. Where is this? 1250 west where the no wording to even explain where it is. My suggestion, delete all the pictures and all the maps from the document. On pen 23 there's a map of the designated town centers civic center street. What is the area of this designation? If you look at the boundaries on that p on that page the east boundary is very is 100 east. Very definite as are the northern and southern borders. But what about the west border of that designation? It is also a straight line. This does not match the existing and very different western boundary for each property between existing housing and commercial property. Why is it not defined? This is a potential problem for future and existing uses when it's very defined in some areas and very undefined in others. On page nine, it says this is this has been re addressed also. It says

extensive community engagement. There were 418 report returned surveys. Over 8,000 people just voted in these Centerville city elections a week ago. The numbers speak for themselves. On page 42, a whole page is a picture of a damaged police vehicle and a table. What's what's the purpose of this? Again, these are representative of many others I have provided in my submitted document. My request is that the planning commission postpone action until after the holidays when an adequate review and comment could be provided. This document as is is not worthy of attaching your good name to also the request to remove all pictures and tables and some of the maps as they're leading, misleading, and limiting and look at seriously at the uh submitted language changes I've made along with others who will provide specifics presented here tonight that will provide input to improving a general plan document to be submitted to the planning commission from the planning commission to the city council for approval after the first of the year. I was one of those 418. I don't know whether any of you were. I read the document like was mentioned I only read the first 180 pages. I hope you've read it. And when I say read it, I mean read it word by word looking for the problems there. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Preston.

Good evening, David Leighton. Um was here last time visiting with you. Um, first thing I wanted to wanted to say is last time, uh, Commissioner Hoth had talked about, um, being surprised that some of his neighbors did not know anything about the general plan. Um, I I kind of took that to heart and I thought, well, maybe I'll visit some of my neighbors and see if they know anything about it. And today, I can tell you that I'm batting 1,000 because they're all here today. Okay. I visited in five homes and introduced to them the general plan and they're all here and they all have comments to share today and uh want to thank them for coming. I can't turn around and see them but I I want to thank them for coming and u they are good citizens and they are not apathetic. I heard that word here a few times last time. Our citizens are not apathetic. If they know something about it, they are not apathetic. They are apathetic about things they don't see or things they don't hear just just like you and I are. But they are not apathetic people. They care and uh they they will share a voice today. Would you turn to page 49? In the in the general plan, it says that says that u 83% of Centerville's uh homes are single family units. I agree with that. In fact, back in last January or last February, I did a I did a a a a review of from the US a census data and found that Centerville was 83% single family units. So, very good. But I also looked at the other uh cities

around us, our peers, and we are 2% below the peer of our of our of our citizens peer cities. Okay. So, uh we are actually yeah two 2% below the mean of our peer cities, which means we're we're doing our part compared to the other cities. And then this week, I did another look. I I looked at at a at a website called the unifiedplan.org where they look at they use this this tool the utah housing inventory explorer and it says that we are 69%. Okay. So there's there's there's a range of of information out there and in that one we are five 5% below the mean of our peers. Okay. So again we're we are doing we are doing our part. we were right below the median or the middle set of numbers on that on that uh on that that information that I found. And then a few weeks ago, I actually looked up uh what the single housing unit data was using g using Google AI. So this is my third method and we are at 71% according to to Google AI and we are 8.5% below the pier city average for single unit homes. Okay. So again I really think Centerville is doing its part. We're going above and beyond. In fact these are real numbers. U I'm not sure where we get the 706 or the 1549 housing deficit. I that that seems like a number that just came up out of the air to me from reading reading and I don't understand what the AMI has to do with with uh housing deficits. So I

don't understand I understand numbers but I don't understand those numbers. U I'm from Centerville. I grew up here. Um as a young as a young teenager I was in charge of Founders Park. Okay, that was my park and I I was responsible for for mowing it and for and for watering it. We had handheld sprinklers and that was my park during during a couple of summers. I love Centerville. Uh our our children were all raised here. But you know what? Our children live in other places besides Centerville. They're not afraid to live other places. Uh they don't have to be in Centerville to be happy. Okay. Um, I do have one daughter that has had a house in Cisville. She's selling that house and happened to do a a downgrade in her home in order to live in Centerville. That's her decision. Okay. Uh, she wants to live here. The others the others don't. Um I'm not I'm not sure uh why we are so so concerned about these issues that are called out on pages 4950 51 and 52. I think there are those are those are part of part of the concern that I have. Um again I I I ask I ask um us to remember the the words of the city attorney. She said the planning commission has heard public comment and the planning commission should deal with public comments and decide points that are valid and areas areas that should be changed and send those recommendations on to the city council. Um let's not rush through this study of the general plan. Let's get it right and send send it forward when it's when it's time. Thank you. Thanks, sir.

Cammy Leighton, Centerville, Utah. Before I start, I really want my pages included that were sent today to um the little office over there. So, if you can get them, they were supposed to go to Mike and have you read them. They're only like this. They're not typed up very nice, but it's I'd like you to read them. And my comments are a little bit longer. So, my sister that can't come up because of health challenges said I could Okay. Well, technically I'm the one that controls the schedule. Well, she said I could use her three minutes. It's not the way it works. Go to four. Let's see where you're at.

Um Okay. Thank you for letting us participate with more time to read the new general plan. Reading it, however, does not equate to the study and reviewing of it. It simply is not the same. There needs to be the necessary time for studying its words, phrases, paragraphs, and the potential implications of them. Our previous general plan on page five said it took years of input. If this was the case, and there is no rush for this one, we can certainly give it more time for study. Why? Because the impact of personal impert interpretation and perception of these words, ideas, etc. is critical to our city's future growth versus the quality of our life. How this plan is interpreted matters. Do we want to leave the door open to this with developers who then can take advantage of words such as page six flexible zoning or on page 16 the words strategic or maximize infrastructure or on page 24 transform. These are only a very few examples of broad-based loose words. And this is my biggest concern that there's so many loopholes. Okay, let's go to page 11 and 12. At the top of page 11, it states Centerville is a pivotal is at a pivotal moment of over 16,000 residents. While the word over is used, and some might think it's fine, it may not be to the over 2,000 people residents that were left out as stated on page 48. It states Center Centerville in 2024 had a population of 18,159. If that is correct, then why was that correct number not reflected on page 11 when we had the correct number in the first place? The question is, could we have inconsistencies or discrepancies found on other pages about

other things? This makes it very confusing. Let's revisit the strong words on page 11 and 12. Who is the Wii? Using the mandating tone. I did not think consultants could mandate a city to conform their vision of a city and how it should be transformed. Page 11 and 12 share 14 words of the mandated word will. Who is the will mandating these changes? Could these words be toned down to a softer tone of words that like recommend, consider, etc.? Most of these words are found in the 10 goal area. The city will protect. Areas will be protected. Centerville will demonstrate. We will preserve. Spaces will be strategically developed. Parks will be Main Street will be. Enhancements will create, will be developed, will ensure, will serve, will be revitalized. city will lead will be enhanced. These are an example, a small example of word changes that ought to be discussed. Can our city be sued if the willbees don't take place? Page 14. The words on the right side of the page that say while growth is necessary is an opinion of the consultants. At the bottom of the right page, it states while change is inevitable. So that's a better you word to be used. That was a a proper word. Page 15 in the area of principles and best practices above number two is a picture of a bountiful disaster on pages lane. This is a picture of exactly what our residents don't want. Remove the picture above number two. um

create it's it's I think it's yeah it's above that creating uh unifying town centers. We need to get rid of that. It gives a developer who is looking at the plan a terrible vision of what we don't want. Get rid of it. I've heard too many of those neighbors say that live behind there say that it has ruined their sunlight. They can't see the mountains and it's their quality of life. Page 52. I'm very concerned about the 10 acres and minimum of six units per acre. The word minimum. How can it how can that be interpreted to a developer? It can open the door to wow, how high can we build? Page 48. The 35.4% demonstrates the need for more senior living, but not on the 10 acres of the minimum six units per acre. Seniors don't want to live next door to this kind of traffic and noise. Where is the zoning for a complete senior living area of smaller homes? It's been left out of the plan. I do have more specific items to be addressed that I turned in. After careful reading of some of the pages so far and not being finished with all of the reading and studying, I cannot recommend this plan in its readiness yet to move on to the city council. There's too many words, phrases that are loosely used that are unsettling and could be taken out of context and with the door open for personal perception and some words that are mandated. These could be taken advantage of from developers and be a disadvantage to our city and its vision. These loose words phrases give the developer the opportunity to be the in the driver's seat of the new general plan and not as the city leaders. This is our city, not theirs. So my suggestion is this and I really appreciated those on the planning commission who were willing to slow the process down and get it right and give

the citizens more time to absorb thoroughly and thoroughly review it. So let's implement some of your ideas and review those chunks at a time and make the adjustments necessary before sending it to the city council. There is no rush as stated from our city planner Mike and a 15 20-year plan for our future is deserving of the effort of of studying it more carefully and getting it right. The next 15 to 20 years is worth it. You're now at six minutes.

Okay, I only have that much. Centerville residents and their future are worth the investment of this request. The plan has this plan has taken an enormous amount of time and it needs the necessary attention of getting it right. Page 20 should be at the top of every page. It says, "The general land use vision from resident was to keep Cineville relatively the same." Um, I'm familiar I feel like I'm famili familiar enough with the plan that I would be willing to spend time to help with the revisions if the commission needs or would like help. Thank you.

Thank you, M. Lightton. Hi, my name is Debbie Dunn and I've lived in Centerville for about 11 years and I am not an apathetic citizen. Definitely not. And I would think that most citizens are not. I just was recently made aware of this general pun. I had no idea about it. I don't know how this was disseminated, but I had no idea. And I would think if I went to every single house in Cineville, I would think that most people did not know about it. Um I have not had a chance to read it because I was just made aware of it. So I would like the time since I was just made aware of it to have the time to be able to go through it because there's a lot of changes that it is wanting to make. And I would think that somehow more citizens should be made aware of this so that they can read it, they can look through it and have a say. I mean, this is where we live. This is our community. And I love it here. And I would like to have time to be able to look and to see what has been suggested or what changes are um are to be made and whether I agree with them or not. And I think that other people should have that opportunity as well. But I would definitely would hope that this can be set aside for a while so that other people including myself have time to look through it and see what changes are being suggested making.

Thanks. Thank you, Miss Dun.

Hello, I'm Nancy Preston. I'm a Centerville resident. I would like to um number one, thanks for the opportunity. This is why we live in the US because we do have public hearings and I appreciate that. I um would like to just state one of my many concerns and it's uh mostly on page 6 through 8. Um, I feel that this much information in introduction our general plan on transportation seems too detailed and better suited if it were placed in the transportation section of the general plan. by placing these pictures of the South Davis County Active Transportation Plan and the Waspatch Front Region Regional Council Plan and using words like collaboration with other local entities which is listed on page six and page seven. This collaborative plan on page eight, Wasach Front Regional Council's long range transportation plan provides a comprehensive roadmap for transportation investments impacting Centerville. Are we also suggesting these plans are being adopted into our general plan? I recommend, and I think many of us recommend, move these pages to the transportation section of the general plan and at a at a minimum insert the following wording after each mention, although not officially adopted by the city council. similar to what was done when referencing the South Davis Recreation District plan on page eight, the very last paragraph. I know that it was mentioned last time that there weren't very many people here, but it seems like many care that know about it. We're here

because we care. And I've noticed also that those that come, there has not been one person that has said, "Please vote for the general plan today." Not one. Every one of us has said, "Please wait." Because maybe I've lived longer than many of you. I've had the opportunity to be a part of many political arenas. And one of the things that I have learned very strongly is that items that impact our community and cost thousands of millions of dollars should not be rushed. And I know you don't think it's being rushed because you've had this plan in front of you a long time. But until it's been studied and dissected and all of these misinformations are gathered so it makes sense, I do not think it can be voted upon. Thank you.

Thank you, Miss Preston.

Sydney, I'm Desi. We've spoken many times on the phone. How are you? Yes. Hello, Lisa. Sir, if you'll just How you doing, sir? Just take the podium. It's Mike. Hi, Mike. Why don't you look at me while I talk? You don't look at anybody. Hi, Sean. How are you? I compliment you. You make eye contact with people. It's important to people. Sir, you're out of order. I'm out of order. Yes. Please go to the podium. I will do so. Thank you. Thank you.

I'm Desi Dunn. I live at 786 East, 600 South. I moved here because it's an awesome city. It's awesome. Nobody wants it to change. I moved here so I didn't say here I'm going to go to Centerville so they'll change things. I came here so it would stay the same. It's nice to have the occasional goat, chicken, cow. I haven't had a chance to look at this cuz I didn't know it existed until a week ago. Okay, 150 pages. You can probably pare it down and get it said more simply. It's just because you can do a thing doesn't mean you should do it. It just means you can. But we should do the right thing. And the right thing is to do what's right for the city. Now, I grew up in a big development. Thank you. I grew up in a big development family. It was Chicago Land Association and my father helped ruin Chicago. We made a lot of money, but it didn't do the city any good. Later, I lived in Los Angeles for a number of years. It got ruined be all in the name of progress. It's no good. Later, I worked and made a lot of money for an outfit called Capital Associates. And there's the subsidiary was uh Camco, Capital Associates Management Corporation. The only thing I got to see about this is high density. We need to bring in high density so that we're more like the country. The country is going to hell in a hand basket. Nobody wants high density here. We moved here so that there's some space to breathe. Now, there's a lot more that I need to look into here, but 150 pages and I hit a week. You kidding me? Four minutes? I could go on for 400 minutes. This thing needs to get tabled till people know about it and get a chance to look into it and make an informed decision and then give you their opinion. In the meantime, nobody knows about this. It got sort of brought in the back door. So, what do you say we get everybody to know about it and then give you their honest opinion and then it goes to city council? This needs to be tabled. This needs to be tabled. I didn't mean to buy out of order. Got out

out of order here. I wanted to put a little personal touch and thank you for looking at me. Look at everybody else, too. This is important to everybody that's here. You guys don't pay my salary, but my pack my taxes pay yours. A little attention if you would. Thank you. I'm not trying to piss you off. I like you. I like you, but come on now. You know we volunteer, right? Right. What is it? We volunteer. Oh, I didn't know that. To the the podium, please. You are much higher on my list now. Thanks.

All right. Who's next? Hello again, Nancy Smith, Centerville resident. Um, I hope that you have had a chance to read what was submitted. I think it's pretty self-explanatory. I would like to just make a comment though that um having read I've only made to page 70. Um I would strongly recommend and encourage that the city invite every single board commission and committee to specifically um read the general plan and see how it pertains to their expertise. They have served on those committees or commissions for um periods of time. And as I read it, having served for 14 years on the museum board, I was able to see it through a different lens. And I think that the the trails committee, the parks committee, they might have that same experience. So, I would encourage you to invite them specifically to review the plan before it moves forward. Um, and because of that, as I read it, for me, what really stood out was that the consultant did a a fair job, but I do not believe the Dual Creek Historic District is our number one big historic preservation item. Um, I have a whole paragraph on there of the other important things in our city that truly define us and lend to the words that we use over and over

again about our culture and our heritage here in the city. We are the envy of every other city in Davis County because of this very strong historic preservation that Centerville City has done. So, I hope that you will see the value and recommend that historic preservation be pulled out and put into its own category in the table of contents and um some of the changes that have been suggested for the historic preservation section. On to the other other um item that I submitted regarding the general plan. What is a general plan? I got into the first 13 pages and um I was struck by how many times it was state state mandate state requirement the the state code says mandated of moderate income housing. In fact, one page it was mentioned six different times on one page and it made me stop and think nobody wants to be told what they have, right? We're just we don't like that. And I thought, boy, we need to vote out every one of those legislatures. And then I actually picked um downloaded the code and I read it. And after reading the state code, the only thing that is mandated is you, the planning commissioners. You are mandated to prepare a general plan, to vote on it, and to recommend it to the city council. You are also required by the state code to incorporate three very specific elements which I make reference to in my recommendations.

And um so I feel that the wording that we are using in the general plan where we state the state code mandates XYZ is unfair to them because they do not mandate that. As was pointed out, we have a page that gives 26 options that we can do when it comes to land use or moderate income housing. Um I think a truer statement is to say that it is um what I have suggested in the wording that we identify those three key elements but it also helps to educate because yes we are required to talk about land use. Yes, we are required to talk about transportation and yes, we are required to talk about moderate income housing, but the mandate for specifically is an incorrect use of the word. They encourage us and they give us a list of the things that we can incorporate. So, um I would encourage you to consider the recommendation on changing what is a general plan and why we have it. And I would hope that later on as you deliberate and hopefully we can hear you discuss things that have been discussed tonight that you might leave the public hearing open so that if you have any questions on the things that we have submitted or talked about that we might have the chance to come back up and add clarification or that we might be able to ask questions about questions that you might have as you deliberate the

plan. Thank you.

Thank you, Miss Smith. Hello, my name's Grover Marsh. I live at 874 East, uh, 725 South in Centerville. I'm a uh registered civil engineer. I worked for Salt Lake County for 27 years. I have some uh experience working in municipal uh arenas. Um I too I only found out about this a week ago and there's uh many reservations I have u that have already been voiced. Um, I would like to comment on uh a project I was involved with the county was on 39 South and we used numbers to uh for our design was edge fronts estimated numbers and uh this project I was involved with our design was five lanes two in each direction center turn lane six sidewalks in each side there was no park there was no room for on street parking or bike lanes and we had an open house. We invited the public and the people that lived there uh were concerned. Uh 39th South is between our project was between Highland and 23 East. 23 East connects to the freeway. So it's it's a it's a major area. Uh with the numbers that we had from Was Edge front, it indicated uh we needed all those lanes. The public convinced us to do a specific uh traffic study to see exactly what was there. And

lo and behold, uh we found that the numbers were overstated and the design was then changed to a single lane in each direction, center turn lane, but allowed for bike lanes and on street parking. And the public uh were indeed grateful. And it was it was a big project. it was federally funded, but we did uh make the effort to take in the public's opinion and act on it. So, I would recommend uh tableabling this and then uh allowing more people to know about it and comment on it. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Marsh. So, Councilman Plamer, it is irregular for you to appear today as a citizen. I'm going to allow you to do it, but I'm just going to note for the record that as a council member, as a person who is going to be deciding on our recommendation, that would be your your venue. But I'm going to allow you to go ahead. Well, I appreciate you telling me I was discouraged to come up here by the uh city attorney as well, but I think that I have the right to have my say on this general plan. If it's one thing that I've actually been very passionate about since I got on council is the outsourcing of a general plan since we uh had a general plan that was put together by the residents initially. So, I appreciate your uh input there, Mr. or Commissioner Care, but honestly, I don't care because I got something to say here and I want to say it. So, the general plan is flawed and I would uh absolutely uh say I agree with what has been voiced here. Uh there are mandates in this that I believe uh definitely uh give some concern to uh saying that uh for instance that these mandates are set forth by a by the state and not necessarily the will of the people. And this is the general plan for Centerville, not the general plan of uh the state of Utah for Centerville. Okay.

So, we need to take a step back and say, do we really need these uh state mandates in the general plan to begin with? Uh transit planning equals density pressure. We need to really take a look at this and know that uh if we're starting to talk about uh transportation uh uh routes that these routes are going to have the pressure of uh transitoriented development and if that's not something that I have heard anybody in centerville say they want and we've been told that we have to have certain amount of development But people are like, well, I don't want it on the east side, so let's put it on the west side. So, we've now defaulted to saying, well, let's let's develop the west side. But in fact, the general plan currently says that that is not something that the people wanted ever. We wanted to keep that open. It it should be conserved. and developing that over there is a big concern to me being that I lived here in 83 and saw it all flooded water all the way up to the freeway. So really what are we talking about here? Uh key the west side is definitely an issue that I I have in this general plan. uh the fact that we're really focusing on uh other entities outside of Centerville as opposed to Centerville itself. Uh I'm going to get through this rather quickly because I am a little um I don't want to take up too much of your guys's time. I do appreciate the work and the the fact that you are donating your time and and

and volunteering this time to do this, but I'd also ask that you uh say, who am I doing this for? Am I doing it for the for myself or people that I know? Who do I know? Your neighbors, your friends in the community? I hope that's who you are here for because that's what we should all be here for are the people that live in this city, not in Bountiful, not in Farmington or Bountiful. We should really be focused on Centerville residents and what they want. And with that, I'm going to say uh I hope that you guys can take this seriously. This is not something that has to be rushed. if it does have a good framework, but I think if we have more input from city residents, which are you guys, you guys are city residents and you should be looking at this uh and saying I don't want Bountiful on Maine picture in the general plan because we all know that Bountiful on Maine has been a boondoggle. Everybody knows that. So why is that picture in our general plan? Please take the time, look at the things that have been said and know that there are other people out there that are the same. They don't know that this is happening. They do care that it is hap that if they knew, they would care that it's happening and they would want to keep Centerville as it is. And we should actually fight to keep Centerville as it is as opposed to doing what the state mandates us to do. We should protect what we have. Thank you.

Oh. Uh, my name is Marshall Man. I'll be pretty brief. Um, so what was your last name? Man, thank you, sir.

I live just east of the cemetery. Um, I moved here about 12 years ago. My wife grew up here. Um, I grew up in Farmington. Um, I moved here from Leighton. One of the reasons I wanted to leave Leighton when I lived when I moved in there, I was out west. I had a great view of the Great Salt Lake and Ammo Island. And shortly after I moved there, an entire housing development came in and I only got to see people's houses. And one of the things I appreciated about moving to Centerville was I kind of felt like the city was built out and we weren't going to be entertaining huge housing developments. And um we're kind of squeezed because Legacy Highway comes in and blocks any further development out west. And so um anything in the plan, you know, that's indicating that we need to do all this work to provide affordable housing. Um it it doesn't really matter how much we put in. We're not going to solve the housing shortage by what we have here in Centerville. just not massive amounts of land. Um I think on page 105 it mentioned that uh the percentage of people that were under um cost burdened housing says you know we have um 64 or sorry in uh in the people spending 30% or more on their housing in a in a owner renter household it's only 16.8% 8% and in renter occupied it's 34.1%. Um, from what from my experience with highdensity housing, it tends to be rental properties more so than owner occupied. And it seems like increasing density and bringing that in, we're going to increase the number of citizens that are cost burdened because that's just what the numbers show. New

developments, new housing is never cheap. even when there is a lot of them, they always, you know, I've never met somebody that moved into a new apartment complex or highdensity housing and was completely satisfied that, wow, this is extremely cheap. Seems like the new stuff is always way more than the established uh twin homes and condos that are sometimes available. So, that's my consideration. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Mon. Give you all another minute. Sometimes it takes a little bit of time to collect your thoughts before you come to the podium. All right, I'm going to close the public comment portion of the public meeting. Thank you everybody. Um, I took copious notes in order to make sure that I understood what you were saying. So, I'm going to take it back to the commission for further discussions. Um, I'll start. There are some easy fixes that I think need to be performed and let's start with those. So, the duplicate paragraphs on page 71 and 70. Um, Miss Smith noted this, I believe, in her written comment. If you look on page 70,

can Sid pull this up?

Sure. So first paragraph and the URL if you look on that and then 71 third paragraph it's a duplicate so I'm I'm going to say scrivener's error it can just be remedied. Um, the next one is I um agree that the numbers on page 50 are inaccurate. Again, it looks to me like a scrivener's error. The deficit on the housing study was 706, not 1549. So, what are we? 1 2 3 4 fifth

kind of spot down. The 1549 ought to, if I understand correctly, be 706. And then the last paragraph instead of 189 94 needs to be the 1549 and 2030. Um I really like the comment about the the problem in the disconnect between page 11 and page 48 um on the population of Centerville. Honestly, I think that it might be a little bit uh um fidious to um align the numbers. I mean, yeah, it's over 16,000 versus an exact census 18,159, but sure, we could just say over 18,000. Easy fix. And then the reconciliation between the three elements and the five elements. I understand why it's three and five because of the changes to the law that's iterated over the years, but we should be consistent on and I I didn't take down the name the page numbers of the housing elements that I'm

noted it. Yeah. So, those need to be fixed. Um, and then for conversation with the commission, I um really took to heart the commentary, well, a lot of them, but one of the comments that I think is worth um that I'll lead out on is separating the conservation versus preservation in chapter six. Um, that

Yeah, I'm getting there. So, uh, 66. So, um I think Miss Smith was the one who commented on this, especially in your written, uh submission. The written submission actually was almost a full reddraft of or at least suggestions on the reddraft for separating these elements out. Conservation, I tend to agree with her that conservation and preservation have different uh expertise areas, different visions. Um and so the way that they've been combined in this um I think muddies the water too much and so they ought to probably be separated in in my view and I'm I'm open to your guys's discussion.

I agree. No, I agree. I think that those the email that you sent made some great comments about how we should do that and I agree with that. So, those are my initial thoughts and I'll open the floor for anybody's commentary, questions, apologies. just a big picture. I mean, again, we're here, I think this is the second hearing on this. Um, and so, you know, hearing more time, more time, more time,

third, you know, third hearing. So, um, initially coming into this, I was kind of like, okay, I've I've done my due diligence. I've read it. I've studied it, you know, for several months now. Um, obviously there's a lot of comment that people would still like more time. Um, I think that just that just begs the question, okay, what does that look like if if we're inclined to do that? Um, and I don't I don't know if you know if I've got the the answer necessarily, but um I think that's something collectively if if we do entertain that, what is that going to look like? So, I just pose that question for the commission. That was kind of my question as well is if we were to delay this go down the road. We were last time I believe we were talking about would would it add additional cost to um the what I'm spacing the guy's name that was here to present it.

Oh, only if the consultant were brought to a meeting. Only if he were to be brought to the meeting. Right. Right. Okay. So I could provide him with commentary and make minor edits or adjustments obviously following direction and dialogue from the planning commission and and if you receive more input from the residents just like was evidence by Miss Smith's comments right that kind of information would be shared has already been shared with the consultant and then the will the planning commission would be shared with the consultant to move forward thereafter. Okay. Yeah. you were saying.

Well, I I I just with that being the case, I think we could continue it down the road. I I don't see necessarily the reasoning for pushing it forward until we we've got it dialed in. However, we did talk about how moving it forward to the PL or to the city council is a time for them to start dialing it in, but as we heard from uh Councilman Plameumber last time, this is the time that would be best to. So, I'm kind of What do you guys feel?

Well, and on that, I feel like we've heard a lot of comments. I think a lot of the comments have been pretty similar. So, I think collectively, we've heard now several times from a lot of people, yes, if we give more time, there's obviously going to be more input. Um, you know, at some point, we've got to close it and say, okay, you know, we've had enough time. Um, and so I think collectively we've, like I said, there's been pretty specific comments. Um, but I think there's a a lot of them are duplicative or repetitive and and so I think we're getting the sense from those that have shown an interest and showed up. Um, very good points, very good comments. I think collectively we could take that to heart. Um, put those to paper. And I think Mike, you've already alluded to it that, you know, all of us are taking good notes and we can pass that to the pass those along to the consultant. Um, and then if if we were to do that, come back with a revised plan, then what does that look like, right? I mean, is are we going to have another hearing or is it something that we make those recommendations? Uh, and we actually, you know, maybe it's a red line that Mike or whomever puts together. Uh, and then we say, "Okay, city council, we've had multiple hearings. We've done our due diligence. Here's our recommendations." And then it would go to the city council. They'd have another hearing. In the meantime, uh, you know, we all can get the word out to go go read it, study it further, and hopefully have a better turnout at the next hearing before the city council, right? That's at least one one path.

I like it. I would like to state also on the record that I mean, a lot of you felt like you didn't know about it and you didn't have time, but I'm speaking to you. I'm speaking to you guys. I mean, I'm sort of addressing it, but I'm speaking to everybody

to everybody, but um because of how it's supposed to be done, but I felt, you know, a long time ago that there wasn't a lot of public input. When I asked my neighbors and put it on, you know, neighborhood Facebook pages and such, people didn't know. Um, and so then the city sent out a mailer to every single address in the entire city. So, every single address should have received a postcard stating that I see your head. Um, sometimes things get lost in the mail and maybe people don't know about it. That being said, um, I received it, filled it out, showed my husband, he filled it out, posted it again on Facebook page. People still said, "We don't know about it." Which was surprising to me because there should have been a mailer at every single home if they read their mail. Or maybe it got tossed out. I don't know. So, we keep hearing, "I need more time. I need more time. I didn't know." Um, I understand that most people, including myself, don't automatically go to the Centerville City page to find out what's going on. That's not an automatic thing that happens. People typically don't go there. Um, I don't know how more word could get out there. I don't I don't know how that could happen so that more people knew. We do word of mouth. We talk to our neighbors, which is fabulous, which is what we should be doing. I don't know what that would look like. People want more time and they want more people to know. I don't know how that would happen because I feel like we have done what needed to be done, right? Or what should be done or or what we could think of that should be done. Um I then I go back to what Tyler said, like what does that look like? I'm not about pushing anything through that's not right, that's not good. I'm a citizen. Love, love, love the city. You know, I don't want to see things change. I want big buildings, whatever. But,

you know, I I don't want to push it through again, but what's our time frame? What are what are we going to do? And how do we say it's been enough time? You know, we've heard public comment from 30 people or whatever. Um, and we have 18,000 people. We'll never even get half of them here. We'll never even get a quarter of them here. I wish we did. Well, half of them are minors. There we go. So, you're not going to get my teenager to this meeting, that's for sure. Would never get mine either. That'll be the day, right? It would never happen. We've had a few come, but I just

But not mine. Yeah. Wouldn't come. But, um I I just don't know. I'm hearing all the things you're saying. I'm hearing all the things you're saying. And we do need to make changes. I agree that there needs to be some fine-tuning to it, but I think because there are a lot of really super clear, concise, valid points in here. Um, but how do we decide what that looks like? You know, how do we decide when enough is enough? When enough is enough? Because I think at any given time, we're probably going to have someone come, I just saw this. It's 180 pages. I can't get through it by tomorrow.

Yeah, but it's also been out for more than, you know, a few days. So, right, I think that's always going to happen, but also given the the public sentiment today, sounds like we need to pump the brakes a little bit. I agree. And fine-tune it a little bit. Now, also question in regards to the maybe staff can answer this. She talked about a mailer being sent out. I remember it as well. Do you guys know the date that that was sent out or and if it was sent out to all residents? And if it was sent out to all residents or only planning commission members, there's only seven of them sent out. It was sent out. Well, this is great. It's

It was sent to everybody and we had it. It was a budgetary concern, too. This is one of the reasons we're over budget. Yeah. like there's always a balance between dissemination and resources to answer the question April 2025 as noted in your summary I don't know the exact date okay and to to every citizen all residential households clarification that was the survey right sorry sir we're the mailer for the survey questions from the audience So yeah, I see. So did you finish that?

That's I think that's an important distinction. Was it just the survey or was it actually the the general plan? I I believe it was I have on here resident feedback survey and general plan map survey were mailed out to all residential households in April 2025. General plan too. Then wasn't it there was a link or a QR code as I remember it? Yes. Or maybe both. Yeah, because I remember it pulling up pictures, you know, like what we were seeing. Do we have a copy of the mailer? I didn't see a copy of the mailer in this packet. I didn't include it. Yeah. No.

All right. I am going to um take a contrary position because that's what we lawyers do is take contrary positions even though we don't always believe in them. Um one of the problems that we have chronically faced as planning commissioners is that we do a lot of work and this has happened year after year after year after year. We do a lot of work, send it to the city council and it it gets completely revamped. We're told no it needs to be this. It needs to be that because we're not the deciding body. We're the recommending body. And without feedback, then we certainly could be spending more time on this to arrive at what we believe is a good 80% 90% product just to be told that you've missed the boat on a major or even just a minor feature. Which is why I'm inclined to say this is this is a draft general plan. recommend it for review by the city council. And if they feel that it is beyond draft and ready for final, that's their decision. If not, send it back and give us instruction so that we're not shooting in the dark for what we think the legislative body is ultimately going to decide on this thing. So that's one of my comments. The other comment is that I disagree with many of the positions about surveys or sample sizes. So, as a math major, took statistics and sample sizes do not have to be very large to achieve a degree of reliability that um is intuitively necessary. Like your intuition would think, well, we need at least a third or we need at least a half or we need even 10%. It's far below that. For a 17,000 body, you only need 267

to get to a 90% reliability score with plus or minus 5%. And yet, we exceeded that. So, no, I disagree with some of the factual positions that have been stated. Um, that said, I I hear loud and clear that people want more time. I echo Commissioner Hoth's position. At some point, we have to pull the plug and say this is ready to move. I personally think it is ready to move to the council for the reasons I've stated. So, that's my position. Thank you for sharing that about the sample size because I was having a very similar thought in regards to I don't think we're going to get up, you know, all eight out 8,000 people who voted

responding to this and 418. I I was curious to know um I'd be curious to know from other cities if that's a similar amount of feedback. I don't know if any I I know that we can talk to staff, but my personal experience is that this this survey sample was far in excess of what is typical. Not to mention the amount of effort that we went to to get it out there. It's far in excess for the other general plans I've been involved with. This one exceeded all of those. So, well, and I I share

similar sentiment. I I I hear there's, you know, mandates and will and, you know, uh, insurers, but I think those are more drafting type words. I mean, you've got to use some of those words that the city, you know, is is going to do this or the city is planning to move forward with these or, you know, the these are our plans. Um, and I think that's what the intent of the the document is. Now, if if we need to make some minor changes and and say may as opposed to will in some places um or or encourage shall well shall be more yeah should

those are easy changes that I think we we can make and I think it's those sort of uh you know inclusions and revisions are are what we're discussing now and I think that would be obviously included in whatever we we we send out. Might I add a comment to that? That commentary has been shared with the consultant. They have taken that direction and they are adjusting the the um strong language and softening it accordingly based on previous feedback. Awesome. Great. So there is a draft that is in process with that softening.

Yeah. And and I think there is mandates because that's what the state legislature has done. That's law. So we can't we just don't I mean there was comments to say yeah let's just not abide by Utah law. I mean we're local city. We don't have to do that. Well, sure. I mean, that's that's easy to say that, but when you're, you know, are we going to be law-abiding citizens or not? Are we as planning commission going to recommend that we're compliant with the law or not? Um, so I I as a lawyer as well, I, you know, try to abide by the law. Um, and so I think that obviously that, you know, elections are are are for that very purpose. if you don't like what the state legislature is doing, you need to go find your local representatives and either vote them in or out. Uh but as we sit here today, we're not the the lawmakers when it comes to affordable housing or density, those sort of things. Um and so I think it is entirely appropriate having a general plan that Centerville is going to be compliant with the law as as it is right now. But again, I think there is some part of of the plan that we can soften. We can, you know, work towards what we really want Centerville to look like. And I think that's another main point that I think Mike that the consultant needs to we probably need to have that a larger emphasis that we it sounds like the majority of comments where we want to keep things relatively similar, keep the status quo. we don't want to have these huge developments come in. Um and I I share that same feeling. Um so I you know I would I would make that recommendation if we if we are going to make those comments and and revisions in there. I think that should be right at the forefront.

So, I was also concerned with a lot of the the language and I just wondered how um I mean if the if the consultant is already making those changes, do we wait for that draft to come back before we make a recommendation to send it on to the city council or do we That's that's your call as a planning commission how you'd like to proceed. Just know that that has been noted and is in active editing,

right? Yeah. So, if you'd like to see that draft, I guess what I'm saying to further illuminate on that, if the thought is we'd like to see the the draft with softened language, I could communicate that to the consultant to bring that back at a future date in response to your comment. Uh, Commissioner Woodward. Yeah, I I wouldn't be entirely opposed to that. Um, but I think to commissioner chair's point, you know, we're a recommending bodies, so I think we can make those recommendations and then, you know, submit that to the city council and that's what they're for. That's what they're there for.

Yeah. And that's my other thought is that even if we wait for that draft, there's going to be more changes that they're going to make also. So, do we say um we're recommending that it goes forward with some with some alterations which which uh chairman K has already mentioned and those are great items to include I think but then we can just also say that these are some other things that we want to consider that we want the city council the city council to consider as well.

Yeah. And I I think in conjunction with that, if the city really wants more time, couldn't we make a recommendation that um you know, we would want to have these revisions perhaps even posted on the website so the citizens could see what red lines were made and then have the hearing far enough out that would allow, you know, the citizenry to to go and review it and get the word out a little bit more. I don't know if we can make that recommendation, Mike, to say, "Hey, we want a hearing, you know, We want our recommendations to go to the city council, but only in 60 days or 45 days or something like that.

I don't know that. I don't know if the planning commission can make that kind of determination. I think it depends um just whether you're going to make those red lines yourself, you're going to have the consultant make them, or if you're, as I had suggested, just make a laundry list. These are the suggested changes that we're recommending that the council make or look at. You know, I think some of these you can be very specific and say we're going to do this, but um it's up to the planning commission if you want to do a complete red line and and have that go out. Um

yeah, that's my question. Do we want to do a complete red line or do we want to just make some recommendations, send a list of things that we feel like need to be addressed by the city council? you know, obviously being as specific as you can, like saying, "Yeah, sure, we agree with the comments of making a separate chapter for historic preservation." And, you know, we agree with comments five through seven.

You know, I I think we got some really good written comment and public feedback and I do agree there are similar comments and and some also some very specific corrections that were recommended by the public as well as broader picture. I think it's the broader picture ones that you're going to have to struggle with. Well, it's the broader picture ones that achieving consensus across the board is probably not going to happen. Are you talking about us?

Well, just um not necessarily us, but yeah, even perhaps us, but um to to try to plum the depths of what each citizen wants, you're not going to create a truly cohesive picture because people are going to have very strong opinions. uh about different issues.

Um one of the things that I have an opinion about is that some of the language that is mandatory or is commandatory even is actually good for the city because it then restricts the way that the developers uh can can operate, right? It gives us the leverage to say to a development, you have to do this. it's in our general plan. And if it's just loosey- goosey, that leaves them more loopholes than not. Another one is this idea that we need to keep things as it is, keep the status quo, I think is a bit of an ostrich bearing its head in the sand. The freight train is coming and no matter what, we as citizens are not going to be able to stop people from using the land the way that they constitutionally have a right to use their land on. So the best way to ride the bull is to direct it, not to kill it. That's my opinion. And we are not going to get consensus about that. But there are other citizens who feel the same way I do. I think if we are going to make those recommendations, I would think it'd probably be just easier to understand for everybody's sake if you just kind of made a laundry list almost like an appendix to this and we said, "Hey, you know, these are the the main points that we want and then obviously have as as much detail in there as possible."

So, how do we get that? Yeah, Mike. Well, yeah, Mike's taking good notes. So, are we, but yeah. Well, how would we even come up with that? There's two things. We've got a we've got the art of the minutes from prior hearings. We can add those in. We've got our today, but again, it has to be the will of the planning commission. So, what I what I hear and as I'm thinking this through, there's two lists, right? There's a list that could be

this change, this change, this change articulated consultant, you need to address, we agree, let's do these things. But there's a separate list that could say I'm recommend we're recommending to the council this this this this be further evaluated under your direction and commentary. Right? So the question then becomes what kind of list are you pursuing and what is your ultimate goal? Is it hey consultant update the plan with these items that we noted are deficient or we are concerned about and let's look at it. are they consultant change make these changes but that draft is the one that goes to the council and then secondarily council these are our larger policy concerns we want you to discuss from our recommendation perspective so I think you need to determine what your endgame goal is right is it direction to me and the the consultant is it a a mix of the two a hybrid or is it just direction to the council from a policy perspective and you're saying document's not perfect we're concerned about these areas. Council, these are our recommendations on what maybe could happen. Maybe and maybe it's both. What I'm kind of hearing it is both. So, the bigger question then becomes, do you want to see it again before you make that policy recommendation to council at that point? Because if you do, then I need some guidance on what to direct the consultant to fix or adjust to bring back to the planning commission if you want to go that route. If you're feeling like you want to move forward then outline policy direction right guidance it's part of your motion you need direction to staff so we can then prepare that as we move that forward and I can share that information at least with the consultant so they're prepared to understand that those are concerns

that make that clear yes that was well articulated I mean I to me I could have a visual of what you said and I think that's great having direction for them to adjust some things that need to be adjusted But then also creating list of hey we're concerned about these points. So to that point how do we make a list of what are the points that we're really concerned about? Are we going through all the minutes? Are we going through the general plan ourselves again redlinining everything? Are we doing all of our notes? Like is it going to be 200 things that we're concerned about? How are we going to do this?

We could do it live right now or we could wait till the next meeting and come together with list and be prepared to vitrify the list next time. Well, I think that's more feasible. I do too. I I I mean, we could be here till forever and I don't care about that. Yeah. We could be here for forever, but I don't think that we would have all of the accurate information that we need just by trying to plow through it right now. Yeah, that's what I think. It's there's too much to try to sort it all out. So, you're saying go offline and emails back and forth to figure out what we want to do. Well, no, we wouldn't. No. Anytime work, we we cannot form a quorum, correct, that isn't done in a public setting. So, each of us would go back, we'd study,

you know, whatever, watch watch the videos, do the minutes, and then we each come up with our list of things that we think addressed. And I think I think maybe if staff would be willing to kind of take the crack at drafting that first list. I don't know if if you are. If not, then then it falls on us, obviously. But I would think that having somebody create that list initially and then we can go back and spot check the reason so we're not creating 15 different list.

The reason that I I smiled is that's a bigger animal than it sounds because I'm not sure I have good clear direction on where you you sit on a lot of things that have been communicated by the public tonight. I do know for instance historic preservation needs to be its own element. Again, if you all agree as a planning commission with what what chairman Care has said, right, that I could easily convey and say take these comments seriously that have been presented by by uh resident Miss Smith, right? Y but uh if there's other things, I don't want to pick and choose what I think I heard versus what you direct me to do.

I think that we should be the ones making those lists. So then we each make our own list and come to the table next time and and share them. Is that what we're doing? Making we find a consensus among ourselves and if we find a consensus with a list that we all feel comfortable with, we forward it to city council with that list. Okay. So us and including the two that are gone, this is what our homework is.

I just I just think we shouldn't all five be doing the same thing. So all five of us shouldn't be going watching the things going looking through the minutes. The minutes are there for a reason. So let's use the minutes and say this citizen just pull from whatever the citizen said. That's that's the issue. That's the line item item one. next go down to the next, you know, minute entry and say this is what citizen was the concern and and then we can pull out the big nuggets and then next meeting we can come together and say did we miss anything? If not, then we can go through that list and say, okay, that may be duplicative here. So, we don't want to recommend to the the city council, you know, the same thing multiple times. I would recommend that we that staff I staff goes through the minutes, pulls out a list of of the main commentary from from those that that came forward and then and then we schedule a meeting. All of us can go through that list on our own. Uh and then you can go through your own notes and if you want to watch the hearing or whatever and then you can add or you know make comments to that list. But I would

and you will have the list in the form of minutes. You said it yourself. I mean the minutes will be your list. Yep. So I think we just go from the minutes and basically add or add or strike from there. And if you feel like there's information missing in the minutes, you could always go to that individual's commentary during the meeting to hear more of what they had to say. That's what I would and the written comments. I'll take a contrary position. I think that we should be doing that homework and specifically because um what we need to come back with is not a comprehensive list of all of the comments that have been made just simply the ones that we believe are the ones that merit recommendation or change. Right. Right. Exactly. But I think we're only going to get that list if you go back to the minutes. So

of all three, I would rather not all of us do be doing the same work. I would just say and we can appoint some of one of us to do it if if we don't want to have staff do it. Um but are you talking about going back to all three meetings? Yeah. Go through those minutes and pull out the main issues. You might be volunteering yourself. Well, and if there are three meetings, do we each want to take a meeting? Right. Like to take a meeting. There was even a you know a member of the that said she'd be willing to. So, um, but if I mean if if you want to everybody create their own list, I'm happy to do that, too. I I will say too, the way that the minutes are prepared are are concise but direct. Meaning, even if you look at your minutes that are in the packet, right,

there was a brief paragraph for each and every individual of what they stated that hopefully would give you a refresh in your mind, right, to better understand what they were communicating. So, hopefully that would be helpful. Yeah. I I guess what I'm saying is I don't think reviewing the minutes would take too much time, at least initially, and then you could decide how you want to proceed from there. And and and the minutes I've looked at them. I don't know if they're going to be exactly, you know, pinpointed like you're saying, right?

So, obviously, we're going to have to do some more, you know, rolling up the sleeves and adding to it. But that would be my recommendation. And then I think it makes sense to come forward with a list uh that we want to submit not to the consultant cuz that's a budgetary issue. It's going to probably be you know waste more funds there. I would rather just us collectively go back look at the minutes add to them you know come and then just submit to the city council the list of items that that that we've considered are important based on the comments and based on our own review of the general plan. I think that would streamline the process.

That's just what I think. No, no, no. I'm just I'm just processing thinking that's that's good. But I I'm just to read the document itself is so much we need to I I mean, are we going to break it up? Like some of us are going to go through and do the meetings and some people can do general plan like half and half like first half of the general plan, second half of the general plan because honestly I am so detailed in reading you know every word of everything that I would spend weeks on it and I maybe we should. And you have already. Yes, I have. That's right. Yes, I have. What? Sean,

you're saying you we'd spend weeks on it. Well, like full time. We would have I just meant full time work. Just FYI, we have I know because we don't have a Thanksgiving meeting and I'm gone three of those for by the way. I see what you're laying down with. But um yeah, I'm happy to do it. This is something I can do on plane and it's okay. Um I'm happy to do whatever. I'm happy to do my part and add lists. Here's the concern I have is that, you know, our meetings and our deliberations should all be done in a transparent way in in the public's eye.

And the more that we divvy things out and then potentially even deliberate offline, I become uncomfortable with that. Right. Exactly. Deliberate offline. Explain. Well, if we're divvying things up and then we have to coordinate with each other. I just meant bringing back lists of concern that we pass out to each other. That's the only thing I That's a fair statement, too. But at the same time, I personally would look at that as I I don't want someone else to have done the analysis for me in a certain section. I want to do that. I agree with that, Mason. Fair. Yeah. Yeah. So, I appear to be advocating that we all do more work. Yeah.

And I I'm also uncomfortable with that. I know how busy we all are. Um I I think my point is just let's have the the meetings the minutes kind of be at least the initial template and then if you've got other comments in addition to those minutes then bring your list for the next meeting and we can discuss it. I like that idea.

Speaking of I forgot to do this earlier in the meeting. We've been through the training on this. Um, but it's important for all of of of us to remember and then just also for the public that anytime that we are lobbyed or approached by an individual citizen or for something that's on the agenda, it's important for us to always keep that as transparent as possible and disclose it on the record. And it's my understanding that some of you have been either approached or texted or emailed from individual citizens. And uh I just want to make sure that that's out and in the open because we unlike a city council member are not legislators. We are administrative staff in that sense. We volunteer here and anything that we do should be fully transparent and we don't meet with individuals offline for pending items.

Just wanted to make sure that that was clear. And if something like that comes up and you feel there's a conflict of interest, just make that disclosure, right? Disclosure is the panacea. Yeah. So,

so with all that being said, then are you recommending that or is it being recommended that we come up with our lists from the last three public hearings? We look and see what we've we've got all the comments emailed otherwise and we write our points of interest of concern from the citizens and also things that we have noted that need additional adjustments or some sort of changes from the general plan. bring those bring copies of those so that everybody can have a copy when we come to the next meeting and then we're going to look at them each one of them and then sort of um hash them out discuss them.

Yeah. Is that Yeah, I think so. Can we also invite public input continued similar to how Nancy sent in hers with red lines and other things? I mean, I I felt that was handy. Super handy. Yeah. Have it right here. It's great. I I guess continuing that would be helpful. So, I mean, I think it was uh Mrs. Leighton had mentioned that she would even look into it. Any additional help from the community, I think would be great. We could take that in and then bring it presented at the next meeting. Sure. Is that is that is that okay? Yeah. So what we've done on that is that you just continue to accept public comment

to a date certain. So preferably the the day before your meeting. Yes. So what we traditionally do is collect as staff. So the comments come to staff and then staff collects those as public comment and it's part of the record and then we'll put it in your packet and everybody gets it at the same time. Perfect. Yes. So, does that mean that we should have our list emailed to you so that they can be in a packet and we can all get it when we're here? No,

I think the commission can I mean just bring your ideas whether you print them off or however you want to do it but the idea is to to deliberate in public and I do think that it's good advice to bring you know do your own study bring your comments bring the issues and then you're going to deliberate and determine you know by majority vote what what decisions will move on as a recommendation to the council. Okay. When is our next meeting? December what? 10th I believe. Yeah. summer count. Okay. So, if it's December 10th, then we could keep public comment open until Well, we'll just say we'll keep the public comment open, written public comment open until December 10th, but not schedule a public hearing for that date,

right? Why December 10th? Why not December 9th? Well, you can say December 9th, but I mean, it's four weeks. They're going to submit it that day and then we struggle. There is there is also one one caution there. um the packet goes out the Friday before the planning commission meeting. Right. Right. Right. So, honestly, if there's public commentary that you would like to be in the packet, then I would need to receive it before. Obviously, the sooner the public gets the comment in, the sooner I can date. The the Friday before would be the 5th. So, I would probably need public commentary no later than the fourth for it to be included in the packet on the 5th.

Okay. which is quite one, two, three weeks. Three weeks. Three weeks and two days.

I'll call for a motion. Good luck. Who's Who's leading now? Well, I'm not your legal girl. You know that. But I'd be happy to make a motion. Let's give it a shot. Go for it. Give it a shot. Yeah. On my own. I believe without any verbiage. I believe in me, too. Okay. Thank you. I think it makes sense. Uh I don't do legal speak, but um I better off for it.

Maybe I would like to make a motion um to continue receiving public comment um through December 4th. and um a motion that we would each do our part to review the minutes and the notes and also continue reviewing the general plan. that we would also bring back our lists of red lines and comments that we feel the public has made known to us that are important to change in the general plan or points of concern to address for the city council.

I think I'm done. I'm just those ready and have those ready for the next meeting which is December 10th and just a formal action that we're tableabling action on this item and to table the general plan until the next meeting on December 10th until the next meeting of December 10th. I'm getting better at legal speaking. Thanks Lisa. Is there something else I should add? It was a good great. That was great. You did good. Very good. Did you catch that? We caught it. That's my motion. So, I have a motion on the table. I'll second it. I have a second on the table. Um, any further deliberation on the motion?

We'll start down here. I I nay I I I've told you my position. It needs to go to city council. No worries. Well, I agree with you that it needs to go to city council, but I think that we can fine-tune it a little bit. I know. Okay. So, that takes care of business item one. Please stick around for business item two because you want to what happens is that people leave and then they I mean this is where the work gets done. But anyways, let's go ahead and discuss updates to the water conservation amendments and other associated amendments. Who's on this one? Thank you.

Thank you. I am on this one. Do we still have the state representative? If you do stick around, please Yeah, please go out there and speak out there because we're continuing the meeting. Thank you. Yeah, that's okay. All right. Thank you, Mr.

I was just checking. We had had a a the state um natural resources planner, assistant planner on the call, but I'm I'm sure that they dropped after realizing that it might take them a while to get to that element. So, that being said, uh item number two is a public hearing that we've set following uh city and state code requirements regarding Utah um Utah I guess directives established in Utah code 10 what was 9A now 1020 which that's a discussion for another time but 10 9A 403 109A 404 as tied to Utah state code 73-10- What this is, this element is a requirement that we put into our general plan as it currently exists, a water use and preservation element added. That addition needs to be per 10-98-404. I have to get to my note. It is specifically I apologize wrote it down, but I didn't expect to have 10-98-44 section 4 subsection D. Uh the deadline to get that into our um city general plan would be by or before December 31st. When I say get it into the general plan, it would be an approval by the city council of such. So we would have to have an ordinance to do such. Um what the state requires with this general plan amendment language is focusing on four core four core areas. Basically, it's it's distilling what you would find in yeah

in 10-943 2F if you're really curious. um water demand assessment. Uh the amendment must address how current and future development affects water demand infrastructure reducing water demand um including methods for lowering per capita water consumption in future developments. Um specific and include specifying landscape options such as using low water plants instead of turf and park strips. That's kind of specific. That was something that that when I did a a search a I pulled out, but I thought it was still an indication of what we're we're talking about more broadly. um encouraging conservation must out must outline methods for reducing water demand and consumption in existing developments. Uh operational efficiency must identify and address opportunities to modify municipal operations to eliminate wasteful water practices. So that is guided by Senate Bill 110 that came out of the 2022 legislative session. Um and and here we are today. and we've talked about it multiple times in the past where I've given you I guess buzz directives or ideas that this was forthcoming if we were not able to proceed with a general plan by the the end of this year which that's where we're at. So that's why this is being brought forward. Um the language that is being suggested has been provided to our water basically he's our uh assistant public works director and he's also the water program supervisor for the city and he's he has um given a thumbs up on the language that has been been provided for you and that is the second document that is the general plan amend water use and preservation element draft dated October 29th or 30th 2025. Um so that language is reflective of uh the language that is in otherwise the draft general plan but this language has been shared by the the Utah State Natural Resources Department and they have signed off on it.

So please note that this language they are comfortable with this language. Um and what entity was you said who who approved that? It was the DNR

the the basically DNR but the the water resources specialization department within the DNR for the state. Um, and in fact, what's interesting, the reason that I was hopeful that that Miss Carolyn would have stayed on as the planner, uh, she was wanting to audit our process and has even encouraged other smaller entities to audit our process to see how how this discuss discussion goes. So, I'm hoping that's a positive sign of how they feel about what we're presenting tonight. um to that point. But anyway, uh that being said, um the the key key point on all of this is that this is something that again I know we use the word mandate, but I guess you would say state requirement would be a better term for it as evidenced in in state code 10-98-43 section 2 subsection A subsection 4. And then um it's further identified again that date in 10-98-404 section 4 subsection D. Okay. So with that being said, we are running into some timing limitations with our calendar. Planning commission will not meet again this month and our city council has a tradition of only meeting uh very limited in in November, December as well. So where I'm going is it would be highly desirable and probably imperative of this of the planning commission to see if there's a way that this can be advanced in some for fashion today. But again, I don't want to overstep my position relative to yours other than we do need to get something approved by the city council

right by or before December 31 or we fall out of compliance with this requirement. Correct. So for a year or for forever or what for until we come into compliance, we will be one of the cities that they will probably have a list of non-compliant and ask us to come into compliance. Whatever. Shame shame. We don't know yet. This is embarrassing for staff. It's not only that in other instances they've threatened to withhold funding of one sort or another. Funding for what? I mean, I'm like confused, but the the state DNR transportation or Yeah. like moderate income housing, they link it to funding. If we don't meet those three, uh, then we're,

let's say, even we've seen this in the past as staff, let's say multiple entities don't do this, okay? and those that were the sponsors or the the writers of the bill back in 2022 see that and see the evidence evidence reported to them, they may come back in in February of 2026 with new legislation to now start to put penalty language and other things in there to not only request or direct, but to persuade and force certain outcomes more aggressively. We don't really want to play that game and we certainly don't want to be one of the cities that is providing that that mentality to the legislature and we do want to comply with the law. I think it's important to note that we do have a water conservation plan now. It's just not part of the general plan, right?

So, it's sort of a technicality that we're we're we're meeting this new language by the end of the year. I almost feel like we do have a I almost feel like it's like a safety pin that's connecting like she said the the water plan that's already been established to our general plan and this document is in the middle holding them together. That's the best way to explain it because it does reference the plan that Lisa is talking about. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. And we're talking about the general plan that this the current general plan is what we're talking about discussing a minute. Yeah. I don't want to get into that. We'll just put it in a new we'll number it as you know. I have it 12-520 520 water use and preservation

existing general plan and then we'll take the language and put it in the new one when it's ready. If and when it Yeah. Okay. proceeds. Great. Excellent. Is that the presentation? That is the presentation bringing it back and backing up. I guess as I say that just note that I have included that bill and then the the language that is identified in that the second. Okay. Yep. Yeah. Okay. I'm going to open it up for the public to provide comment. Don't let a council member elect.

Oh boy. what what is the procedural well rights or obligations before we unpack that we can we can talk about that but that's not the scope of today's like great question tangential one tangential unfortunately but it's a great question um so it's worth consideration um seeing that nobody from the public is going to present comment uh I'm going to close the public hearing and then just bring it back to us for deliberation and I'll lead out on this one again. It's fine. Let's just let's get these tees crossed and the eyes dotted and move move things on.

And remember, we can always readress this in the future, but we've had how many meetings on this and the presentations and conversations. It's been I think we've done a pretty good job. And if I might interject to that point, I did note that this directly connects ironically to the very effort we're trying to take with the landscaping ordinance exactly looking at TCC 12.51. So this shows I think were this to be added to the general plan and then right after we're working on a zoning code update. It shows us more than willing to understand what the state is requiring here. Yeah, we got it going on. So that's my position. What are you guys thoughts? No more deliberation. No more deliberation. Make a motion. Deliberation done. Done.

Let's see. Did we have a a I did have one question just about the rainwater collection thing. Can you explain that? The 2500 gallons per That's per state. Believe it or not, the state actually has certain DNR actually has certain restrictions and requirements on what can be and how does that happen? I don't know how. Again, this comes back to what was said earlier. How do they enforce that requirement? Yeah. How does that roof drains or something? You know, you've seen people with the barrel. Yeah. Right. Does somebody come from the state and evaluate whether or not they've collected that many gallons? I don't know. Yeah. Okay. So, the mosquito district comes out and examines your rain barrels. Yes, probably.

Whole front yard. That water needs to seep into the ground water for ground water collection. That is correct. Yep. I will stop my harvesting. Don't say that. Well, how about this? I'll make a motion. I make that we forward a positive recommendation to the proposed general plan amendment regarding the addition of a water conservation element to the general plan. Uh yeah, current general plan. Current general plan. Current asy as currently written and stated. Yes. As written in this report or whatever.

I might I add one quick thing before you make any further action. And I've noticed there's terms like must even in the first paragraph. Should I change that terminology like that to should or should I keep it as is? That's not my That is not my motion. Keep it as is. I want to make sure. Just I don't want to That's fair. Create a gray area later. That's fair. Don't overstep. Okay. Sorry. Continue with your motion and your second. Well, that was my motion. So, anybody want a second? I'll second it. All right. I have a motion and a second on the table. Further deliberation? None. We'll start down here. I I It'd be hilarious if I said nay. That would No. I I I Yes, it would.

Who was Who was the planning commissioner two years ago that would make motions and then vote against himself? What? It was chronic and I can't remember his name. It was hilarious. Who's on the board of adjustments? I really need to know who. Anyways, we digress. Let's move on. Yeah, let's move on. So, moving forward to the planning director's report. I actually do have a report. I have a positive report. Man, tonight must be the night of state requirements and mandates because I have a positive report on a state requirement. Okay.

So, on October 27th, 2025, a letter was emailed over to the mayor, city council, myself, and Lisa and Brent, that we are in full compliance with the state of Utah moderate income housing reporting requirements for 2025. So, we got a not so compliance. So, everybody pat yourselves on the back. That is accomplished at least for this year. So, that's good news piece. we won't be under their radar spotlight this year. So, I thought that was very No, that's a tough one. So, I think I would give Mike and Sydney. It's a lot of work credit for that. Good work. Well, well done. Yeah, that's awesome.

Big change from previous years. I I had to call and and have a conversation with their uh representative employees and we talked for about an hour and a half, two hours to get in state of compliance before it was finally approved or before it was finally submitted to make sure what I submitted would be accepted. So, good work. Well, thank you. Treat yourself to some Oreos over there. I'll do that. Or some cookies. Yeah. Or anything else. That That's all I have to report. But I was Sean knows where they are. item before.

Thank you for your report. Let's move on to the minutes. Um, reviewing the minutes, does anybody have any corrections or additions or anything? I didn't see any. But, um, I'll have to I Yeah, I had my notes. I meant to go through and kind of compare them to see if everything was in there. But I think you know with the with the next meeting purpose of next meeting we can capture any efficiency there. Yeah. The one thing I would change is I would move go back up um up Brian Pamemer Centerville resident and councilman

is what I would add. He even said it. Yeah. Verbally he said I'm a council member. So I think that that's a fair representation of what happened. Centerville resident and centerville councilman. Was it Tammy Leighton or Tammy Leon? There's there's a Tammy Bryson. Tammy Leighton. There's just Oh, okay. Yeah, you're right. Tammy Leighton and Oh, no. It's Tammy Leighton and Tammy Bryson. Tammy Bryson is T A M I. Oh, is it? It looks like on what you submitted. It's Cammy Leighton. Tammy Leighton is correct. Thought she Tammy Bryson. Okay. I wrote them both down asam,

which fits because Cam's So I make a motion to modify the minutes on page two of three, line five to be ti for and then line 35, Centerville resident to be added language after resident that says and centerville councilman. That's it. My motion just to be consistent. Did you want to have with respect to Mr. Wenger and Centerville elect. Well, he wasn't at that time though. I was not. Yeah, that was before the election. That was before the election. So, yeah.

Okay. Fair question. Yeah, I'll second it. Okay. I have a motion and a second. Any further deliberation? Okay. Starting here. I I I I I Okay, motions. uh passes. The minutes are amended as noted. I'll take a motion. Now I have a question. Oh, fire away. Okay. So, who and how who will be sending out information to uh the commission members that are not here as to what needs to happen and how will that be sent out? That's going to be on me. I'll do it. You will do that?

Yep. And I'll even meet with them if necessary. So, I'll communicate with Lane and Amanda. Okay. It's sort of my job. Okay. And then, um, just in preparation for the next meeting, when do we think we could get those meetings from tonight just so that we can compile our individual? That's a fair question. Um, if there's urgency, I will need to communicate that to the city recorder. It is a fair question. And so I will take it upon me tomorrow to contact her and let her know what your plan is so that she can try to get those worked on sooner than later for your benefit. Even if they're just draft minutes, make a suggestion. The YouTube is immediately available, right? Yeah.

And so yeah, you may not want to listen to it all again, but you can run that through an AI and get a transcript and even get a summary. You could. Are you Are you going to do that? I'm not. How long do you think it would take, Mike? For her to work on the minutes. No, no, not Oh, well, well, he's thinking if we can have AI do it. Let me give you an example. I I did this the other day. I had a telephone call that was a half an hour long. I needed to transcribe it. I went to and I'm not advertising Turboscribe, but I went to Turoscribe. They have a free option. I uploaded it and bing bang boom. It was 3 minutes and they can be pretty accurate. Pretty good.

Yep. So, anyways, that was a bit of a nonsequator. I'm just saying like if it's urgent. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. We could do it individually ourselves. I I certainly can communicate to her. Again, I don't I don't know what her response timing will be, but I will let her know that that's the request of the planning commission. How's that? Yeah. Okay. That was my And then if it's going to be like two weeks or whatever, just will you let us know? I think if I let her know and we're going to do AI through Mason. I think if I let her know in the reasoning quickly. Okay. I would like to make a motion to close the meeting. I have a motion. I second that motion. I have a second. All in favor say I. I. Bye.