Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

said she's sitting.

I didn't Commissioners counsel Please. No.

Hi, John. We were wondering if you're making Sarah.

Um, I'm not sure. Does the table? Yeah. Balance out the table. Oh, yeah. Does John have a name plate? Nicole, does John have a name plate? Are you Shelby? I'm Nicole. I'm her assistant. Shelby is barely called me. So I'm sorry. Oh. Yeah. I was just letting her know you were stopped another meeting and I Oh, well thank you for coming. But have a car alternate isn't going to make it today. So you have to cut short. No. Thank you.

Thank you. I don't I never use it. So, city hall.

It'll say she's your techie, too. I can control your sometimes not as

um do they have you set up yet? Look through it. Yeah, they're really sensitive.

Okay, it's 7 o' we were still recording or not. All right. Okay, I'd like to call to order the Grantsville City Planning Commission meeting being held at 700 p.m. on Tuesday, February 3rd, 2026. Location is 429 East Main Street, Grantsville, 84029. We have uh Jason, Commissioner Jason Hill, and our myself, Sarah Moore, and our newest member uh planning and zoning commissioner John Montgomery present. We have a quorum and um we will uh start with the pledge of allegiance. To the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. We have a couple items on the agenda today that we will hold public hearings

for. So, we'll open the first item, the public hearing for the consideration of a proposed new use allowing micro entrepreneurship within the RM-7 zoning designation. Anybody here that would like to talk to that? Yeah, I'm Gary Pinkham. Um, about three weeks ago, I sent some comments in on this when it first showed up. I don't know if they got over to you folks or not. Um it appears that nothing has been done with them. But uh if we look at the second page on that thing uh on the staff report under proposed use, the first item there limits the number of employees to two. If you go down a short way on that same page under operation limits, it sets a limit of one. So the code right now is contradictory. You guys will need to straighten that out and make it something that our legal department could enforce. The other item on that same page is with regards to permitted activities. It lists them as permitted activities. And going back six or seven years when I was a member on the commission, I started pushing for our code to be rewritten to take all permitted uses in our code, whether it be chapter 14, 15, 16, or whatever, and convert them to conditional uses.

My point on that is once you and the city designate it permitted, I can do that use without anybody telling me anything about it. You can't set lighting. You can't set hours of operation. You can't set fencing regulations because you are not permitted to put conditions on me. You've already permitted that use. Now, we saw that kind of a mess with Arby's down here. We need to take our code and convert everything to conditional use so the city retains the ability and the right to protect the citizens and the city on those uses and impose those conditions that are reasonable and appropriate. I would change the wording on that then to say conditional uses or conditional act activities rather than permitted. The next page on page three under site standards it states that it shall have a minimum that that the property for this permitted use would have a minimum of 200 feet of frontage. The RM7 allows a minimum of 70 foot of frontage. I don't think we have an RM7 zone in town with lots that come anywhere near this size by putting a 200 foot minimum on your uh requirement here. You're basically making every RM7 lot in town illegal for this procedure. So if it is your intention to have this NRM7, you need to fix the code to fit the co of the code designation.

Um those are the three things that I pointed out like I say three weeks ago. I don't know if staff ever read my comments or not or anything. They definitely weren't addressed here. Thank you.

Thank you, Gary. Does anybody else like to comment on item A? Do we have anybody online? If you're online and would like to comment on the entreprene entrepreneurship uh new type of zoning within the RM zoning designation, please raise your hand. Okay, we'll close that item and we will move on to uh public hearing for I the second item on the agenda. the consideration of a proposed general plan amendment for parcels 01-131- 0-00002 and parcel 01-13- 0-009 and parcel 01-130- 00008 and parcel 01-130-0016 and parcel 01-130 30-000014 to change the land use designation from rural residential 2 to mixed use density for the crossing at willow creek subdivision approximately 154 acres. So this one is to change the land use designation. Would anybody like to speak to that subject? Good evening everyone. Happy to be here. Uh we are excited about this uh this area.

This is public comment. This is public. So you guys are making Are you the involved with the development? This is actually our development. This is public comment. Okay. Super. So if anyone has any any uh anything Oh, we can we can sit down. Oh yeah. Jump the gun. Yeah, if Shelby was here, she would have stopped. So, I guess I wish I would spend more time with the people who are bringing these items to the agenda, but I can't. So, I'm sorry, I don't recognize you, but I'll recognize you next time. Is there public comment on this item? Is there anybody online, if you're online, would like to address this item? Would you raise your hand? Oh, I'm sorry. Please come up. State your name.

Hi, my name is Richard Roth. Good evening to the council or good evening to to the planning and zoning commission. My question is this. As I was reviewing the plans, there appears to be one um entrance for retail and a separate entrance for the homeowners. Is that correct? So, public comment, we can't really give you any feedback um or answer any questions. what's on the plans in our public packet is what's there. So, you could state questions and maybe the developers can address them when they're talking about it.

Another question I have, and I know you can't answer this, is there any plans to put traffic lights on 112? Another question is, how do you plan to mitigate the truck traffic for the mixeduse warehouses in the back? That's all I have. Thank you very much. Questions.

Thank you, Richard. Is there anybody else that would like to address this item? Is there anybody online? If you could raise your hand. Okay, we'll close that item if there's no other public comment and we'll move on to item C on the agenda for the public hearing. a consideration for a proposed reszone uh for the parcels in the same area ending in 00008 um ending in 0016 and ending in 0014 from uh zoning destination A-10 agricultural to the general manufacturing district MG resulting in approximately 51.6 6 acres being zoned to MG. Is there anybody that would like to speak to that item? Okay. Do we have anybody online? If you'd raise your hand, you'd like to speak to the general manufacturing district being implemented in this area. Okay, we'll close that item then and we'll move on to the last item on the public hearing list. Um, this would have been a good one where we would have brought the public hearing and then talked about the item and then brought the next one the next public hearing item. So, uh, anybody would like to speak on item D, consideration of a proposed resone for parcels 01-131-00002 and partial 01-130-00009 and parcel 01-130-008

and parcel 01-130-0016 and parcels 01-1 13-0-000014 from A10 agricultural designation to the mixeduse district M-U for the crossing at Willow Creek subdivision resulting in approximately 102.4 acres being zoned for mixed use. Is there anybody that would like to speak to that item during our public comment? Okay. Uh, is there anybody online, if you're online, would like to speak to the uh, designation going from a agricultural to a mixeduse district? Would you raise your hand? Okay. Well, fantastic. We will close that item and we will open up the items for discussion of the planning and zoning commission on the agenda. Item number one, consideration of a proposed new use allowing micro entrepreneurship within the RM7 zoning designations.

Hi. Yeah. How's it going? Good. How are you? Glad to see everyone survived um the holiday and uh hope that uh got to spend it with those that you love in a place of warmth and light. Groundhog Day. It's it's a favorite. Um, this is something that we talked about a couple of weeks ago. It's uh being brought back to you for your consideration. There were a couple questions that were brought up in the public hearing. I wanted to talk to those just really quick and then kind of get into the meat a little bit more because we have a new planning commissioner. Welcome. It's good to have you. Thanks.

My name is Bill. I'm the community development director. Normally these these items would be um shephered through by Shelby, but she's not feeling well, so we hope she gets feeling better soon. Um the first question was with regard to the idea of a employee versus an operator, and I just wanted to clarify that those are two separate things. So, um I think that's clear in the code, but I wanted to make sure make sure you guys understood that's what we're looking at there. Um if you have any questions about that, let me know. Um, conditional uses. This is a philosophical kind of question with regard to how planning can and should be done. Um, there's there's a school of thought that says, "Yeah, let's make everything a conditional use and get it in front of the planning commission for review." Um that is uh certainly one way to approach the um the way that we operate here in the city, but that tends to also have a um a chilling effect on new and um desirable businesses in town. So if if we have a robust set of performance standards, which we should, then all of the permitted uses must meet those same conditions, whether or not they are conditional uses or are permitted as of right uses. Um, for example, just because someone lives in a residential area and is permitted as of right to um build a home on that property doesn't mean that they can do it without meeting the strictctures and requirements of the code. They still have to meet all of the requirements of the code even though it's permitted. The only difference is who gets to say yay or nay. Um, furthermore, if a condition is not specifically and explicitly and clearly stated in the code, then it

becomes a matter of whether or not we can impose those kinds of extra requirements on a conditional use. Some people think that a conditional use means that we can apply conditions over and above what's already in the code and in the performance standards upon those uses to help mitigate. And that's true to an extent. If there are mitigating circumstances that can be met, then we can look at those, but they need to be addressed in the code first. So a conditional use is a permitted use provided they meet the conditions as outlined in the code. It's it's not like we have uh much discretion over whether or not to allow a conditional use. It is presumed to be allowed. If they can meet the conditions if they cannot meet the conditions then they have to be denied. The last thing was the question of frontage. Um we did change that to actually 150 ft. that's in your staff report that you see in front of you. Um, we wanted to find a reasonable balance between allowing these kinds of uses in some areas and not allowing it just generally on every lot. So, uh, understanding that the frontage is only um a minimum of 70 ft and many of the lots will be 70t wide, um, those lots will not be eligible for this kind of conditional use. just that's you you will not be allowed to have that. There are lots that do exceed the 150 foot frontage, especially corner lots where it would be desirable to have this kind of thing anyway. So, that's kind of the the balance that we struck. That's for you guys to determine whether or not you think we did well on that, but that's where we're we're heading with that. Other than that, this microenterprise um idea is something that staff has come up

with in working with some property owners here in town who um are desires to have this kind of business on their home property. It's it's more than just a traditional home occupation where the impact on the neighborhood is nothing. You would not know that it was there. Maybe there's a sign or maybe they um put something in their window that says you can buy quilts here or something like that, but other than that, you wouldn't know based on the traffic in and out and and displays and things like that. You would never know that it was there. This microenterprise tries to expand on that just a little bit. Not getting all the way over into a a true retail kind of a situation, but still having it homebased and minimal, not minim minimized impact on the uh on the existing neighborhood and um the residential feel of that neighborhood, but still allowing people to pursue um expanded uh operations and and uh things like that. So, we feel like we've kind of struck a good balance here. Um, that's uh for you to determine, but uh hopefully that makes sense. And if you have any questions, we're here to help.

Thank you. Thank you, Bill. Um, Jason, did you have any comments or thoughts?

I have some comments. Not so much questions. I Bill, thank you for doing this. I think one of the intents of this was try to make things more streamlined so we're not having to make things multi-step and we don't have to. I do appreciate Gary's comments. He's looking trying to work out for all of us. I think you've addressed those in the sense that this is not wholesale to L development or all commercial in in Grantsville. It's for micro businesses specific to a certain zone. And I think you've addressed the concern that we're listed and even what what Carrie said, I think even the clarification on what what considers an employee versus an owner I think was good. And I think you captured that in the verbiage that you have here in the text. So I'm supportive of it. Awesome. Thank you, John.

A few questions. Um, first of all, on the conditional use, I thought there was provision and I admit I was new, so I went through this package pretty quickly, but the planning commission still is required to approve any use. So, what's the intent there? And what what could if we can't oppose anything or make restrictions, you know, why would the planning commission approve each each use if it's already in as you've described, it's really in the code and we shouldn't be doing that. I guess

it's a fair question. Um the question is one of public participation and getting the opportunity to have this kind of a forum where um the it's in a public meeting and folks can come out and hear what's going on and how we collectively are addressing some of the concerns and and performance standards that are applicable to a a particular thing. Um, philosophically speaking, again, just between us, I I feel like more items, personally, I feel like more items should be pushed towards permitted because again, if they're in the code, they're considered to be permitted, assuming you can meet the performance standards as outlined in the code, which is what we do for all permitted uses anyway. So, this is an additional step that allows for this public participation, but there's a an expectation that if a person from the public were to come in and and complain or have concerns about light trespass or fugitive dust or something like that or that is or maybe even isn't in the code already that we would be able to take those into account.

Couldn't act on them or or restrict So it just seems like that could use some clarification as what would be the role of Yeah. the planning commission because it would basically if they complied just say go for it and I don't know how we would um really have a role there. Yeah, it's a very good point. The second thought I had was um so why just this zone? There's a lot of homes there and and the idea seems to be make it so it's not intrusive on the home. So, you really wouldn't know what's happening there, but So, why not open it to City Slopes or anywhere in the city? Sure.

And, uh, for some reason, we're restricting it to this zone. So, why is is there something that's undesirable about this to these homeowners in this zone? Um, why are we just limited to this zone? Because if it's good for this zone and the residents shouldn't care, be affected, should be unnoticeable, why wouldn't you offer it everywhere in the in the city?

Well, there's a couple of reasons for that. First off, just speaking geographically, the RM zone tends to be centered more around the the city center, and there are older homes with potentially larger buildings, larger homes, larger lots, and therefore it could be more desirable in those places as opposed to places out uh a little further away from the center of town where um a home occupation would be acceptable, but this kind of impact would not be as um desirable in those locations. The other thing is that this is the only zone that we're applying it to because this is the only zone that has been asked. So if if someone were to come in and say, you know, that's a really good idea. I love what they're doing out there. I'd like to do that on my property. We could look at it at that point as well. This is being brought in connection with some property owners who have a desire and they happen to be in the RM7 zone. So we're doing those two in connection with each other. Um,

so that's part of my point is you're setting the president. So seeing slopes wants to how would you say no to them if if they came in if you granted to them? Well, you can and that's the beauty of the the legislative process is that you can say no to anyone for any number of reasonable things. Um, you'd have to differentiate though. I think you could and you and you could then and that's my question. I guess we're differentiating this zone is because you're saying there's larger lots. there's I understand it's closer to the to the to Main Street so forth and my thought was well having this zone so many hundred feet from Main Street or something

because again um I'm sensitive to the residents they don't want to be you know become retail all of a sudden and you're saying well you're not even going to notice it well again if that's the case you know why couldn't it so this one you would notice I think the the you wouldn't notice it phrase I used in connection with home occupations, which um to me that's my sweet mother. Bless her. She's got a quilting long arm machine and she makes quilts

and she sells them to people online and she ships them places and people come and and pick them up from her or drop off fabric or whatever. If you didn't know she was running a little business out of her mother-in-law apartment attached to my brother's house, you would never know. You just there's not there's no one parking there. There's no visits, there's no um it's it's not like a regular retail establishment. This kind of threads the the space between those two um which is a home occupation which again you would not notice the impact on the neighborhood versus a full retail commercial kind of establishment where you would definitely feel that difference. Um there will be some impact. It will be the the parking is going to need to be addressed. There will be two to four visitors per hour at these.

That was my thought with the two to four visitors. Um it seems like that will be noticeable, but what happens if it exceeds that? All a sudden someone's out there with 10 10 visitors an hour. What what would we

Well, then that's a happy day for them because they are doing such good business that they've attracted the attention of their neighbors and and we've gone out to check and yeah, they are having quite a few more visitors. So, it's time to stop doing business and move to someplace that's more appropriate. Um, and that's that would be a happy thing, right? So, good on you. Your your little entrepreneurship work, it's taken off and let's get you someplace that's more accommodating. Um, and you'd want that anyway if your business was doing that well. You'd want someplace where uh you could have people get in and out easier, parking and all of the rest of the stuff that comes with a retail a true retail establishment, not just in your front yard.

Is that sufficient? Yeah, I think so. I I just wanted to talk through those things and um still would just caution the clarification on what the planning commission's role would be when people come in. Is it really an approval from us? I don't think that it that it really is excusing. So, it is an approval from you. That's true. But, uh, we we're we're within a pretty tight fenced yard area of where we can play. And yeah, it's almost a staff function. You've met the the rules or you don't. Yes. So, we don't really have much of say there. I suggest and then just the caution that if that we are differentiating why why it's okay here and wouldn't be you know

wouldn't be other places this week in school I'm supporting if if we went back

yeah thank you Bill unfortunately I'm sorry John we discussed this last meeting and I didn't didn't really absorb the fact that you weren't with us last meeting so um As Bill said, we we had a discussion on the frontage that we were uh wanting to look at 200 200 foot uh frontage and we had conversation with that and uh we kind of reduced that and and uh 150 ft frontage is is a more reasonable in my opinion than 200 feet, but it gives a couple spots for cars to maybe park temporarily, but not impede a driveway or any other access to the house that we would need for safety reasons. So, um where I think maybe a 70 foot frontage could impede if something happened and and EMTs needed to get there get to to the house or some place on the property relatively fast that um having a couple cars parked there at a 70 foot frontage could could cause some problems and access concerns and issues. So

I think that is the main distinction and why we should do that. So would you guess 20% now of the potential lots have that kind of frontage would cut it in half? Oh, don't get me lying. I don't I don't know. Um it it would generally be in my experience it would be the corner lots that would meet that kind of restriction because probably around 25% or something. So yeah um just at a a rough number 20 25%. And that's assuming that all of them wanted it, which I would guess very few actually do.

And we can always come back and revisit this if if we wanted to alter revisit the guidelines that um Bill and and Shelby Nicole has developed and proposed, we can revisit it. And I think the the limit of two to four customers per hour is a standard day if like Fourth of July and we've got people walking around our streets all day or all weekend wasn't necessarily sustained all the time. So if it was every week by week and we had more than two to four customers per hour, then somebody might file a complaint. We might have somebody from the public service office go look at it and and maybe issue them a a nuisance or we would revisit this two to four customers per hour. That could impact how they're operating. But I like how Bill uh Bill's view of saying, you know, good for them. Maybe they'll be able to afford a storefront or put their their goods and wares in some place that's a shared shared storefront like Quilts of Bear or something as opposed to just working out of their home. But uh this was developed because we have a gap uh in what's allowable currently in our code that didn't really fit what we had some of our homeowners wanting to do or had been doing. we were running into walls and in those guidelines. Um, and so Bill and and his staff worked really hard to create this. And I wanted to also just point out that uh the permitted activities is not an exhaustive list. It says right here examples of activities that may be allowed would include these items. And and so it's not that we're trying to restrict or trying to determine what um limitations people have for taking advantage of a zoning like this, but it's just it's used as an an example

of what uh people may be able to bring and ask for a conditional use permit. And so we can leave those in, we can take them out, we can update them in the future if we find something that's really a a unique nuance that um more people want to do more often, we can add it to this list. But I don't think this is restrictive at all and and with it being a conditional use um we would come. And so I think part of what I wanted to do when I started was um kind of take a list or have some experience and knowledge about what conditional uses we are allowing. So we can make sure that we're applying that same sort of logic consistently to other people's use and if one person was denied then down the road we can use that as a um reference. Right. Yeah. So, precedence and and try to apply that consistently and that's kind of the benefit of having people here and people in Bill's position and and Nicole and and Shelby are so good about um scanning through these first and bringing to us what would really benefit from a conversation and public input um that I think we we've done really good on on keeping those precedences while still allowing people to use their property as as in a wide variety of opportunities and as they see fit. Well, you know, we don't want to restrict people in developing their properties or or using their properties. We want to partner with them as much as possible as as our guidelines.

Well, sounds like we struck a balance and I um think we've answered this gentleman's concerns about the frontage, why the conditional use problematic that would be for every There was another one. The uh anyway, I think we've got customer count and uh yeah, so I will entertain a motion then. I'll make a motion that we approve the new micro entrepreneurship with RM7 zoning definition. Second. Fantastic. Any further discussion? Okay. All in favor? I.

Great. Thank you, Bill. We'll close that item. We'll move on to item two, which is the consideration of proposed general plan amendment for the parcels that uh we had mentioned in the public comment portion. Do I need to read them all again?

I don't think so. I think they're in the in the agenda item itself. agenda items uh parcels ending in 02, parcel ending in 09, partial ending in 08, and partial ending in 16, and partial ending in 14 to change the land use designation from rural residential 2 to mixed use density for the crossing at Willow Creek subdivision, which affects approximately 154 acres.

So, if it's all right, I'd like to uh just kind of do the staff portion of this covering all three of the next three items. It's all the same area. the same uh impact in the same parcels. And so um I I'll when we get to the zone change portion, I'll explain how there's different portions that will apply to different properties, but overall this is the area that lies just to the west of the Motorsports Park and south of the Romney Group property. So if you're familiar with the area along 112, that's where we're talking about. Um there was a question that was brought up and I just want to address this really quickly. Um these what you're looking at here is a is a very very loose conceptual idea of potential uses roads layout of buildings and things like that. There's a a bit of a challenge here when we talk about things like zone changes or um future land use map amendments where we can give you so much information that you get bogged down in the minutia, but then if we don't give you enough information, then you have no idea what we're talking about. So there's the there's a balance there between giving you enough and giving you too much. And one of the things that may be too much on this is the idea of the accesses onto 112 itself. Um there is a planned light somewhere in this vicinity. That's going to be something that we'll work on with UD do and with the property owners. They will need a second ingress and egress and so that has to be depicted there somewhere somehow. I'm I'm asking you not to get too bogged down into the details of where and distances and all of those things. Look at the buildings. Look at the overall uses. look at the the overall divisions of the property and and make your decision based off of that. Please don't get too concerned about well there's six of these types of buildings, why not seven or eight? We don't know. The

question that you we're facing tonight is when it comes to the land use general plan, the land use map of the general plan, the future land use map. Um, we're really looking at this is the major portion of what we're doing tonight. Um, when we adopt a general plan, and we're going to look at getting into a a revision to our general plan, we we've applied for some grant funding to help us with that. When we adopt a general plan, that reflects the will of the people for the next 20 years. They're saying what we want our city to look like for the next 20 years is this. This is our future land use map. These are our goals. These are our desires. These are our objectives. This is where we're headed as a city for the next 20 years. It should be updated every 5 years, roughly, 5 to 10. We're kind of in the middle of that five to 10 right now. So, it's a good time to relook at this. The the I was taught early on in my career that there are three reasons why you should look at a future land use map amendment like this. First off, and this is the easiest, this is the lowhanging fruit, is if there was a mistake that was made. It was it just a clerical error? Was it an oversight? Was it something that we looked at and missed? That would be one of the reasons. Another reason, excuse me, is if there is a a shift in the morals and desires of the community at large um such that you know this area was once set aside as u a wetlands area and in a a horrible drought. All of the wetlands have dried up and we haven't had snow for six years and now it's actually desirable to do something different with the area. that things have shifted, things have changed globally, things

have changed within the morals or or conditions on the site that that warrant relooking at this before and outside of a regular standard revision to the general plan. And then the third one is the desires of the property owner, which is what we're looking at tonight. If the property owners change, if the properties change hands, then they could bring something like this to us and say, "Look, the property has been a field forever. It's time now based on what's going on to the north, which is the Romney Group and the the U industrial expansion that we're seeing there, as well as the uh motorsports park to the east of this property and the the park uh what's that park called? There's

the Peak.

The Peak. Thank you. I'm just um it's all in this vicinity and it's pulling people in off of 112 and out of Tilla and all these places that people want to come and be in this area. Well, that may be a significant change from what it looked like when the general plan was adopted and these property owners are like, "This land is way too valuable and way too important to leave as an agricultural or a rural residential use. Let's change it into something that makes more sense." Let's change it into something that's an asset for the community. Let's change it into something that fits our goals and our desires for the property. And um this is what we want. This is what we're looking at.

So the question that you guys have both with this question as well as the zoning question is is this the right time and is this the right place? Those are the two questions that you have to answer. Now, the questions about should is there going to be enough water on the property? Are they going to be able to find water to get there? Are they going to have access onto the road? Uh what is the sound going to be like? Those are all real valid questions. You're living next to a a a racetrack. It's loud, right? When I was down in Texas, we were about 2 miles from a drag strip. And I mean to tell you, it ruined our Saturday afternoons in our backyard because it was so loud. two miles away, we just kind of didn't go out there for a few hours. Um, those are all valid questions. But on the other hand, if if you bought one of these condos or apartments or whatever and you knew that it was right next to a racetrack, you knew it. You bought it. You it was you came to that knowing this is the situation. We don't need to consider that tonight. Okay. The question for you tonight is, is this the right time and is this the right place? So that's the future land use question. That's this item number item number two.

And then three and four is the reszone question. And a portion of the property is looking to reszone to mixed use, which would involve residential and uh commercial uses. That's why it's a mixed use. The other one is an MG zone. That's a a general manufacturing zone and it would be complementaryary to the um Romney group and what they're doing there obviously on a much much smaller scale. So that's the desire of the property owners. That's the three items that you see in front of you. The one is the future land use map amendment that will change from a a rural residential to the mixed use. Yeah, that's right. then um a portion of the property will be um for consideration for you to think about um in in a mixeduse area and then the last bit will be in the MG area.

I think I got those reversed I think but it's whatever they say there in the agenda items you're right. So um that's it and uh I'm here for any questions. you saw that there representatives from the the property owners that are here that are excited to talk about this and uh they're excited about the project and and uh eager to share ideas and answer questions if you have them. But uh that's uh that's where we're at. I've got a couple questions of you. Um so what point this is a large resone for a large piece of ground. Would a traffic study be pertinent? Because once you zone this, then they have the right to use it. Correct. This way. So, have we have we done a traffic study?

So, no. And again, that's one of those questions that would come up after the zoning was in place. There's a reason for that, and it's a good reason. A traffic study is expensive,

and it may be a question in our minds whether or not traffic can be addressed on the property. But if we require that at this point before we've given them any entitlements the property owner the property owners then have a vested investmentbacked expectation that we would if we give them if they gave us the traffic study we would say yeah we're we have to allow it now look they paid $100,000 for this traffic study. I don't think that that's true, but but it's an expectation and the courts have found that that's valid expectation and that's where we're headed, I think.

Yeah. And it's it's just an expectation, but it's still persuasive in court. And so this the legal precedent is that and I'm not an attorney, Tyson. can correct me if I'm wrong on this, but um if people have put too much money and it's too much is, you know, for a judge to decide really, but that's why we steer clear of these kinds of things, these kinds of answering these kinds of questions because first off, if they can't meet the traffic study requirements, and we would require a traffic study, okay,

moving forward, if they can't meet the strictures, uh recommendations from the traffic study, they don't get to have what they were proposing, right? If they do, then great, here you go. So, um it's it's the same with any performance standard. If if you can't do your activity on your property within the bounds that the code says that you have to live within, then you can't do it. If you can't have a a blacksmith shop next to a a bakery without getting all of their bread smelling like iron and smoke, then you can't have it. It's too much of an impact on your neighbor.

The second question or point I had was um I was on the planning commission in Farmington when we were just starting station park and so a lot of westside growth, a lot of people with horses so forth. So, we had restrictive or was that an encumbrance? I'm not sure if I'm saying exactly right, but it was a notice anyway, an encumbrance on the property, an acknowledgement that if I move here, people raise horses here and there's going to be manure and flies and I acknowledge that or I've seen it with properties I've financed. You know, there's the air airport here. There's um

so I think we should consider that too. Some incumbrance on this site. Whoever develops there would have to acknowledge the raceway there and and so forth. I like that we had that in Morgan County as well. Every plat that we recorded had a a note on there that said this is an agricultural area which means dust, noise, all hours, lights, operation, it's going on. So you you just get what you get. Yeah. So I like that.

Did you want to ask the developer any questions? Uh, no. I just I I think the traffic study I I understand what you're saying and at some point, you know, if that is of course a condition of approval of the use should be absolutely so we'd protect ourselves there. But it's fine. I'm just curious if it happened already. Yes, there has been a traffic study done. Thank you. You've been doing a great job. We have been working very closely with you do. So, if you go to slide number four, would you state your name? I'm so sorry.

Kevin, sorry. Kevin Mons. Yes. So, I I am a partial owner. There's several owners back here. There's plenty of owners in the group. I also work for PHI who's a general contractor and they are looking at doing infrastructure and different components of the project. But if you look at the uh slide number four here towards the east uh where it says retail down at the bottom, that has been approved for a traffic light uh through U DOT. um the exit or the entrance uh where it says 112 just to the just to the west that is a right in right out um entrance. We're working now with UD do trying to get a second light there. They have approved one light and then a right in and right out and then we also have uh egress to the north through um the Romney property there.

Great. So that's currently what UD do has approved. Um we're again we're trying to work to get a second uh light on 112 just we know that there are some stipulations with the multifamily that you know the the condo component the hotel component some mixed use in there uh we are you know very aware that uh there could be potentially the way it's drawn traffic going through that residential area. Um, we've done this enough to know that that is an issue and we're trying to resolve that. Um, as as tell me your name, Bill,

Bill, as Bill said before, we are very um aware that we don't want to disturb the residential component of that as much as possible. So, that's why we're trying to work through UDOT. Um, there are other items with that multifamily, whe whether it's condo, apartments, whatever that is, to mitigate that noise. um that was something that we're working closely with Grantsville to do um as far as what the needs are of the community, what is wanted there. So, we're being very flexible and moving things around and changing things as as things are brought up. Um we have talked about different construction methods for those east facing um uh apartments or condos so that it minimizes that noise as much as possible. We know do know that there are people who do want to see that racetrack and that's one of the components that we talked about Grantsville with um being able to walk out on your balcony and watch the races from that location. So, we're trying to accommodate as much as possible and be being as flexible as possible um and work through with the community, with water, with the space, with um we've talked about Olympics as well, you know, putting ice rinks there. Um bringing that tax revenue to the city of Grantsville and making this a place where you can access, you know, Desert Peak, I guess that's what it's called. The

baseball Yeah, baseball diamonds. putting a path that leads from this community to that racetrack to the baseball diamonds to the events there. Um so that we have summer activities at Motorsports Park uh and we have winter activities, ice rinks and different things that the community can go to during the winter time at this location. So we're trying to be very flexible with what um the community and the city wants. Hopefully that's helped the citizen, I think, understand a little better what's what's going on. Do you have any more questions, Jeff? No, unmuted. Thanks, Jason.

Um, I have some questions, but I'm going to save that for when we get to the reszone. Right now, we're just talking we're just talking about amending the general plan, and then I I'll save my other questions for we actually get to that item. But on this, I think I think what we have here, what we're proposing is is symbiotic or works with the with our general plan now. And I supportive of actually making this change to the general plan. Thank you for your description, your work, and um trying to help us understand the impacts. I um I think this is a a great time to look at opportunities for developing that area. And I actually I live a little bit further away from the racetrack, but I do love listening to the cars on Saturday afternoon as I'm working out in my yard. So, um we love it. We love racing and stuff. So, um I I like that you are including that in your thought process and I know that this is just preliminary and uh it's difficult to come up with real plans before these steps are taken and so we're not going to ask you hard questions about what you're planning to do here, but um I I'm sure that you're aware that there are uh environmental engineers that can help build housing structures that dampen the sound noise pollution stuff in a in a considerate way that um that wouldn't affect people so much. Um we are keeping that in mind for housing. That's all I would be concerned about. So um let's see. We are entertaining a motion then on this item.

I'll move that we approve agenda. Item two is presented. Okay. Generally have this. You want me to read the whole? Yeah. Just for the record, we have people online and get drink of water first.

Make a motion to recommend approval approval. Uh the for the consideration of the proposed zone reszone of parcels 01 06600 06 23 0 0 1 0 0 A and lot 012 0 012 and 01-112 0 011 from the A10 and R1-12 to the RM15 multiple residential district for the Apple Street town subdivision.

That was last. Well, I read all of that and Well, I get mixed up on the numbers. So, I think if we I think you were there's no difference. Yeah, you could just say the numbers as you were on a roll. I didn't want to interrupt. Yeah, because it was the general plan. That's what we're doing. Yeah. I got going here. Yep. Okay. So, it's my first time. I move that we approve. Here's here's here's agenda item number two.

Yeah, that's right. It's the general plan consideration of a proposed general plan amendment parcels 011310 02 and lot zero parcel 0130 0 009 0 09 and parcel 0113 0 0 00008 parcel 011300 016 and parcel 011300 0014 to change the land use and designation from Royal Residential 2 to mixed use density for the crossing at Willow Creek subdivision approximately 154 acres.

Do it. Second. Okay. Jason seconded. And I have to say I I didn't make my first motion till like my fifth meeting. So very impressive. Sorry for my mix up here. Um, any further discussion? No. Okay, let's take a vote. All in favor? I I.

Wow. Thank you. That was really exciting, you guys. Uh, we will close that item and we will move on to item uh three that Bill has already discussed. the uh consideration of a proposed reszone for parcels in the same area ending in 08 ending in 016 ending in 014 from the zoning of A10 agricultural to the general manufacturing district resulting in approximately 51.6 acres being zoned MG. Um Bill's talked about this the developers want to provide any other information on this item. We are good

discussion. Jason, I don't have any on this one. I think again it matches what we're looking looking for in the area as far as for future development. Okay. Jason has to make this motion. Oh, we'll entertain a mo a motion for this item. I'll make a mo motion that we reszone the parcels on 01-130-00008 and also the parcel ending in 016 and 014 from A10 agricultural to gender manufacturing district uh representing approximately 15.6 acres being zoned as MG. I'll second that. Any further discussion? Okay. All in favor? I

Okay, we'll close that item and move on to item four. Uh the consideration of the reszone for the parcels ending in zero. Oh, maybe I need to read these ones. uh proposed reszone for parcel 01-131- 0-002 and the parcel 01-130-00009 and the parcel 01-130-00008 and the parcel 01-130-0016 and the parcel 01-130-0014 from the A10 designation for agricultural to the mixeduse district M-U for the crossing at Willow Creek subdivision resulting on an impact on approximately 102.4 acres being zone uh MU mixed use. So uh John we'll start with you.

I don't think they have any other questions. Okay. Jason have comments on this one.

Um the one thing on this I think and I know the public has made several comments on on you know considerations of what's going on the road. I think you the developers indicated that there we've done a study. I think right now today we're approving the zone change. We're not approving any other plans with the the development. I think when that comes we'd be looking for things like commercial studies and things like that to support the development you have so that we don't end up with empty buildings which won't benefit this the city or the community. And so today we're I I recognize that we're just we're just um approving that reszone, but we would be looking for a lot more information when it comes to actually approving the actual development that goes in there. And that's just part of that process. And so I'm supportive of of of this reszone, but uh for the public's interest, we would be looking for more information later when that other part of that approval process comes through.

Agreed.

Thank you. Appreciate you making that clear. And I also think that it's important to realize that these main roads Grantsville City has very little input on. They're mainly controlled by U DOT and what policies and procedures that they put in place to determine uh the facts as based off of traffic studies and things like that. And they use that information for other things like uh traffic coming into the city and and how it's dispersed throughout the city and how many ways to get out of the city. So, uh, UD do has their own set of standards that that the city kind of has to abide by and play by. So, um, hopefully, um, sounds like you have longl lasting relationships with U DOT and and have worked closely with them. They sometimes aren't the easiest folks to get along with because they do have very high standards. So, thank you for involving them early on in this process. Um, Gratzville did have a study done that had determined and and kind of mapped out the next 30 years, including traffic lights and things through our main area. So, um, I think we'll just see that evolve.

Um, so we'll entertain a motion then. Commissioner Moore, could I just interject just for a second? Absolutely. I'm sorry. I meant to ask. You don't you don't need to ask me. If if I need to to give my opinion on something, I I certainly will. So, the an issue that I that I I'm thinking in my mind, and this is really from a city council perspective, um we you just you just proposed to change lots 08, 06, and 04 from A10 MG

and and those lots are now being proposed to change to mixed use. So, I I almost feel like, and maybe Bill, you could correct me if I'm wrong. I mean, we can't really give a a parcel number two designations of a of a zoning, can we? Now, you can do a lot like adjustments. So, I I I think you were alluding to this a little bit earlier, and I think you need to elaborate on this. Yeah. because I understand what the intention is, but when it comes to city council, can we legally give a parcel number two zoning designations?

So, the the short answer is yes, we can. And we have properties all over town that are are covered by two different uh zoning designation. They're both the the PUDs and the overlays as well as just straight zoning where the zoning uh goes a couple hundred feet north or south of the the property line on the road and then north of that or south of that it changes to something completely different. Usually it's like from a RM7 to an A10 and something like that. It cuts the properties in half. It's not desirable. It's not preferable planning practice, but in this case, what is anticipated on the property is that the 54 53ish acres will be involved with the manufacturing areas and then the rest of it will uh become this mixeduse area. And so in anticipation of that the uh the parcels there is some overlap on the parcels in that the parcel numbers are the same but the legal description of what is being done will have to be nailed down before the planning or before the city council meeting because that's what we will legally zone as this particular area not just portions of these particular lots.

You have a new meets and bounds. We would have that done before we get to the city council. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Thank you for pointing that. It's a good question. It's a very good point. Important. We kind of talked about that be earlier today, but um I think that their plans will be refined as we move along here. Just knowing what they're just want to make sure that before that it was discussed before you put it for consideration. Thank you. Yeah. Before it goes to the city council, we'll have a a meets and bounds description and a legal description of the different properties to be zoned. What? Thanks, Rev. We definitely would have been called out on that had that not been a part of this meeting and I forgot to bring it works itself out. Yeah,

we did have the land use designation and then the zoning that kind of overlays it. But yes, um I think did you have any more thoughts or comments, Rat? Good. Thank you. Okay. Anything else? Okay, I have none. I'll

I'll entertain a motion then. I'll move that we approve agenda item number four, consideration of a proposal zone for parcel 01310 002 and following parcel ending in 0 09 and the parcel ending in 00008. Next parcel ending in 0016. The last parcel ending in 0014 from A10 agricultural to the mixeduse district MU for the crossing at Willow Creek subdivision resulting in approximately 2.4 acres being reszoneed MU. The understanding that we'll we'll have further deniation of the site you know that will clarify that

the plans. Yep. Got it. Thank you, John. Second. Okay. Super. All in favor? I I thank you. Thank you, Bill. We'll close that item and we will move on to item five, the discussion of Grassville city annexation policy plan.

So, this is a fun one. Um, this is different from a general plan and a future land use map of the general plan. The future land use map of the general plan deals with property that's already within the city limits and it's there's a there's a time frame that we look at with that that's somewhere within immediate to about 20 years. And so that's the projected um target time frame that we're looking at with these things um with the with the annexation plan. Am I am I missing something? Yeah, there's that that has nothing to do with any of this.

That's really weird. Yeah, I'm confused about the devil's in the details. So, I don't know. The staff report is is the executive summary is fine when you read it, but the background on it is that is not the Anyway, that's weird. Okay. I'm sorry. Ignore the background. Um, I read that. That's just really weird and I'm embarrassed. Okay. Well, sorry. Um the share the background verbally. What the

the background is that uh we need to look at our annexation policy plan from time to time and um was requested by um the leadership of the city that we look into this and propose some changes to it. In particular, expanding some areas and and making sure that those are documented as something that we would anticipate would develop into the city and annex into the city. Um, couple of things to keep in mind. State code requires that we have one if we're going to be annexing property into the city. Um, we um have no obligation unlike a future land use plan uh where it's already part of the city. We have no obligation to provide services to these places until and at such time they do want to annex into the city and at that point we will work with the developer to extend services out there. Um enhancing capacity as well as providing service lines for things like water, sewer, traffic. Um all of those things would uh come into play at that point. And most of those most of that cost if not all of it would be borne by the developer. And so the the burden on the city is going to be minimal. And the hope is that as things grow, the growth pays for the required expansion of city services both in infrastructure as well as uh other services like police, fire, um staffing, those kinds of things. So uh that's what we're looking at. Um the we divided it up into three particular areas. Area A uh is uh what we're calling the Burmeister inland port and uh at the request of the um previous mayor, not the current mayor. I don't want to say anything about her. Um we extended that basically to the county line. And so that includes all of Stanbury Island. And it looks quite

dramatic on the map, but uh that's um area A. Sansbury Island itself, just to speak to that really, most of that, probably twothirds of that is uh in BLM land and uh would not be available for development, but there are some areas up there that could be of interest for future development if and when the time was ever right. Um, if that time ever came, the Grantsville City is saying in this proposed uh plan that we get the first bite of that apple to help provide services out there and annex that into the city. Area B is the six mile ranch area. Um, it involves that property that is uh between what the area that we just talked about and Erda slash uh Lake Point and some of those areas over that way. Um, it's uh I don't know how much we want to talk about it on the record. It's it's a a question of legal dispute right now and um we just want to make sure that that's memorialized in this plan. And then area C is the uh south and west portion of the city that lies between the uh forest service land to the west and the mountains and u areas for development in there. A lot a lot of that area is is owned by the u soil conservation um group and so it's unlikely that that would ever develop but there are some properties up in there that could uh potentially develop out. um the cost to develop those areas is going to be quite high and so uh the anticipation that that would ever develop is not super high. So um but again if and when that time ever came that it was ready for development we want to make sure that uh they they're brought into the grantsville full

so that's it basically. So, not having much experience with annexation, um, how does it work with the county and with the other cities? The counties says fine, you know, whatever you want to do or how does that communication with the city other well, I guess, and Lake Point and with the county. How does that work? So, typically, most of the time in my career, I've seen annexation just happens very straightforward. They petitioned the city to be annexed in. The city says yes, come on in. Or no, it's not the right time for us. We can't provide services. You're asking for something we just can't do. And it's more it's more likely that things have worked out to the point where the infrastructure can be addressed and will be addressed at moving forward with the things. So, the city at that point is like, "Okay, yeah, come on in." Um, we it goes through the county. The county says, "Yeah, it's okay that you guys uh annex into the city." and it's a a willing buyer, willing seller kind of a situation and everybody's happy. It's not always the case as we've seen. Um, so, uh, again, I don't know how I don't think we want to get too far into the weeds with particular areas of town that are in dispute, but, um, when a dispute does happen, the the county convenes what's called a boundary commission, and they look into the specifics of who's going to benefit most from this, how can we um how can we address concerns regarding infrastructure, traffic, access, who provides who's in a better position to provide services and what is the ultimate uh interest of the property owners in this that all comes into the equation the boundary commission makes a recommendation and then we kind of move forward from there

so this I was getting as a dispute that seemed that was there is it usually between the private property owners or is it between the counties

it would be between the the different municipalities that have claim on. Now, typically it's about it's a question of control. How do we uh as a city um exercise that control? And other places I've been, they have looked at a particular city's capacity to service the property, not just uh water and sewer and other infrastructure, but uh what is the regulatory environment like? What would this mean for us property owners going forward if we were in city A which has much more restrictive versus city B which has much less restrictive or city A which has a regulatory environment that is mature that has the capacity to deal with uh interesting and creative solutions to things has staffing has whatever versus city B which has none of that and is just saying we don't want anything anywhere So, um, those are those are some of the considerations that property owners have had in cities that I've been in in the past where there has been some dispute, not just here.

Seems like they're everywhere. Thank you. Yeah, you bet. Have any other questions? Jason, is this and I'm not familiar with this I guess before we haven't had this policy plan before and so this is a new plan or just new alto together. Is that correct? No. So it we have had an annexation policy plan before. I tried to find a copy so that you guys could have it but I couldn't find one. Um I have seen it referenced though and so I know that it exists. I just wasn't able to find a copy. But it's it looks basically like this just a little this one just expanded a little bit like this pulls in Stanbury and

so the main impetus behind what we're doing here is just basically putting stakes in the ground and saying here's the areas that we want to correct have first stib. Um, I will make one comment and I know having dealt with um, personally and with with other land large land owners, there are some people other cities have been trying to to put their stake in the ground as well. And I I think we need to make sure we're sensitive to some of those larger land owners because they will push back and they'll not want to be included in a plan just because it it sets expectations and not that they aren't open to that discussion in the future, but there are I know like I said two I know specifically that are are not keen to be on anybody's plan right now until they set kind of their own their charter. And so just to remove that expectation to make sure we're not capturing groups that might be sensitive to that. and I can talk to him more offline because I'm not going to mention names here, but I we need to watch what that looks like because you get some some

push back on that. Well, I want to be clear that the city has no immediate plan to go after any of these lands. So, that's stated, but I know that there are sensitivities there and I'll I'll have to actually step away from part of this because of my role at work and so I need to make sure we're careful with that. But, that is something that's been addressed multiple times at multiple cities here in county. Yeah, it's uh just I'm just saying I get you. Um and again, just to reiterate, we're not actively looking for any of these properties currently to come into the city at all. If the property owners wanted to come in, we're just saying we would be open to this idea.

Understood. I just map set expectations of people look at things and say this is what I remember and why isn't it matching? Well, and they always think it's going to be tomorrow and we're going to go out and get them. No. Okay. Yeah, that's a fair clarifying that. Okay. That's all my comments. Thank you. So, this is a discussion only item. Uh we're not looking for action. We'll we'll notice it for a public hearing for our next meeting and and get it pushed through that way. At some point, was there a a difference between map A and map B that or map one and map two? Yeah. If you look, if you look at the um if you go to page 20 there where your cursor is, you see that that just includes lake area. Yeah. And then map B just really just kind of restricts that to actual land area

potentially land. Yeah. Which a lot of it, especially near water, you know, would take an environmental study and you wouldn't want to probably Well, and that's owned by the state. It's owned by the state and a lot of that a lot of even the yellow area is owned by Sitla and even some of the northern areas along um out by Flux and that area that's going to be sitless as well. So likelihood of that developing is not zero but it's pretty close to zero. There's wetland areas in there and it's it's problematic for development but again we're Yeah.

Yep. Thank you for bringing this fresh view to um our knowledge and understanding and and uh there's a potential for that. I think we'd consider it. You bet. Jason and really all of you if you have questions or or thoughts or anything offline, shoot me an email or come by and and we can talk about them and we can be sensitive and adjust if if need be. So, is the plan to publish this on like city website or what's the how what now? How is it going to be communicated?

So, what we would do, I think this is my thought, is we would get a recommendation from you, lock in any of these kind of little details that we need to make sure are are clarified and and um just, you know, make sure that that's been adjusted to. And then we'll reach out to uh the Tilla County folks and make sure that they're invited to a public hearing at the city council uh with the the more revised and refined draft of this to go in front of them. So, I apologize again for the staff report. That was really weird and unlike me. So, I apologize for that.

That is great. Thank you, Bill. Appreciate that. Okay. So, we'll close that item and look forward to that coming in front of us in the future. We will move on to item six, which is the approval for the commission to um for the commission minutes from the January 20th, 2026 planning commission regular meeting. Wow, I'm getting ahead of myself here.

I'll make a motion to approve those the January 6, 2026 meetings. I reviewed them and found no concerns. I guess I should abstain since I wasn't here. Maybe that's not necessary. Um, as long as you have no reason to No, I have no reason to to question them or see any error with it. That would be sufficient to to No, I'll second the motion. Super. Any further discussion? All in favor? I

I Thank you. Yeah, we've had that come up before and Tyson, we depend on Tyson to give us clarification and direction on that one. So, we'll close that item. Move on to item seven, the report from the city staff, which would So, um, there was an error. The agenda shows January 6 for the minutes instead of January 20th. Tyson, do we need to read notice that for next time? Then

that would make sense because that gives the uh well what the what the agenda and notice needs to do is give uh the public reasonable expectation as to what's going to be on uh for discussion at this meeting. And um what what this indicates is that it is what the January 6 date uh not the January 20 next month the agenda does. Okay. I was more concerned about what it said in the day that it was written on there. So, my bad for missing it. I barely look at the the actual agenda. I'm always using the notes that you put together. So, I apologize for missing that too. Thank you, Nicole, for pointing that out.

So, we will revisit that next meeting. Is there um any other discussion from staff? Hi, Bill.

Just one last thing. Um, with all the new planning commissioners and changes and shifts in our planning commission, we're looking to put together a meeting. We have one more planning commissioner that or two more planning commissioners that may be online soon. So, we're hoping to get that taken care of. And then a soon after that, we'd like to have a an off week meeting. That sounds weird. a meeting that's not a normal agenda that we'll notice and and get word out, but just have a workshop about planning commission roles and expectations and and just do a little bit of a training that way. Um, nothing formal like this, but just something where we can kind of chat a little bit more about uh what our expectations would be and and um uh how to be the best planning commissioner you possibly can be.

So, we're always just recommending the city council, right? Not always on on conditional uses and and other things like that. You are the vote. Yeah. And those those are the kinds of things exactly the kinds of things that we would go over. So y Okay. So we'll talk more about that once we get our our additional planning commissioners on board and then we'll uh set up a time where we can all get together and chat. Okay. And last meeting you mentioned that there's a APA meeting coming up also. Yes. That is that first not first weekend. I think it's the 8th or the 10th of April. Oh, April. Yeah. Wow. That's a long ways off.

Yeah. It's it's uh it feels like forever, but it will be here before we know it. So, um that's in Bryce Canyon. So, if you have um Yeah, if you have uh availability, let us know and it should be a good one. Bill, what was the date of that again? I want to say it's the 8th through the 10th. It's of April. Yeah, I think the first weekend is Easter and then so they didn't do it that one, but I just wanted to communicate that to others that might be joining them. So, yeah, perfect. Okay, that's it for me. Nicole, you have anything? Um, okay.

And my calendar is usually wide open on Tuesdays, so I can do an off-week meeting if need be. So, be up to John and Jason. And then of course our new pending members. We have one that'll be going for the council tomorrow. Thanks. So Oh, both of them are coming. I only saw the one on the agenda, but maybe I was looking at all the last minute that I could. Oh, no. That's great.

That's awesome. Thank you. I'm so excited. Okay, we will close that then if we have nothing else from the city staff and move on to item eight, the open form for planning commissioners. There's anything that like to discuss. Thanks for your patience. Thank you for me. Yeah, it's great to be here. We're happy that you're here. Yeah, I one thing I as I talked to the mayor and as I served in Farmington, we had more trails in Farmington City than anywhere but Moab in the state of Utah. Really?

So, we were proud of our trails in the mountains and it was on the BLM land but part city and then bridging that actually in the out to the bay. Uh some wonderful trails out on the bay there with a lot of birds and so forth. And so it would be nice to um be thinking of that. In Farmington there was with every proposal there was a trails person that would for our information indicate how this would uh accommodate or not trail you know trying to develop trail system and so forth. So I think that's something that could be improved upon here. It would be interesting to see that. So, just throwing that out there for thought is that would be something that would be nice to um kind of incorporate and we got to get someone to do it. Maybe it's me. I don't know. But um we had a trails committee and now it's been changed in Farmington to a I'm not sure exactly how they're handling it, but it was a big deal and and I've financed a lot of resort properties in my past and in golf courses and ski resorts, but the number one thing today it seems is access to the outdoors and and that's more important than being on the ninth ninth hole or whatever of the golf course. So I think it's something to think about and a lot of work to do probably in this city to I saw some people riding horses. I saw them up by scenic slopes and I saw them downtown in the sidewalk with their horses and it how do they get from point A to B and uh how could we better accommodate bikes, people, horses, even motor vehicles and stuff.

That is amazing. I love to listen about your experience and knowledge. Do you want to expand on that or

Well, just that we um you know there were the problem we had us really was the trails not being used enough. So was it was a we had a committee of about 12 or 15 volunteers that would maintain the trails and uh it was a lot of it's education really and letting people know I I see down where you turn to go to Twilla there's a parking lot with this the county and then there's one over by that irrigation building up by where I live. It's like a parking lot to nowhere. I don't know at the moment. I don't understand what the position of those were for. And there must have been some vision to it from the county, I believe. And then, of course, there's the reservoir there. But it would just be great to see us try to link those those kinds of things up and and really make um that a big part of the city. You know, I think it's a good thing.

County has a a a trails committee that actually is meeting and working through some of this. there's not a lot of funding for it, but they are working through that and they have focused more on the the east side of the valley versus the west side. Yeah. Which doesn't help us, but I know that they're looking at trying to expand that out, but it is it's a good point. If we took the initiative, maybe they provided more support. So, something to think about and I'm just trying to figure it out myself. I think on Quirk Street, we've have a paved trail. I followed that the other day and it, you know, goes for ways. It's kind of the trail to nowhere and there a little bit too. So we're well aware.

Yeah. Let's Yeah. So get the trail to somewhere connected. That was a big deal is the connection. Will this sever the connection? This development that you're proposing if you'd at least do this easement on the east borderline for 15 ft will maintain the connection. And that was the the heightened concern and uh about that as we approved anything or recommended anything. And I and I like where you're going with that. And and I'm not sure how long you've been here in Grantsville. Just about almost a year.

Almost a year. So we do have uh with many of our developments and open space hope or dream or expectation that that we try to kind of stick to that would enable some um outdoor activities or at least some exposure that could include trails and stuff. And so um that's been kind of a focus. And then um Heidi as our city council member and now as our mayors um uh brought a lot of opportunities for looking for grants to the city that would support that sort of thing. And um so she's been really good about uh keeping kind of a finger on that pulse for for opportunities preunding. um that would increase our community recreational opportunities a little bit.

I know B the city's doing a ton now and um the connectivity is the key and then trail heads where people can actually, you know, park and access is a big deal. Yeah. So, it's great. We'll keep it on the on the simmer pot. Appreciate that. Thank you. I look forward to learning more about your experiences. So you said you had worked in Farmington and then um on a governmental review board anywhere else or just with your personal development?

Uh just personal development. My my background just quickly is um I work for a nonprofit group that we finance affordable housing by deploying banks have a responsibility to get monies into the community or the community reinvestment act. And so my nonprofit, we have about $800 million on behalf of the banks that we fund long-term financing, usually new construction of affordable housing. So you work with the Oolen Walker Group. Yes. So Walker usually recognize some of those.

Yes. So they're second mortgage holder on almost every loan that we do. We do the long-term financing, but probably one out of every 15 new unit you see anywhere in country in state of Utah is restricted in some way for affordability. So, not we're just way behind. So, and and Granville doesn't have much. We don't it's hard to bring it in. We've had lots of discussions and conversations about affordable housing and how we can fit that here. Right. The closest good example is we're actually just we just refinanced was the Remington as you're going into toa. Those are two call them section 42 projects. They're done with tax credits and they make

Oh, they're lacch. Yeah, l properties. And uh so that's something that could we could try and attract developers to Grantfield to do some of that with you. Well, bring them on in, John. Tell them it's open for business here. How about that? That's awesome. Okay. Um, do we have anything else? No. Okay. Super. Uh, we'll close that item and we'll ask for a report from our city council leaison.

Okay. So, um, part of my thunder was stolen with the new, uh, planning commissioners. We will take care of that next week or no, sorry, tomorrow. We'll take care of the, uh, the ratifications for the new the two seats that are empty right there. So, we'll have you a full commission um here shortly. Um the vacated seat for uh Mayor Hammond's seat for the city council was filled by Britney Skinner. So, Councilwoman Skinner will take that seat and um she'll join us tomorrow. So, it'll be great.

Other than that, um there's nothing really to report from our last meeting that really pertain to this body. So, anyways, that's all I have. Super. Thank you, Rick. Okay, we'll close that item and we'll entertain a motion to adjourn. So moved. Second. Okay, super. All in favor? I I Thank you.