Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Hey, good evening. Call this meeting of the Grantsville City Planning Commission to order. It's Tuesday, March 3rd, 2026 at 700 p.m. We're at the Grantsville City Hall at 529 East Main Street in Grantsville, Utah. Sarah 420 429. You said

Oh, thank you. 429 East Main Street. I'm a little dyslexic, so that I overcome that, but not at this time of night. If you hadn't had a chance to sign in and you're here as a visitor, please sign in. Um, we will uh let's see, acknowledge our commissioners here. Um Gary Merrill, vice chair Jason Hill, name is Sarah Moore, and we have our newest member, Cameron Molton, here present today. John Montgomery is excused. And our alternate Chris is not is he online? No.

Okay. Chris is also excused. Um I'd like to ask that we 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. Okay, we're going to remind folks that we have a new meeting format for tonight's public hearing items. We'll follow this uh the pres the format of the staff presentations on the individual items. Then we'll hold a public hearing and public comment on each individual item that requires public comment and then the commission will have an opportunity for discussion and consideration. So, we just ask that the public comment portion is uh limited to three minutes for each speaker and that when you approach the podium, you state your name and address. No. Okay. We've always just done the name. Um, so the name is sufficient for the record and just know that the commission cannot engage in conversations, but your questions may be answered during the commission dialogue on specific items. So we'll open discussion on item agenda item one which is a presentation and public hearing discussion and and commission consideration for the proposed resone from A10 which is agricultural to the shopping commercial district CS located at approximately 519 West Main Street. I shall be. So I'm just gonna present for a minute.

Yeah. Have you come up for the discussion routes?

Um so this is a consideration of a reszone from A10 to CS located on 519 West Main Street. Um and then I've just highlighted this for you guys. So you have Ross Land Management and then we're just reszoning this back parcel. So this is already zone CS here and then it runs through and then CS as we go through. So the surrounding uses are residential development to the north, south is a mixeduse residential and commercial uses along Main Street. Um on the east is commercial properties and to the west is residential. Um in the general uh plan in the future land use, the northern portion of the property is designated mixeduse density supporting a mixture of residential and commercial uses and the corridor along Main Street supports commercial development and economic development. The proposed reszone supports continued commercial investment along Main Street and orderly cohesive site planning. Um, as staff, we find that the proposed reszone is consistent with the general plan and future land use. The the reszone promotes orderly commercial development along Maine. With the proper site design and buffering, the future development can be compatible with adjacent properties.

That's great. Thank you, Shelby. Sorry, I'm giving you this is a new format.

Oh, it's good. Um, so we'll begin uh with then the public hearing for agenda item number one. Is there anyone here who'd like to speak on this item besides the applicant? If you'd like to speak, please approach the podium. Is there anybody online? If some if there's somebody online that would like to speak on this item during the public hearing, would you please raise your hand? And then just note for the record, staff did not receive any emails or calls regarding this result.

Okay. Uh so she'll be online like to note that the staff has not received any comments through emails or phone calls and we had received none here in this meeting. So we'll close the public hearing if there are no further comments. Uh, so we'll bring this item back to commission for discussion and consideration. Shelton Ross. Hi. How are you? Good. Good. So, does anybody have any questions for Shelton? What do you What do you plan on doing with that

RV? RV storage, which I'm in the middle of getting the conditional use permit as well for that. Yeah. So, oh, sorry. Just says RV storage for rent. People come in, use store the RVs and just so and that is a conditional use on the zoning table. Um, I did supply that in the staff report so that you guys can see what uses um would be allowed in the CS zoning if this were to be developed out to something other than RV storage. So, but we're just addressing the zoning right now and not conditional use permit. Correct. Request. Okay. Cameron, did you have any other questions for

No. Okay. Jason question. This is partly for Shelby. When we go back through the reszone, we talked about you mentioned the buffer, what they're going to use for a buffer. Is that something we're going to deal with now with the reszone or if that's something we'll do with the conditional use? That would be a conditional use or when it's developed out. Um, I do have a question regarding that buffer what we do, but if there were to answer that later, then I'll hold off. I have another question. Okay, Jason, do you have any other comments for Shelton? All right, Gary,

I'm looking at it's pretty straightforward to me. It's seem like it's just a it's a result that needs to happen to be like like it says to for more continuity through the through the commercial zone. Yeah, I think this just probably long overdue. Okay. I don't know if this is the part or if this is part of the conditional use permit. Is there going to be like covered storage for RVs there or is are they just open air? No, no covered. Just open air. Okay. That whole lot won't have any structures on it at all.

Cool. That's awesome. And so how many RVs do you expect to probably about 75 serve? Okay. So it's like a seasonal thing or is that year round? Year round. Storage only. No living. Did I say something about like drive-thru? No living. That's good. Yeah, that's a good point. Thank you.

I'll remember that when you come back for the conditional use permit. I thought I saw something about driving through, but I guess they're just driving through and parking and then leaving. We don't expect much more uh increase in traffic or anything. So it um besides the reszone, if we were to go to a when he applies for the conditional use permit and that is brought to planning commission, he has to submit a site plan, we have to look at the parking dimensions and see how many how many he can actually fit in there and look at the turning and so those are things that would be addressed all with conditional use. Yes,

super. Thank you. I just thought I saw something about driving through, but this all looks good. Thank you for your thorough uh information that you provided in the staff recommendations and the maps. They were extremely helpful. Um I don't have any further uh questions or concerns. So I'm open to considering a motion. I'll make a motion to approve the proposed reszone from A10 agricultural to commercial shopping district CS located at approximately 519 West Main Street. Will you read the entire motion?

The entire piece on the agenda. I'll make this one. We changed the format of the paper where Jason what I just did was this right here.

This is the guy that helps you guys. So you have a motion here and then for each individual sorry that's my fault but they were the same. Basically, it's the last sentence that says based on the findings contained in the staff report because we have to provide reasoning. Got it. I love it. Okay. So, it does have an extra sentence. Do you want to I'm looking for the base. I'm just looking at the yellow piece right here.

Oh, fine. Okay. No, I got you. I didn't read the last sentence. I move to recommend the approval to the city council of the proposed reszone from A10 Agricultural to commercial shopping district CS located at approximately 519 West Main Street based on the findings contained in the staff report second. Gary second. All in favor? I.

Okay, I'll close that item and thank you to Oh, thank you Shel. Appreciate your time. We will move on to agenda item number two. Have a presentation and then the public hearing. Then the commission discussion consideration of the proposed amendments to the Grantsville City Land Use and Management Code. Chapters 2 4 6 7 8 9 14 15 16 20 and 21. Welcome again, Miss Shelby Moore. Um, so first thing I did send out a email this morning. Uh, when I uploaded the um the word document into PDF, it left out these red lines and I felt like they were very important for you as well as the public to see. So I am going to ask that this remains as a discussion and is tabled and a motion is not made on this. That way um the public can see what was changed. So,

okay. Um, but I feel like we can still have that discussion if that is all right with you, Miss Moore. Absolutely.

Okay. And I will try to go through this as quickly as possible. Um, so long story short, we we're going through the code and um we're looking at at chapter 2 definitions, chapter 4 um qualifying regulations, chapter six uh off- streetet parking and loading conditional uses. Uh chapter 8 regulations, nine landscaping and buffering, and it's it's hard to make amendment to one chapter of the code and not look at how it affects the remaining chapters. So that's where we got into this big large amendment. Um so in chapter 2 definitions we clarified and defined new terms as well as um land use terms for cons um and we looked for inconsistency as well as making them consistent. We we removed outdated and redundant definitions. We align aligned terminology. We ensure def um defined terms are used consistently throughout the code and improved cross um references. The majority of the changes in chapter 2 or at least the removal of the definitions are actually put in chapter 20 for sign definitions. Didn't make sense having sign definitions in two and chapter 20. So we just combine those.

In chapter 4, um it's really basic. We had a street tree list in a picture and we removed the tree list and put it in chapter 9 where it belonged. Um, chapter six, we defined secondary access requirements and we updated the formatting to align um with the consistent subsection hierarchy. Chapter 7, we clarify approval criterias and procedural expectations. Refine findings and required for approval. improve structure and sequencing and review standards and ensure consistency between use tables and conditional use um procedures. In chapter 8, we updated the general development standards that apply citywide to recognize provisions for clarity um and correct cross um cross reference and structural formatting. Um chapter 8 really is just the regulations for conditional use permits. So obviously it needs more. We need to add more in there, but um it's tasking. So chapter 9 landscaping, we took that tree list, added it here. We clarified buffer requirements between zoning districts, improved landscaping standards um and enforcement. We recognize different plant materials and screening and installation standards. Um especially if we are pushing to beautify Grantsville, we need to have these standards. Chapters 14, 15, and 16, we refined the use tables. So, we ensured what is permitted and conditional use. We took out commercial type conditional uses and put them into chapter 16 for commercial commercial uses. Um, and then one change that we did make was uh home occupations are now permitted because we have really defined and um put that in there. So chapter 20, we just added definitions from chapter 2 for sign regulations.

Chapter 21, subdivision regulation clarify um subdivision procedures and approval sequencing, improve structure and organization and aligns definitions with procedural steps and current practices. And then we corrected the formatting on all of these. Um so I'll just get to it. So here we just changed the A-frame sign or these signs went into chapter 20 reumbered this. We've taken all the road definitions and we have actually put them under um in a little section for roads. All of these are moved to chapter 20. These are moved to chapter 20. Billboard is moved to chapter 20. Um we did just reference block city standards and master transportation plan. Um so a block is you know the block length and so that is defined in our um master transportation plan that we are updating. We are anticipating hopefully having that meeting here in April. So um the canopy building we left in we just removed um I can't even read that

freestand. Yeah, just the freestanding. Um, removed canopy moved all these to chapter 20. Um, clear view site uh zone or sight triangle is what we defined. And then in our code, we have 30 ft when this said 40T and then just where the it's measured from is the back of sidewalk. Um, community gardens we defined it's a use um in our use table. um concept plans. We defined conditional uses. We redefined um you can see this section here was quite short and so we just went really into what a conditional use permit is and aligned it with the state code.

I have some comments. Do you want to go through everything and then we'll go back to what comments are? Okay. If that's okay or you can stop either one.

Oh, we happy to wait. I made notes. Um conditional use permits again we defined with conditional use and the state code detrimental impacts we um defined and aligned it with the state code as well as conditional uses and same thing with mitigation conditions. Um it was asked you know why are those not in alphabetical order and my mind was it's stuck with conditional use permits. So that is a change that we'll be making. Um all these red lines are going to chapter 20. Chapter 20 driveway widths. Um we are just aligning with our chapter 6 um driveway regulations. We did add shared driveway shall be a minimum width of 24 ft. So when you see kind of like an alley shared driveway, we have some sort of regulation for that. Nice. Um, we defined what a uh four family forplex uh dwelling is besides a building containing only four dwelling units. So, we need to have some standards and um that's what we added to all these definitions is just breaking out what it is, what it should look like. Um there was a question or a comment last time on a single family dwelling to where we had it can only have one kitchen and then we've actually removed the one kitchen out for ADUs and things like that. We defined employee not necessarily for the employees at Grantsville, but when we refer um in a conditional use permit standard, you can only have one employee. We define that here. family food production. We made this change here. Um we've actually changed this in another one and so I need to make sure um that this is updated which has been noted here. We've removed this sign into chapter 20. We defined a final

plat. This is um from the state code as well as just defining what it is. Um a final plan as well as is what that is. Um, flashing sign is chapter 20. Flood light sign is chapter 20. Freestanding is chapter 20. Um, so we took height and home. So, height of a sign is chapter 20. And then home occupation, we just scratched it out and actually broke it out to what the permitting intent is, a frontage requirement, how it's measured, what road type, what access type, areas that are restricted, client traffic, deliveries, employees, that's where that employee definition comes from. Um, advertising and signage, and public display. uh household pets. We defined um we which kind of lengthened it and added to that definition of what a household pet is and we even kept the lion and tigers in it.

Um class A kennel permits is something that we have as a conditional use permit, but we don't have a definition for it. So really this definition is just what's already in our conditional use permit table. Um right here is a requirement in chapter 21 is a lot right away strip land not less than and it's actually 26 ft that we require it to be paved. So we thought we would um clarify that there so it's not conflicting. We've um defined master plan master development agreement MDA initially um it it was a different definition that we it was a like a maintenance agreement defined and then pioneering agreement we have defined as well um removed all these sign languages we've defined an overlay district so last year we approved our new beauty overlay district code and I felt like we probably needed that definition in here.

Yes, good job.

Um, parcel of land we defined instead of referencing seed lot, I just want to know what the definition is instead of searching five other definitions to find out what it is. Uh, permitted use, um, we're just defining what's permitted and why it's permitted. Uh, with a plat, we're referencing Utah state um, codes sections. You can just see that these were um they did a big change over from 9A to 1020. So we just changed those over. Define preliminary plat what it means reference state code sections. Um and defined a preliminary plan as well. We have removed private lane and private street and moved it again with alley to a different section here in chapter 2. These are just moved to chapter 20. Uh, we have a protection strip which I've defined in chapter 21. We're just referencing state codes. Sorry, I'm trying to make this not painful.

We're good.

Um, site plan in accordance with chapter 11 and city standards sportsman's permit. Um we had actually amended this um in our conditional use permit table and so we re we defined it and following um the outline in title 4 as well as our conditional use permit table. So here under um definition 272 streets and road system I've added alley. We did not make any changes to the alley. We have an arterial road um which we just said up to 3500 um or more in average daily trips on a culde-sac. We expanded that definition and define it. We actually had a a duplicate definition that was 71 and we had an E. And so we just kind of combined those. Uh we had a local street which we've left. We had a major street plan um which was definition 188. we actually left it the same, but we've just added it here. And then private um lane, which we've left as well. Um the only thing that we've added is it's not considered a street. And then private street, we did change um significantly. So, initially when private street was approved, it the intent was to meet the city or the state code, which um the city can only require up to 32 feet of asphalt. And so we have changed this slightly uh to meet the state code. So we do have a private street cross-section that serves um more than two dwelling units or any business activity intended up to a,000 average daily trips. And then we crossed out this 54 ft and and explaining the cross-section and we just refer to the cross-section which we have provided here. And then everything

else in green um is what was in the code prior. So then I'm actually going to scroll down to this bigger cross-section and we'll scroll back up. So we have a 66 foot public um single family residential street. It has a 8ft sidewalk, 8ft park strip, 32 ft of asphalt. Then we have our type A curb which is 2 and 1/2 ft 8ft park strip and a 5ft sidewalk on one side. And then we have our single family residential private street which is a 60 foot rideway. In the private street um definition we had it at 57 feet. So we did expand that slightly. We did a 5ft sidewalk, 6ft park strip. Um and then we have our 32 ft of asphalt and then it matches the same. So then I'll scroll back up here. So, we added this cross-section just for reference. Public street we've left. It's just renumbered. Rule Street is the same. Um, residential street, we cross this out and turned it into a single family residential street. So, it is um the same or similar to a residential street. It was just cleaner just to cross it out and provide that language clean for you guys. This is just the alley crosssection that we've that we already have in the code. Here's the slip lane that we already have in the code and was designed. And then we have the arterial um or collector street with a slip lane as well. Here is um our um sight triangle and our street frontage. Um this also had the little street tree um section on it. And so then here's our slip lane definition. um that wasn't changed besides re numbering.

Here under subdivisions, we are just referencing new um state sections, removing signs. We've added accessory um use and then temporary use definitions. We've added so in chapter 21 um we have we referenced storm water facilities that cannot be used for open space but we didn't have a definition for a storm water facility. So the question becomes what is that and then it's ambiguous. So then it goes to the developer and so we have defined that um here as well. Any questions on chapter 2 I know that's a lot. That is so much work. It must have taken weeks. I can't I can't even imagine. I think we'll start with Jason.

The reing was the worst. Oh,

can we can we start with uh number 53? And part of this is just wanted to understand. So, I'm just going to ask you some questions, Shelby, on I guess where where mind is on this. So when we go back to conditional use, one of the things that we talk about is is what is allowed and then what um and then we go back and say we can only we can only deny a conditional use if it's not reasonably anticipated that we can um not mitigate the detrimental effects. What is the definition of that? For example, I was just thinking of a scenario. For example, if we have a we come across some rogue rogue parcel that's been z that doesn't match the master the general plan for the city and it's zoned what we'd say incorrectly but it's not zoned to to match what's around there and we're saying well someone comes in and wants to do something within that zone and under a conditional use that we said doesn't match the intent of what we're there. We're basically saying right here that we're locked into letting them do that even though if it doesn't match the overall at what point do we have I don't want to lock ourselves into saying we have to make a decision because of what's written in here in the city statute if it if there's a greater reason to do that but right here the way this is stated it sounds like we unless they're saying it's detrimental to I'm asking detrimental to what?

No absolutely Tyson do you mind jumping in on that because I know it reflects the state code as well.

It does. So I mean your your your concern is actually kind of what what what the law states is that if it's a conditional use it it must be approved unless the uh sub substantial um mitigation can be done uh upon detrimental effects that are reflected in the code. So, for example, you could say that there's a a smell component that comes with a a landfill. And if if someone were someone were to hang a a little pine tree air freshener, they could say, "Well, we've mitigated the the the odor of of the of the landfill." Well, that doesn't substantially mitigate the odor problem, right?

And so, that that would be one reason why it could be denied because they haven't taken the proper steps to substantially mitigate the detrimental effect of that use. Um but short of short of a a situation where they have not um been able to to mitigate it in in a substantial way, it it must be approved. So a a a conditional use um shall shall be approved. It is a permitted use with with certain conditions essentially. Um if if there are detrimental impacts like it doesn't match the surrounding neighborhood, that is a that is a detrimental.

Would that be considered detrimental? And that's one of the things I guess I was wondering is how that how wide that definition goes. And so we we have things like buffering that are that are put in the code. So if you have zones that are next to each other, they have to comply with our buffering standards, for example. And if they're unwilling to or unable to um can comply with those standards, and that would be a reason to deny a conditional use permit. Okay. I I feel more comfortable with that then. I just didn't understand how far I didn't want to lock us into basically saying we have to allow it, but you've answered my question.

Can I make a suggestion on this one? So, under the um 272 streets and and roads, we have some some definitions that fall underneath these streets and road system where we have detrimental impacts and mitigating conditions here. And then might have suggested doing like a sub a subb so that we're keeping the um alphabetical nature of this, but we just sort of have a sub definition underneath the conditional use permit.

Yeah. So, I thought about that this morning and just would it affect if we're reviewing a subdivision and there's a detrimental impact that isn't necessarily related to a conditional use permit, would that then only stick detrimental impact to a conditional use permit versus pulling that out and just putting it in alphabetical order? Same thing with mitigation conditions because yes, that was my intent at first and then looking at that further today.

Good point. If you put it under that, then if it's a permitted use, it still could have detrimental impacts that we want to mitigate. That's true. It's true. Yeah. can felt the same way. Tyson, this it was a little confusing to me because basically we're we're defining what a detrimental impact is above and then a permit and then we're restating it again. I mean almost verbatim on that first couple sentences and I if there's a reason for that then I'm supportive. I just it seems like it's kind of repeating the same thing. But that was just me reading through it. So,

can I jump into the conditional use before you move on to your second? Are you done or do you I have more going down, but but it's it's lower. So,

okay. So, um I also had a question on that. Um more specifically that we had conditional use permit defined in here, which I found a really good reference in um gosh, a resource. I wish I would have cited the resource in my notes saying that the conditional use permit is more of a temporary permit that's revisited like if there are um the detrimental impacts or mitigations that we would revisit that. So it's not a permanent it doesn't run with the land like a variance does. And then where I was going with that is that I didn't see a definition for variance in here. So, the variance would be um the authorization to deviate from the zoning ordinance because you have a unique or non-conforming lot or piece of land that um they might alter uh ask for variance to be able to develop. So, um I found it interesting though that the conditional use permit um that in the definition is that my resource which I could find um described it as is is temporary and requires compliance with the specific conditions identified for the conditional use. So, um I'm not sure if you want to tie that in or if it could be tied in in a way that makes sense. I feel like I'm rambling, but the variance definition is what's missing from here. And and the the difference between the two, I think, is often an area where we've tripped up in our discussions and considerations. So, um I thought it might be good and that I think just for me thinking of a conditional use permit as a temporary

application for specific activities that needs to be revisited. If if we were requiring something to be mitigated, to me that makes it simpler in my head, like conditional use is a temporary status where the variance runs with the land. Those are great points. I'm sorry. I'm just taking No, that's okay. I don't know if I'm misunderstanding it. If anybody else has questions or comments on that process. No, that be a case by case. So, the conditional use is a case by case typically. Yeah. Sarah,

I know. I'm sorry. We don't usually accept engagement at this point in the conversation. and it's just deliberation for the commission and our our representatives, but I appreciate that. Thank you. So, that's something I've noted on here and I will um work with Tyson so that we can do a little more research on that and at least have an answer when I come back. Okay. Any other questions on I will turn my time back over to Jason since I stole it from him. Go down to number one. So it means if you have next to each other the married number that that

I had a question when we when we define these these dwelling units and we're talking about different things whether it's a quiet multif family so it could be quadlex a duplex we talk about having a separate house and kitchen and multiple renters as we define this under a single roof what are there other qualifiers that we would look at to say what we have here and I'm trying to think of potential And I don't maybe I this is just my inexperience, but as far as billing this out, you could have someone with a house says, "Okay, I've got a basement with a separate entrance. I want to rent that out." Would that be considered a duplex? And and what does that do as far as what we're doing there? I'm just the definition is loose enough to where I mean, you you basically could say we have are we looking at separate, you know, a true quadplex, you could have four separate people living in separate like separate houses essentially that could be sold that way. Would you have them deed separately or or like under separate?

So a co a complex would be one structure on the same lot and so you would have four different entries into that, right? Or two or two if it was a duplex. I'm just wondering what what are we gaining by defining this? And is there further? Do we need to define it further or is this enough? And what would we be using it for? And as far as for the other than saying, hey, someone wants to build a dup a quad flex here.

No, no, that is great. So, I mean, our first definition was just a building containing only four dwelling units. And so, um, defining it out obviously gives us some some definition and standards to look at as they're constructing this, but um, if you want to have standards for it, that's something that we would need to put elsewhere in the code, um, to have specific standards for it. Where I'm going with this is that we go through and we say someone comes in and wants to build quadlexes and they say, "Okay, how we're going to do that?" And the intent is that they're going to manage those as a as say that's sold under a separate title. There's they have four renters or are they going to try to sell that out as individual like a That's what I want to know if that definition.

Yeah, they can't they cannot sell it. It would be rental only. It would have to be under one. Is that defined somewhere? I didn't know if that was defined somewhere else. I just want to make sure they couldn't. We're looking at what this how much does this capture I guess what you're saying. Yeah. No, I mean it doesn't um it's not specific to saying it can't be subdivided out um or not. And if it's satisfied somewhere else and I just didn't I didn't know that. That's what I'm kind of wondering is if we

I want to say sorry to interrupt, but I want to say that those things are uh regulated under a separate section of state code for condos. And um so each segment of the property, each portion of the building, the home would be separated out into its own separate parcel and sold off and managed as such. Okay. So that's a a separate section of state code that would govern that kind of transaction. I just want to make sure it was we don't need to cover it because sounds like we don't then. Yeah. And it would be platted different. It would look like a a condo plat rather than Right. Yeah. I don't know if that's how we're going to get into approval, but if this is my Yeah. This is just I'm learning as I go. Thank you, Bill.

Yeah, you're getting Jason over there. Can I interject in here as well? So, and on 80 there's also the language as and often as an investment property for multi-generational living. Is there a reason why that language is in there? I would consider striking that you know because it kind of defines again like there's no reason that if someone builds a forplex or a quadlex if they're trying to sell them. I just find the language interesting like I don't understand why it's in there. Okay, perfect. Just this part right here, right? Yeah, I just Okay,

I think I mean everything is good right there to me right to that where you hit the comment that often as an investment property or for multi-generational living. I would just strike that

any other so go back say I you know I just even that often as investment property I strike all that as well. I think if you take that elbow almost sorry that's 80. Okay. Did you get your I saw more I know you do. Yes. Just want to make sure that one is okay 97

on this. I was

just starting to clarify this um I had copied this pulled this out of our code but it's not updated. We had changed this um prior and um so yeah so this is actually 2,000 square feet and a few things. So this one has been updated u most recently. Um, part of it I guess was just when I read this first and I looked at just general people looking at this, it says family food production and then you're talking about the raising of animals for food and then we're talking about horses and I don't know that we want to eat horses but I don't know that that was the intent here but I wonder if we could talk about agriculture just kind of clarify a little bit about what we're saying here just about or I just thought that that the def the title of the definition what we're trying to explain here is a little bit different. I don't know if there's a better way to to put that in there, but it just I it just read I read this and I was like, where are we going with this?

Yes. And so I I wasn't so much concerned about the the the areas like the square footage. I'm fine with that piece. I just maybe rename this to where it makes more sense. I don't know if anybody else has thoughts on when I was trying to strike the the words and horses because you you cover the you cover large animals later on in the paragraph and I was the same thing like we're talking about raising animals for family food production and horses. It it's just we it's a little clunky. We've had I don't disagree. Yes,

this is a an agricultural community and people like to have their horses. So, this is a way for them to keep horses on property that is uh maybe otherwise not zoned for that. I just think it's weird to call be put under a family food production qualifier if they want to have a horse there. But it goes back to what we even had for our discussion last week when they were talking about individual trying to put a h a horse there. some of the some of the areas we were even talking about. I wasn't aware of this, but they were some of the buffer we were talking about their their horse property or their area would have been right up against their house, which wouldn't have complied with what's right here. So, right.

And we did change the measures, but I believe Jason, I don't I can't recall if you were here when we've talked about this a couple times. Um, but uh I think Bill captured um the reason why it was there because there had been people coming that wanted to keep horses that didn't meet the lot requirements and we're coming for a conditional use and and we've had other discussions at the commission with um the family food production. Is it a permitted now on our on our family food production? Yeah. Is it a permitted? It's permitted in agricultural zones but not residential zones. It's conditional. Okay. Um

but Tyson, if we strike there and horses, do we need to have a definition for the keeping of horses, I guess, and then amend the use tables. Did you already cover that though later on where you're talking about large animals, horses, cows, etc.? It almost seemed like the the ant horses language was redundant in that paragraph because it's already covered later on in the paragraph. Is this meant to do to to address farm animals? Could just in the in the heading could just say slashfarmm animals. Yeah. I mean, yeah, it was that definition's been there for a very long time. But yeah, I mean we could

I I would be okay with we just put slashfarm animals and we can eat horses in there. Just the way it is right now. It looks like we're trying to eat horses, raise horse feed. I was trying to help you define that family food production animals and farm animals. I just as a definition of what we're we two different definitions then I'd be open to whatever city staff would like you to do or I mean yeah it's confusing to you know family food production or like but I I'm fine either way.

Right below you have 90 you have farm and ranch. Could you just say put an additional paragraph in there 99 move everything down and talk about farm animals. Yeah, I mean I mean it's more work but

either way I'm just looking for the attorney for advice. The only complication there is that the we define farm. And so if there's something called a farm animal, we and what we're trying to do is allow people to have horses on property that doesn't necessarily meet the definition of a farm. And and so there there in comes the complication where I would look to those with more agricultural experience for some a better thesaurus for farm animal. something something that that that makes better sense than than using the word farm which is also defined here. Can I look at other cities and sure maybe propose some different language

that's what Tyson I I thought the paragraph read well except for those two words and horses that just seemed out of place. I thought after that it read fine. Like I said, you have and horses and you cover what a large animal is, which you reference horses, cows, etc. I just thought just those two words like that just it was odd places. I think it just be broke out. I would I I think how you have right there. I I would recommend just striking how you have it. Just how do we address? Do we ever use and or? So you could say the raising of horses and or animals for family. No, that would still read that way. Well, I'll play with it.

Or animals for Okay. Something good to you guys. Good item. Okay. What else you got? I couldn't sleep, so I went through a bunch of I'm almost done. You are good. Uh number 114, the new 114, right?

Yes. when we talk about the the front yard and later you have a that that picture go back to the images that I'm looking at and this comes back from discussion we had even last week or last meeting when we were talking about what the definition of a front yard is. We were qualifying that on a corner lot that there was a front yard and in this map below you're saying that there's a a front yard and then we have a side a street sideyard. Is that new or is that how we've had it before? because when we were working with that individual, we said they have two front yards because they were on a corner lot or where the way this is defined. It's not. I actually like this better. I just wanted to understand if that's new or not.

No, this isn't new. This has always been there. But um we do specify in one of our definitions that um it either one of our definitions or in chapter 21 that um if you're on a corner lot, you have two front yards.

I think it's chapter 21. I want I part of my reason for bringing this up was if it if it is to find somewhere else, it sounds like it is. Do we want to look at how we could adjust this? Because I some of the questions we were having with that other individual was that we had to worry about two front yards and that setback made an exception. But if we had the front yard as something that was facing the the house and then the the way this is designed here, I don't know if that would make it easier for us in the future as far as having to work through variances or different things we have to work in there. curious to get other people's thoughts from the the commission or I have to say most written down. I think what you have here and what we have in 21 are in conflict with each other. So

especially because of the you have the display down low where it shows a front yard and and street side yards. I think the two definitions need to come in come together because right now they're definitely in conflict. So 336 front yard says on a corner lot there are two front yards can which is great but then if you look at your display below 114 that's not what the display shows. Oh absolutely. So that mean we need to update the display or

could we change that because in our uh setback uh descriptions our front yard and corner sideyard both have a 30 30 ft setback requirement and it doesn't say front yard and corner front yard or so I think Jason and Gary are spot on if we could change the other the other reference that might fit better into the rest of our coding. So, do we want to just to clarify, do we want this to say a street sideyard or a front yard as well or a corner side?

I just put more definition in that if the house is on a corner and maybe even reference to chapter 21. So, they're just in concert not in conflict with each other. That makes sense. So maybe in front of your definition, um, we could just add, you know, for for a corner lot C and then reference the the other section of code that that that talks about the two front yards that exist on a corner lot. Does that clarify? I like this one that says the front yard is the yard that's in front of the frontific. Yeah, the facade.

Facade. Thank you. That's what I was trying to um read, but it in front of the We're missing a word there. Says the permeable area between the front lot line and the front facade of the period. Yeah, I um actually noted that here. Okay. It didn't carry over from um ordinance 2025. We just have the dwelling unit. something there that it should say the per permable area between the front line and the front um facade

facade of the main building and extending from the main building and extending for the full width of the lot. The front yard must front a public street is what it should actually say. Um but I had to go back through two ordinances because it was an air I don't know from staff or when it got put in somewhere along those lines. It's probably been there forever.

Just can you help me understand? Is there reason I actually like the way this this diagram showed because I think gave us some more flexibility on being able to make changes like we had the last session, but I don't know if they're from city staff and I I'm newer to this than a lot of you are as far as having to develop these in the past. Does it make more sense to define it as two front yards or to leave it defined as the way it is in this image and update the other part of it? I just ask you to understand

our code in um multiple chapters references um a corner lot has two front yards. So we define it in definition 336 chapters 14 through 16 and then um in chapter 21. So I mean simplicity wise it would be easier to update this picture saying front yard. We could also define once a once the home's front door is defined or whatever shown that is now the front yard in the corner front yard is something else I've seen that

and I know you're doing a lot of work on that's not trying to make it harder but I do I I think getting it right is more important than saying it's easier just to update this other piece but I'm asking I guess from the city staff perspective is there reason why we couldn't read this definition here and update the rest of for that or if there's if there's a strong reason for it and there's history behind it, I'm open to hear that. I just want to understand. Shouldn't it match the ordinance? Doesn't that make sense that it I'm saying? Go ahead. No, just that it matches the ordinance. So, wouldn't this just show two front yards because that's what the ordinance says it is on the corner currently? That's what it says. So, I'm asking if we were to update. We need to update the ordinance to make that. That's what I'm asking. Is it worth it or not? I don't know. It's ultimately up to you guys. I mean, it's

it's I've only been here since February of last year, but it's been a constant pain thorn in our side that we do define both of those as a French yard. It causes a problem. Yeah. And not only for our discussions, and then we had um Cameron, we had the rear entry or what do they call them? rear loaded town homes came and it is the front yard there to determine the front yard was the front yard wasn't facing public street it's just been a mess so

it sounds like there is a problem there Shelby is is there also an opportunity here to maybe put a little bit more of talking about putting language that the front yard is the something about where the address lies for that lot is that's considered the front yard Because to that point, if I have an alley low town on which is front and which is back, but wherever the house is addressed at, that should be the designation in my opinion. I mean, that's just I'm one guy, but that should be the designation of what cons consists of the front yard. So, yeah. No, we can definitely look at other cities and see what their definitions are and get some ideas. Especially rear loaded towns.

We'll get Daybreak because that'll be a South Day will be the best case for that. We have a valley load in there. Okay. Um, next question. This is my last one. Shelby 178. Any in between that? I'm on that. Go ahead. Whatever. Go ahead. I don't have the

on here when we talk about the master plan. We we talked about shall be consistent with the code of municipal planning authority unless it's inherent inherent. I'm just reading it differently. Do we want to also include that? Do we want to have the the um city general plans? Do you want a separate definition for city general plan? I'm saying if we include that when it's saying that the master plan shall be consistent with this code with municipal planning authority city standards. We also want it to be consistent as someone comes up with the master plan that we are going to be consistent with the general plan of the city general plan as well. Perfect. So you think just after with the municipal planning authority comma city standards comma city master plan? Yes. Just add that language.

Yeah. Okay. I've got that commented in here. Any That's great. I appreciate that. Yeah. Thank you, Jason. Any other comments, questions on definitions? There was one that I You said that was it. It was it. There was one I remember it was back that plan. I'll make a note. Cameron, do you have No, I mean, Jason, I didn't know, but it was coming back to where the the conceptual plan that they when they when they sent them in for um when someone comes in. But I'll I need to find that again. I don't remember. I did I guess make my note. So, okay.

But thank you. I you've done a really a lot of work here. I recognize it. So, thank you.

My question is just down in mostly in 272 where we're talking about there's a lot of change in in trip numbers. I'm just curious where the numbers come from changing from 3500 trips to 5,000 trips. All those 27 272 BCH K. So, are those arbitrary numbers or those did you go out and do a windshield survey and watch cars drive by streets? Um, so anything in black was already in our code. Um, so I'm not nec I I don't know where they came up with those numbers. Um, but we have done a traffic study as well with our master transportation plan and making sure that these align. Um, as far as a um single family residential road with the thousand average daily trips, that is something that the state actually came up with.

Okay. Yeah. So, UD do um define those and they use the trip daily trip numbers for lots of other things like um environmental impacts will uh analyze the daily trips and how many lanes there are on the road to come up with a noise impact or noise uh pollution is what they call it like light pollution. You need street lights and things like that. So, there's a lot of things that goes into how UD do has defined those trips, but I'm assuming that's that's where it came from. And in bigger cities, a lot of the streets will have cameras on it just solely for the purpose of determining what a daily trip count is.

Okay. Um, so we just said put numbers in a hat and pull them out. That's all. No, I assume that sounds like fun, though. I assume when these definitions were created that there was a traffic study done and so on 272 on section A alley says private access way for thorough fair 26 ft. If we get to a point in the city where someone brings a mastering plan for alley low town homes or rear entry garages that are in an alley, is that still considered that a private street or is that or is this a pretty specific definition? So, um,

how would I guess my question is how would we define an alley load town home? How would it fall under this definition? What would we do for that? So, I mean, they would pull in through the garage from that. But would we say would we say if this is a if it's not a PUV or a private subdivision, would that an alleyway that feeds multiple town homes? Would that be considered private? Who would service that road? Who would take care of that road? Is that So, anything would touch it? No, the city wouldn't maintain these. Okay.

Yeah. And I think since I've been here, Grantsville is trying to maintain an aesthetic that doesn't kind of lend an opportunity for those smaller living units just because it's challenging. We have one road that's on the west side right near all those big uh town homes or apartments or whatever they are on uh close to the Walmart distribution center. Those roads are so small they could probably if they could probably qualify as an alley. They might even qualify as an out. I don't know. Those roads are a nightmare to try to navigate out there out there on the west side. So, um, but if you do have concerns about it, I mean, we can revisit in the future, unless you have a good suggestion on how we fix it.

No, I just wanted to make sure because I I know right now we don't have anything, but who's to say five or 10 years or 20 years, do we have something? And maybe it's addressed then and we don't worry about it. or two years. We've had or two years. I mean, who knows coming out with some of these big master plan 17 on the docket. So, we do not want to be the next day break. Sorry. Should I say that out loud? No, you should. I'm sorry. Absolutely. Okay. Um, did you have any other comments or questions? Yeah. So, did we overstep your time? Okay. Sorry. Number 15 and number 21. Number 15, automatic car wash. You talk about small trucks not exceeding one and a half tons. Definition

definition number 15. Okay. I just wanted to make sure I would I mean to me just looking at this small truck not exceeding a one ton or a half ton. So which one would it be? Uh I think it's more just saying that we don't want to see semis in there. I mean I could update this definition. So then I would almost say, "Okay, take out the half ton." If you're not exceeding one ton, oh yeah, one, then you're covering everything below that one ton. So it's one and a half tons. 1.5. I like because that would that be because that would be then in 21, right? You would that be a different one?

You would be like a 4500 or a 5500 is what you would see go that would be your one and a half tons. Yeah. Because the way this read this to me reads half ton one and a half tons capacity. It needs to be 1.5. Yeah, if you put 1.5 people ambiguity. Yeah, I like it. That was like extra against the metric system there. One and one half tons like that probably. And then I did have a question number definition number 57.

Can I jump in before there? I found the other one I wanted to ask you about. Shelby on 52 on the concept plan. Um, one thing when someone brings in a concept and there there and I know in the definition later we talk about how this doesn't this doesn't guarant the concept 10 concept plan is not a guarantee that the applicant will um get everything when they come back to apply for the actual that the preliminary plan is different than the actual um approval that we'll get. One question I had on there is up above where it talks about that they depict land use as access to circulation. I wonder if there's a way you can write that to say that it may include these because I think some this is from other work experience. People come in with a plan and people think, oh, you had a road here, you have you had this as open space and then that concept plan is to show kind of a thought of what they're trying to do to get in to get resoned or something, but it isn't necessarily what they're going to come back with for their actual designed plan. And so I think to say that may include these is is better than to say we'll include these because it kind of it gives people more clarity, allows us to have some flexibility, but also the public and everybody else doesn't come in and say, "Well, hey, they they presented this map and said they were going to do X and now it's different." And that's happens all the time.

That was it. Yeah. Number 57 on the condominium. And maybe I'm just nitpicking this and trust me I probably am but I just wonder like reading through this definition the question that came to me well by this definition then would a town hall a row town home be considered a condominium to me in in my profession a condominium is more like a basically garden style apartments that are for sale rather than for rent and I just when I I just read through this and it just kind of left couple question like is this is just too vague or am I just nitpicking?

Um, nitpick away. This is the time for that. So, don't feel bad about seriously that that this is the time. Um, and again, a condominium plat is governed very different and special under state code. So, um, we have a a condominium defined here, but it's also regulated by that state code, which would come into play. And it has to do with ownership. Whether it's a town home style condominium or it's a stacked apartment style condominium where you have the individual ownership of a block of space basically, not necessarily a piece of ground. And um it's all it's all governed and defined specifically and explicitly in state code. So

do we then just put the reference to the state code under this definition? It might be a good idea, but it is uh it does say It's treated by state code and this code as a subdivision. So it it's it's in there. Okay. And seriously, you you all are spot on with these questions. Don't feel like you're nitpicking at all. It's fantastic. Very good conversation. You want to reference what law is or is it too is it too is it is there more? There's enough laws that you can't say just state law. That's I was wondering about

I think it's good to say it like this because if you if state code changes and actually it did recently the whole chapter that we had been using for 20 years has now changed to um 1020 instead of 109A which you know whatever they're still at 109A actually but um all of the things got moved to 1020. So just saying it it follows the strictctures and requirements in the state code. That's I think that's plenty. I

I guess I would push though a little bit to say why not just put the state code because if the state code does and we re why don't we address this again as an update to keep this fresh in the mind rather than let it go for 20 years. That would be that would be my only argument for that. Probably not a good argument, but that would be my only argument for that. Well, I can see the argument. Um, I would if I could recommend that we don't state I mean there are pieces where there are specific state code in here but that takes so much administrative time to go through and update that every time state code is updated. Honestly, state code gets changed every session. Yeah. With regard to a lot of our our codes and we're constantly struggling to keep up. So

So maybe I make a recommendation instead of just the word state law maybe just state code. Okay, that's fair. Probably a little bit more concise. State code is annotated. Annotated state code. Whatever. Yeah. Yeah. Perfect. Okay. Did you have something else? I did not. No. Okay. Did you have something else? No, I just he was I think I either I or Gary cut off one. Okay. Gary. No, I think that was it for me. The only one I had was like the Lions and Tigers. That was funny. But um No. Funny, Jason. I had a lot of the same things on here. Do I need to read mine or do you have them?

I mean, I have yours. Do you want me to read them and give you the answers or Oh, I don't need answers. I just um was wondering if it would be good to recognize radon as a geological hazard on item 119. Uh I will refer to Tyson on that. It's been more publicized over the last I want to say three years. Um, having it in here and just making a note that maybe if developers come in, you know, they they are required to do a radon assessment

and radon, you know,

developers are or is it based on who who develops it? Well, I think might be debased based on what their funding is from. Maybe not all developers will be required to assess radon risk, but um Utah has high risk across the board. I would have to look at how we use the word geologic hazard and what what that relates to elsewhere in the code because uh it may not be possible to include something like radon in there and have it serve its same purpose. So, if for example, we're requiring a uh an environmental impact study or something that names geological hazards. Um, they may not know those whether the radon levels in that area exist until they start digging until the until they're into the um more of the uh um occupancy permit type area. and then they would be required to do radon mitigation and uh things like that. But I'm not I'm not certain that we can apply it in the same way.

We we should put a note there though so we can look Yeah. and uh and and make sure that uh that it doesn't need to be put in there. There are probably other things similar to to radon, dangerous gases and things like that that that also exist that that may also constitute a geological hazard. Um so we have to look and see if we want an exhaustive an exhaustive list or if we want this to be um you know the etc at the end which could could include things like radon.

I think you're spot on there Tyson. Thank you. I didn't think about that. We could just add it to 92 environmental impact assessment. So, and the challenge of radon is that usually they test it in enclosed area. So, they have to build temporary enclosed area test for 30 days or 90 days or whatever it is. Um, but they look at the geological aptitude first for it before they determine whether or not they need to test for it because it is kind of expensive. But so the environmental impact um assessment would also um analyze like I mentioned the n the light and the noise impact sometimes from traffic right sometimes not sometimes those are um pollutions that are uh impacting your project or your project is impacting what we call dark skies right so there's things like that that could be included in the environmental al impact assessment. It was just such a great description of the environmental impact assessment that I thought it we might be doing ourselves a a disservice if we don't include those those types of pollutions in there. Um and then um the analysis on public and private sectors and the development for those um could also include an analysis for low-income and minority populations. So, um, but can or cannot choose. I I just thought I'd suggest that. And then I notice we don't have a definition for HOA in here or if we needed one. So, I don't know if that's appropriate or Tyson, maybe you had some feelings about having a definition for a

homeowner association in here. I I don't see that it is a matter of controversy. I think we could certainly have a definition of a homeowners association. Okay. I think that's a pretty simple ad that we could put in there where we do reference it elsewhere in the code. Uh we we could specify exactly what that means.

Okay. Super. And then um I think my only other question was on 279 about the swimming pool. Um, I think your definition here would apply to a public swimming pool or public or a swimming pool or something of that nature that's open to the public because they don't always require a conditional use permit. 279. Yeah. So, I think I think that definition I don't know if you should have a definition for a private swimming pool either. I don't know.

Does anybody know? I don't have an accessory use definition. Um, and so that would just mean that this this type of swimming pool is is secondary to the primary use of the of the property. So, this this to me would mean more of a uh a a private swimming pool um that that someone has as part of their um residence. But if you look at the aquatic center in in Tilla, that's that's the primary use of of that.

That's true. So, we um when we put in our swimming pool, we didn't need to apply for a conditional use permit. We just applied for a building permit. So if we have this in our definition as a conditional use, does it need to be added to the use tables

or would it be the primary use just here in this definition? we would probably need to add it to the use tables unless our assumption is that it's allowed in all zones, but even then it's still unclear. Um, so I think adding it to the to the use table would be would would be the best way for someone who wants to know whether they can have a swimming pool to find out if they can have a swimming pool.

Okay. Shelby, is that a lot of administrative work in that? No, that one's that one's easy. So, you're proposing that it become one of the allowed use based on whatever whatever the zoning is for that parcel and is I mean it does does this also contemplate an above ground pool or is this just an inground um you know I think that maybe some people might be looking and saying should I do I need to apply for conditional use permit if for an above ground pool. I would say you just add a a permanent accessory use. There you go. So, what did you say, Rad?

Permanent accessory use. I think that clarifies it. Add add just the word permanent because an above ground pool isn't necessarily always permanent, right? We need to have people come back to us every time they want to put a pool in for us to approve it or can it be something? That's where I say it's infinite. They can just the city can say and that's what the city did for us. We just got a building permit. We didn't need a conditional use. But if it's a conditional use for like a group home comes in, that's a private or privately owned public whatever. We had a guy here a few weeks ago that said, "I want to develop this and and I'm planning on putting in a pool that'll be open to the public," which

I think we advised them not to do that, but So, if this is a conditional use permit, then we need to notify um the neighbors within a 500 foot radius. So, does this really need to be a conditional use permit? That's why. No. No, we didn't need to get one. I mean, we need to find this, but for like public use or or commercial use maybe for public. Yeah, and I like the delineation out for public use. Yeah. Okay. Because they should that will increase traffic and noise and the the opportunity for

contamination or whatever. I mean, but we want to have a public school get a conditional use permit. Not too close to that. Does that not make sense? It doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Overburdening people, I don't think a a public swimming pool should get a building permit. It's not a I mean, it's But don't you you wouldn't think that we'd want to warn people within 500 ft or Well, I mean, I don't mean they're not just going to build a swimming pool. It's going to be a conditional use either way subdivided. So, I think we could remove I guess conditional use permit building permit. Yeah, that's the

because a conditional use permit would be a temporary permit that is based off of they put an they come back and revoke that permit now probably now you have to fill it empty you're right yeah I think just take that I mean you're the case in point just get a building permit oh good yes any other questions on definitions

um I just think I have one more sorry 288 for use, purpose for which a building, lot sign or structure is intended, designated, occupied or maintained. And then the additional descriptions are individually numbered 289 and 290, but I feel like maybe those could be um ABC. Yeah. Okay.

There's a s word there I was searching for that I can't think of. Accessory use means a use that is incidental and subordinate customarily associated with the principal use of the building lot or structure. Right, which I love. Temporary use means a use that is permitted for limited duration and under conditions specified. Ah, perfect. There it is. Okay. 288 then subsection A, subsection B.

B. Yeah. Or however your numeration is. Okay. And then one more. Sorry. Uh, the home occupation, which I just noticed has two B items. And I know I know how stinking easy it is to look at that. I done contracts with that saying missing the sub numbering, subindexing or whatever it is because you're I mean, this is just a ton of work. I don't know if I ever done anything with this much work. So, thank you so much. That is amazing. occupation. I didn't even write down what number it was.

I am so sorry. There's a B and a B. And I just noticed it tonight when you were providing your overview, which was amazing also. Okay. Do we want to make a motion to table that then for the next meeting? Yeah. You can open this one for public comment. Is that because it was open for public? It was. Okay. It just happened so fast. I think we went straight to discussion. We we went from you to discussion. You got more because we suggest Oh, there's more there. There is. So, there is a lot more, but I want to be respectful of everybody's time.

Um, so I mean, you can open it to public comment. We're going to have public So, open it to public comment. We'll have public comment again next time and I will finish going through the changes unless you'd like me to go through the remaining chapters. I just want to be a respectful movement this time. Thank you, R. What is everybody? Okay, you want to motion? Thank you, Cameron. I move to table the proposed amendments to the grantsful city land use and management code including chapters 2 46. Am I doing all these? Could we talk about um um agenda item two? Agenda item two, the future planning commission meetings. I will second that. All in favor?

I I Okay, item. We will move on to You want my mouse? No, but if you could pull up the map. My goodness, my fingers will work. I will move on to agenda item three. presentation, public hearing, discussion, and consideration of the proposed Grantsville city annexation policy plan. So, we will do the staff presentation. Thank you, Bill. Can you state your name for the record? Yes. I'm Bill Cobe. I'm the community development director. Thank you.

So, this item, and we've talked about this uh it was a couple meetings ago, and I'm not sure if everyone was here for that conversation, so I will go over it really quickly. um for the benefit of those who were not here. The the annexation policy plan is required by state code uh for cities to have if they desire to um control I guess the annexation of property into the city. So, the annexation policy plan is a statement of of um a a desire, not necessarily an actual requirement or um anything that we're not we're not declaring this property is ours. We're just saying if this property were to annex and they wanted to annex into Grantsville, we would consider that. That's all this is saying. Um, as you can see on the on the map, there are three main areas, areas A, B, and C. They're delineated a little bit more in the text of the of the document as to where they are and what we anticipate in those areas. Um there was a a question uh Jason brought up about um where where that the annexation on area B would stop and and not extend onto and it's the it's the road it's the highway there. So anything east of that would not be for consideration but west of that could be

west of I80 west of I'm sorry west of um uh Mid Valley. Okay. So that the property that you had that you was in question is east of that, right? So we're we're way well away from any of that. We've actually already tried to annex well I mean we're in the middle of that. We've annexed area to the east of that road, right?

A little further south. This was some uh property was owned by Kakott that is uh closer to the lake and then east of the Mid Valley. So it's uh it's not involved in our annexation area. So um I think that's basically it. Um do you have any questions for me? I will say that there is no um imminent annexation being proposed for areas A or area C, but area B, as you know, has a substantial amount of area that's currently in dispute. And we wanted to make sure that our policy plan reflects the inclusion of that area into our city limits potentially, but for sure within our annexation areas.

I think you've addressed my concerns. we talked about. Gary, I want to reiterate too that this isn't a projection into the future. This is if and when, not we're we're headed this direction. So there's a time associated with it. No, this is driven by property owners and and if and when. So this public before we ask questions, right? got to do public hearing before we engage in. No, you can ask questions now would be a good time. Okay. I'm confused by the instructions then I'm going to ignore the instruction that was given.

So my question would just be um now there could be overlap on these plans, right? So there's nothing that would prevent another city from doing the same thing we're doing right now with the same pieces of land. Correct. They're supposed to coordinate with um adjacent communities to make sure that there is no overlap. To our best knowledge, there is none in adopting this policy plan the way it is located or indicated with the exception of the EDTA question. And um we're hopefully we're hopefully going to get a resolution on that very soon.

So what prevents a city from just saying putting in their annexation plan every piece of property that's within a 50 mile radius is what would what what would prevent someone from doing that? What's the pro and the con? So there is nothing legal preventing them from doing that. But what there are some natural constraints that would keep you from let's say an us annexing over into Skull Valley. Um we would have to provide services out there and we would have to provide a plan for getting services from our main area out to that satellite area or establishing a separate water area over there. So um

but this would just be a plan, right? So we wouldn't actually have to do that unless we decided we wanted to do that. Correct. We go put a a flag anywhere we want. Yes. And just say, "Hey, this is going to be ours if we want it. And then at some point if we don't want it, we just say never mind." The only exception would be for already incorporated areas into adjacent communities. But yeah, we could go all the way from here out to uh Wendover if we wanted to. It's just interesting. It just seems like this is just like a almost like a playground game of hey, we want this and what prevents anyone. I mean, it's good. I mean, yeah, I just it's just interesting that everyone would just go put this in a plan and say, "Well, eventually I might want it, so I'm going to put it in my planning." Yeah. So, why don't we go all the way to Windover? What stops us from doing that? Nothing. Um

service area. Again, the service area the infrastructure practical concerns are are natural concern. Someone finds oil out there and it's going to pay for it and we've already ditched it and then it's ours. So, can we add that to this? We would we fight the county for that or um we would not fight the county. The county doesn't have a dog in this hunt because the county's taxes and revenues and everything is based off of a completely different tier of interest and and taxation and whatever else. In fact, the county might like us to annex things because then we have policing and fire responsibilities in these areas and not the county. So, but only if we end up incorporating only if we actually do annex. So again, this is this is a wish list.

Yeah. Um I I think it does pretty good, honestly. And and the This is fair. This doesn't go to Wendover. I just wonder why not. Yeah. We're going to take Greenland. Let's take Windover. I'm gonna bite my tongue on that. Okay. All right. It's just interesting. Yeah. Yeah. It's interesting. The whole poll's a great question. if you're going to go there, why don't we look at another 50 years and say, "Okay, if if this is a 25 year plan, what's my 50-year plan? Why don't we So, that's a that's a very good question. This isn't the document for that. Okay,

that's when we get to our uh update of our general plan here in the next little bit. Hopefully, if we can get some grant funding that we've applied for, then we will look deeper into that. But um for now, this this is just saying if these people were to annex, we get their first bite of that apple. Just to clarify, the way I understand it, if someone came in that was outside of this, they can still come to Gransville and say, "Hey, we'd like to annex into Gransville." And that would be entertained as long as the cities felt like they could support it

potentially. Yeah. So, um it would be be unusual, but let's say someone in the Skull Valley was like, I really, really, really want to be in Grantsville. Okay. How are you going to make that happen land owner out there? It would it would make more sense for them to do the Eagle Mountain route and just incorporate out there in Skull Valley on their own. Um just because the topography is in the way. But Skull Valley couldn't come out and say I really want to be a part of Urban. Could they? That would be tougher because they have to leapfrog us in order to do that. and um the state code really kind of emphasizes the idea that we want contiguous properties and no islands.

So if if for example someone in area A or let's let's say area B outside of the disputed area that that we're that we're we're all aware of wanted to annex into ERDA um but it's in the county right now. O would need permission from Grantsville at this point to uh when once this is passed to to annex that property in because it's in our expansion policy. Once it's in a city's expansion policy, another municipality needs that municipality's permission before it can annex any of that land. This account cat mouse game between municipalities then right here what we're playing a little bit.

Well, we're we're we're trying to secure the areas that make sense for for grants. We're looking out for our interests. Um, isn't this a great map? By the way, I want to give a shout out to Tayon for making the map for us. She did a really good job. Um, the only difference between these two maps, by the way, is that one includes the water area and one in includes just the land areas. So, if you have a preference on either one, and now would be the time to let me know. Um, personally, I think that one depicting just the land area is makes a little more sense. um including the water is it's all stateowned land under and around the water. So it looks good maybe on a map but it's water for now.

Well, we don't want to mitigate once we'll talk again tomorrow. So also on the the disputed part up here above B, there's still a little section there between B and A that's not covered. just open up to the over I believe that's because that's state land and there wasn't any real need to include that again all most of that stuff up there is is either Morton Salt Company or um state home sit low or state of Utah land so so is it the staff recommendation to approve just one of these maps yeah one or the other and you're saying the land one makes more sense

I think So, but we've got both as an option for you at the request of certain elected former elected officials. Do you have any other questions for Bill? No. Okay. Okay. I don't. Sorry. I don't Okay. Now would be the time for the public hearing.

Yeah. I like that format better. then you don't have to come up to the podium twice unless you really want to. But okay, so we will open the public hearing for agenda item three. There's anybody who'd like to state public comment could approach the podium. Is there anybody online? If there's somebody online who'd like to make a public comment on item agenda item three, please raise your hand.

There's no one online. Okay, fantastic. We'll close that public hearing then. I see no further public public comment opportunities. Sorry, I should follow the script better. Uh, so the public hearing for agenda item three is closed and we will bring this item back to the commission for discussion or consideration. Is there a reason why we would maybe not forego map number one that does cover part of the water? I mean just I don't maybe being a little weird but maybe just contingency factors for the future or is it do we even worry about that?

I'm not sure Gary. I think I I personally don't see any reason why we want to be out into the water and why it would matter to us. We're not it would be right. I don't think it' be feasible. I don't see its value. I'm a fan of the second map. That's me. So, we'll call that map number two. Yeah. Yeah. I'll make a motion unless we're Are we done with discussion? I I'd like to see some more out the window, but if this is what we're dealing with, there's always one. Guess you're on the planning commission for the next 20 years. That's what you're doing. Okay, make note of that, Shelby. Go ahead, Gary.

I move to recommend the approval of the proposed Grantsville city annex annexation plan and forward a positive recommendation on map two to the city council. We have a second. Second, Jason. Super. Is there any other discussion? Okay. All in favor? I I. Fantastic. Okay. We will close that item. And the next agenda item is the approval of the commission meeting minutes from February 17, 2026 um planning commission regular meeting. Are there any comments or corrections that anybody saw from that?

Yes, I saw one correction that is needed. This is I'm sorry, let me get there. This is on the property when we did the conditional use permit. We said that it passed 4 to one when it should be past 3 to one. I'm trying to get to that area right here. Sorry. Oh, good catch. This is Yeah. So it's under the we say this at the agenda item number one

because we list on there who voted for it but then we say there are only four of us and then we say it pass four to one instead of three to one. That's a great catch. I did not even notice that. That's all I had on there. Okay, I agree. Anybody want to make a motion? I I'll make a motion to approve the minutes with the the added or the edit that Gary brought up from the February 17th as part of the mission regist. I'll second. Hey. All in favor? I

I. Thank you. I'll close that agenda item and move on to agenda item five. Finally, um, report from city staff. Um, I don't have anything, but thank you guys for being here. We really do appreciate you dedicating your time and just know that staff's here to answer any questions that you guys have. Thank you, Shelby. I don't think you know yet about our planning conference in April. What are the dates again? The 8th through the 10th. Yes. You want to say sound right?

Are you would you be available to go to a planning conference? The 8th of We've heard from you and who else committed, right? I think so. Those were the two. Some of us need to be committed but uh I believe so but I would need to confirm with my wife. Okay. Fair important in the life things like this. Very fair. It's in Bryce Canyon. Okay. So is there a time frame you need as soon as possible? We'd like to get everybody signed up and registered for that as soon as possible. So okay.

Okay. Thank you. and the extra meeting on March 24th. 24th, I think, which is an off Tuesday. And we were going to meet at 6, right? Yes. 6 p.m. 6 days. That's what we have. Come hungry. We'll we'll bring some food in and u have a nice training slash discussion workshop. I have on my calendar 6:30. Okay. 6:30 is fine. Just that's right because you someone needed extra time to get in. Some of us travel from Salt Lake and you can never depend on 24th of March.

That's just an extra meeting is what we're talking about. Correct. It's a it's a training slash meeting work session workshop. Yeah. Right here in this room. Right here in this room. And Bill's bringing smoked brisket. Cornbread. Brisket and cornbread. Is that what the request was? Smoked sausages and whatever. Pork and beans. Okay. Do you have anything else? No, that's it.

I'm sorry I lied. I have a few things. Um, I am proposing a work meeting April 15th with planning commission and city council for the master transportation plan. Um, they will be presenting to city council on the 15th, but we would like to extend that invite to planning commission. I just need to know if y'all can attend so that we can notice it. I will be out of town on a work event that day. I just I'm available. That's tax day. So, it's kind of burdensome from the government already, but I could probably not our tax.

Shelby, is that before is that like the work meeting before council meeting or just inviting them to the council meeting? Um, so it's ultimately up to um you and city council if you want um Jones and Mill to present during city council, which was assumed, or if you want them to come prior um at like 6:00 p.m. to city council. If we don't if we have people that can't get here at 6 o'clock, then we should have a meeting at 6. So would it be a discussion item only or

just discussion only? No consideration. They just want to present their update. It was required in um the motion uh when approving the master transportation plan contract. It's 30 minutes. I was thinking so if it was just discussion maybe some of us could join while we're driving and not make everybody change that 30 minutes is the question or do we need an hour find out I would probably say an hour I we're proposing at 6 and that'll be from 6:00 to 7 is what we're thinking then either at 700 p.m. as regularly scheduled city council meeting.

So would that be the majority of the topic of discussion for that council meeting then or what April 15th or should it require a separate work like meeting at 6 before I guess the length of the council meeting would kind of determine you can determine your schedule as well. So I If you have 15 requests, you would want to reduce it. Um, but ultimately up to you. Um, that one should be pretty open unless all the bonds and everything gets kicked

and that's what we did. Thank you. That's what we tried avoiding was the bonds or anything like that. Um, I think we're having a discussion with the planning commission regarding the that I think a meeting at 6 would be a maybe a better format for that. But I know that hard for people that are 6:30. Yeah, we could do that. Okay. Can I ask a question? Yes. Um, could we have it on the 14th instead during your planning commission? I mean, so I don't know.

Yeah, they can flip-flop. Um, it was just city council wanted them to present to city council, but if you guys want to have the work session during the planning commission, we can make that work as well. I Let me check my personal life schedule here. Okay. Anyways, keep that on your mind. If y'all could get back to me as soon as possible, that would be greatly appreciated. So, if we do it during the planning commission meeting, we get these chairs and city council. Exactly. You are spot on.

Does it does it really provide that much value to have a joint work meeting um and or just encourage the planning commissioners to attend the city council meeting that day? so they could hear in on the presentation. It was more of an encouragement, but either way, we would have to do a public notice as planning commission because he wants to sit in his chair. He's got a comfy chair. Okay, I don't care either way. It doesn't matter to me. I'm good. These chairs are a lot comfier than the ones we used to have. Yes, they comfier. So you need a decision from this body by tomorrow five

maybe by the end of this week if the end of this week. Does that give you enough time? Okay. Okay. Um and then they would like to do an open house April 30th which is a Thursday. We tried avoiding a meeting week. Does that work for everyone? an open house for I mean is there an issue having it that week um for the master transportation plan to have public input and feedback? That would be great. I might be at a transportation conference. I mean it's not a required attendance from city council. I'm just just letting you know.

Okay. Um and then we have a few proposed work meetings um from developers. Okay. And so, um, is that something that we're wanting to pursue like before a meeting like a planning commission or a city council meeting or is that something we want to do during the 7 to 9:00 p.m.?

Funny question. Others feedback on that. Can you tell me what that is? So, I mean, they would just come in, bring their concept, see what your appetite is, see if there's any discussion or, you know, proposed changes. You know, maybe we don't like this throw here or something staff doesn't see and um just have a discussion of what your thoughts are. But is that something that you would rather come in a half hour or an hour earlier at 6 p.m. or just have at the regularly scheduled meeting do the so normal meetings I haven't attended or listened to a lot of these are they normally the same length of time or then

then let's try to do it I would say during a normal meeting then if okay if that makes sense meetings are kind of standard but the work meetings with developers could go they could go they could be really short or they could be quite long yeah so I mean we would I've heard that we're allotted only an hour with how many developers was when one developer we we would all lot them only one hour. Okay. So who who enforces the hour? Well, you could I could I mean I just want to make sure you could take on that hat. That would be my preference. But

I'm with you. I think we can try to make it within there if we give them a time frame. So you've got this much time and I support that. Okay. Sounds like we're okay doing that during a commission meeting. Maybe that'll be a learning experience in the background. Yeah, let's try it. My first meeting we were here till 11. I didn't know if I'd come back or not. So they had like a horses like a combined work meeting with

all roosters might have come up at some point. So, I was going to send out a doodle calendar poll um to see what everybody's schedules were on that. I just haven't had time. I'm sorry. No, you're fine. It would I mean it would be in my eyes easier to do it on an already scheduled meeting date and not trying to find other dates. And so either we have it during that scheduled meeting time from 7 to 9 or before Shelby went into

I you know I every dang staff meeting I'm like I don't think I have anything but I do that. I know how that feels. My schedule's pretty much open. I can make any day work but Friday usually. I don't know what the rest of the commission members going on other nights that might be static or cause problems. I mean, it's variable, but I've committed to what I can already. So, same variable with kids activities. Perfect. But if I have kids activities, my job, I'm pretty flexible. Yeah, I think if we just send out the poll for a date and then we can have a day that works.

That's great, Mayor. Thank you. That's all I have. Anything? Okay, Tan, thank you for those maps. Again, appreciate that. Okay, we'll close that item and we will move on to agenda item six, open form for planning commissioners. This is just a period during the meeting where we want to bring up other items to discuss or I have one.

Okay. Um I maybe this goes back to to Bill and the city, but I would like to see maybe some training on conflicts of interest and how we disclose that going forward and just as we work through that because I think I'd like to make sure we're clear on when and where when and when we need to do that and how. That's a good point and I think that's something we can talk about in a couple weeks when we have our workshop. We can add that to it. I would appreciate it. Yeah, perfect. Sounds good. Good idea, Jason. Gary, do you have anything?

I mean, I I I'm talking with another buddy of mine who sits on planning and zoning for West Valley and telling about our how our agenda and how our meetings flow. And he was telling about his meeting, which I like. He says their first meeting of the month is always a work meeting to get a lot of information and their second meeting is always kind of their main planning and zoning. Then whatever happened that second meeting gets kicked then to the city council two weeks after that. he really likes it because he can sit down in that work meeting and really dive in. I don't know if that's maybe an idea to start looking at a different format rather than trying to say, "Hey, we're we're going to do something today and then give it to the city council tomorrow." Do they have enough time to digest what we and maybe our recommendation doesn't mean anything anyways, but I kind of like what he's saying is it really gives them time to bring developers in or whoever and really grill them and give them time so that we can not rush through a process and rush through a decision. I don't know if it's something we want to discuss further or just table it or I just thought it was a really good idea and like have a work session then a planning session.

That's interesting Shelby. So we initially would have a discussion first on the first meeting and a consideration on the second meeting but then it never worked out to where it was the discussion and then the consideration. It was just the discussion for more meetings till we Yeah. And so especially with developers, that's why we need work meetings. That's why we that is why we took that or removed that I guess format. But that's something we can definitely put back. I'm not saying this right. I'm just saying it's another idea. Yeah. A work meeting with the developer. Why not have that as a standard for the first meeting then if we give that approval then the city council would have at least two weeks to

look at that and digest as well and go over it and pick it apart. The other thing is that art developers are used to having meetings every two weeks and they like that so they can predict when the next session is and they can get an approval or some sort of discussion at that meeting instead of having to wait a whole month to get a decision. I guess my counter that was if if we did have the work meeting I say you're saying my counter is going to be really bad bill so I'm just going to shut up counter to counter

I would say it's valid but you also got to factor in that the complexity of some of those things and that's what the mayor and I are going to take note on our agenda is how complex those things are and whether that should be put on that agenda the next day or the week after. two weeks after. Yeah, I would I I would almost recommend if if there's an approval given today, it should be on the city council agenda in two weeks regardless. It just depends on the complexity of that. Something simple that is doesn't need to be briefed on that. That could be posted. And so again, that's something we keep an eye on and watch. So we do take note of that, but we are watching that because we don't want to overcrowd our attendance either.

Yeah. Yeah, cuz I also think like if we did go back to the work meeting format, the work meetings sometimes could be really short and the council the P&Z could be extremely long, but right now it's so there's pros and cons, but I just thought the idea was one to discuss and see if it's see if it's a good idea or not.

Thanks for bringing that up and thanks for your comments. Michael Red, do you have something to say about that? Well, I mean, we've seen it the past month or so where we've had discussions and considerations um in this meeting and it's moved immediately to city council the next day and that was never the way that these meetings were intended to be. There should be some time there, I believe, between the um really your your consideration and then then our discussion and approval. But I mean, you know, obviously looking at one that we're doing tomorrow that we just talked about today. Saw that

consideration today. So, and I understand the simplicity of some of these and and trying to push them through, but um it wasn't like that earlier in the month of February though. So, there was one that was fairly complex and came back right away. So, I'd probably counsel against that. So that's just my thoughts, but I guess you can pose it how you like and then we can table it if we want to. Right. We don't think it's given enough time. Well, maybe we'll make it through one work meeting first. Cameron, what do you think?

I don't know. I I haven't experienced it enough. It makes sense to sit on it, I think. But again, if it's a simple issue, it wouldn't make sense to take it down the can or the road for two weeks. But I don't know. That sounds like a city council issue, not an issue. So, I pushed other budgets. Well, no, I mean that's keep it so fun. I guess Oh, sorry, Mr. Keep going. I have I have a comment that So, just maybe for commissioners have been here longer. So, for example, that map, right? So we we recommend map two. City council would ultimately have the decision. So city council then could come and say well we like

map one, right? That's how it works. So and I guess this is what Bill probably teaches in that workshop. I'm just I'm really curious about the purpose behind this meeting on on the workshop. Yeah. Well, just understanding like we're sending recommendations to city council. They're going to review all the same stuff we already looked at. I'm just and if they don't like it, they just they just do what they want anyway. So, I just this is what I look forward to you teaching us what our role is as planning commissioners because it seems like a layer of government that maybe doesn't need to exist. I'm just curious. I need to be educated.

Yeah, we'll get into that a little bit more probably in in our workshop. But, um the the short answer is that state code requires a recommendation for legislative items before the council can take any action. So you're not only not redundant, you are absolutely essential to the process. And they cannot make a decision without a recommendation from the planning commission. They they might ignore the recommendation from the planning commission. They might make changes. They might just whatever. But um if they don't have a recommendation from this body, they can't take action on it. So yeah. No, that makes sense. Yes.

While you're there, just real quick. So if we recommend something to the council and the council denies it, is there another layer of appeals, right? There's one more board that they could. So if on a legislative item, they can appeal to district court, right? They we have the board of adjustment as our first uh level of of appeals for uh for any decision by by city council but um after that it would go to the the district court. Okay. for the we don't send the recommendation and it can't even be appealed. Is that

so um state code actually has changed in the last couple years to address that if the planning commission after having a meeting and tableabling it for a certain period of time can't come to a decision whether it's the vote just fails or you know what no decision is made that's considered to be a negative recommendation and goes on to the city council as such. Gotcha. So so a lack of recommendation is a recommendation of Ben. It's a negative recommendation. Yeah. It's a recommendation to deny. We have that in our code. So, if you don't make it past four ratings, then it's a negative recommendation. Yeah. You don't just sit and spin your wheels because that's hard on the applicants as well. Yeah. And expensive. Yeah. Well, this was fun. Yeah. It's good.

I like talking about horses and swimming pools. Too bad you missed all the conversations about roosters. Maybe they'll be back. Revisit those. Okay. That was good. That was good discussion. So Gary, are you okay if we go through a work painting or two and then we can come back to that idea and see if maybe then we have a little bit more experience and to address that question and maybe we could alter something. We are practicing a new format

this meeting and last meeting which is I think your two meetings that you've been here so it's a change but we are good for improvement right? Okay, we'll close that item. Uh, unless Cameron, did you have anything that you wanted to bring up? I don't have anything, but thank you for all your thoughtfulness and and the discussion. It's always good.

We will move on to uh item seven, the report from city council. Okay. So, um I don't have anything specific from the city council for you guys today, but I am super impressed with the way you guys have started off and you guys are you guys are off to a great start and uh appreciate your engagement and and everything you guys are are um this commission is is providing uh so much value to the city. So, thank you. Is there anything specific that you would like me to take back to the city council in the meeting tomorrow? me.

I don't think I have anything, but I'd like to thank the you and the council members for always um trying to help us understand what our role is and support us in that. And I'm sorry I missed the groundbreaking again, but I understand it was good. So, um I won't miss the next one. That'll be good. And I do look forward to the open house for the transportation plan. So, so we could have gone to the groundbreaking and gotten a shovel. I don't think we are deserving of a shovel. I just honor shovel.

There you go. Red's on board. So, you just need to probably let him know in advance that you're bringing your own shovel. Maybe he can get you one. Maybe we can graduate to the golden shovels and the golden hats that like Salt Lake Council has. Nothing else, Rat. But nothing else. Okay. Thank you. Uh we'll close that and move on to agenda item eight. Adjournment. Make a motion to adjourn. Sorry. Uh all in favor? I. Thank you.