City Council - Regular Meeting

Okay, let me make sure you pulled your mics down. Thank you. It's easy to forget that. Especially me. Okay, it is 7 o'clock, so we will call to order uh this meeting of the Grantsville City Planning Commission. It is Tuesday, April 17th, 2026, 700 p.m. and we are at the Grantsville City Hall, 429 East Main Street in Grantsville, Utah. See, we'll do a roll call. Cameron, we'll start with you. Cameron Molton here.

John Montgomery here. Sarah Moore here. We are missing our members Jason Hill and Gary Merrill. Gary is excused and we're hoping Jason will make it in through the traffic today. And do we have anybody online? Is Chris online? No.

Okay. Well, we do have a quorum and so we'll continue with the meeting and I'd like uh to uh invite people to stand for the pledge of allegiance. I aliance 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.

Thank you. Uh for tonight's public hearing items, we'll follow the format of the staff presentation and on the individual items as they appear on the agenda. Then we'll have a public hearing and public comment, public hearing for public comment on that item. And then the commission will bring it back for a discussion and consideration or just discussion depending on the item. And we ask that during the public comment portion that we limit our comments to three minutes. And if you will remember to state your name when you approach the podium. Um oh this says name and address for the record.

Uh that's new think. Do we want their addresses or just their names?

First and last name though we would prefer because it's a public record. And then uh just know that the commission can consider your comments. uh and and think about them, but we cannot answer questions or engage in conversation as it would defeat the p the purpose of the public hearing for you uh for constituents of our community to voice their opinions and and thoughts on what we have before us tonight. So, we'll start with agenda item number one. Um this is a discussion of a proposed concept for Falcon's Landing sub edition. And we'll start with the staff presentation. Um so this development was approved um earlier this year um or late in 2025. Sorry, I was hoping to see the dates. Um, initially this came in and it was approved um like this, but staff as staff is looking at it, it would be nice to have Wild Rose extend through and eventually meet up with um could potentially meet up with North Street. Um, but it would intersect with Ray Street which will allow through traffic and alleviate other roads. And so while the plat and I over just I overlaid the road so that we could all see what it would look like with how the plat is approved. So you see how we have lot A and B. Those are lots that will have a um we call it a twin home but essentially a duplex with a shared wall um on those lots. what um staff is asking for and what the the developer has agreed is if we can build just detached single family lots on those 11

A and 11Bs versus attached single family lots. Um and really that's the the exchange for losing two lots where Wild Rose would extend through. So initially they would have 29 units that they could build on this and this would reduce it down to 27 with us extending wild rose. So we're just presenting this as a concept from staff saying does planning commission want this and if we do then we would come back with a development agreement and a true layout of what it would look like. Okay. Would you just put up on the screen the original?

Sorry. Just so the public can that's here. Yeah. So that was the original kind of master development plan that was approved. And so we're losing Well, I think lot five is still there. Are we just losing lot six or what's the other lot six and seven is what they would end up losing. Oh, so this is the same and then the Yep. This is the same plat um but with wild roads extending through. So lot six and seven would be lost um here. Oh, sorry.

Oh, go ahead. I say why specifically are we are we talking about 11 A and 11B instead of some of these other doubles? I was just pointing out A and B. Oh yeah. not specific to 11 A and 11B. So, anything that's A and B, so 9A, 9B, got um are attached twin home layouts and the developer is asking in exchange for Wild Rose extending through and then losing two lots. They would just like to be able to build detached single family lots on those same on those lots. So, lots stay the same. Um, or potentially grow bigger, especially on the west side to be able to fit fit those in. Did you say that the developer is here? He is online right now.

Okay, great. So, did they readily agree to that? I mean, that was not arm twisting. No, no arm twisting. Um, you know, I mean, I met with them and and we had great conversations, me and Bill, and it was just this is what the city's looking at. Would you guys be interested in this? Thank you. That is a great observation and thank you for providing the overlay. Um before we have any more discussion, maybe we should open it for public comment. And then no public comment on this. Oh, there's no public comment. This is just a discussion between staff, planning commission, and the developer if you have any questions. Okay. So, no consideration either.

Nope. No consideration tonight. We'd have to bring that back with a development agreement and um an updated layout that actually shows wild rose coming through. Because this was approved in late 2025, is there a time frame that he had in mind that development would start or has it already started? So, we are reviewing the final plans right now with this layout. I've asked them to pause that so we can get um some direction from planning commission. Um but they are almost at approval on final on the final layout. So they are looking for um consideration shortly if that's the direction planning commission gives us. Okay.

Is there any downside in the city doing this? I mean we're gaining a through street. Is there anything else that's a con against the proposed change? I'm there's going to be single family homes on smaller lots and I really don't see that as being a con. um to the north and to the west. There are no homes in that area. So, how much delay is it costing their developer? Um it would cost them probably 3 months or so depending on how long their engineer has to adjust the plans and three months and they're okay. Yeah. So, they're the ones that they gave me the go-ahhead to present this. So,

Cameron, do you have any other no thoughts or questions? Sean. Sure.

Um I uh really value the foresight of having that road go through and I think that it as the as you reflected in the staff notes. It will really help with the flow of traffic, reduce those bottlenecks. And uh we appreciate the developer bill and h having open conversations with ways that his uh his development can assist the city in meeting our end goals where we're correct keeping the flow of traffic going and and reducing the bottlenecks. We have quite a few of these uh U-shaped streets and I never really understood them except for I know that we have land owners that weren't willing to give up easements and such. So, if we could make that a thoroughare or through road, it's not thoroughare. Um, that would be great. Um, so, yep.

Um, Sarah, if it's all right with you, would we be able to get um, city council uh, Dalton's opinion as well? Absolutely. while while he's here. If you're willing to get that, we don't need to make him wait until the council comment period. I mean, no, I think it's great. I think we need to have a through access to span to take traffic off, you know, Park Street that's just next to it if we can get it going all the way through. So, I think it's a good compromise. Thank you. Great. That's awesome support. Appreciate that. Okay. I think we're all supportive. Yeah. Perfect. Thank you.

Can't speak for Jason or Gary, but I'm sure that they would be supportive as well. So, perfect. We will close out that item then. So, we'll close out item two or item, sorry, and move on to agenda item two, which is the presentation uh discussion and consideration of the proposed conditional use permit for Paty Perry to own and operate B and P firearms and so much more LLC of homebased business involving firearm transfers and related services, which will be located at 176 South Hill Street in R-1-21 zone.

Perfect. Thank you. So, we'll begin with the staff presentation and then move on to public comment.

So, this applicant is requesting approval to operate a home occupational um in the R121 zoning. This does require planning commission's approval because customers will come to the house. Um, their business activities include firearm transfers, background check, um, and limited gunsmithing and occasional crafting. Um, and then this would be located in the basement with the office within the home. Storage firearms will be boxed and secured and then solely operated by the homeowners. And then Monday through Friday, 10 to 4. Um, and you know, we've looked at the parking, the site plan. there's not an issue there, but because of the sensitive matter of it um reflecting with the sales of guns and the home occupation where um customers are coming to the house, we did send it to um planning commission. The business um shall comply with all federal and state local laws, including firearm regulations. I've actually had them call me and ask um if this ATF if this was allowed in um our code and a home occupation is allowed in our code and I asked ATF if you know do you guys allow gun sales at the at the house and they were they do allow that. So um and so we listed conditions, you know, no other employees shall work there, firearms shall be secured and then um they shall not create excessive traffic. So you have the home, you have customer parking with the garage and then personal parking.

They have 170 ft. Peter the frontage. Yes. I appreciate you listing the possible conditional or conditions that would be considered with the conditional use permits. Um, and I know this was posted online.

So, um, I think that if we open the public hearing now and invite people to come up and and offer their thoughts, then we can come back for discussion. Perfect. Okay. Thank you, Shelby. So, we'll open the public hearing for agenda item two, uh, the conditional use permit for Paty Perry to own and operate B and Key Firearms and So much more LLC as a homebased business, uh, involving firearm transfers and related sales located at 176 South L Street in the R21 zone. Is there anybody that would like to offer comment on this item? if you'd approach the podium.

Uh do we have anybody online? Do you want to ask them to raise their hand? Oh, sure. If there's somebody online that would like to offer comment on agenda item number two, please raise your hand online so we can allow you to talk. Okay. You don't see any hand raising with our participants online. And so seeing no further public comment, uh we'll close the public hearing and bring this item back to the commission for discussion and consideration.

I do want to point out that we did receive one uh public comment online that was sent to the commissioners. Yes, thank you for reminding me of that. I did see that. Um, did you say that the applicants are here today?

Yes. Oh, okay. Uh, the commission members have any questions for the applicants? What's the so much more? Would you state your name, please? Paty Perry. Thank you. The so much more is because of the crafts. So it's, you know, I wanted to include it all together. Okay. You sell ammunition too here. Will you sell ammunition? That's not the the initial intent though.

Is there certain storage requirements for ammunition as well? So for the moment or for are you saying you won't be selling ammunition? It'll be if we did it would be by order basis. So it' be picked up the day it was delivered without storage.

We can make that a condition if we wanted. As I was saying an ammo can be shipped straight to a customer's house. They don't have to do paperwork or anything for ammo. So that wouldn't even have to It could just go straight to them. I mean, I think you do sell but not have a storage inventory. Yeah. No, no, no, no. I'm not even honestly not even planning on storing like really firearms. It's It's basically, you know, if they come to us, they want to order it, order it for them, get it sent in. when it comes in, they come down, do their paperwork and retrieve it.

I mean, we do we do have safes in case they can't come like Sure. right then. But yeah. No. So, isn't there a what's the frontage requirement for these? Wasn't it when So, they came in before the amendment um to the home occupation. So that's doesn't sound like there'll be a lot of customers. No, we we honestly are figuring maybe what one two a month. Where's that number coming from? How are you estimating or

because we're not doing um a website. We're not doing online. We're not. It's basically word of mouth and then if they want to talk to us, they call us on the phone or just call, you know, I don't want people just randomly showing up at the house. So, it's call make pretty much make an appointment to to come by the house. No, I get Oh, I'm sorry. You keep going. No, just what is the the new requirement is 120 or 170 ft trucks. Can I look and get back to you on that 300 page? But it looks like they determine the parking in their driveway also. So we

Yeah, I just I just if if it's the end more in the crafts, just know that the ordinance now has a large larger frontage requirement than that you have. So we want to be sensitive to the parking if it's maybe it's not going to be for the ammunition but for the crafts and so forth. Yeah. And and that would still be based also on them calling and making an appointment. Like if they want something like if they want a t-shirt made, they can email me or or talk to me and tell me what they want. I'll do it once it's ready. They can come pick it up. So you have she's measuring right now 69 ft and the requirement is

that's 100 ft. So if they were to have applied before the new amendments went into effect, they wouldn't meet the regulations for home occupational use. So just know that you're slipping in under the grandfather having your application timing. So So I just encourage to be sensitive to that your neighbors. So, how do you market your the opportunity for people to come and shop with you? Honestly, word of mouth. Word of mouth. That's it. Okay. Yep.

I know. I think the city's been a little bit more sensitive to those signs that are stuck in the ground in random places with the metal holders and stuff. Oh, I don't want to have to reduce that type of clutter. Right. I was going to say I don't want to have to keep moving those to mow my lawn. So, no. No, they can hang flyers at, you know, local stores and things like that. Flyers is good. Hanging up opportunities at Macy's, which I love. Um, I actually have no concerns with this and uh I admire your uh ingenuity and your entrepreneurship. Yeah. Thank you.

That's the word that I was looking for. Thank you, John. Um, and it's hard to source guns. I know. Um, unless you know what you're looking for that and you know how to get it, but somebody could probably use some help in sourcing what they're looking for. So, um, is there any more questions or comments for Patty? No. I just hope I mean this says three to four customers per month, but I hope just for the sake of making money that you have more customers than three to four months.

Well, and if I was out to make money, I hope so, too. But it's I mean prices have gone up and I mean people can't always go to somewhere and get exactly what they're wanting. So, if I can help them do that, then okay, Patty, thank you. Think we'll consider a motion. somebody would like to make

I mean I I I think the condition of ammo storage I think that's that's worthwhile especially reading the one public comment that came in if I think just to protect that it doesn't end up even though that's not the intention that there end up being hundreds of pounds of even though a private residence easily has that much but yeah right but it's just just the the thought that at least we're putting that in there as part of this that the intention right now in the proposal is not to sell ammunition that we limit some storage there would make me feel better on you know at least I think neighbors thinking about it

I think I would just say not storage of inventory for sale okay because they have their own personal assuming they yes yeah so for for retail purposes so no storage or inventory ventory of ammunition for retail purposes. Yeah, I just say no storage of inventory for retail sales. Yeah, but of ammunition specifically because the guns Yeah. Yeah. Uh regardless of popular belief, guns don't actually go off by themselves in the case. So, thank you. I have no problem. Okay. What? Away. Give you some.

So, do you want to make a motion, Cameron? Yeah. So, do I need to list all these conditions now that we added that one or just No. So, in your motion, you know, you'll make your recommendation with the conditions listed in the staff report and the addition of the condition. Okay. I move to recommend approval of the proposed conditional use permit for Patsy Perry to own and operate BNP firearms and so much more LLC located at 176 South Hell Street in the R121 zone with the following with the uh modifications noted in the staff report as well as um no stored uh inventory for retail sale of ammunition. Okay, second.

I'll second. Oh, okay. Oh, you saw she usually ask that was a question or you were doing any further discussion then? No. Okay. Uh, all in favor? I. All right. So, that passes with the forum that's represented here and we will close item number two and we will move on to item number three. Presentation. Public hearing. Discussion and consideration of a proposed conditional use permit for Cody Johnson to establish an accessory farm employee housing on the property located at 8. I'm sorry.

It's actually 592 East Main. I did make an error in the staff report, but I do have the radius report that shows we used the correct address. So, it's 592 East Main. 592 East Main

as shown on the site. It didn't really completely destroy that. Okay. Uh Cody Johnson to establish accessory farm employee housing on the property located at 592 East Maine in the A10 zone. We'll begin with the staff presentation for agenda item tree. Correct. So yes, I made an error on the address. The applicant lives on Dury Street, but his property is on Main as well. So I do apologize for that. Um a accessory um farm employee housing is conditional in the um agricultural zones so long as they have contiguous property um of 10 acres which with the surrounding uh properties that this applicant owns that they have they meet that 10acre requirement. Um so it's an accessory it's a use for an accessory farm employee housing or a detached ADU. It's approximately a 30 by 40 housing style with two levels. Um there's plenty of parking on site. The initial parcel is three and a half acres, but again with the contiguous parcels surrounding it, there's like 30 acres. So there's there's plenty. Um, as you can see here, they are um approximately 431 ft from the fire hydrant. There's plenty of parking, but we noted five stalls. The ranch housing is here, while this remains um a agricultural um shop here. Um, one of the concerns that we had is far as um water dedication in the ADU requirements. They are required to dedicate um

218 acre feet of water. Um, and that's something that was ter determined that you know staff can't wave. That is what our requirement and what we're allotting um for this property. Where's my little scroll button? And so, I mean, other than that, there are no other issues, concerns. Um, you'll see here there is a note that says it doesn't meet the maximum distance from the fire hydrant, but after further consulting with the fire marshal, they actually do meet that, but the staff report was posted um before that was resolved. So, we're using metric tape measure, but the structure is already there anyway,

correct? Yep. the structure is here and then um the ranch house is there. So So we're just converting that lower portion of the storage. Yep. Just converting the agricultural shop, that portion of it into a um ADU for the ranch to live on. Um it is a twole. So you have your your floor level and then you do have an upstairs. How many occupants could be in the

um so with the farm employee um housing um in our conditional are you our conditions we are asking that no more than one livable bedroom um or family is in there and then all other rooms shall remain storage because there are other rooms that could be converted. So it's not a bunk house, it's single family. Correct. But okay. And all that acorage to the to the south that's there's all the fields there. Correct.

So here's the parcel here and then they have acorage here. Um and then the surrounding this field here. So So that was just noted one livable bedroom. I I lived in Bulgaria for a couple of years and I saw 15 people living in one bedroom. Is it important to note? I don't think Cody Oh, there you are. Watch. No, it's not important. It's a single family. Yeah, it's a one one bedroom. So, something like this. We can ask you questions at this point, right? Yeah, you can. Okay. I'm just not sure if that's our discussion. Um, so he obviously is doing this the right way.

We're a little backwards, but we're getting there. Did he get caught? No, he he tattleta on himself, I guess. No, that's what I'm just wondering because this this kind of thing could be done all over town and nobody knows about it, right? And so this is Absolutely. Absolutely. So he um initially had an agricultural building and then wanted to build the the um ADU in there and then so he pulled a building permit and which kicked off the site plan review and they came and saw it. Who came and saw it? Somebody came and saw it. Yeah. So building as well as me and and they saw that someone was living there. No, nobody's living there. Okay. All right. I'm just more curious than anything like Yeah. I am It's good that people do stuff the right way. It's just I'm just curious cuz I'm sure this is just happening everywhere. It's still under construction. Yeah.

Or was when we visited it. So, okay. That's crazy. So, the the water is coming from where? Um, so it is connected to city water, but they are attached um so they don't have separate utilities. They are attached to the water line from this house here. And there's a toilet and everything. Yep. Couple of toilets. Yeah. Two toilets, two kitchens. But this isn't the applicant's residence. This house is it um he owns the property. The house is a rental for a farm. It's not a rental. The people I bought the house from. The lady gets to live there until she passes.

Oh. And so she's still occupying that house. Sorry. I'm sorry. Would you mind just coming up and stating your name for the record? I forgot to have to ask you before we opened up conversations with him. No, that's okay. Cody Johnson, the landowner. Okay. Thank you. So, he lives right here to answer your question. Okay. Yeah. And what is the building that is to the south of the proposed agricultural farm worker? That building? Yes. This a shop. So, there's no residents?

No, just the only residence to the north and it's one elderly lady that lives in there. And then what do you do you have plans for that after she passes may rotate a different ranch hand into that house? But okay. Yeah, we're not up for rentals. We're not up for moving in. These are just cuz you know we have heers and everything right there and so them being on site is important. Yep. I'm familiar with your property. Okay. Do we have questions for Cody or do should we open it for public comment?

Public comment. Okay. Cody, if you don't mind, we'll ask you to sit down.

Shelby, thank you. Um we'll go ahead and open this item for public comment. Um then we'll bring it back for discussion. So uh we'll open the public hearing for agenda item number three, the consideration of the proposed conditional use permit for Cody Johnson to establish accessory farm employee housing on the property located at 592 East Main Street in the A10 zone. If there's anybody here that would like to offer comment for consideration, please approach the podium, state your name. Okay. Uh, if we have anybody online, would you please raise your hand if you'd like to offer comment on agenda item number three?

Nothing. Okay. Well, thank you for that opportunity. Uh, we will close the public hearing and we'll bring this back to the commission for discussion and consideration. supported. Don't we have any questions? Seems like reasonable thing to do. Okay. Yeah. No concerns, no questions for me. Okay. We will entertain a motion then on agenda item three. Okay. I move to recommend approval of the proposed consideration of a proposed conditional use permit for Cody Johnson to establish accessory farm employee housing on the property located 592

592 Main Street uh in the A10. Yes, we don't have any recommendations for any conditions on the conditional use permit. Correct. Okay. So, we have a second a second. Unless that would you second. I was I'll try to keep it consistent. I apologize. Okay. Any further discuss? All in favor? I. Okay. Passes unanimously. Thank you, Cody.

Thank you. holds item number three and we will move on to item number four which is the presentation public hearing discussion and consideration of the proposed master development agreement for Mac Canyon subdivision located approximately near M Canyon Road and SR 138. We will start with the staff presentation and um Shelby, thank you for your time on this again.

Yeah, thank you guys. Um so at our last meeting, this was presented as a discussion to kind of get feedback from planning commission. Um as well as this is a bigger agenda item and so we were following direction. Um this is a development um proposed or it consists of 114 acres that includes up to 170 residential lots. This was initially presented to city council as a planned unit development. The PUD concept following the review and proposal and comparison of the city zonings. Staff determined their project generally complies with the development standards of the R12 zoning district. As a result, the developer and staff determined that reszoning to R12 paired with a master development agreement would be would be more of an appropriate approach than processing the project as a PUD. And the reason for that is that this project the the developer is providing everything to the city that would that we would require in a PUB application in exchange for the reszone. And so they are tied to this site plan. These lot sizes, they can't go any smaller. They can't ask for extra density. They are tied to this site plan. So we have halfacre lots here. Um we have some larger lots um throughout this and they are meeting the road cross um section standard as well as commercial in this corner here. And so as and open space um that is built out and not just raw land. So, we are getting not just a piece of our pie, we're getting the whole cake, too, in exchange for reszone. And this MDA out um outlines that if the developer doesn't follow what's in this MDA, what's on this concept, that this will automatically revert back to the R121 zoning. And so the developer is giving

everything that the city has asked for um on this development. I'll zoom back in on this. So you can it'll come back for a discussion on commercial zoning district in a later phase. But what we have now is all the phases together or is this just phase one? So that's all that's showing your your phasing your layout of the entire development. Okay.

With the open space, the commercial, the acreage, it's showing everything with the lot sizes. And then exhibit D is just stating that approval of this agreement will allow for the reszone from R121 to R12. Um in the event um that the developer doesn't follow this, it may be revoked in whole or in part and automatically revert to the R121 zoning designation um in breach of this agreement. And then the developer shall submit a reszone portion for the commercial in phase two. And then it we break out um bonding and when they need to build out the commercial to collector road um amenities. I mean the whole nine yards.

But we would be proving the whole master plan. Yep. So the alternative to this is just that would be packed with halfacre lots. was the is the outcome. The underlying zoning is halfacre lots. So yes, um you guys could recommend this for denial and it ultimately could stay halfacre lots. He could apply for a PUD application and overlay it with this layout that we're presenting and then, you know, kind of turn it into a science experiment and ask for a bunch of deviations. Um, but staff thought this would be the easiest way while we're still getting everything that the PUD allows us to obtain.

Okay. And the average lot size is um quarter acre. Yeah. Quarter acre lots. Who who would be responsible for maintaining the amenities after they're they would dedicate the it's over 10 acres to the city and then the city would maintain them. Correct. Yep. Become a city park. So then they wouldn't fall into disrepair in theory. Correct. Unless they're Hollywood Park. Correct. Okay. Sorry. Too soon. I don't know. Hollywood Park. Okay. Yeah.

Okay. Um, so I think that if we have preliminary questions answered, we'll open this item for public hearing. Correct. Invite Shelby to take a seat. And um, so if we open this and invite people to speak, then we can bring it back for further discussion with the developer. Okay. Uh we'll open this for public hearing for agenda item number four, consideration of the proposed master development agreement from Matt Canyon subdivision located approximately near Matt Canyon Road and SR 138. If there's folks here that would like to offer public comment on this, please.

Thanks. State your name when you come to the podium. No need to Hi, I'm Julie Mley. Hi Julie. I did write a letter for uh agendas number five and six. So, I'm not sure why we're talking about a master plan first before the zoning and the general plan change, but um I I guess my question is does this does you guys approving the master plan just roll into approving everything else along or should we talk about my my problems with number five and six? I guess

you could bring up five and six here. with this one. Yes. Okay. So, I did get a text from I guess I'll state her name, Brenda Peterson. She said that she would like to Let me just read her Let me just read her text first if that's okay. Um, now, are you a neighbor? Are you the

I am a neighbor. So, my piece of property sits right behind this open space that has actually been used on at least three other developments. So, this little section right here has been used for property in this development. It was used for property in this development. I live right here and now it's being used for this development. So,

um, in 2020, it was asked to be changed so that I would have four houses behind my property. And now it's open space, so that's a little bit better than four houses right there behind my house. But, um, anyway, Brenda Peterson lives. Do you want me to point out where she lives?

No, it's okay. So she lives in the neighborhood, too. So she says, "I will not be able to meet the be to the meeting tonight. Please put our vote against this. I don't understand how a few years back they zoned everything over there for halfacre lots and ever since then they have been trying to change it." So that's what her comment is. My concern other than my letter is that if we give this development the okay, this proposed enzyme below it, he's going to say the same thing he said with this one. The lots next to us are are small lots. So, let me just have small lots on this one. Yes, he's giving us a lot of little extra fluff, but we already have a whole bunch of these in the city and we don't have very many areas left that are halfacre lots all the way up to the mountains. So, we're concerned that it sets precedence to keep making smaller and smaller um beautiful ideas, but not what we moved there for to be around our rural neighbors. So, that's besides my letter. That's what I would like to state tonight. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you to So, my name is Joseph Kempy. I'm in that big block in the middle of all all of this development. And this was way different than what we had talked about about a year ago. Was it about a year ago? So, this is a lot to process in a really short period of time. And I don't I don't know what to think about it. Um I I am getting frustrated a little bit with all the changes that we seem to do and for those soccer fields like you seem to insinuate that they're there's a lot of maintenance that goes on with that and they're not that hard to build but they're hard to maintain. And I I just don't know what we're what the whole plan is. Is this we had a plan echoing what uh Julie was saying is we had a plan. I want to know what's we're doing with all these plans. I'm just really concerned that there's a lot of gimmies to developers and a lot of takeaways from the people who live around these places. I've been to Daybreak and the the apartment complex or the townhouse is just to the north south of me. There's a lot of traffic in Daybreak. I don't want this little town become like Daybreak where we're all congested and living right on top of each other when we've got space here. That's my concern and I just don't know what to think about this at this point. So, what we're going to do with it. So that's those are my comments.

Thank you. Thank you, Josie,

Angeline Kempy. Joseph's my husband and of course we live right in the middle of that. I don't know if you want me to point it out, but we're just right in the middle. We have horse property. Very concerned about the animal people that are in these houses. I mean, they did put the halfacre lots, but their fence is right up next to our horses. Horses have flies. They're not used to that. I'm just I'm worried about complaints. I'm worried. I mean, we do have at least on the north of us, there'd be the detention basin, but still, I'm worried about those houses right up next to our our horse property. It's all horse property, so very concerned about that. Very concerned about traffic. Um, my kids go out there and play and ride and that's a lot of people. That's just a whole lot of people. That's a whole lot of cars coming in up and down our road and if they put a gas station there or whatever, then it's just going to be a tremendous amount of traffic. Very concerned about that. Um, Paul's been working with us. He's been great trying to help us um, get this through. But I also have the concerns of my husband. You know, how is this going forward? I know, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure north of Matt Canyon is going just a whole bunch of families, whole bunch of houses, and I'm just like, we're just adding to more and more and more. So, very concerned about that. So, those are my comments.

Thank you, Angela. Is there anybody? Okay, Mess. Sorry.

No, you are good. Uh Brian Sadler, I'm not a neighbor. Um but I moved here not too long ago for the Halfacre lots, so I can appreciate that. Um all due respect, um still want to point out that the developer did keep the number of units the same, which is helpful for the traffic con congestion. Um the reason I'm here today, let's teach that little kid there how this stuff all works. So, um, but I would, uh, bring up the the gas station part of it. And I know that the developer, I'm sorry, name Paul, um, had brought up the concern about actually developing that um, and the desire to develop it um, in the time constraints that we have. But, um, I'm all in favor of abolishing that commercial segment part of it, uh, to at least keep the the feel of the neighborhoods intact. Um, and then the other thing that I wanted to bring up, which I know we can't ask questions per se, um, but when we take on the property as a city, do we take in consideration the maintenance costs, um, that puts on the the city in in terms of a burden and does that really end up being a net positive with the the tax allocation we get out of the development? So, um, I'm not really against it. Um, but I did move here because of the halfacre lots. That's that's why I moved to Grantsville. So, um, I would definitely like to see that continue on. So, that's it. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you, Brian.

Is there anybody else that would like to share their thoughts? Is there anybody online? If you're online and would like to speak on agenda item four, please raise your hand. Okay, we'll close the public hearing and we will bring this back for commission's discussion and consideration.

Hi. Hi. Um, Don Cameron, who would like to go first? Well, I was a little vocal about this last time, but I I think it is important to note as to the traffic that this developer has agreed to have the same number of so be the same number of cars if he you add half acre these smaller ones. So, I can appreciate, you know, that concern. Um, I'm actually looking at purchasing a home up in this area. And I'll have to admit the halfacre lot. You know, you're not on top of each other as much, but there is the halfacre section. There's the the other where it's closer. What I've seen as I've driven driven up in that area is there's no irrigation water. So, the back end of those lots are either full of RVs or just dirt and weeds. And so, um, there's space there, but it's, you know, I'm really concerned about, um, just the halfacre lots, uh, just not being utilized. They're just, they're basically open space. It's nice, but it's not like we have water to water anything there. And so, um, you'd almost rather see just the native, you know, plants have remained. I guess maybe that's will come back. I don't know. But it's just not um you know that's that's what this idea and concept was about was to still have some halfacre and and have that option but also just provide a more manageable area and not have um any more traffic. The parks I live over in Scenic Slopes and there they got a grant that park's underway. It's beautiful and wonderful but only phase one is being done right now until another grant is obtained. I assume that grants would have to be

obtained to either put in these fields probably, right? No, because the developer would be constructing them, but he'll actually be barely the cost. Yes. Oh, yeah. So, that's a big plus right there. And um anyway, it appears the developer is trying to to do what's best for part of the area and do what's best for, you know, kind of a compromise in my mind and uh keep the traffic the same. So, um the reason though question for you um we have the um does the the city council have to also approve the reason?

Yeah, they'll have to approve the MDA, the reszone and the general plan. Yes. So, we'll just be recommending to correct city council. Correct. Positive recommendation or negative. Um, anyway, those are my thoughts. That's great. Thank you. Cameron, can can Paul come up? Can Yeah. Yeah, be sure. So, I just want to kind of spitball because this came up in our last meeting as well, the the problem with that gas station, right? Let's say it was removed from this, the requirement, that commercial piece, what would then go in there, hypothetically speaking?

Well, if it was taken out, there would be there'd either be some sort of a mini warehouses or there would be something the with Matt Canyon Road. You can see it being put in there. That will be one of the five premier intersections with a light in the whole city. It'll be very similar to what we see with the Maverick down here. Yeah, there is over I know this really bothers people, but there's probably right now there's scheduled to be over 10,000 homes up on that hill eventually. that won't be for 15 20 years.

So, uh, but the re the only reason why right now is you, like I said before, you couldn't give away that land to a gas station right now if it had to be built in the next 5 years. You they'd be just throwing money away. Yeah. Now, does the 112 allow for commercial SR138 or R12? R. Okay. So it's so the commercial is it's not a resone for the commercial. No. Correct. So a on phase two is when he would have to come in and reszone the commercial. That way we have the meets and bounds and a platted area of the commercial. And so we weren't we didn't want to do that.

We could always put just homes in there. We we'd make trust me when you can't give away a piece of land but the city asked us to put that in there. So we put it in there. I'm just saying the master plan doesn't mean there's going to be commercial necessarily. The concerns of

No, it does. So, in the MDA and the master plan, it outlines that there's 2.38 acres, I believe, or 2.78 acres of commercial. And so I mean if we're at the point to where he's at building permit 150 and he can't build that commercial out then he can come back with the development agreement. Kok city, what do you guys want to do with that? Because we don't have enough rooftops to sell this commercial property. Who's pushing the commercial? City. Yes, the city and staff. Because I mean that's that's corridor. That's a lot of money. for the city. It's tough.

Personally, I would rather not do it. I'd rather houses in, but they asked me to do it and I really have tried to become very, you know, Oh, Bill's standing up now.

Um, the question planners often ask is what is the highest and best use of the land? And um having homes that that either front onto or back onto this busy road is maybe not the best location for single family detached or for any residential really. Um, and it's only the the traffic on the road is only going to get more intense. And um, a gas station or a commercial use on that property is is probably a better use as far as a separation from the roadway itself and and putting it into something that's a a higher and better use or a more productive use of the land is is optimal. Um, just from a planning standpoint and from a best practices standpoint. So when when Shelby says that

follow up when Shelby says that we as staff and as the city are looking for a mix of uses on the property, this covers that. And um having a a development agreement locks us into making sure that he gets the entitlements that he needs so that the project pencils, but also gives us a a mix of uses and a diversity of land uses on the property that are uh beneficial for the city in general. So

it makes sense. I mean, it cost the city money to have homes. Uh they need to have a revenue source somewhere. Well, and these parks too are going to be expensive to maintain as was pointed out. Um, I wanted to point out there was a a question about uh too much land uh dedicated as park land in the city and I don't know the exact numbers. Christy would have that, but um the the general rule of thumb is that you like to have about 10 acres of park open space for every 1,000 um residents. Right now, if we're at about 15,000 residents, we need about 150 acres of of park o open space, dedicated open space. Um, we're not anywhere close to that. And so,

the counter to that though is the mountains are right there, too, right? A little bit different here. That's always the counter, but the you can't play soccer out in a safe. Watch me build. Well, you can't. The rest of us mortals have a little bit more difficult time. Um and and you know there are different activities that people can do in the mountains that you can't do in a more formal open space and vice versa.

Um we we would want a mix of things and actually that's uh this is well represented in this development. He's got trails indicated here. He's got more natural open space but also um more formal open space that's programmable for athletic events and and activities that way. So, um I guess part of what I was getting at is when 138 went in this property along 130 was probably going to be commercial. I mean, this is not like this is um surprise. I mean, there's a comment that I see the commercial gone that commercial is probably inevitable.

Yeah. And again, is it the highest and best use of the land? and we feel staff feels like it is, but that's a determination for you all to make as well in your recommendation. Um, you've heard from the public, they have concerns. Um, developer has concerns, staff has concerns, but again, the question is what is the best and highest use of the land? And that's for you guys to determine. So, thank you.

Okay. Oh, there's uh just a comment too is again as we've learned in our last week, we can consider and we do want to hear the public comment and would make would impact our recommendation to the city council, the the legisl the legislative part of the government here to decide to zone or not reszone. This isn't strictly u just a decision on existing you know use and so forth that we're so we're listening to you to make a re recommendation to the city and so we have you have feelings and so do we and we're going to express them to the to the city. We appreciate that.

So so a question I have um so first of all so I 11 years ago I moved away from my house. I I feel for the neighbors um I had a 150 acre field next to my home. Ivory came and built it. Built houses taller than my house. I couldn't even see the mountains anymore. So when we moved out here, so I feel for the neighbors. I understand that. But the developer has this property. You own it. It's going to be developed. So my question is, is there data or do you have access to the data that shows whether this was the same number of halfacre lots? Yes, it is. Well, I'm saying does that change is there a difference in having it this way with smaller lots and the number of residents cars versus

let's be honest with you it's we're really close right now to to saying we'll just go to halfacre lots and what that will mean is there will be no more ball fields there will be more I mean there won't be any more traffic that's what I'm wondering though is there a difference in traffic between having 70 I don't know what the number is right 70 halfacre lots and 70 quarteracre lots is there a difference in traffic no there's No. Okay. I can't see how it's it goes down a little bit when you do higher density, which a little bit,

but it's car trips per day per unit. And um if you get to duplexes, it goes down to about eight and much higher density like apartments, you're looking at five or six. Because I guess what the crux of my question is is is do we see more multifamilies living in a bigger home on a bigger lot or do you have multiple families living in smaller because of the economic situation of being able to afford a smaller home. So maybe you get two families in there instead of one is I guess what I'm wonder if there was doubt. One of one of the developers have come to us that on every single lot in on when we were doing halfacres they would build a secondary unit like the state lets them do. So there'd be a duplex on every single h lot. It's possible they but they'd have to come and talk to us.

Well, actually, yeah, they would, but you can't say no. They have a right to it. Yeah. Yeah. Gotcha. Okay. I think that's my only question is just just understanding that there's going to be a development here and really the number of cars isn't going to be affected on whe whether we reszone or not. No, I guess is what I was trying to get at. Whether there was empirical data that shifted it one way or another. And what I'm producing is there's not evidence to say there would be more traffic whether you had half. Yeah, not yet. Okay. But I'm sure, you know, once that area is built out, there'll be a new traffic study. We just had one done. Um, so Paul, thank you.

Actually, we have a traffic study ready to go for this. So awesome. Yeah.

Traffic's inevitable, too, if you put houses on it, whether they're half ac. Yeah, that's what I was trying to understand. Just make sure there wasn't a difference. So I again I just want to say feel like I say this at every meeting. He does own that. He has plans to develop it. Like Cameron said, somebody is going to develop it if it's not Paul. Um interestingly enough, uh the city does have a plan, a projection for what the city might look like in 30 years. And I believe that the city has put forth the expectations and and the hopefulness that the develop the developments that do come in um will provide some open space, will provide the detention basins and will also provide some commercial. And the commercial does a lot actually to sustain um city revenue. And um we have we have several developments that have already been approved that we've required a little bit of commercial and that's a given uh that the developers give us uh in hopes that we can support small businesses and larger businesses and and honestly one of my fondest memories growing up in Brigham uh was you know uh riding my bike down the street to the gas station. probably the only gas station on that side of town. And I can tell you that side of town needs a gas station. My husband leaves and drives out to Clive every day. And um if he doesn't get gas at the corner corner store down by our subdivision, he's just kind of so there's a rest stop that has a gas station in between here and Clive, but it would really benefit the city and the traffic and the the homeowners to have an opportunity for a gas station down there. And plus competition for gas stations will keep our gas lower. And um

I think you know to rob kids of the opportunity to ride their bikes down to the gas station and get I mean Candi's not a nickel anymore but you can all remember when Candy was a nickel. Um you know they need to learn that they need to watch for traffic and that's just part of growing up. Um so I do I want to also say as um John has mentioned h uh quarteracre lots are easier to take care of. are easier to landscape, but it gives our our city an opportunity, I feel like, to have younger families come in, be able to own a home. When we moved here 20 years ago, 21 years ago, we didn't think that we'd be here for 20 years, honestly. Um, and my husband says it's getting too big and we need to move, but we're not moving for quite a long time still. And um but I think for families to have an opportunity to buy a smaller home in a smaller lot, have it be more affordable and raise little kids to be big kids that will stay here in city in the city and and love our city as we have. I I don't know if we could fault the developer for providing an opportunity for folks to um do that. And you know, as our neighborhood has grown, there was a huge shop built behind my house, and I was so mad cuz it blocked my view. Um, but after a couple years, you don't even notice it. And this development isn't going to go in tomorrow, and it's not it's not going to be complete in 5 years. Um, you know, you'll have time to adjust. And we do have ordinances that buildings are built far enough away from horse pastures that it's not causing a nuisance to our new homeowners. And so I I know I live near horses and I get the horse I've already gotten horse flies this year. I've had two of them in my house and um they drive me crazy, but that's kind of what I signed up for. and and the developer I just Paul please make sure that your

realators are not advertising the smaller lots as horse property because we do well actually the zoning right for R21 allows some of that but we're we don't want horses there except for the Kembies like they're beautiful horses and they would really love them and that's why we put halfacre lots all around their house because the city asked us to do that and so that's why we did it. Yeah. I have another question as to developer. What is the price point on a home difference on a quarter acre lot and a halfacre lot would

we figure it's about $10,000 a lot. The the problem right now I'm just saying the price point the final home. How much difference is the price? Well, it it really depends on what you build on the home. I agreed. But just typically the lot prices are very similar if not the same. Yeah, my kiddo just bought a home quarter acre and it was still $480,000. So hopefully those prices will come down a little bit, but that you know that's compared to a $600,000 home on a halfacre lot or or even more expensive than that. Yeah, I'm seeing most of the homes on the halfacre lot seem to be north of 600. Yeah, they are. They are. They're bigger homes.

So as far as affordability that we need to be conscious of that, too. Well, and it's you know, yeah, it's up to it depends on the person who buys it. These will be, you know, taken. Most of the of the private areas except for the smaller playgrounds is all done by the the uh the homeowners, okay? Except for the soccer fields. Everything else is pretty much done by the homeowners and the and the jogging trail.

2,000 square foot home is not as odd on a quarter acre lot than it is on a halfacre. If you go out and you look at what just was been built out there on the gland that actually I sold earlier and now the other coming in, there are four homes there that are smaller than most the 8,000 square foot lots that are just to the east of it. In other words, you can put whatever you want on it. Sure. Uh and so they just put a very small home on a on a big lot. That's okay. That's great. That's what we that's what world's all about.

It's conducive to owning horses maybe and but you know he it is his land and he has an opportunity to uh do with it what he can within the constraints of our uh guides our codes or regulations. So, um I don't feel like this master development plan uh goes against uh what our long-term plan is as a city or um a reasonable projection for what the development is. I Derek, I don't know. I know that you've been involved in these discussions for a long time. Do you want to offer anything?

Um I'll save most of my comments for it. It's the city council. But I do my only concern is the way that this is written. If um it's it goes we give him the reszone for 112, but if he doesn't complete it, then it reverts back to 121 halfacre lots. I feel like that kind of puts us in limbo with say limbo. Say he's built 100 homes and that goes back to halfacre lots and we've got all these smaller lots out there. Um it's going to do a couple things. real estate agent could say, "Hey, this is a half a this is a R120. Let's advertise horse horse property, you know, even though they're not." So, you kind of you get in a limbo. What's permitted? What is the actual zoning? What, you know, can you have uh home occupation? How many animals can you have? you get into a whole limbo of things because if this project doesn't get finished, it reverts back to the old zoning when we've already built say 100 homes and they were supposed to be in 112 when it got completed. So, I I don't feel like this is the best way to do it. That's just my thoughts. I like the PUD process better.

Um, but that's just my my two cents on it. So, yeah. So the PUD would be an advantage because what would it what would it So it's an it's an overlay district. So the the zoning is still under but then you know we negotiate on the lot sizes and stuff like that which would ultimately take jurisdiction right on the but I'm just think non-compliance would how would we be better with the PUD and non-compliance than then uh how it's being imposed because well it wouldn't revert back it would that property would have a PUD with it. Um I mean I guess this has an NDA. I just don't like the reverting part of it. Yeah,

that's but I mean staff's evaluated it. I think that's the best. But I I don't think Paul wants to come back here. Do you want me to come up again? If you have something to respond again, it goes back to we we've done everything the city asked us to do. We built the same amount of homes. We did everything else. We believe

that the city needs more pars. We need believe right now you have a total of 400 yards of of trails and that's included next to highways in the city. You have another two miles here for walking and for jogging. What we've what what we're gambling on is that we're adding a lot of amenities to this. not only for our benefit, but I would rather have a ball field behind my house than have uh you know than have to take care of of the yard myself. So that's that's kind of what we that's kind of what we did. Um and so if you say no, we're fine. Just tell me no and we'll go back to halfacre lots and everyone will be happy. But we really think this is a better idea.

Did you ever consider the PUB process? Oh yeah. But uh the PUD is the way the city's handled the PUDS in the past that's 9 months. Okay, that's and when he said and when we talk about bureaucracy that we would build halfacre lots before we do a PUD no question about it. Feel like he just threatened us. Oh no, I'm just teasing. It's right now it's kind of like hurt me. been at a long time. I'll Okay. Any other comments or thoughts? Not for me. Nope. Okay. Want to entertain a motion?

Well, we haven't written our little cheat sheet here, but it seems like we ought to be recommending not approval, but a positive recommendation to the city council for approval. So, so just recommend consideration of it is all you're doing. And then it goes to the planning commission. So, it ain't you're not So, okay. We're not accountable for anything. Yes. So, I move that we recommend consideration of the city council posy recommendation of the proposed master development agreement for Mac Canyon subdivision located approximately near Mac Canyon Road SR 38 138. No. Okay. We have a second. I second it.

Okay. Thank you, Cameron. Any other discussion? No. All in favor? I I Okay, we'll close that item. So, we'll move on to agenda item five, the presentation discussion, consideration of a proposed general general plan amendment changing the land use designation. You got two from mixed use density. All the same

high single family density residential, low density residential to medium density residential for the M Canyon subdivision located approximately near M Canyon Road and SR13. Start with the the staff presentation. Maybe let's see on this I may have to Let me pull this up.

Um, essentially it's just solidifying what the development agreement um read is now we are amending the general plan um from uh low density density to um density to the to the medium density.

Yeah, sorry. Medium density. Um, but my Adobe died on me so close. And so here is the property here in yellow, orange, and purple. And so we are asking to I have it highlighted on my maps but asking to reszone this or amend the general plan to medium density. I have a question back on still this is is there a way to instead of say an automatic reversion uh that there it would trigger a um uh this city the opportunity to to reszone you know whatever they however they you know

or the development agreement. Yeah. wouldn't be an automatic reversion, but it would be the city's it would have to go back to the city for recon reconsideration of of the remainder re-examination. The the unc the part portion that's not complete. Is there a way we could do that better? Yeah. Um I think you have to open agenda item four back up and just fix your motion and include that and then we could fix that.

Okay. Can we open up? You bet. Um, so we'll pause the discussion on agenda item five and we will reopen the consideration for agenda item four, uh, approving the master, uh, development agreement for the M Canyon subdivision located approximately near Matt Canyon Road in SR 138. And so I want to amend my motion to rather than reversion automatic reversion back to the a halfacre zoning that would trigger um uh reconsideration of the un unimproved portion of the development to be reszone as the city determined feasible.

Okay. Okay, Dr. Super. I second that. Thank you, Cameron. All in favor? I I Okay. Okay. Sorry about that. Thank you. That's good. It's probably what Derek was going to have happen city council anyway, but you just say Okay. Okay. Uh we will open agenda item five. And uh if um the staff presentation is just to change the yellow portion where Paul's development is for the M Canyon subdivision from low density residential to medium density.

The yellow orange and purple portion. Oh, and the purple is commercial. It's a mix mixed use mixed use zoning. So, okay. On the other we need to do this. Yes. So, this one's first and then the reszone would come, but these would be recommendations to city council. Okay. Oh,

thank you. Um, no, I was just going to say may we'll just go straight to public comment since we've already had discussion on it. And, uh, we'll open the public hearing for agenda item five, the general plan. An amendment to change land use designation for mixeduse density, high single family density residential and low density residential to medium density res residential for the M Canyon subdivision located approximately near M Canyon Road and SR138. Anybody that would like to talk about density changes overlay on this? Okay. I'm sorry. Joe can't be again. I don't understand what this is at all. There's you have one thing where you're changing it and you're say you're going to do this and then you have this where say we're going to change it to something else. It's like you're layers upon layers of confusion.

Can somebody explain it in simple terms what's going on with this or can I ask those kind of questions at this point? So we So they're not they're they're not in a position to answer questions. They're taking comment right now. Afterwards, if if we get directions, staff can help answer some of those questions where they can answer them after they close the public. Yeah. You've now made the comments. So they'll answer this. That means the same thing we just discussed on the other thing. It's just that there's all the same thing. You can't there. No questions. But thank you for bringing We'll tell you. We'll tell you after the public comments. We'll tell you after we approve it. No, no, not after it's approved. Okay.

We can have offer some clarity. So, I have a comment on this. So, see where it says it's all purple?

Those are all halfacre lots right there already. So the current zoning is actually yellow or halfacre lots all the way to highway 138. The purple and the orange is what is on the future use, but the future use is irrelevant when there's already buildings there. So there's halfacre lots already there all the way up um to Sunflower Way and then obviously there's five and 10 are you on 10 10 acres 10 acre lots um in that orange section. So the reszone to medium density instead of leaving it at halfacre lots again opens us up to He gets to have a maximum of four dwellings per acre instead of two dwellings per acre. This happened, I believe, in the little apartment complex or are those town homes down on on 138 and Clark Street. The zoning changed

here. It's not that. It's it's up a little bit further. the zoning changed and there was all sorts of promises made and then because the zoning was already changed that's what the developer built to was that zoning. So if we change the zoning we lose all ability to restrict those houses to two per acre. So that's all I have to say about that. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else have any comment on the density discussion? Okay. Anybody online? If you're online and would like to comment on this item, please raise your hand. Okay. We will close the public comment then and uh invite Shelby back up and open conversation for commission. Yeah. I would just have the staff explain the procedural nature of what we're doing here. Yes.

Well, and also that what was just approved and this this plat that's been approved is what it has been approved. It's this is accommodating that but it's not something different. So if uh this action here doesn't change uh the plan that was just presented correct

so uh when it comes to planning there are several different steps and mechanisms that could come into play and I can understand why it would get confusing. You're not wrong. I I've been doing this for almost 20 years now and I still get confused. So, you're you're you're right on and your questions are are perfect. Um, we have in the city a general plan. The general plan is aspirational and dictates what we think the property ought to look like in 20, 50, 100 years. They're not determinate as to what is on the ground right now. That's the zoning. The zoning says this is what is permissible on the property right now. It's so there's two different documents. This is what we're looking at right now in this particular item is the general plan. Again, it's aspirational. It's a guiding document. It has no legal entitlements. It has no restrictions. It just says this is what we think ought to go here if and when the time comes for this to develop. Um the second the next item on the agenda is the actual zoning. The zoning governs the entitlements of the property and says this is what we will allow to go in on the property. Um, when it comes to zoning, you have to think of, and forgive me for how this sounds, but the the worstc case scenario because that's what you will get. If if there's something about the zoning that you don't want or don't agree with or don't think is appropriate, don't vote for the zoning. That's it. Um the other the and the first the last item we just discussed was a master development agreement which governs the development of the property. It puts in

place certain requirements and strictures that uh allow for certain things to go through. It determines the um layout of the the basic layout of the property including open space dedication, roadway uh dedications, uh trails and open space. All of those things come into play and the number of units that the city is agreeing to allow the developer to develop is locked in at that point as well. Um that's important for a couple of reasons. uh the developer has a what what's called a vested right once the uh development agreement is approved to develop the the number of units that are on are in the master development agreement. There may be some things on the property that push those units around but that entitlement stays in place and that guarantees the developer a certain ROI. that's which is what uh everyone is interested in. Um it also makes sure that the city has a a lever to pull if there are questions about who's doing what and when when the open space goes in, when the amenities go in, all of those kinds of things. And that guarantees that the city gets ultimately what the city bargained for and agreed to. That's over and above generally speaking what the zoning will allow. And that's why Paul keeps saying, "Heck, if it doesn't work out, I've already got the zoning that will start to pencil for me anyway." So, um, if if it's it's not a threat, it's just that's what his entitlements are. And, um, you know, frankly, the city wins in this and and Paul wins in this. And that's why an MDA or these kinds of negotiations are so powerful and beneficial for everybody. In summary, because I know it's a lot,

um, this is a master, excuse me, a future land use map amendment. This is aspirational. It has no entitlements that are associated with it. That's the next item. And that's why we have to go through this granted very convoluted process of amending the devel uh the future land use map amendment and then amending the zoning. Hope that's clear. I hope that's clear to you.

Yeah. So, just a follow-up question on just so because even though we're changing this from low to medium, because the MDA is in place, he can't go throw up quarter acre houses on the entire property now and jack up the lot count, which is why we did it in the sequence we did because and we'll do this again at the city council if when that time comes because the MDA approval governs the layout, the number of lots, all of those things. Then the rest of this is leveraged against that and vice versa. Y perfect clear as mud. Yeah. I hope that clarifies it for the concerns that were raised. Yeah. Thank you, Bill. Y

do you have any thoughts? No. No other thoughts. I don't think this is controversial. This is aspirational as the talk about supportive. Great. Um, so do you want to consider a motion or make a motion? I move to recommend consideration of a proposed general plan amendment to change the land use designation for mixed use density to high single family density residential and low density residential to medium density residential for the Matt Canyon subdivision located approximately near Matt Canyon Road and SR 138. A second.

Thank you, Cameron. Any further discussion? Okay. All in favor? I I that s unanimously and we will close items. Agenda item five and we will move on to agenda item six presentation discussion and consideration of a proposed reszone of parcels 01- 065004. I don't have to read them all.

What's agenda item six? Um the parcels referenced in agenda item six from R1 121 to the R12 for Matt Canyon subdivision located approximately near Matt Canyon Road and SR138. So we'll begin with the staff presentation for agenda item six.

Perfect. So this is the reszone of the the zoning map. And so as you can see to the north is a PUD which was in the RM7. Um and to the west is R121 and then further is a mixed use with a PUD. Um to the south is halfacre lots with um 1acre lots and then you have R18 which is 8,000 square foot lots. Um and then you have a PUD um in the RM15 with surrounding um halfacre zoning. This would just solidify what was recommended in the development agreement as well as the general plan amendment.

Have no comments, concerns. Thank you. Any questions for her, I guess, is where we're at. No questions, please. Okay.

I don't have any questions. No. Thank you, Shelby. So, we will open the public hearing for agenda item six. which is the resone of parcels outlined in the agenda from R121 to the R112 designation for Matt Canyon subdivision. Please um thank you. Um for the Matt Canyon subdivision located approximately near Matt Canyon Road and SR 138. Anybody has any public comment that they'd like to enter into the record, please uh use the podium and state your name.

Angeline Kempy. Um the only comment I have is just to make sure should the development not come to pass that we have all the safeties in place so that we don't end up with town houses all around us. That's that's my greatest concern. make sure that we have the safeties that like you had talked about that that you'll go in for consideration that that's in stone so that we are not having issues later. Thank you. Thank you, Angela. Anybody else like to speak on this item?

Okay. Uh if there's anybody online that would like to offer comment on agenda item number six, a potential reszone or sorry proposed reszone um for the Matt Canyon subdivision. Please raise your hand. Okay, we will close this public hearing. Seeing no further public comment and I will bring this item back to the commission for discussion and consideration. None. Nothing. Okay, sounds good. Like to entertain a motion.

I Oh, sorry. I move to recommend consideration the proposed reszone of parcels notated in item agenda item number six from R121 to R12 for the Matt Canyon subdivision located approximately near Matt Canyon Road and SR 138. Now uh because of our other modification you know with group plan um there's this reversion that could okay that only governs this is the reason but uh because we've stated we have we recommend the if they take care of that in the master then it would take care of this.

Sorry I'll second. Okay. Great. No further discussion. All right. All in favor? I I passes unanimously. And we will close item number six and move on to agenda item number seven, presentation and discussion. Uh the approval of the minutes from the March 17th planning commission regular meeting. Any changes? I've reviewed all the minutes. I don't This is top secret phone.

Thank you for capturing the minutes so well. Nicole, would it entertain a motion? I move to approve the the minutes from the March 17th, 2026 planning commission regular meeting. Second. Thank you, John. All in favor? I I thank you. Close agenda item seven and open agenda item eight, a report from city staff, Bill or Shelby. Just looking forward to that planning conference starting tomorrow. Starting tomorrow, me too. And we'll meet again this next Tuesday for some training with city council. Is that right?

Yes. week from tonight and then week from tomorrow or oh is it Wednesday city council will be a week from tomorrow. Okay. It's a it's a weird one because the first was a Wednesday. Okay. So we got the the weeks off. Usually they're the city council would be next day. Yeah. Okay. But I have it on the 14th as well. That's the master transportation. Oh that is that Tuesday? That is a work meeting. But yes, that's that. I was going to bring that up. So on the 14th, you guys have a combined work meeting with city council at 7 p.m. to go over the master transportation plan and the capital facilities plan amendments.

That's t Tuesday. Tuesday the 14th. And then Wednesday the 15th is city council decision. Okay. Yeah. So as a planning commission, we will be meeting again on the 14th. And then on the 30th is when we'll have an open house for the master transportation plan on the 30th of April. Correct. Okay. Then we meeting on the 20th as well. No. No. Okay. We'll meet on the 5th of May. Okay. Cinco de Mayo. I usually celebrate privately.

Stop. No. I have celebrate that. Don't Americans celebrate sin of the mile a lot more than the Mexican? Okay. Uh do you have any other items, Bill or Shelby? I'm planning a rodeo May 22nd, 23rd. Oh, what? Already? Sorry. Linda still. I heard a rumor, but that's uh it's the rumor is no longer a rumor then.

Correct. So, um the last planning commission meeting, they passed a motion to approve the stock contractor. And so, we have been when I say we, the committee has been meeting every Monday at 7 p.m. um to plan the rodeo. And we have accumulated um 20,000 in sponsorship, which covers a stock contractor. And so, um, Nellis can cover start covering other expenses. How long has it been since we've had you? Way too long. Um, since I recall, it's been 15 years and others say 20. So, we would hold these grounds. That sounds like it's going to be a zoo.

No, it's going to be be crowded. Yeah. Get on your walking boots. Yeah. That'll be fun. Tickets went live and tickets are limited. So, Oh, there you go. Tickets on Facebook. Nice. I think there was rodeo when we first moved in here, but it's been a little while. So, what what was the dates? May 22nd and 23rd. May starting at 7 p.m.

And we're taking first the Bies and now the rodeo. Doesn't get much better than that. Yeah. Our board, we're looking for volunteers to be on the rodeo committee and so um and help do the cleanup. We're planning a clean up on April 18th and May 2nd. Rodeo is here in town, right? Yes, ma'am. Yes. Not at Not at Desert. Not at here in town. Yes. Nice. I love it.

Okay, we'll um close then agenda item eight and open agenda nine, the open forum for plenty commissioners. Anything you'd like to say? We just really appreciated the training last week that was um or whatever it was. It was very helpful. It seems like it was last week, but I guess it was two weeks ago. And that was um was very helpful. I enjoyed it. I even brought my cheat sheet but didn't even have a chance to use it because everything was so dang easy. Save it for that. There you go. Um

um so what happens if let's say I didn't show up tonight? They have to cancel this meeting. Yeah. Oh man, that would be inconvenient. Can Can we make it easier on you by uh Yeah, if you're not going to make it, please let me know. Well, I will. I was just curious like I would just I don't know if this is too much trouble, but if you just want to send a invite via Outlook or something, we respond so you would know. I'll be happy to do that. I do, you know, work all the time. I

I like the roll call five minutes before keep Shelby scared. My favorite story that way is that uh we had a planning commission chair in where I was at down in Texas named Elton Forbus and he worked for Exxon and spent a lot of time in other countries doing very high and high level negotiations and um we were trying to have a planning commission meeting and we had two people and I called him and I said Elton are you coming in? It was unlike him not to come in and he said it's going to be tough. I'm in Nigeria today. So, uh I said, "Well, you're excused then." Geez. Um yeah, he interesting guy. But yeah,

that would ruffle. We would have we would have to cancel. Yeah. Can you imagine? We didn't have all three or at least three, we would have to cancel. So, would it be easier on you to to just do Outlook or Google whatever it is invites and we respond? Yeah, you can send those invites and just send them to your uh email, you know, for attentive or confirmed and you know, you need to search in your Google calendar invite to them. Yeah. Better for me, too. I just click it and it's added and then I can respond and you know, perfect. I think that would be a good way to go.

Do you want it to your planning commission email or you want it to your personality? um frankly be best personal but uh because I don't know that the calendar ties anything on it. So I think it'd be it' probably only be really work if it was on personal personal emails. If you want it on your personal you can email me your personal email. You can send it up. Just to make it easier for Nicole. I think it's the default is going to be we're going to go under the assumption that you will be here unless we hear from you that you won't. Yeah, that's probably a good thing to So even if you don't select yes, we're going to say yes unless you select no. Okay. Well, either way, whatever works for you. I'm just trying to make it so you're not

We're all adults. We can call out when we need to call out and no call, no shows are bad form on anybody's part. So, so just understood that we will let you know we're not going to be here. Perfect. And we can join, we count as part of the quorum via Zoom, right? So, yeah, even if you're on the road and listening in, counts. Yeah. Out of town in Nigeria. It's not that far. The biggest difference there was the time difference. It was like in the morning when I called him. Okay. Can't imagine taking on a role of a chair of a board and not being able to be there most of the time.

He was there most of the time. This was a a rare one that he just the stars lined up. Yeah. Well, the stories he could tell. Yep. Okay. Um I can't remember. So, you were going to ask us to propose a motion to close. Oh. Um well, let's close uh item agenda item nine and uh open agenda item 10, a refer from city council and Derek to that was on purpose, Derek. Sorry. A few things have happened since you guys last met. We did. I don't know if you guys have heard yet, but rodeo's coming to town.

We approved that last meeting. Um, we awarded the sewer contract to um, uh, Vancom Construction Company and approved the new sewer rates. That was fun. Not, but we got it done. Still more things to go. How long was it that going to take to build? Needs to be done by like 20 end of 2028. I would guess 18 months. Yeah. Where is it going to be at? Where the current Okay. Yeah. Um, me and Mayor Hammond and Councilman Thomas went out to the site announcement for the nuclear campus.

Um, I don't know if you guys saw that on the news, but we get that. That could change the way Grantsville looks in years to come. So, we'll see. No more street lights. It'll just glow. Yeah. So, I heard when we were out there, they said around June, 1 of June is when we should hear where it's coming. It's our side or one of the many other places they'll put in. So,

stay tuned on that. Uh, we approved the contract for the Veterans Park, a local company for its concrete. So, we're excited about that to finally get that going. And then, oh, we approved the funding for installation of a of some timing equipment at the Scenic Slopes Park. It's a little app that the kids can put on their phone and it uh has their GPS on the track and they can time climb around their track and compete with other people at the track and around them and keeps kind of like the leaderboard. It was a kind of a newer they've only got it in a few ones. Councilman Butler was able to negotiate a cheaper price

just for asking. Just for asking. Yeah. Since we're took the other beta testers. So the kids are already enjoying the park. They're crawling through the sewer lines. Well, this one will have a GPS. We don't have it yet. So, we can't see how fast they're crawling through those lines yet. But, um, I think that's it. That's for the short amount of time. I didn't know I was coming early until a couple hours ago. So, I think that's all that's happened since we've met. Are you our assignment now or are we still No, no. His son had a tennis match today and up in Logan. So, we're going to be able to make it.

Can I ask a couple quick questions? Um, the work that's going on Mormon Road out south, uh, they blocked it off. Is that new, uh, water lines or I think so. I think you're talking about water line extension going up to the new tank.

Okay. And then in the uh uh subdivision there, the blink ary where the city owns that 40 acres. You know, there's cement, all that kind of stuff. Is there plans for that to be like buried at some point or what what's that that it's kind of an old dump site out there or whatever? There's a combination of it looks like some u old gutters and stuff and there's just a lot of like in the pit. Yeah, in the pit. Yeah, plans for that pit at any point.

Eventually it will be filled in with debris and materials and things like that. We have a contractor coming in to grind up the material and use that again. Who's that? This is Michael Rosair, Gransville City Manager. Thank you. So, like in the next year kind of thing, they'll they'll they'll take No, they're they're we going to have that done here in the next month or so. They'll bring out a bunch of equipment and grind it all up. Oh, wow. Well, that's great. They're probably supposed to build parks inside pits, right? Thank you. So, okay. So, the pit is separate from the park. Yeah, for sure. I just went on the on the pit what they're going to do there. Nice to have you with us, Michael.

So, you been here all night? Absolutely. Keeping keep an eye on staff. My goodness. Okay. Well, thanks for time warn us before you speak though so we don't think it's the end. It was like the voice of God from on high. Is that It is the Simpsons. Holy smoly. It's all I've got. Thank you, Derek. Appreciate what you do. We will close with the item agenda item 10 report from city council and agenda item 11 is a chairman. Consider a motion.

Move. I'll second. All in favor? Hi. Hi. Thank you.