Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

So good. Thank you for letting me Are we recording? Oh, sorry. I was waiting for the automated notification that we're recording. Okay.

Okay. If you haven't signed in on the roster, please sign in. Uh, I call this meeting of the Grantsville City Planning Commission to order. Today's Tuesday, April 21st, 2026. It is 7 p.m. We are at Grantsville City Hall at 429 East Main Street, Grantsville, Utah. We will uh do a roll call. Gary, can we start with you? President. Okay. Um, will you state your name? Gary. Thank you. Jason Hill present. Sarah Moore present. Montgomery present. Cameron Molton present.

Thank you. Is Chris online as our as a just an alternate member that's listed here could attend? No. Okay. Okay. I'd like to invite you to please stand for the pledge of allegiance. to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you. Okay. So, a couple meetings ago, we switched to a new meeting format. And so, just as a reminder uh for tonight's public hearing items, we will follow the following format. We'll first have uh the item introduction with the staff presentation and then we will hold the public hearing and public comment portion for each item as they come up on the agenda. and then it will bring it back to the commission for discussion and consideration. I'd like to remind folks that during the public comment portion that we are all friends and neighbors here. Uh each speaker will be limited to three minutes. If you would please approach the podium. If you would like to make a public comment or statement for the agenda item, I ask that you please state your name. And uh if you'd like, your address for the record. And then as a reminder, the commission cannot answer questions or engage in dialogue during the public comment. This is your time to make comment and we may have an opportunity to address your questions when it when the item comes back to the commission for discussion. So we will uh move we will move to open the agenda with item one which is a presentation a public hearing and discussion and consideration for a conditional use permit for Sheldon Ross. Um, this is uh a request to operate outdoor RV storage within the commercial shopping zone located at 519 West Main Street on partial 0100060 dash 0033.

Hi, Bill.

Hi, I'm not Shelby and I don't even pretend to be nearly as awesome as she is, but I am here in her place. So, um hopefully I can do as well as she did at keeping the thing going, right? Um we have this item in front of you. This is a conditional use permit request um for a RV storage facility. It's located at the address indicated and um they uh will operate from 8:00 to 5:00. Um but the customers will have access 24 hours a day. Um, and so, you know, they'll be able to get in there if they need to to access their vehicles, but for the most part, business will be operated during normal business hours. Um, it's not anticipated that this will have a a significant impact on the rest of the neighborhood. So, and it and it does comply with the code. So, with the conditions of approval that you have listed in your staff report, we're recommending approval of this item. Okay. Super. Is the applicant here?

Yes. I just had one question before we open up for public comment. Is that okay or do I wait till afterwards? Okay. Um, so sometimes RVs have uh propane tanks that they are stored with them. Does that is that included where the materials and equipment says no hazardous materials or chemicals? Would you make the owners remove those tanks? I had to look into that. I've never heard of that. Okay. Is that as like an explosion or fire hazard or anything?

Yeah. As far as I know, no other RV storage makes rooms. Yeah. Okay. When the fire marshall looked at this, he had no concerns with the RV storage, including having batteries or propane tanks on there. Hi, Shelby. Would you please state your name for the record? Shelby Moore, the planning and zoning administrator. Thank you. Okay, thank you. We'll invite you back up after public comment. Thank you, Bill. Yep.

Okay. Uh, so we will, um, uh, I'd like to open this item for public comment. If anybody would like public comment on item number one, the conditional use for Sheldon Ross to store RVs, um, please approach the podium. Okay. Do we have anybody online? Nicole, we ask them to raise their hand. Oh, would you please raise your hand if you're online and would like to make public comment for the conditional use request for Sheldon Ross?

We have Pete online. Okay. To comment. Pete, is your public comment regarding the conditional use permit for Sheldon Ross to operate the outdoor RV storage um on his property at 519 West Main Street? Uh, yes. My name is Pete Saparis. Uh, the only concern that I had was the 24-hour access. I know that it does say in there that no habitation would be allowed, but 24-hour access strongly encourages that. So, and that's all I had to say. Thank you. Thank you, Pete.

Okay. Is there anybody else? If you're online, would you raise your hand? Okay, we'll close that public hearing and uh we'll invite Sheldon back up to the podium. He wants to address questions from the commission. Cameron, can we start with you? Yeah, I think let's just ask the question. How are you going to ensure that nobody is sleeping in their RVs permanently? Well, I'm there every day. I'll kick them out.

Okay. Um, I had an RV for a while. I store I stored somewhere. So, the combination was brand new RVs, vehicles that don't run anymore, you know, and where there's enough room on the slot, there could be a vehicle in the trailer. And so I think we ought to demonstrate that if it's RV storage, it's RVs that are operable, not just something that's junk and it turns into a basically a junk storage yard, not vehicles that can't run. I think that'll be registered registered traders to to be qualified to be there. Yeah. And they're I'm going to require insurance. So it's not going to be junk. Okay.

Just for that reason they be registered and insured. That would be Yep. It's in the contract. Okay. Do you have any other questions or comments, Gary? No. I've been by the property a couple times. I see already the work he's doing to get ready for this. I'm looking at the proposed conditions. I I'm comfortable with all of this. I I have no questions. Okay. Jason.

Um I can just go back, I guess, to that that part about the 24-hour access. I that is on you to maintain obviously and I just concerned as far as people in there and it's you being up in the middle of the night making sure people aren't doing things you're not supposed to be doing activities wise and that's the concern that I would have as far as saying how do you regulate that? You say you're you're there but if someone's coming in at 2 am and doing something or anything that is a concern but I'm it's in the contract. No funny business. No just storage only. No other stuff. No spare parts. No nothing. just access to get your trailer and take it back when you're done camping. Do you have a a moni or camera that monitors the Yep. 24 all the whole place.

Okay. At least the entrance of the gate. That was what I've seen too in quality stories. So you would monitor you'd be able to monitor that whether you were there or not. You'd be able to see what's going on. Yep. It's Yeah. Have access to my phone. So I got 24 access to it. I have another comment. Okay, you're good, Jason. Um, so do you live on the property or is there any residential structures on the property or is it just storage? It looks like it's currently being used for storage. Is that correct? That's an old picture. It's completely clean. Yeah. Oh, it is. Oh, yeah. That's when it was a junkyard. Got it. So, this is an improvement. Yes.

Yeah. Yes. Yeah. Mry. He's there's you can see just even from looking south there's quite a bit of improvement done at the property already. A good road base put down and fences are up and it's much better. It's got a much better eyesight to it than it did previously and I think it's an attractive secure site for you know because of the number of people that are there. It's safe to Yes. Thank you for doing um so much work to beautify our city and yeah

keeping your property in good repair. Um, I I just would like So, the fire fire marshall is, as Shelby stated, didn't have any concerns with propane tanks being stored on site. And so, I guess I don't have a concern with that. And as long as you have insured uh records, records of insurance for the folks who are storing with you, I think that not only protects your customers, but as individually, but also as a whole. So, thank you for thinking that through and making that part of your plan. Are you aware of uh the proposed conditions that Shelby has probably gone over with you and that's listed in the staff report or would you like us to read those to you?

I'm aware of them. You're aware of them. And do you have any concerns or questions about those? I have an educational question for staff on that. So, we have a it complies. We have a list of conditions. Uh what if someone objects to those? Uh I mean what what is a reasonable condition or not? Is that our discretion or or I'm just trying to understand that a little bit better. It's a good question. And um these are based on the code and the requirements specifications in the code. Okay. So if you're reciting some of the code, correct? And okay,

so if there was something that was found outside of that and it was determined that it was unreasonable, we ought to change the code to reflect that unreasonable nature of the requirement. Um, so these are not any additional conditions to code. Correct. We can't legally apply any additional conditions outside of what's specified in the code. Right. So, um, this kind of thing is an administrative thing and it's either it's kind of binary. You either meet the conditions of the code or you don't. And if you do, the answer is yes. And if you don't then the answer is I want to make sure that we were that I understood those conditions that they were

and they're they're specified here in the staff report because as uh enforcement may become an issue obviously not with the current owners but the conditional use permit does run with the land. So if you were to sell it to someone as an RV storage facility, that could continue on in perpetuity and whoever assumes that would need to abide by these stretchers as well. Excuse me, sir. Would you mind signing in? Oh, I know you're not. Sorry. I'm just saying. Yeah. Thank you. Excuse me, Bill. I'm sorry. You're good.

Okay. Um, and um, just going back to the 24-hour access, are you aware that if it becomes a a problem and and you have public safety called uh to either assist you or because of issues that you may not be aware of, that could be considered a nuisance and then your conditional use permit would come back for review through our administrative process. Okay. Okay. Okay. Do you have any questions for us? No.

Okay. Will I entertain a motion? Make a motion to approve the conditional use permit for the Shelon Ross to operate RV storage located at approximately 519 West Main Street with the conditions outlined that we've just covered for that part of the approval. Oh, yes. Thank you. I forgot. Sorry, Brett. Did you have any comments or questions? Well, typically I'm not supposed to say anything. This is not going to go before city council. Okay. this this decision is final. Yes.

Um I would just encourage you to ask him how um those RVs are going to access the site. Are they going to drive around the bend and go and go all the way around and then turn in right or are they going to turn a left hand turn on State Road 138 just before the bend and go down that? Now granted, it's a little hill, but it's still got a little bit of a grade. And how is that going to be finished? and how is he going to work with U DOT to access the site if he's going to go off of if he's going to have his customers go off of State Road 138. So that would be by I'll I'll give you my two cents worth and then you guys think through that before you make sorry determination on

what's that I hadn't thought of that but good point and um so you just answer it. Yeah. So I have it right away right there and I moved that. So that fence line by the road I moved it back 50 feet so they can make that turn and not I don't want nothing to do with you do. So I have the right away for all that. So you're saying that they're going to get continue on make the lefthand turn onto what we would call West Main Street. They're going to come around and they're going to make that turn back down and then come all the way over and access your place. Yep. not off of State Road 12. Correct.

And that's where it says access right here on our screen that you can't see. It's too small, but yeah, it's just it's just further back. Okay. Yep. Yeah, that's what I'm saying. Your property line is a yellow. Yeah. Make sure you're not encouyra. Are you looking for RV storage, R? No, I have some easy back. I have I have That's going to be That's going to be a tight turn, but it could be that. Okay, sounds good. All right, Jason, do it again. Does he have to do it again?

I don't think so. I think he's okay. Okay, good on the record. Good on the record. Oh, second. Thank you, John. Okay, all in favor. Okay, passed unanimously. Okay, thank you. Get in touch with Shelby. All right, we'll do. Okay, thanks. Appreciate your time.

We will close that item number one and move on to agenda item two, which is presentation, discussion, and consideration. Let me make sure I have this right. Sorry. Okay. uh presentation, public hearing, discussion and consideration of the proposed plat amendment for the Moody Acre subdivision located approximately at 415 South Warthingington Street. And so we will begin with the staff presentation. Hello Bill. Hi.

So um in the in the grand scheme of things, this is actually a very minor amendment to this existing plat. um they're basically shifting a few lot lines around to uh accommodate uh the orderly development and the the um sale of the property, the development of the property. So that's what we're looking at here. Um again, as you see in your staff report, you're looking at an adjustment of the northern lot boundary, an alignment of the planned future rightway along Coach Lane, and then the retention of the two lot subdivision configuration. So, this is really it's really a lot line adjustment, but a lot line adjustment is a specific legal animal that doesn't require a plat amendment. It's just between two existing lots that are not platted. If they are platted, they have to go through this process to amend the plat because it impacts things like ride rightways and u other utility easements on the property. So, that's why this is in front of you. Um it's a kind of a a simple thing, but uh he's uh going through the process for it and we're uh been grateful to work with him and staff does recommend approval of this item.

Okay, fantastic. Um thank you. Um see, do we have the applicant here? Yeah. Okay. All right. Dean Williams. Dean Williams. Yeah. Lived up there 42 years. Okay. Um, I just wanted to make sure um in case there was some public comment that you might want to consider, but Dane, I'll invite you to have a seat. We'll open this for public hearing and then we'll bring it back and invite you back to the podium. Okay. Sorry about that. No worries.

Thank you, Bill. Is there anybody that would like uh to uh insert any comments for consideration regarding the plat amendment for the Moody Acre subdivision located approximately at 415 South Warthingington Street. If you'd like to make public comment on this item, please approach the bench and state your name. Okay. Uh we don't have anybody here in person, it looks like. So, if there's somebody online that would like to make a comment on agenda item two, please raise your hand. Okay, we are not seeing anybody for public comment. And so, we will close the public comment portion of that and we'll invite Dean to come back up. Sorry, Dean. Thank you.

No worries. We just cut my mom's lot down from 3/4 of an acre to half acre. I saw they didn't have neighbors so close. The original uh subdivision was recorded on a plat in 2007.

So Dean Worthington. Dean Williams. Dean Williams. I'm sorry. We bought it from the Warthingingtons though. Real close. I should have wrote down the first time. Dean, I apologize. No worries. Okay, Jason, do you have any comments or questions? No. Okay, Gary, I don't think so. Okay, John. I'm just more curious than anything. Is is property still for sale or is it has it been sold? Uh, the lot that we made a halfacre lot. Yeah, both of them. Yeah, both of them are for sale. They're both okay. That was sold. Yeah. Okay.

But the halfacre lot Yeah. It's It was my mom's house. Yeah. Yeah. And it's for sale. Okay. There's an offer on it. We're hoping that Brett can grant us approval through the Not me. I'm only 20%. You got to get through this one first. Yeah. Pretty simple. But okay, that's it. Nothing else. I was just curious. I've just seen seen it pop up on Zillow, so I was wondering if it still. You're welcome to buy it. Yeah, sure. Good job on doing your research. anything to look see if they were for sale. Okay. Nothing else. Was like a family expansion type of compound or fort. There's a compound up until this point. Okay. Got it. Yeah. Okay. Brett, you have any comments?

Does it have to go to the council for approval? Yes. Um I think so. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So, this will it's just a recommendation to the city council. Yeah, you were right, Dean. And I don't have any concerns at all. Perfect. I appreciate your time. Yep. Thank you guys. Thank you. Okay. We will entertain a motion on this item. I move to recommend approval to the city council for the proposed plan amendment for the Moody Acre subdivision located approximately 415 South Warthingington Street subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report. Okay, I'll second. Okay. Thanks, Gary. All in favor? I

I Okay. Thank you guys. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay, we'll close item two and move on to opening agenda item three, which is the presentation public hearing. Discussion and consideration of a proposed general plan amendment for first souls listed in the agenda to change the land use designation from low density residential to high single family density at the Wellstone subdivision located near P Street and Cork Street. So we will start with our staff um description sorry presentation. Hi, Phil.

Hi. So, this is a little bit different item than the previous two items. This is not an administrative item. This is a legislative item, which means that you are here to take public comment. Listen to it carefully, consider that in your uh vote, and then make a recommendation to the city council who will ultimately vote in favor of or in denial of the proposed U general plan amendment. This is true of the next two items. So this one, this first item is um to amend the general plan and the future land use map of the general plan specifically to allow for a higher density use in this area. Um changing the general plan is a really serious thing. It's not something that you should take lightly. The general plan reflects the desires of the and the voices of the people of what they want the city to look like. In in your deliberation, you should consider whether or not this is the right time and whether this is the right place for the proposed changes. And it's the same consideration you should have when you think about the uh zoning map amendment which will follow these. Um but the the general plan specifically as a reflection of the voice of the people and of the desires of the people is is something that you should really only change for two reasons. Number one is if if there was a mistake that was made then obviously we can make those changes. But the second one which is the one that you would are being cons asked to consider tonight is if there has been a change in the need or the desire for this area because it affects not just this parcel but the area.

think about whether or not the the values of the community as reflected in the general plan have changed to the point where now is the right time to make this change. And there there's a number of reasons why that could be the case. Um maybe everything around it has changed and developed into something that is unanticipated by the future land use map. So now is a good time to make this change. Maybe um there's political or economic situations that should be considered that weren't in effect when the general plan was adopted but have now come to light. That would mean that now is a good time to change this. And then uh as you as you consider and deliberate, make sure that you do consider the voices of the people that are here tonight. Hopefully they will be kind. We're all neighbors. We're all in this together. and um express their their concerns and their desires for this property as well. The other thing to consider is that um the the property owners do have interest in the property and by interest I mean either financial interest as an investment in actual money in the property which should be considered and uh in in the case of a a family-owned situation uh there could be a significant amount of time invested in the property and uh their desires should be uh considered as well. So, in all of this, and I'm glad I'm not in your seat, uh, please make those deliberations carefully and and considerately. Um, you have the the packet in front of you, so I'm not going to go over that, but if you do have questions, let me know. And we're here to help with that. Uh, we do have a representative from the applicant here. So, if uh you have questions for them, they're available as

well. So, with that, uh, if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. I probably have so many questions, but we can ask them later, right? You can ask later. Um, a lot of times I find if you ask questions now, it helps with some of the questions that may come up from the public. So, um, okay, I have a question then. Yeah. So, we're looking at this map right here and it's got the future school site listed here, but there is nothing concrete or a letter of intent. Is there anything that's on paper about this 54 acres being the school site? No. This is a fieldstone, correct?

Okay. Would you elaborate on the fieldstone project? Well, they were in about two meetings ago indicating they had discussions with the school district and there was it seemed like sincere interest and their idea was we we would allow this to go to the school district and sell it to them because it's apparently a one of the better sites for the school to be located if you'll increase if you'll give us quarter acre lots instead of halfacre lots on I think all all of their development. I think that's the goal. Yeah. Oh, yes. Go ahead. Sorry. No. Do I need to wait for my No.

Okay. So, just we did one a master development agreement for a subdivision up on the hill there. And so, that developer had come in originally developing the entire property at halfacre lots. And then they had met with the city and over a course of time they ended up cutting those to halfacre lots but kept the same number of units that there would have been quarter sorry quarter acre lots. They kept the same number of units. Has the developer shown the city or proposed anything that would show the number of lots not changing based on a zoning change?

They have not given us anything that would indicate anything other than the full entitlement as anticipated by the zoning requested. So, an an MDA could be in the offing, but at this point, we're not being asked to consider that. Um, if they want to do an average density, if they want to do some density bonus, if they want to give open space in exchange for higher density, those kinds of things can and will be negotiated separately. We're just not at that point right now. So, they're just asking for an all or nothing at this point. This would be a straight zoning change. Yeah. Okay.

In the surrounding area here, just say quarter mile around the whole area. How much has it transitioned from agriculture to residential in the past five years? Do you see is is it really changing transitioning there? I mean, you can look at the map here. This is the aerial imagery on the screen right now. You can see that the pressure to develop these these fields from fields into homes is it's it's existing and it's persistent. Um, this is a good piece of land. It's a good place piece of land either for residential development or for a school or for both. Um,

of the homes we can see on that this picture, how many have been built in the last 10? Well, I don't have an answer that. Shelby, would you happen to know? I'm just guessing. Those all been there since. Sorry. What was the question? How many of these uh on on the screen you can see there's homes that have been built around it. Would you happen to have a a guesstimate of how many of these homes have been built in the last five years or so?

Um, you're probably talking 40ish homes you have where Dunc Court is in the north corner um that was recently approved uh last year and those homes are starting to be built. And then to the uh west you have um where Elizabeth Cove is and those were recently approved in 2022. Um and then where Katricia um circle is and street is those are some older homes um that have been built. Where Cranberry Street is, there's some homes being proposed. Um and then on Green Street further to the east there are homes being um built there but you know really close and surrounding that property. There hasn't been development there.

So the short answer is it is a dynamic time for this particular neck of the woods. And can I also add this is no longer zoned uh rural residential. this is currently zone residential half acre. So, it's been a while since it's been agricultural um or rural with those definitions that would make it acre or larger lots. I think those are all good points to make. Appreciate that. I think the homes on court were probably built probably close to 10 years ago, eight to 10 years ago that are directly on court.

I have a question for Bill. Can you tell us what the city's plans are to update the general plan overall? We um recently were awarded a grant for $100,000 to help the city fund an update to the general plan. Um we're looking to get that started in in the very very near future and you'll all be an integral part of that and so uh stay tuned. It's being run through Frontront Regional Council who gave us the grant. So uh we'll look forward to them as we go through the next few phases with the RFP and and uh get that out on the street for Can you give us a rough timeline of what that looks like when it would be we'd be seeing that? when we'd see public comment and when that

I can't right now because I don't know. Um, typically a general plan update takes anywhere from six months to a year to uh achieve. Once we've awarded the contract, that's when that that time frame would start. It depends on how comprehensive we want the general plan to go. Um, it it needs to be fairly comprehensive. It's been a minute since we've updated our general plan anyway. So, yeah. How long has it been, do you think? I want to say Shelby, do you know? Looks to see 10 years. I want to say the general plan was last revised in 2020. Okay. It was it was adopted in 2015. But

that's what I wanted to say. It was the 2015 2016 time frame was when they adopted the main thing and then they updated it a little bit in 2020. Was it 2022? Someone two or something like that. That's when those appendices and the and the other things were added on at the at the end that you'll see. So also and sorry you go ahead just the zone change from agricultural to halfacre lots. Do you know how long ago that that took place that zoning change? Um I don't know when that zone change would have happened.

Maybe Shelby can find that out for us while um if that would be helpful. But I just want to say that at the very beginning of our current general plan, it states that it is slotted for an annual review. It's a fluid document that should be updated with taking in consideration those items that you had um already described. Um if there there was a mistake or there had been changes in the need the needs or the values of the area. Um, and so the general P plan review should have been reviewed a couple times up now. Yes, you're right. Yes.

So I don't know if that helps. That's good. But Gary, so right now it's zoned at R21. Yes. Minimum halfacre. And we're the proposal is to go to an R12. Are we considering an R12, a high density? So, um, I want to I want to back up just a little bit and remind you that we're talking about for this item, we're talking about the future land use map amendment, which would support the next item, which is a a zone change to the the quarter acre line. I guess I'm just looking at it because the way that the the pack is put together, it says go from low density residential to high single family density residential. I I just I'm trying to get what staff is. Are you are we thinking that quarter acre lots is considered high density residential?

It is. In our general plan, that's the designation. And then there's 113 acres with the 55 acre proposed school site proposed, right? So we're actually talking of roughly 60 acres of developable ground that would be developed in the single family houses. Well, and and again, I want to remind you that if the zone change were approved, that would apply to the entire site. And you have to think in terms of all of this land being turned into quarteracre lots. The school may never have. Yeah, see that was my that's my question. Like it's a proponent. What if the school rejects it? Then what? There's no there's no guarantee. Exactly.

Could we put a condition on that? The legislative items I I try to steer away from conditions of approval. Um you can state reasoning and you can bring up suggestions. And speaking of that, um, this is kind of a touchy subject because there is a a tipping point in these things, in these deliberations where you ask the developer to provide too much information right now, right? So, some people may have concerns, I don't know, they may have concerns about drainage in the area. How is this, if we if we turn this into cordacre lots, how is the drainage going to be accommodated?

Right? The short answer to that is we don't know yet because it hasn't been planned out and the developer in in in a reluctance to expended too much money on a project that may or may not go through doesn't have answers to that necessarily either. So there will be a drainage scheme if this were developed. There will be a drainage scheme that will handle all of the drainage and it will look at we'll do a traffic impact study that will look at the traffic. There will be all of these other things that are brought to bear in the subdivision process. And if they cannot accommodate reasonable concerns and conditions of approval in the subdivision process, they can't have as many units as they may be entitled to. So if if let's say a portion of this was encumbered by a a a wetlands area,

a wetlands area, you have to stay out of that. So that portion of the land that's encumbered by a wetlands cannot be developed the same way the rest of it would. And so you have to subtract that total out of the amount of land that would be developed. Yeah.

For and another example might be if if the traffic impact study comes back with uh uh concern about access for emergency vehicles and and other traffic in and around and through the area. If you can't accommodate with the existing streets the anticipated impact of the new development, you either have to rehabilitate and bring those new streets up those other the existing streets up to standard incl and and include your new streets in that calculation or again you can't have as many homes as the streets can you can have only have as many as the streets would bear.

Yes. So if it's if the streets the traffic impact study comes back and says, "Wow, these streets are maxed out. You can't have any additional homes." Then you get one or you fix the streets. That's your That's the How how inconsistent would it be to amend the general plan but not reszone all of this property?

So from a planning standpoint, we don't love that. And the reason why is uh we like clean lines. We like property lines. We like straightforward answers to things so that it's a little less wishy-washy. Um, in my experience, if property is zoned half and half, a portion of it's one zone and the other portion is the other zone. What ends up happening and uh in conversations with a previous property rights ombbudzman, he said the property owner really just gets to do what they want. Now, they still have to meet setbacks and things of a of that kind of a configuration, but it's it's as far as the uses go, they can pick from whichever zone they think is the best and go with that

just because it's in the general plan. Yeah. So, the zoning should still be relevant though. Well, the zoning would be relevant, but the and the general plan doesn't inform necessarily what the zoning has to be. It's just a guiding document. And if you wanted to deny a zone change, the underlying general plan,

that was the kid. That was my I was like that the underlying general plan would be a reason enough to deny the zone change if which is why that any quarter acre lots in that whole 100 acres.

So, I'm I'm not going to u speculate on the motivation of the developer. Um, we do have a representative here and and I'm sure he'd be happy to talk to that. But again, the consideration is what is this property going to look like if you changed everything to quarter acre lots? Because by saying yes to the future land use map and then the subsequent zone change. So you're saying it's not possible or highly not recommended to only zone reszone part of this even though we bring it all into the general. Yes. Not recommended.

Either we believe it or we don't. One more question. Um John,

so outside of the traffic study, um last week we had the master transportation plan presentation. The city's invested a lot of money into making those plans. I would assume those plans and the projections those engineers put together are based on the current zoning. Correct. So if we're cutting this in half or doubling it, I should say, we're accelerating the timeline on that master transportation plan. Is that sound logic? It it is sound logic. However, I would caution that um if you if you going from 200 homes to 400 homes, which I'm just using round numbers, um going from 200 homes to 400 homes adds it it doubles the amount of traffic that you would see. But the average car trip, the average house generates 10 car trips per day. That's just the general rule of thumb. So, you're going from 2,000 new car trips per day to 4,000 um on a on a road that's slated to hold 10,000 per day. That's it's a significant impact. But the one over the other

So, it just depends on how many times this happens though, right? Because we're talking this one property and then same thing happens to an adjacent property, then that's exponential growth. But that's exactly right. And and these are the considerations that we need to mull over. Um, the only word of caution that I I'm trying to give with that is that we can't expect the developer at this point to have all of the nuts and bolts and and Yeah, I understand that. Yeah, the all the details behind all of that because the No, I'm just talking high level, right? Like if you read it the entire city, then that master transportation plan, those projections are out the door. That's right. So that threequarters of billion dollars goes and again, I wouldn't say out the door, but impacted by impact the timeline is reduced.

Yeah. and and you know they work added capacity into the roadway and that's why we asked for 108 foot rideway for example in our major arterials because we know that there's going to be growth over time and those roads will need to be expanded as additional development happens. So this zoning map I see the colors. This is all 112 already to green. Is that what you're What where's our closest 112 right now? That is the item five.

Let's go. Let's stay with the general plan amendments which is the yellow and the brown. So this is the yellow. How close is the 112? Is there any other 112 zoning to this? I would say it's a/4 mile away. That GTM subdivision is 112, isn't it? This is the northwest northeast. Okay. This is just the general plan density plan. This isn't asking is there another 112 zone I think it's close to this property. It's a relevant question. That's where this is going is to if we change the plan, it's going to go. So 112 is the

it'll be the dark green um on the east side of Willow Street. Yep. Thank you. I was trying to read my writing. So that's the only 112 we have in this general area right now. Even though our general plan, what what would actually the general plan just be specific to this site right now? this this 100 acres. The general plan is the yellow. So, right now the general plan is saying you can only have two lots per acre um two dwelling units per acre and they are asking for I believe six dwelling units per acre if Nicole will scroll up.

But but we're only modifying the general plan as to these this 100 acres right now. Is that that's right? Correct. You can go back to the land use the future land use map. Nicole, I was seeing if I had copied the other portion on there down that one. Keep going down a little more little bit. Yeah, that is it. That's it. Have you have we ever zone proved any zoning contrary to the general plan? It would be unusual. There is some zoning currently that predates the general plan. And so it doesn't match exactly in every instance. Um but that's the reason

it's the the zoning was in place before the changes to the general plan happened. So um you can do that. People the city council can certainly do that. They don't have to be in lock step. There was a proposal this year actually for some new legislation that would require coherence between the U general plan and the zoning. But then what's the point of even having a general plan, a future land use map if the zoning just follows whatever? Yeah. So, so it can be that way. Yeah,

that's a good one, Nicole. So, here's our general plan. The yellow is all low density residential. The one thing I wanted to point out on the general plan or in our zoning is that we don't consider schools Right. Right. No, but sorry. We do actually point out school locations in the capital facilities plan. In the capital facilities plan. Okay. That's not under our purview. Right. You'll actually be seeing it later tonight.

Right there. Okay. So, R 110 is Where are we on this map? Right here. Right here. Right below Brown. Oh, yeah. right there. So this area right there, this is willow. So it doesn't include this side of willow but and so what does the yellow represent here? This is low density which is two volume units per acre. Yeah. So half acre. So it's this would be the anomaly in this in the general plan. This 110 acres really. Yeah. Yes. What is that southern boundary for the medium density residential on this general plan? Sorry, the

what's the southern boundary? Yeah, what's the southern boundary for the medium density? So, in in this instance, what they've done is identify a corridor which is the main street in town, obviously Main Street, and then um have set back from that specified distances from Main Street to allow for higher and higher density as you get closer to it and then lower and lower density as you move away from it. This is a a typical planning mechanism and it's it's frequently seen like this. Um so it goes up to pair. So pair is a southern boundary right now. Yes. Or the medium density. Yeah.

Uh so the high density go back if you wouldn't mind to the or to the big map. So the orange. So we have the brown in between which I'm sorry what I'm talking what the brown the brown is medium density green. Okay. So it seems like we if we can go back to the big map we have the

so we have kind of a migration. Yeah, pair's kind of the starting of this development and and uh our city center is shifting now also because Soulberg's is moving south and there'll be shops around that area and the traffic impact on Derpy on and around Derpy because the city center is now moving south. So, I just wanted to state that too. Jason, Gary, did you

have anything that you wanted to discuss before we open the public comment? John, do you have any other Thank you. I do not. Thank you. Okay. Thanks.

Thank you. I appreciate your guidance and your sharing your knowledge. Um, so, uh, we'd like to open the public hearing for agenda item number three, uh, the proposed general plan amendment for Wellstone subdivision located near Pier Street and Quirk Street subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report. If anybody would like to uh place their co public comment on the record, please approach podium and state your name and you'll have three minutes. Three minutes.

All this new information that just came to me while you guys were discussing questions while you're here.

My name is Wade Sandberg. I live at 345 East Par Street and I can answer some of those questions. From Pear Street to Hollywood, from Quirk to Willow. I've lived in my house 30 years and that whole strip was half acre minimums when I built my house all through that area is been so if you're wondering how long it's been at least 30 years that it's been there like that. Um a few things were brought up. This gentleman got up and was talking about the master plan in the last I'd say probably 25 years. I can think of two master plans that have been done and a question came up about things get changed from master plan or approved and yeah it happens all the time and I don't understand why if we're going to the process of having master plan done why why not follow it and um that's what I I say here we are a rural area and I'm I'm not against high density I'm not against smaller our lots, anything like that. But the density I think is important. Um, I was part of a development that we did here in in town and it was halfacre density and we went we did a PUB had it adjusted to where we did have some smaller lots but we then we had open space to make up for the lots because yeah not everyone can take care of a halfacre lot but you can still have open space to keep that rural feel to it rather than Um, I think it was you that mentioned that doing doing something similar to that. Um, as far as the school, I think there's a lot better locations for the school than a mile down the street from the the other high school. Um, I would be glad to help find I've lived here my whole life, know a lot of land owners

and would be glad to help the school find a different piece of ground. Um, I know that you can we where I did our development, we donated land for a school right there. We didn't change our our density or anything. It was something that we did. We kept our density. We did that cuz the the school needed a place to put it. And um I think that um there's ways to keep the rural field without changing the quarter acre lots. Those are my comments. Thanks.

Thank you. Wait. Not sure the format here. My name is Jason Harris. I'm with Fieldstone Homes. I have answers to lots of the questions. Is there an opportunity? Did we get to speak or do you want me to do it during public comment? Uh if Are you a resident of Grville? Oh, okay. Jason, why don't we um have you take a seat and we'll have you come back up after the public comment portion to answer questions and maybe address some concerns that were raised during the public comment if that's okay. Yeah, I'd love it. I just didn't know the format, so I wanted to make sure you knew I was

I'm sorry I didn't clarify that. I apologize. Thanks, Jason. Hello.

Hello. Um, thank you for giving us the opportunity to comment. My name is Juel Allen and I live at 360 North Race Street. Um, I stand in opposition to agenda item number three. Uh, when I served on city council, I helped lead the 2020 revision and adoption of our current general plan. So, it's actually 2020 and we did get that um grant as well. So, congratulations. That's very exciting. Um I'm excited for the city to be able to update it. So, I know this map. I know the intent behind it uh based on the community feedback and this amendment departs from both. First, it contradicts the plan's core principle, placing higher density closer to the city center. Developments with halfacre lots or larger minimums like South Willow and Mountain Meadows reflect that vision. Also, the ones that um Wade had mentioned earlier. This does not. Second, it sets a precedent. Approving this invites a cascade of similar requests. We have seen it before where incremental changes eroded the integrity of the plan. Third, doubling density means doubling traffic, noise, and strain on infrastructure at the expense of the safety and character of this neighborhood. Fourth, the city is under no obligation to amend the general plan at this time, especially with the pending um review, especially to accommodate a single development. Fifth, I understand the need for affordable housing. My own adult children face that challenge, but this is not the right location. Our plan already identifies appropriate areas closer to the city center. And finally, if smaller lots are desired, a planned unit development with

large and small lots still amounting to the same total lower density like has been mentioned, offers flexibility without abandoning the plan's intent. So, I urge you to deny this amendment. If the city chooses to revisit the general plan, do so deliberately, holistically, not through peace meal changes that compromise the vision our community worked so hard to establish. Thank you.

Thank you, Joe. This is the right mic, right? Well, hi, my name is Katherine Sapana. I live in 106 McMichel app in here in Gransville. I have moved here like uh 2020 and honestly I had to go to work all the way to Salt Lake. I'm the younger generation, I will say. And with all the respect for everybody older than me, um the commute all the way to Salt Lake is insane. um seeing all this map and the changes that has been coming year after year, I feel like um it has to be a new revision with more information and coming from water, traffic, sewers, everything in general coming from I've been living in Salt Lake and I have family that they have proposed to grow with schools and things like Yeah. Um I just feel like with the quantity of people in community is coming every single day to live for how cheap the houses they are. You guys should consider first on the safety like she was saying on the safety of the people uh more security, more police. Um we need emergency like a clinical around here. We don't have it. If it accident happens, it's a travel where they have to go all the way to to LA and it's quiet.

Also, the traffic going from here all the way to Salt Lake. If something happens in the middle, like we're stuck. We're stranded. I as a person, I don't know how many more of you guys have been stranded under traffic for like 2, three hours. And that's no joke. That's something serious to be like considering of changing bringing more population more changes. I'm up for changes. It's good. But getting crowded while we're remodeling something nice that is not even fully um revised and fully informative and more information into it. I think it has to be considered and we should be focusing on something like u what we can like the people that be able to communic um not communicate but like travel around and go to places take their kids to school without being late to work or taking their kids to to the hospital things like that. So, I just I agree with the last person that spoke that it has to be a way and you guys should consider those things before something major changes like that. And I know it's going to be more people new like me coming up. And I mean, we're all for the grow. That's why we're moving this way because it's cheaper. We can afford it. And it's going to be coming more more younger families. and parents like me. So, yeah, hopefully you guys considered that. Thanks.

Thank you, Katherine. Do you want I need to give this since I sent you an email with my concerns. Um, we have your email if you'll state your name.

Scott Bridges. I live at 496 South Pork Street and I oppose the following changes on the information talked of the school. How many steps is this property from Willow Elementary? How many steps is it from Gransville High School? How many steps is it from the Gransfield Junior High School? not the right place for an additional school. But this change would uh make a major change in my neighborhood from mostly agricultural to high density. Big long jumps in the change of the neighborhood all at once. But make uh we've already had and I've only been there 40 years. I'm not a long-term resident, but when we put in South Willow Estates and the 10 car trips a day, that's if they've only got kids in three different schools and then they go elsewhere. To put in this many additional lots, we would have to widen Quirk Street. It doesn't have a line in the center. Now, we may need four lanes with this many uh lots. And who takes on the expense of expanding the transportation? There is not a Well, there is a sidewalk across Paris Street on the north side of this, but that's the only sidewalk in the area. And if we're going to expand highdensity housing in Grantsville, it

should follow the plan to be closer to Main Street and near the services that we do have. Service stations. We got a new fast food restaurant. That was a good thing. Uh that's probably enough. Thank you, Scott.

My name's Rachel Talbot. I've never appeared at one of these before. Um, but I I have an interest in um I don't know who owns these lots and I don't know how they like what how much they are. um how much they have invested in these lots and I would want to go oh I forgot I live on 120 Mcichael. Um so I I would want to consider those people that own the lots and what they are still doing with them. I know there's things that they own that are still on the lots. Um, and considering how much growth has already been going on in Grantsville, um, I'm just I'm not I'm concerned that there isn't enough um, perhaps consideration for the infrastructure and how it's going to support this many new homes in this area on the supply that is in the reservoir and and whatever else. Um um and but and those two things are my opposing view. But in light of what I think about transportation in Grantsville, I think that it would be a benefit to um make sure that whatever happens with these lots that eventually in the plan there's

there's enough cross roads across these region this region um to defay the um traffic through the area. Um there have been a lot of you um regions in Grantsville that you can only get into or out of by one road and um and that is a traffic concern. Yes. Thank you, Rachel.

I guess I'll give a little bit, but I I sent in an opposition letter. I'm Marla Spencer um at 104 East Katrisha. Um I am opposing this. The request isn't does not support substantial evidence demonstrating consistency with the general plan. I remember going to the high school multiple multiple times going over this general plan. We went over it so many times I can't remember going in and trying to figure out exactly how this was going to look. And it was imperative that we had halfacre lots from Dery back. that was just imperative to do. Um, I remember voting on it. I remember taking it very seriously and going through that. I think the consistency of a general plan, I don't I'm kind of like them. I don't understand if you have a general plan why you don't abide by that. I know you can make amendments. I understand that. And I'm not completely against growth, but this area is not where we need quarter acre lots. And the school, unless there's a contract that's signed, sealed, and delivered, isn't there as far as I am concerned. So, as far as this goes, 113 acres is quarter acre lots if you move this. And I've said the rest of my letter. Thank you.

Thank you, Mara. Hi, I'm Michelle Marriott. I live on 470 Willow, so I back onto this property. Um, and I wasn't notified about this. I found out on Facebook, which was kind of irritating. Um, we moved out here. We haven't lived here that long, but we bought that piece of property. We got kind of forced out of Davis County. Same kind of issue we got closed in on. So, I get we don't own the property. We can't complain about property we don't own, but that is a lot of houses and everywhere. So, we've got the the subdivision that just went in to the north of us and then we've got the quarter acre ones on is that Dery like those aren't even sold. Why are we We have so many developments that aren't even sold. I don't know why we're pushing for these high high density. I mean, where's our the water coming from? Where's the sewer going? Where's I'm not worried about drainage. I'm worried more about where the water we have no culinary we have no reservoir water. So where's the culinary water coming from? And by changing this does this change you know everybody says that it we need more affordable housing. This isn't going to fix the affordable housing cuz since we've lived out here, we lived, we moved out here thinking our adult kids would all come out here, but they can't afford to live out here anymore because they're building all these $800,000 houses that my kids can't afford. So, you know, we'll have to go somewhere else. But once they, you know, make these at the smaller density and they change the zoning, the USDA loans that these kids can afford, they don't apply anymore because we're not Tilla is not a rural area anymore. So Gransville is probably headed that direction. So the USDA loans won't apply. So the that

affordable housing goes out the door. So besides the fact that they're $800,000, like when my kids moved out here, they bought their house for $400,000. There's there's no houses that are decent that are worth 400,000 anymore out here. Um and then also if we have that much traffic, we have to widen the roads, that affects all of us that already live there. So like on Willow, we have so much traffic on Willow right now. So if they ever have to widen the roads, it comes off our property, not these new developments. And so it affects all of us around it, I think, a lot more than anybody really realizes. Um and the schools, you know, I whether that's a place for a school or not, we've got to have somewhere for these kids to go to school. They're building so many houses so fast. And with that high school they built in Tilla the cost a fortune and everybody's taxes went up. Like who's going to pay for that? Like I just think everything's getting so expensive. I don't think we need to grow this fast. That's all I have. Thank you, Michelle. You have any other public comment? I know it's intimidating, but you're welcome to come share your thoughts. Okay. Do we have anybody online? If

we do have Lisa that raised her hand in the middle of it, so I'm going to go ahead and unmute her and see if she want to comment. Wonderful. Thank you, Nicole. Lisa, Lisa, are you still there? Yes. Okay.

Yeah. Lisa, you're breaking up just a little bit. Are you on a cell phone? Lisa, I'm sorry. We can't uh quite catch. Uh uh can you can you hear me?

We we can hear you, but you're breaking up. She may have signed it all.

Okay, we'll see if she signs back on. Is there anybody else online that would like to enter public comment for the consideration of the amendment to the general plan? Please raise your hand. Is there anybody else that would like to come to the podium while we see if Lisa can connect with us? Hey, nobody else online, Nicole. Okay, I think we will close that public comment period. If there's no other um and no, nobody else wants to come in and approach the podium, then we'll bring this item this item back to the commission for discussion and consideration.

Can we invite the applicant to come? Please. Sorry, it was Jason, right? Yes. Jason, what was your last name? I'll give it to the microphone. Okay. Thank you. Very wise. Jason Harris. I'm a representative of Fieldstone Homes. Appreciate

uh the opportunity to share some information. Um and I'm happy to answer questions as well. Um I I what I'd like to do is point out um some clarifications to the discussion and and what is before you because I think there's some confusion. Um so so with that what we are asking the the commission tonight is to evaluate uh one specific request, right? And it's going to come to you in two parts because there's an agenda item right after this. But the first one is the general plan and um with that it's uh we're talking about uh in this application and and Fieldstone might be a little confused here um in in what's being presented right um the up to six units per acre right is uh actually not what we're after. Um so so I want to be clear about that and I'll I'll come back to it here in just a second but I I just want to put that out here. Um, but I'm going to give you uh three data points that I think is important to the discussion and some of uh some of the residents that have even brought it up. The first one is um about our our housing uh challenges that we have um here in your community and and across the state and the nation as a whole. According to the ChemC Gardener uh policy institute um their 2025 state of the housing market report um which this is Utah's authoritative annual housing report many of you may be familiar with it um the Salt Lake Tilla metro area ranks as severely unreported uh un unaffordable in that report and you may not be surprised by that and and some people are commenting on it. The standard for affordable measure in the median multiple ratio, which is what they use in the report, states that a typical family would need to spend their entire gross income for over 5 years just to pay the median home price in the

area. This with nothing left for taxes, food, or anything else. That's how significant this challenge is. Um, Grantsville sits at the center of this regional crisis and every unnecessary dollar of cost is a dollar of attainability this community cannot afford to miss out on. That's the first data point. The second one, uh, both the R121 and the R12 zones, which is what we're evaluating in this next uh, application or this next agenda item, they carry the same minimum frontage requirement. What does that mean? Well, a person driving down the street of a halfacre lot and a street of a one of a third acre lot uh cannot tell the difference, right? The same house fits on both lots. The extra square footage is entirely in the rear yard and that is invisible from the street uh and invisible from the community. So the third data point, the difference between a 12,000 foot lot and a 21,000 square foot lot is 9,000 approximately 9,000 square ft. That's of additional yard space, rear yard, right? A buyer cannot see it from the street, but they will feel it in the price of their home. The added cost breaks down as follows. 9,000 square feet of landscaping right in that year rear yard, it'll cost you approximately $40,000. That extra 290 uh lineal feet of fencing, that's an additional $10,000. The 9,000 square ft of land, because you got to pay for the extra land to go into the lot, right? That's about $34,000. You add that up, that's $84,000 of added cost. you get to put the same home on that same lot, right? But we just added $84,000 worth of cost. That's significant. So, when we're talking

about in this particular discussion uh our what what we're planning for and for the future and and uh Bill brought up uh which which I really appreciated his comment, right, about the uh the importance of change uh in the need of the area. Well, I hate to break it to you, but it changed about 20 years ago. It got exaggerated 10 years ago, and five years ago, it blew out of the water in terms of unaffordability. We are not planning for the future. So, we're here as a home builder. One of the greatest things we do is provide people housing. It's awesome. One of the three basic needs: food, water, shelter. Um, and often, right, um, we we come to these meetings and and people are afraid to support us, right? And I get it because we bring change, but we also bring housing. And, uh, and our desire here is to bring you housing that is meaningful to your community. That's really what we're after. Now, will it be meaningful enough? I'm not sure because it depends on your recommendation and it ultimately depends on the city council how well that meeting comes into play. But what what we're proposing as it relates to just this request and as it relates to um the affordability is we can easily take out $84,000 worth of the cost of housing without affecting the appearance of your community at all in your R in your R112 zone. These are not quarteracre lots. These are essentially third acre lots, right? Third acre lot. um uh you have a minimum of 12,000 square feet, but you can't actually get to 12,000 square feet, right? Because you have right ofways and uh and configurations of the land. So really, you're going to end up with an average of a third acre lot, which is around 15,000 square ft. So that again, this is

that is does that create an affordable house? No. But that does allow us to reduce the cost of housing significantly. Like I said, at a minimum $84,000. So, while we're on this point, because Yes, please. I know we can ask questions later, but while we're on this point, if you had everything that you wanted, what would your price point be typically on the home that you would build on these lots? If I had everything that I wanted,

requested the the field stone, if they got everything that they requesting here, the lot sizes, everything that they need, what would your price point be on typical home? Well, it's it's $84,000 less than what would be typical. Well, like uh one of your residents said here, right? A typical home on a halfacre lot is $800,000. What would your price point be these lots? Typical generally, what would your price point be? Well, on a on a on a third acre lot is what you're asking me. Around 700,000 650 to $700,000. As long as you would build, if you got what you wanted here, it'd be 700,00. That would be likely. Yes.

You're telling us that's affordable. No, that's not what I said. It's what you're applying by your argument. I believe you want to bring affordability here and your price point will be north of 700,000. So, yeah. So, let let me state it a little more clearly for you. So the difference of the land, right, the additional land in this equation, right, is the addition of of taking care of an extra 9,000 square feet.

Understand all that. So, of that, right, if you could take out the cost of the additional landscaping, which is approximately $40,000, if you could take out the cost of the additional lineal fence of $10,000, and you could take out the cost of of that land for purchase, which is approximately $34,000, you would reduce, right? you would make it more affordable by taking out $84,000 worth of cost without changing anything in the dynamic of your community. Now, if you wanted to have a conversation about let's take this further, let's make it more affordable. Absolutely, we could do that. And

so, I think you should qualify, should be clear, it's more affordable. Yes. Call it affordable. I finance affordable housing and 700,000 is not affordable housing. That's right. But it is more affordable than the half acre. It's more affordable, but that's right. It's irrelevant perhaps if you're if you're still priceless. Yes, that's what I'm saying. Thank you for clarifying that. That is what I'm saying. It is more affordable. It's not the affordable metric. Want to make that clear. So that we aspire to.

So let me let me uh let me say this. Um, so the the staff report designates this as a as a high single family density and uh um that isn't actually what we're after. Okay. 3 to four units per acre is is really what we're after here as it relates to the zoning that's coming to you next. Um there may have been some confusion around this school site which I'm happy to also um elaborate on um as far as as that goes but there is not an agreement with the school. Um we have been in uh conversations with the with the school district um several conversations I've been in several conversations with your mayor and your council members about the possibility of bringing a school here. But the zoning that's coming to you and what we would be asking for as far as this general plan is is separate from that. What you'll see if if there is a if the school uh discussion um materializes into something more, you will see a a PUD application uh from us that will clarify and explain how how that school set would become a part of the project. We also will bring to you a a plan at some point if we if if it uh if it suits the the city and some of the conversations that we've had with um some of your leaders in the city that there will we hope that we can bring you a more affordable plan. But the discussion that we're having here is simply about what is what what do we need in order to get to the R112 zone which again will create more affordability. We're not talking about affordable. Um this any any questions?

Yeah. So I guess just I don't want to make this sound too basic, but what what's the benefit to this this city and the people that live around the subdivision us allowing this? I I don't think that $84,000 moves the needle for too many people, especially at that price point. So to tell the neighbors in the city, hey, we've done this and it's saving the future home buyers $84,000. I I don't think that does anything for anybody. So what did the city get out of this?

So $84,000 in a rate buy down, right, would save you uh thousands in your in your home payment, right? Well, I guess what I'm saying though is so us that live here now and the people that live in the neighborhood, our children aren't going to afford that home anytime soon, right? So, I'm just trying to think direct cuz we've got to you've got to convince the public that this is good for them. And the people that live here now, I don't think that sales pitch works. No, it fair enough. Fair enough.

Because I mean, I'm thinking of my children. They're not going to afford even a $700,000 house anytime soon. Um maybe eventually hopefully. But so what do the neighbors and the city what's what's the pro for us to do this now as opposed to waiting?

Oh well now is the time, right? And and the data that I've just given you, especially as it relates to both your local data, your state data, your national data tells you now is the time. Okay. From there, when you say the neighbors, right? Well, there there's there's a couple of components here. One is also all the people who aren't here. Right? When you say $84,000 isn't meaningful, I I I will tell you there's a lot of people who find that more than meaningful. And as it relates to your decision here to make a decision that's for the for the greater good of the community and all the people who aren't here who also are are are children and your children who can't afford, it would be how could we make this better for them? That is an important decision. The general plan is a guiding document, right? As you know, and u and it also has within it a big written out form, right? Like of all lots of words. It's not just a map. It's actually more words than it is a map. And in that guiding document, it will guide you toward making housing decisions that meet the needs of all of your community, not just a a small portion who's represented here. So that's what we're asking and and and I get it like it's that's a really hard decision. Bill was exactly right when he said, "Hey, this is a big decision." Um but but these are these are great great moments, right, for us to make decisions that that will impact the future of your community. I'm just thinking like it it's a it's an easier decision when you or a developer comes in and says, "Hey, here's what we're willing to give the city or the community in return for this exchange." And I just don't see that at this point. So that's why it may be a big decision, but I'm not seeing it as a difficult decision.

Okay, fair enough. Fair enough. Is my opinion if we're discussing it. Yeah, we are. So there you are discussing it and and it's it's appreciated, right? think like if you came in and say, "Hey, we we we're going to we're going to pay for your baseball field, the new high school, and we're an open discussions. We got an LOI, something like that to give the community or the city something. Hey, we're we're asking this change and in return, we're going to give you this." Oh, you know what? Then we got lots to give you. Okay.

So, so one of the one of the discussions that has come up, right, is who's going to put it who's going to put in these roads? Who's gonna deal with this infrastructure? Well, we do. The developer pays for those roads. We pay for that infrastructure. One of the one of the things that uh one of the things that is um interesting about this particular portion of the site and one of the discussions that came up was right. So, there already is an almost 100 ft rideway that passes through that. It's a planned road. A 100 foot ride ofway. The amount of traffic that that is designed to handle is significant. It's even more as as was brought up here than even um than than what the halfacre lot zoning would allow, right? Because the roads are sized for that. And then who builds Well, per your city code, whenever you're adjacent to the site, you build the addedon right ofway. That's how your code is written. So, what are you getting? You're going to get connectivity. You're going to get your roads built, right? And you're going to get housing stock that that is helpful to your city, right? That's what you're getting.

I think one other clarification because it's been brought up about the school. The discussions you've been having, not that they're real relevant here, but it's been about a replacement of a school, not a new school. Isn't that correct? Replacement of the high school or or is it is it a whole new school? I I'm gonna I'm because it's not for this discussion. I'd be happy to stay after and talk to you about my discussions with the school district, but I don't want to offer I don't want to mix that with because we actually that school site shouldn't be showing on that map. This is not about the school. This is just strictly about what's the right general plan designation. Good point. And everyone should understand that. That's made comment.

Yes. that that that we're not basing this decision on this school. Yes. Yeah. Just that. Yeah. I wish it wasn't on the map. Um but uh it isn't that isn't for this discussion. That that may come later. I hope it does because I've had I've heard a lot of great conversations about the the uh you know what what can become from that but but it's not for this discussion. Yeah. Did you get your questions answered, Cameron? Yeah, I think so. I think it's just also maybe just as things stand now, right? You Philson owns this property, so you could go in and you don't own this property yet?

No, we're under contract to purchase it. Yes. All right. In in the in the industry, we call it control. We we control the property and our our our job is to come and look for opportunities to build housing in your community. Um, which we're super excited to do. Um, go to our website, look at what we build. It's actually quite beautiful. But, so it's currently zoned for so them or another developer could go in here and crank out halfacre lots and there's going to be houses there. Yeah. Yep. So, I just think that's important to to note that either way there's houses coming to this area. The question is how many?

Yeah. You know what's what's interesting about that question that I that I that I appreciate, right? The question is how many? And when you look at the difference, right, between, you know, this third acre lots and these halfacre lots, yes, yes, the density goes up, but it's really not that significant, right? Going from two units per acre to three units per acre um is think about how many homeowners, right, now have an opportunity to own versus the didn't if you if you're not using your land mass appropriately. And that's why I brought up in my in my presentation to you why it's so significant that your halfacre lot and your and your uh third acre lot zoning have the same frontage because you won't actually see the difference and that's that's that's noteworthy. Absolutely.

So what so the 113 acres let's say you do with roads and everything. What would be the number of houses you would fit in here? What would be that number generally? Right. the calculation and and Bill may have more um understanding because you know he's your your planner and knows everything probably backwards and forwards but generally you would yield on a on a third acre lot about 2.2 two to 2.5 units per acre. And that's I mean when you take in rightway widths and configuration, that's generally how it works out. And uh and so um do the math on that. I think that's probably around 250 to 280 if I remember off the top of my head.

248.6. Okay. Someone's getting shorted. How many homes is that at a halfacre? What's the what's the calculation? So on a halfacre, you're usually around 1.8 8 units per acre on on your yield. 203.

Yeah. So So there you are 30 homeowners. That's the difference. 30 people who get to live in your community now and it looked exactly the same. Now is that what anybody could build on that same size or is that just what you're proposing? Like if on the the quarter acre lot because it was said that you could put six units per acre and then you're saying no, not six units per acre. The the future land use map again doesn't dictate the entitlements that are associated with it. That's the zoning. So the zoning would dictate if you went with currently halfacre zoning you get basically two units per acre. If you go to quarter acre then you get basically and again the numbers don't work out exactly because you have to back out corner lots that are bigger and and culdeac lots that are bigger and streets and sidewalks and all of the other rightway

setbacks. But but again just in your mind to think quarter acre lots just number of acres divided by four. So so I guess that's my point though is so in theory some we we do this somebody else could come in and not be working with three units per acre. They're working with four units per acre. Well let me I'll in theory can I add to that? Yeah please. Okay. So that's not what we're asking for. Oh no that's not what you're asking. I'm saying that somebody else could in theory based on the zoning. No. Um because your zoning isn't a quarter acre, right? A quarter acre is a 10,000 foot lot. Your zoning that's being requested in this upcoming one is a 12,000 foot lot.

Um and uh and like we said, like you can't physically go more than three units per acre in that in that category. Um can I clarify on that? That's I mean you are close but you're not mathing. So if you take 43580 and divide that by 12,000 square foot lots, that gives you 3.6 dwelling units per acre and then you times that by your 113

acres, that's 406 dwelling units net or gross density. Now you confusing net and gross density to where you're taking out all of the roads. And so yeah, net density would reduce that number significantly. And our code is based off of net density, but we need to make sure that we're being black and white to the planning commission and not guessing on numbers. And you can see down here surface drainage facilities, curb gutter, sidewalk, culinary water facilities, wastewater disposal, street name signs. So we have roads, we have setbacks, we have uh everything.

Yeah. But that is a requirement no matter what. It's not an extra added-on bonus. Right. That's right. And so that's why the net is so important to the discussion. Yes.

Mhm. So Shelby, do I hear you say that the the projected count of homes on half acre in this area 203 203 homes and then uh Fieldstone would like or would like to project 240. So uh we're rounding that at a net 30 homes or so. Is that not accurate? It would depend on what their road numbers are, what their um which is configuration, right? So, and depend on a lot of different things.

And if you did a PUD, then it's all open for negotiation. So what this does though in the case of PUB is establish a base density from which we could work off of. He would be entitled to a certain number minimum number of units based on the net, right? And then we would work off of that to do density bonuses and other fun things that would um help with the affordability question. It would raise density in some areas as as was pointed out and then allow for open space in other areas. that kind of right?

So if we take out open space and roads and these are all approximate, you're roughly 270 dwelling units net density at the 3.6 dwelling units per acre. Okay, taking out roads. Thank you, Shelby. Thanks, Shelby. So the delta is about 60 or 70 homes with the two different and then if you do that by halfacre lots at 1.8, 8 you're 135 homes. Okay. So, we're still about 40 homes.

The I think the the point is this and this is what I would ask you to consider as it relates to this particular decision in the master plan, right? Um I would be I like I'm okay if you do the medium density designation, right? which is allows up to three units per acre. Correct. But that doesn't match up with what's being proposed. That's why we have to go with the high single family residential. Do you see that would work? Hope it's an alternative.

Yes. And I'm I'm not sure what what Shel's getting at that isn't like as it relates to the discussion we're having, right, which is the built environment, right? The net. That's what we're talking about. And uh so

so what I'm saying is I'm looking into the future at your potential PUB application and you are proposing roughly five dwelling units per acre net density and so we only have two, three or six and high single family density is what would meet your PUD plan. Um, we're not here to evaluate the PUB.

Correct. But you brought it up that it doesn't meet what it is. And so now we have to bring up the PUD to point out that this is why we went this high single family residential density for the future land use plan and for the PUD to be an option if it it isn't if it is not.

So here's my proposal, right? Um, I think one of you brought it up. It may have been a community member. Um, we're not we do not want to put you in a position where you have to guess. Okay. The PUD if if that comes before you, right, that will come with its own development agreement which will clarify all of all of the gives and takes, right? You were talking about what what are we going to get? That's what the PUD will do. Um, and within the PUB you can amend the general plan and you can amend zoning and you can with the development agreement right you can write your own code essentially that's how it works what I what I don't want to confuse here I think it's important to the discussion right is what comes next right which is the zoning portion of this meeting right that is a request for the R 112 zone which we think is an appropriate zone especially considering housing situation that we've talked about, right? So, when I say, "Hey, like I like I don't I don't want to mix words here and I want to be very transparent with you as a commission and and eventually the city council, right? Three units per acre is what we would be after in order to utilize the R12 zone. When we come before you with a PUD, that will come with a request potentially, right? depending on what we propose as those give and take scenarios which maybe will include a school site. um that will come with additional information that you can evaluate the whole package

Gary like what you're saying Jason it's like I kind of think right now we're getting ahead of ourselves because we're looking at one point and we're talking 10 steps down the road we haven't even addressed past step number one yet but we're worried about step 10 we got there's a lot of steps in between to get to here to there. Um, complicated issue. I mean, it's I agree. I moved out here almost a decade ago and and I I feel for I I feel for people like but Grantsville is not where it was even a year ago. It's the changing the needs are changing and the longer you wait the worse it gets. It's being in real estate. The best time to buy a house was yesterday. That's the truth of it.

10 years ago. But how do you do this to keep also the aesthetics of the city and what the the general plan has done? It's a complicated issue and it's a there's a lot of it's a very nuanced issue. Um I mean Wayne's even he since left he run not everyone can manage a halfacre lot. Not everyone wants a halfacre lot. Um but at the same token right Utah is highly unaffordable. being less expensive doesn't mean it's not expensive. Exactly. Agreed.

Um I mean I I I right I mean this is a couple steps down the road. I think this is the next I wouldn't personally I would be against even an R12. I I think it's I just think the the density is still too high for the area. Um but I think we got to start the discussion somewhere and see where it takes us. That's kind of my opinion. Okay. Um, did you have any questions for Jason specifically?

No, I mean that's I mean you addressed some of them because Okay, so you have 113 you're going to lose a lot of rows. That's I'm still looking for kind of that number, but I think this is that's probably step number seven, right? And we're at one. Yeah, I I think you're I think you're right. you evaluate with half blindfolded in the dark room and hoping that we hit something that we can go off of and that we're looking for a compass and right now we don't even know what direction we need to go. So,

well, my hope is that I can give you that direction, right? And just what how meaningful it is to go from, you know, an R121 to an R12, right? Um, and with that, what my what I'm hoping is that that understanding will lead you to, hey, this is this worthwhile recommendation for the city council to consider because of the significance of of the of the savings over time, right? If the district doesn't buy the the property, then what?

Well, that's why that's why we're only talking about R12 because if they don't buy the property, you know what you got. Um, as it relates to that future discussion, it's going to come with a a a packet full of details that talk about why that's the case and uh and and what comes with it. Um to the point that I've already I don't I'm going to go down that road, aren't I? We've had the discussions with them about about what a contract terms would look like. um the the the interest level is high, but again until until that time, we don't want to mix that. We want to just say what's right for the area without it.

Well, until the on the contracts, you're doing the right thing to say just leave that alone. Yeah. Thank you, Jason. Great name by the way.

So, I go through all this. The Jason, I actually really agree with what you're saying. A lot of what's coming with the future and what development looks like. I think the pressure is changing. I don't think halfacre lots are probably in the future for a lot of future development. I think the real issue here is the the general plan and what we're looking at doing here. The there's been comments made about, you know, what about water, sewer, and traffic requirements. We have city code that manages that and how that gets worked through. And so I think that part is in there. And with any growth, a lot of people say, "I'm okay with growth as long as it's not in my backyard. It's somewhere else." We manage that through the city and not everybody's going to be happy. That being said, I am not comfortable going against the general plan. I think the general plan needs to be amended and I think the things you brought up are important because we do need to look at how we adjust moving forward with the city. And I know part of the reason I was asking about when the general plan was going to be updated was partly just to be on the record of we are looking at updating that because I think we have to look at this. If the general plan is flawed, I think it should be something the public's looking at and aware of and making that decision and we're not peacemailing or setting a precedent by one small sliver of it. I think it needs to be addressed as a whole. So, for that reason, I'm opposed to the changing of the general plan. So,

okay. Thought you were going to give us some good information on water and stuff. We don't have enough water and that's part of what needs to change. But that's I that's the the thing here is I think there is changes and I think it's not no we can't do this. I think it's known right now, but I think that the public needs to be a part of this discussion and and brought into this and I think there was opportunities or that was comments brought up about how the general plan is something that's meant for the community to be a part of and I don't feel comfortable making that decision for all of for all of Grantsville when I I do honestly think it needs to change and I think we need to start looking at things that you're bringing up but I don't want to be the person to say it has to happen because I'm one person out of the town even though I'm on this commission to

that's what you're here to is trying to be to to shape us in the right form and but derailing the the the general plan as it is. We're going to set a precedent that we can make changes just because we don't like it. And I I don't see strong enough reason to to change the general plan just for this one item even though I do agree with what you're saying because I think it does need to be overall change and that'll come through the general plan process.

I concur with Jason. I think that um I agree with much of what you're saying, more affordable, not affordable, but there's other places right now that the general plan allows for that to happen in this city. And um I'm not comfortable changing the plan for this development really. And um I think especially on the cusp of a new plan being evaluated could happen in the new general plan, but that's how I think it should happen in the new analysis, not an action by the planning commission or recommendation by the planning commission now at in this location.

Okay, go ahead. I I think I'll just I I think capitalism is great. I think the free market decides how a lot of these things are handled long term. Um the comment was made. I don't know why we're out uh you know bringing in more development when there's some that aren't filled. I don't think that matters. Um if a developer owns property, wants to buy property, he wants to do something with it within what's already on the paper, I think that's great. Um, but I think for what I've already shared, yeah, I'm not comfortable uh going and changing the the plan at this point either. So, but if they want to go build halfacres on us and see what happens, then that's great, too. If you build it, they will come. I watched Field of Dreams last week.

It's a good movie. Classic. Okay. Um, I believe in magic. I had Nicole print me off general plan. Thank you, Nicole. How many pages is it? That big one's 48 pages.

48 pages. And um so I just wanted to mention that yes, we have a plan for high single family density residential that is more towards the city core. Um however, that city core has shifted or will shift with Soulberg's opening. So just know that that will that that shift has already happened. So um the concept has I think been out in the public and has kind of been blown out of proportion, right? And everybody's on board with not having greater density than what is already in the city plan. But as I as I am trying to convey I feel like that that movement has already happened without the purview of the this this body right here the members of this body the the soulberg's movement and things shifting has already happened. Now, I I did want to point out um if you wouldn't mind, you probably have it open and Shelby would be able to um help me describe this better. Um, in our general plan is this this map from Jones De Mill that shows the flood the the wetlands and flood plains that is located mostly towards the northern part of our Yep. This one. Yeah. Um, so this one kind of struck me because it

shows our uh reduced opportunity for having the city center where it is near Main Street and having an overlay of our general plan here. You you can imagine that it it kind of reduces an opportunity for development anywhere north. Um, now I don't know if you can see where Main Street is. It's where that circle is that says 132 or 138.

138. Thank you. I can't even see it. Um, and as we all know, we're shifting southward. Um, and and I think when we reanalyze the general plan, it will also move the density south. Right now the the high density medium density high density um kind of in our general plan is at Pear Street. That's kind of our border for a higher density uh plan in our current general plan that of course hasn't been updated in six years. Um I live in South Willow. I was totally opposed to this uh proposal um because I don't want to see the traffic impacts and and I couldn't afford a $700,000 home. Luckily, I bought 20 years ago. Um, I get frustrated every Christmas when we have our lovely and beloved homeowner on Quirk Street put up the Christmas lights that everybody parks at and causes an accident or nearly causes an accident 100 times between November and January one, right? Um because people are parked there on that street that cannot even support two-way traffic when people are pulled over to the side. However, in our general plan, I did I tried to make notes of um why I would oppose this because I'm trying to put my personal feelings aside and think about folks who want to move here and have a long-term home as I have and have been lucky enough to call Grantsville home because when we first moved here and South Willow was a new development, we were shunned and you

know people hadn't welcomed the expansion of homes in that area 20 years ago and it and it was really really hard um to be uh to feel like I was part of this community because we were so far removed from the community from the city center and um I feel like there are several things in our general plan that actually support um the consideration the proposal And I just want to point out, I do this every meeting. Um, home uh land owners have an opportunity to develop their land as long as it isn't affecting the health, safety, and welfare of the community. And though we've had lots of public comment and I've written them all down and I've considered them and I've mowled over them for days and days and days um since the last presentation two weeks ago, right, where I was totally against this and my personal feelings um the city center has moved um and it's kind of out of our control um to define the city core and have the expectation that a higher single family density is going to be created. around the city core. Our current city core which is main street doesn't facilitate um kind of having the the higher density because it's it's already developed. I don't know in looking at our current general plan map where a developer could come in and develop quarter acre lots in our city core. I'm not sure because our city core kind of follows that that wetland, right? um which is more expensive to develop if if anybody is familiar with in the environmental impacts of wetlands. Um you have to build your foundation much higher. Um and that that's just the cost

that that the buyer absorbs. Um part of our general plan says that we should diversify our housing stock and make sure that there's an adequate density of housing stock within the community. and that is actually dictated by Utah code. Okay. Um we want to improve the quality of housing to attract new tenants and those new tenants would probably move in with a investment like that that has longterm plans of being part of this community. And I' and I've mentioned that before because I was fortunate enough my husband wanted to stay up north than Roy when we were looking. uh he didn't want to move any further south than than Cisville. And um you know, I mentioned to him that Grantsville was more of a community uh that had the rural feel that I wanted and gave us an opportunity to have more land than we could have gotten in in the Caseville area. Um, we uh in our in our general plan, right, the we wanted to consider the dirt and Juel could probably talk about this duration, intensity, rate and timing and the rate of growth is is beyond our uh general plans original or revised plan. We have several HUD development agreements here outside of the wetland on the south west side of of Grantsville. Um and that is bringing a lot of housing in. Um and people say why would we need more housing? Um well to be honest with you, the school is going to be a draw. The school is going to increase your property values. And if Nicole, I'm sorry, I'm going to take two

minutes here because I'm now on my soap box. If you could bring up Google Earth and measure our our current high school area, and I know school shouldn't be a part of this conversation, um, but our our current acreage for our current high school area where my kids have all gone to high school in portables. The portables have been there for nearly at least 18 years. My kids are 30 now, right? Um and and with the growth of the new development that's south kind of southwest area, Grantsville and the couple that are around Willow and those things, we we need a new high school. We do. And I and I don't want a high school on Quirk because I live there and that's going to be terrible terrible traffic. But, uh, right now we're 24 acres. An opportunity to have a high school and 54 acres will support our projected growth our community and give our kids an opportunity to have things that my son's family or my son's wife's family moved to Stansbury because our high school couldn't provide theater. Our school doesn't have swimming team. our school doesn't have that opportunity to have a big football team that could play in the higher ranked um football competition for the greater Salt Lake area. We are playing with smaller communities that are Morgan and and Brighgam and Jab and and it's it's hard and it's not giving our kids an opportunity to experience things in a community that is growing at the rate that our community is without without this proposal but or this consideration. Um and it's been 20

years guys. I know I I I made some maps. So going from 24 acres to a 56 acre area uh for a high school would allow a bigger football field. It would allow um you know theater to be a focus. My my daughter's a sophomore and she's she took theater and junior high. She took theater and and for the last two years in high school and we just don't have the facilities to promote interests in a career in theater because our high school is lacking. Our high school is actually needs to be torn down. It's been on fire twice, right? We've rebuilt and we've just depended on the portables to support our education for our kids. Okay. So, I'll get off that soap box. It's okay, Nicole.

Sorry, I'm trying to pull off. No, that's okay. What I really wanted is to just map out for people to visually see what 54 56 acres for a school is and then try to place it anywhere else outside of that wetlands area within Grantsville city limits anywhere else because there's not space for a school or a new high school. I'm sorry. We can't entertain. We've had an opportunity for public comment. I'm sorry. Oh, sorry.

Yeah. I'm sorry. It's not a engaging conversation, but I'm just trying to facilitate some uh outside of the box uh thinking here. I know that it's easy to say I don't want this because that's my feeling, right? I live here. I live up that neighborhood. I live on I have to drive on quirk several times a day and and my gut feeling is I don't want it. that if I was to be realistic and set my feelings aside and say, "What is the greater good for my community, knowing the growth that is coming, knowing that we need a high school that could support kids, and maybe the old high school would be a perfect site for a junior high because our junior high has had portables. I've had three kids go through the school system. I'm on my fourth right now. They've all gone to class in portables. It's not a conductive learning environment in those portables. They are hot. They don't have air conditioning. There's no restrooms. And I just think that in all of my soularching, I when I have to put aside my personal feelings about what this development means for the traffic, the infrastructure, and all of the impacts that you all share concerns with, as I do, um, we have to be logical about it, too. There has to be an opportunity for us to consider the development, the impacts, and the benefits that it brings to our community on both sides. You have to do it. You have to be logical and put put aside your personal feelings. Affordable housing incentivize developers to create viable, affordable housing is part of our current general plan to support a mix of land uses that is well balanced, financially sound, and functional. I'm I'm not sure how going from a halfacre to a third acre is really

impacting that in a negative way. It's probably not. It's probably all of those things, right? It's functional. It is sound. It is financially sound, right? It is responsible choice. Okay. Um we want to promote uh neighborhood um possibly um commercial development in targeted areas but preserve the existing residential development without distracting from the residential character. And like Jason said, your frontage is still 40 ft. The only difference between what Jason is proposing and the halfacre lots is a uh 40 foot setback as opposed to a 30-foot setback on the rear yard. That is the only difference. Um the the side setbacks are the same. Um your your coverage for buildings is the same. Um that that frontage is what people see when they drive down the street and it's still 70 feet. 70 feet on a halfacre lot, 70 ft on a third acre lot. It's the same. Okay. But we are I've spent $100,000 in landscaping over 20 years that I've been here. Um trees and grass and sprinklers and plants that die and that I have to replace. I have a survival rate of trees at like 70%. Um, which the tree program that Grantsville does is just fantastic. I just got another tree for $95, you guys. I'm so excited. Okay, so I could go on and on. Um, we wanted to increase density along the main corridor and focus on that. But again, the corridor is shifting. It's going to shift because Soulbergs is under feet and and there's nothing that

we can do to address that in the general plan. So, um, I just wanted to put that out there for you all to think about. Well, I I sorry to interject here, but I agree with you. If if we've adjusted the commercial corridor, that creates a ripple effect. The ripple effect has got has got to go throughout the whole city. And we're not Gransville of 20, 30, even 10 years ago,

right? And this is where I see this is where the part of me is the nuance part of this is if we're looking at a future land plan that needs to be balanced. I'm looking at the land map right now that it's completely unbalanced towards now houses that nobody can afford. Unless you're unless you're selling a second or third time move up and you have major equity in your house, you can't afford it. This is it's I I I mean we haven't adjusted this in five years. That's probably a derction of of committees and cities of this should have been done five times in five years and it's

well that's why I said we're behind the eightball in in this regard and delaying it more it just puts us further and further behind

you know everybody that comes up that podium is the worst place to be I hated being behind that podium looking at this group of people up here that are so smart and more experienced than I am. But I can tell you that if if if a consideration of a development like this, I know it's a one-off. I know that we're doing a a new general plan, but um those people who now are able to move up and and release some of the more affordable housing in what's now our current, you know, main corridor where our high density or more affordable housing is. And people are moving from Grantsville to Grantsville just in newer houses that maybe doesn't have the lot keep up. Right. That's one thing that my husband says, "We can't go upstairs anymore, Sarah. We're too old. You can't take care of the yard. It's too much. You know, I only am on a half acre and it's too much. I'm getting old and it sucks. And I might want to just downsize to a third acre, you know, or a quarter acre because I'm old. So, there's a lot of considerations and and I know that it's very easy to focus on what you want and what your feelings are, but this body has to take into consideration the future growth of Grantsville. And it's hard because we get thrown under the bus, but we're we feel the same way you do, but we have an additional uh view or responsibility when it comes to the city. So, there you are. There's my soap box. And uh does anybody else have any other question?

Well, I agree. We all want more amenities in the city. So more amenities means you have to have more population because businesses aren't coming where there's no population. It's it's it's just the hard it's we are in direct competition right now. Our biggest competition is grants to city and they are growing and the commercial districts are growing there. And I I can't tell you the last time me and my wife had had dinner at a restaurant in Grantsville. We always were going to Twilla. We were so excited when the outpost opened. Yeah. And it's been a few times I've been there, a couple times to Arby's, but it's if we want to go somewhere, it's we're leaving town. So that means all those tax dollars are leaving town.

We shop in Salt Lake. I don't even shop in 12 go to Salt Lake, which sucks because I come home from Salt Lake and then I go back to Salt Lake to shop at Costco or Sam's Club.

I'm I'm sorry. I love Grantsville and I'd rather I I buy gas here. I make darn sure that I I buy gas and I will come into town on fumes to buy gas and I can't wait for that gas station to open on the west side of town um because we need one out there. But um uh but my shopping tax dollars are they go to Salt Lake unless you know Amazon gets their cut. That's what that's my contribution is Amazon. So, um, there it is. You have anything?

Thank you for your comment, Sarah. I I actually really like what you had to say and I agree with what you're saying. I just think we want Grantsville to be Grantsville. We're not here to be Twilla City. We're not here to be anybody else, but we need to make this a community decision. That's where I'm setting. I think what you've said is true and accurate. We just need to make this the ripple effect we're seeing of where the density is moving, where the commercials going, I think is important to recognize. But I think we need to reflect that in the whole plan and not just a a one time change. That's me and I can appreciate that. But I can also see that the revision of the general plan will include this. I mean I just feel like that's where it's going to go.

And I kind of I support that in the sense I think that we do have to look at some changes but we need to look at the holistic change and not just one piece. Yep. And I love that too. So you know how much I appreciate your thoughtfulness. So is there any other comments? No, I think it's good. I think it will give an opportunity for the whole community to chip in. So, okay, Jason, thank you for your time. Really appreciate it. Lock his knees. I know. Sorry. Thank you. I did not mean to take up that much time, but thank you all for your thoughtfulness. So, uh we have no more discussion. We will open this up for consideration. Anybody would like to make a motion?

I'll make a motion. Okay. Can I just say one thing? Was there an application fee for this? Is now was there a a diff differentiation between a table and a denial? So, real quick, indulge. This is not the final action that would be taken. It would go to the city council. So if you table it would come back to this body, right?

If you recommend one way or the other, that would then that recommendation would then go on to the city council. My guess is I'm just guessing. I don't want to speak for Jason or for the application, but they would prefer to have something concrete tonight so that they can take that to the city council. Yes, agree. So tableabling doesn't necessarily help him at this point. So, is that fair to say? Oh, Rhett, I'm sorry. Did you have anything?

The mammoth and the knights are tied up. At least last time I checked. So, nice. We're good. Thanks for that update. Let's see if I can refresh it. Are you betting on that? No, never mind. That's you. Pull joke. Only Skittles. All right. Now, we'll enterain. I move to recommend denial to city council for the proposed general plan amendment for the Wellstone subdivision located near Pear Street and Cork Street based on the findings outlined in the staff report. Okay. Second. Okay. We have a denial and a second. All in favor? I I

I'm sorry. Did you respond? You asked all in favor all in favor of a denial. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Would you do a roll call, please? Yes. Can we do a roll call then, Gary? Yes. So you So you ask all in favor of denial and they said I I I'm not in favor. So you have all opposed. I would say no to motion. I have a no to the motion. No to the motion to deny. Correct. Thank you, Gary. Yay. To deny. Yay to the denial. John John Montgomery. Yay to the denial. Yay to the denial.

Hammer Molton. Yay to the denial. Sarah Moore. I am opposed to the denial. So that passes. I will recommend a denial to city council. I think council consider where it goes from here. So, Bill, welcome. Welcome back. Bill, it's like forever since I just couldn't sit down in one. I'm so excited for this next item. Well, so what happens with the next item then? I'm intrigued. Just go ahead and call it in. Okay. Call it out and then we'll we can talk about it.

Okay. So, we will close agenda item three and move on to agenda item four. Uh this is the presentation discussion public hearing and consideration of the proposed reszone for the Wellstone subdivision area that mirrors the area that we just discussed on the last agenda item. Sorry, that is uh located near Pier Street and Burton Street. Thank you.

Thank you. And as was discussed, this is the the reszone portion of the discussion. Um I don't have a whole lot more to add except to say and as was pointed out that we don't have to necessarily match the general plan with the zoning. It's not necessarily that they have to one has to be exactly the same as the other. So, in the odd chance that the discussion changed or something weird happened, um you're not locked into what just happened. Okay?

Again, it's a legislative item. Very broad discretion is given to you and to city councils in making these decisions. So, um it's it's the reasonable person test. If a reasonable person would look at the evidence in the record and the discussion that was had and come to the same conclusion, you're golden. So, um, with that in mind, uh, that's, uh, that's the conversation now.

Great. Thank you. So, um, we'll just go ahead and open the public hearing for the consideration of our proposed reszones of the parcels listed in the agenda. uh from R121 to R112 for the Wellstone subdivision located near Pier Street and Burk Street. You have public comment. Welcome to approach the podium and state your name. This is going from 2100 square foot minimum lot size to a 1200 12 sorry 21,000 to 12,000. It's been a long night.

It's been a long night. Hello, my name is Juel Allen and um thank you for the discussion. That was very enlightening. I really appreciate the balance discussion. Um and yes, I know it's a tough decision, but I I still stand by my recommendation to deny this request for a reasonzoning uh for all the reasons I'd said before. Um, as well as I think I I could hear in the discussion all the concerns about making this a peace meal decision for this particular lot. Um, it's it's never easy to consider these decisions, but I think in doing so right now, you have an opportunity to to really shape what might happen from here on. Uh, because these decisions don't stand by themselves. There's always a ripple effect. And just I guess ask yourselves if later on as you study any other issues that come up like similarly I'd be hardressed to say yes to something like this if you feel that it would potentially be problematic for other areas in the city. Um just something to really think about. It's a lot easier to say no to this now than it is to say no to something else later because he said yes to this. So, thank you.

Thank you, Joel. Is there anybody else that would like to enter Nicole?

Yes, I'm Spencer. For the exact same reasons I talked the last time, I think it's imperative that we take the master plan. um the town voted on that whether it's right or wrong and we need to change it. Maybe we do need to change it, but I really think to get the town involved and let them vote and let them give their voice to what we're going to do because I think this starts the ball rolling. And I think if you change the master plan, you change the zoning, then what's the next change going to be? So, I think it's imperative that we wait for the master plan to be re-evaluated or whatever it is. Let the town vote on it and get the opinion. Thank you.

Thank you, Mara.

Hi, I'm Katherine again. Sorry. Um, I still stand on my opinion to hold off on the development of this until you guys get the full um, provision. Um, and I still stand with the rest of them and I'm pretty sure we're as a community, we still need the rest of them to speak up and um, hopefully we can hear their votes too and not just few people in this room. Um, on top of it, I believe no one has asked about or the question was about taxes, how this all this development is going to affect us in the long run. Yeah. Thanks.

Thank you.

I just want to say the same thing I had from before. State your name. Michelle Marriott. Thank you. Um, same thing as before. And I also think there are a lot of people I think that would be here tonight, but people are frustrated. Like if you get on the Facebook page, which I know it's Facebook, whatever, but

people think that they y'all just do whatever you want to do and they have no say. Like there are a lot of comments that are like it's going to pass whether we go or not. So like that them saying let people have their voice. I think it needs to be put out there more that they can come and talk and go through these things. I think like we didn't know this was going on today and where there was the sign on Pear Street and not any of the other streets. I don't know who know even knew. So I don't know if it needs to be published more but I think people are pretty frustrated. Thank you, Michelle. Is there anybody else that would like to enter public comment regarding the proposed resold?

Oh, yes, please. Um Casey Marriott, um I just wanted to paint a picture a little bit about I know you said affordability, less affordability um on a $700,000 house for just principal and interest. That puts us at $4,200, not including our taxes that might also increase from all the other people they're moving in that we have to support the infrastructure for that. And I don't know how many families that are up and coming that have an income um that can support that type of house payment in this community. I know that there are lots of new families and also a lot of senior communities that are on a fixed income. So, that's going to bite into that as well. Um, and I know mentioned also about resale and about being able to move up or the third home that they've moved in to be able to afford these higher salespric homes, but um, the new developers that are coming in are offering insane incentives. So, it is making it really hard for normal sellers to compete with that where they can just go buy another house um with them instead of actually giving back to the community that's here. And I also wanted to point out that I know you said something about $84,000 um that you could give back or it was a cost that you're savings. Um there are caps on that. So, I feel like that number was a little bit inflated. There are certain um seller concessions that are allowed depending on loan program. Um, and that number just seemed a little bit inflated to me. And also, there's certain loan programs that, um, on a $700,000 sales price. Um, the loan amounts are exceeded already in this area. Um, that would price out USDA, which she had mentioned. Um, but also the max loan amount for an FHA loan program, which most families would utilize, is only 637,000 if they would able to bridge that down payment. So, I just wanted to paint a picture of what that actually would look like for homeowners in this community to be able to afford the houses they're proposing. Thank you.

Thank you, Casey. Is there anybody else that would like to enter public comment on the resone proposal? I do think Lisa has raised her hand again online. We want to try to let her You can see if she's got a better connection. That would be great, Nicole. Thank you. Okay. Can you hear me? Yes. Thank you. Okay.

Okay. Lisa Lingwell, I live at 189 East Elizabeth Cove and so my backyard is actually quirk and pear. So this whole thing really affects me in in specific. And when we moved here, we were kind of led to believe that when which we knew that there would be growth, but when there was growth, it would be more spread out. And Joel, I think that's his name that was just with Fairborn House or whatever. He he paints a little happy picture. But the problem is is that each one of those three houses has three more cars and three more, you know, it it's not just, oh, it's not going to affect the way that it looks from the street, but then again, who's going to pay the taxes for the roads and the school? You know, yes, Grantsville needs a new high school, absolutely. But, you know, we're getting older and we don't and we're almost right now taxed out of our home in all honesty because of these huge beautiful schools that they're building. And so, it would impact, okay, it might not look that much different, but it will impact our roads. It will impact our infrastructure. It absolutely will impact our water. Absolutely. And so I just think it's irresponsible growth and or irresponsible to and I agree with everything the other ladies said. All of the ladies. I agree with everything that they said because you know my kids can't afford to come out here and live anymore.

Um we came just on the cusp of when you almost couldn't afford it anymore. and and and my kids make good money and they live in Salt Lake City. So it's really discouraging to see how you know the city council waved and and the whole point of the last lady who said you know people are discouraged. We I hear it all the time you know why even go to the meetings because they don't listen to you anyway. You can talk your head off but they're going to do whatever the hell they want to anyway. And that is the general consensus and I think that that needs to change in this city. It's been really disheartening to see this and for everybody to bow to these developers including Sbergs by the way that and and yes that has now changed our whole dynamic of our city. So now we need to have high density housing in closer to, you know, further out because it because it's changed our whole dynamics. And so it's really frustrating and I do think that as a planning and zoning and also a city council that you people that we voted in, most of you should be listening to your constituents because it's not right that you're not. You treat us like we're dirt on your shoes.

Lisa, you have three minutes. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, I was gonna say you're welcome. Is there anybody else that is online that would like to enter public comment?

That's great. Thank you. Can you hear me? Yes, Carrie.

So, one thing I would like to bring up is that hasn't been brought up tonight is the safety of our kids in the already surrounding schools. We have so many schools right in this area. With all that added traffic, we're putting more pressure on these little kids that are walking to school. I drive up and down Cork Street. We have one area on that street that there is no walking path or sidewalk. And I have watched multiple times little kids come out on that street cuz the end of the walking path to get back to the other sidewalk on pair with that much traffic on those roads with all these added houses. Who is looking out for our children? That's what I'm concerned about. Okay, Carrie, are is there more you'd like to add?

No, that's all. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anybody else online? Wow, we feel so bad we've made them wait so long. Please raise your hand if you're online and would like to enter a comment into the public record. Okay. Is there anybody else in the room that would like to enter a comment into the public record regarding Riso?

Um my my name is Rachel Talbot. Um my concern that I bring now is the difference in tax levels um from the one zoning to the other. And um I am concerned that the the smaller lot has higher taxes per unit. Um and I don't know the difference, but I would I I have a concern about that. Then that that's my comment.

Thank you, Rachel. Okay. Is there anybody else?

Hi. Hi, Brian Johnson. Um,

I might be the problem. So, we are a resident of 7 days. We have just moved in. Uh, different perspective though maybe for you guys. So, we came from South Jordan. Um 700,000 seems awfully low for a price of a house. Um but that's the average about anywhere you're going to go. So I would the re what drew us to Grantsville is the opportunity to have more at your house, a little more land, be able to like you were saying before it to get away from a few things. You need to remember what Grantsville, what Grantsville means. It uh the community, I guess. Um the opportunity to slow down a little bit, not be in such a huge city. Um I think somebody else had mentioned it. If you build it, they will come. The halfacres are going to sell. There are just as many people that would be interested in the half acres as there are in quarter acres or third acres. But the the more rural community is what draws people. That's what Grantsville is just from our perspective. But thank you.

Thank you, Brig. Okay. Anybody else? You're really welcome. Okay. Nobody else. Nobody else online. Nicole, just to double check one more time. All right. We'll close that public hearing. We'll bring this back for uh consideration. Discussion and consideration. Cameron,

ju just one just to manage expectations correctly because it was said a few times that uh general plan amendment amendment would be voted on. There there's no vote taken by the community when that happens. Correct. Or is it it's a vote? How does that happen? No, no, you're right. There is no vote. It's not a it's an open referendum kind of. Okay. Okay. I just want to make sure that public comment is considered when they make decisions and that it gets adjusted based on what people come and contribute.

Just so people aren't expecting a ballot in their box at some point for something like that. And then just one other thing responding to a public comment maybe um and maybe this needs to get put on Facebook by somebody but there is a state website for public notices that you can set up um email delivery. So anytime the city issues a public notice it goes to your inbox so you can be aware be aware of everything that's happening in the city um as required by law. So there there there would never be a reason to not be informed with the public notice system as required by law. So I just wanted to point that out.

I appreciate that because I was also going to say we are required to inform people within a certain radius of whatever development is coming for public comment and we weren't notified and we back onto this property. Well, um Willow is actually removed. on the other side of that white area right there. My piece of property is this one right here, that second green one. So, I back on to this. So, I should have been notified because it is my backyard basically.

And if a development agreement was on the agenda, you probably would have gotten a direct notice. However, this is not for a development agreement. This is for just a change in the general plan and so um we have to notify we get a radius report from Tilla County. The applicant has to provide that to us along with mailing labels. So we use what Tilla County gives us. We send out all of them together. We do get some back as undeliverable but we do send those out. And do you we send those out certified? No, we do not send them out certified. They go out regular mail. Oh, I have gotten them right now.

And they go out 10 days prior to the meeting. So, they go off of what is provided by Tilla County. If they didn't get the notice, I'm not sure why they wouldn't if they're that close. Are those records available to the radius? We have the labels that we send out to. So, you just need to check if you have concerns. Sorry, I misspoke on that. I apologize. Thank you for correcting me.

I just like to make a comment that I don't know that we're in much disagreement. Uh, I'm really coming where Jason's coming from is that I don't feel the urgency of making this decision now when we maybe have been remiss in updating the general plan and now we're about to do so from this group. There's some real resentment that they're not being heard. So, let's go through the general plan. Uh, the city's not going to suffer immeasurably. uh by this being delayed a bit till that general plan is is redone. Let's hear what the seed this the professionals say, people say and then we can revisit this again and maybe even the school will be tied down by then. I don't know. Um you can have control of a property without owning it and make agreements. So anyway, um I don't know that we're so uh out of sync the the commission here. Right. For me, it's more of a timing and why are we in such a hurry to approve this little segment, modify the general plan and in the zoning because they're intertwined when um we are on the cusp of doing maybe we should have been doing along the way. And so that's where I'm coming from. The answer to that, I'm I'm sorry to interject here, but the answer to that is that we have an application before us that was uh duly filled out and submitted to the city and and the the property owners or the the interested parties uh are

pay within their rights to submit an application and have totally totally agree with that. All I'm saying is the reason for my decision is that application is came when it came. We need to address it. But why I'm voting the way I am is not that we disagree so much. It's just that the timing of the application is is I don't feel the need to uh I want more information. It seems like it's forthcoming very soon and we hear more from the public very soon. So So I I you know we we've done what we need to do. Just why I'm voting the way I'm voting. Let me explain. Well, so this one is for the reason. This is a separate issue.

Understand completely. Okay. But they're not but they're so intertwined. I mean, I I understand what you're saying, but um I'm just talking about both the way I feel about both of the votes is I don't I think we're I think it's we're rushing it. If we have to respond, we do have to respond to this and I'm going to respond to it in this way. So, we're six months from now. I'd like to respond to it differently, but I would have more information. I would heard from the public. I heard the professionals. and and there would be an opportunity to recommend a table if that's something that you want to do. But let's see what other folks Jason you want to

I John said pretty much what I was saying. I think I I'm not opposed at all to what Philstone's propos proposing in the sense of considering it. I but I think the process needs to be different than what we what we're doing today. And I don't know what does tableabling do with with them as far as the applicant right now. And I don't know if it's going to help them or hurt them right now other than we've got to get the the general the general plan. If we already denied the the general plan update, then I don't know that this is going to do anything differently.

The only thing that tableabling does for the applicant is provide an opportunity to come back with additional information. I don't know if that's going to be in the offing necessarily, if anything's going to change in the next couple of weeks that would help. It's it's just really forgive me. I don't mean to speak for you, but it just it's a delay and they would I Yeah, you address me if I'm corrected if I'm wrong, but I think you would just prefer a straight up or down vote on this and then send it on to the city council. I'm with John. I just don't see right now the reason to approve it. So, I deny. That's all. Gary.

Yeah. And I I I'll flip on this one only because I think going from an R1 to an R12 is too drastic. I don't I would say more of an R15 would be more in line with what I would think and I think more of the general plan needs to reflect more of an R15 rather than even the R12. I think it's probably too tight. But I we've already addressed so that that's where I would stand here on number four. I just I I I know we've talked about the net usage of the land and Jason brought all that up and it would they would net out quote unquote to a third acre, but I would I would still like to see more like hey let's mandate rather than a 12 to a 15 just so we have that then you can't go below that third acre then it's you know that to me that would give them some ideas of if if the adult passing was approved of okay here's how we would have to then redesign streets and lots and how we have to flat that I think the R12 is maybe just a little bit too loose. Gives them a little bit maybe too much leeway for allowing too much density which I think I mean we need to my opinion I'm on the record now I think we need to change the overall plan but I think this is stepping too much in one direction.

Okay. And Jason if you want to come up you're welcome to. So here's what my thoughts are and you probably say the same thing. There is no plan for development right now. Correct. Yeah. We're agenda item four which is asking to go from an R21 to an R12. Right. And so I say hey if go from a 21 to a 12 even though I say hey I would be in favor of kicking off the this the overall city plan which is why I voted yes or opposed the denial on three. Right. I'm like, we got to start somewhere. I understand the holistic approach, but when you're building, we're talking houses. I got to build a house. I got to start from a point. Yes.

And to me, I'm like, hey, this is maybe the kickoff point to maybe push this thing down the road that hasn't happened in 5 years. Now, having said this, now we're talking about number four about the reasonzoning, right? I think the zoning from a 21 to a 12 is too dramatic. And that's I say hey if this said 21 to a 15 I think I would be just maybe for future I myself would say yes a 12 to a 21 or 12 from a 21 I personally think that's a little bit too dramatic even though I know you talked about the net usage and what you'd get out of the acre would be more of a third. So I'm like if that's the case why not just go say let's just go to an on 15 instead of a 12.

Wouldn't the wouldn't the 15 impact the PUD if that's what happened? Uh, maybe that's information later on. The the the 15 doesn't exist under our code. So, we have an RN5 which is different and we don't want We'll take that one. No, we won't. We don't because that's mixed use, right? Correct. Yeah. So, we don't want Okay, makes more sense. Thank you. Sorry, I didn't know if you were looking at our code. I don't have it memorized. I was going to look it up. Start picking up this code. It goes from 21 to 12. That's it, right? That's it. There's no

that's what I had in my notes but I could have missed because there was a RM7 that is multi but we don't want that one either because it's okay. So, sorry. May I ask one more question of the city? Why are the dri why such the wide gap there? Has that just not been brought up before? I mean, because that that's a pretty wide gap to go, say, you can either have two two lots per acre or six lots per acre. That's why not that good, better, best if you would. Well, that's why we have PUDS, right? Yeah. Because you have a a mix. You have the negotiation of itself.

There's a reason for it. I mean, and And uh I think I think we've got it right. Okay, I'll just say that. Thank you. Yeah, yep, we can see it. Okay, Cameron first. I think just lastly, so just just approaching this from a business standpoint when I would expect

to sway a community especially that um community communities that have problems with, you know, going from half a reducing increasing density, a developer needs to come in with some candy dangled more than roads, right? So if the city's doing this, what are they? And I mentioned that before and I think that's important because it's the whole community that's got to be on board with something like this. So that's that's all I would say is appreciate. Bring some candy. Okay. I hear you loud and clear. Okay.

Um Okay. So humor me for a second. Right. Because I know what uh that he who is convinced against his will is of the opinion still. Right. So, I know that whatever I present to you and whatever I provide to you, right, unless you truly come to it with an open heart, like it's it's a it's dead in the water. But because I like to have fun and why not, right? I just want to point you to the same information that also Don Essi at the ChemC Gardener Institute provided to me, right? which is and we use this in our in lots of different uh city council meetings and presentations, but this is actually the the median income over the median household um home price um uh over time. So there's a gentleman here back here that said, "Hey, I moved here 40 years ago." 40 years ago, right? It was it was two to one. So when you say when we talk about is now the time right are we moving too fast the answer is you're moving too slow and this is the data that supports that so even just going back you right to to 2010 I bought my first home in 2005 personally right uh incomes versus how high the housing cost was was significantly different from what my kids are dealing with right now. Right? So, I had about a a two and a half to one ratio in my in my generation when I bought my first home, right? But look at what people are dealing with right now. And the and it's interesting that all the comments that were coming up is, hey, look, uh, let's keep it at halfacre lots because we can't make it more affordable, right? Um, but that just means that if you do that, it actually grows this even more exponentially,

which is what's been going on. So now we're looking at almost a six to one in what your income can be versus what the median home price is. We've already done it. like this is our opportunity as as uh as as as decision makers and influencers in our community to make decisions that will impact and try to bring down the cost of housing. So again, I know right your minds are made up but you really should look at the data because the data is already told the story. Um Winston Churchill famously said that Americans will always do the right thing only after they tried everything else. Trust me, we have tried everything else which is to not take the steps to create more housing affordability. That's it's plain and simple. So consider that. And uh that those are my comments. Appreciate it.

Can I ask a question? Yeah. Does Fieldstone offer a budget home? Right. Like so I get what you're saying about the reasoning. Makes sense. And you're you're kind of talking about the affordability issue, but does then Fieldstone offer a a house that's built less expensive. It's not hardy board and fancy finishes to help that affordability.

We can as long as the municipality that we're dealing with will allow us to do it. So, right now, we've done a lot of work behind the scenes. Right. I've actually approached your city council with some of the ideas that we have. We recently passed an ordinance in Harrisville City which created their first housing ordinance called the u the home ownership overlay zone, right? where we help them draft a an ordinance that actually allows us as the developer to grant a guaranteed maximum price in exchange for um for working on what the other categories of setbacks, home size, lot size, all those sorts of things in order to target the right home price. We're all we're all in on it. like um I'm I I participate in the uh the land use task force which creates policy for the state of Utah. I've been on the commission of housing affordability. I have uh participated in the governor's office of uh um uh to create opportunities for for housing. Like we're working on it. We're doing it. And uh and the only way for us to actually make an in an impact is to come to groups who actually control all of the power as it relates to to uh property rights. Like you you have to be very clear about this. Property rights are not in the hands of our of of the land owner. It is in the hands of your city council who determines what their right is to do with their property. It's a really sad thing to be honest. And if you want to talk about the economics of the city and the opportunity, right, if you may, this is my soapbox, right? um when it comes to how you how you plan for the future, right? the cost of the cost of housing and also the cost of your infrastructure. the the the more

dense you are, if you bring your core of your city into closer and you create your open space around the outside of it, when you create more infra more more housing around your core infrastructure, you actually have your your price per acre and taxable value goes up, but you use the same amount of infrastructure, which means that you drive your cost of replacement down. These are these are facts in how planning is done. But often we ignore that because we have a conversations about density and lot size not over the economics of what is best for the city or even the infrastructure. So we will plan roads around this particular property and it will have 100 foot ride ofways right which will allow much more traffic than than um than what your density will allow. But yet we'll build the infrastructure for that and you will replace it someday at a higher cost per household. Those are the facts. Those are what I would ask you to consider when you're making zoning decisions. It isn't just about density. It is much more than that. And at the end of the day, it is about home ownership. We are not doing ourselves a justice in Utah right now where we have grown up. I'm I'm 50 years old. I grew up with the opportunity to own a home. I bought my first home when I had a part-time job while I was in college. Tell me what what college kid could do that right now. None is the answer.

Was it a Fieldstone home? I wish it was. I wish it was. Nice.

So, again, I these are very important conversations. I don't take this lightly. Um, and and and I know that you're not either, right? I really do appreciate the conversation, but the data is well beyond kicking the can down the road and waiting for another general plan amendment. We can't wait. Now is the time. And the reality is you can make that decision. You can give a positive recommendation. And your council, who is already, I think, great. They're they're the most accessible council I've ever dealt with in terms of just being able to go and have a conversation. That is such an appreciative thing. We build your roads, right? You guys make decisions for your community and and combined that's how we create housing. It it it's it's a it's a relationship that has to work.

And when it's out of whack, my my graph's gone, but that's that's what out of whack looks like. And I can appreciate that. I worked with the Oolen Walker Housing Fund for a long time. John has done development on affordable housing probably his whole career or most of it. Right. I've done more than anybody in the state, I'm sure.

And I wish those people who were out on social media could take a moment to educate themselves on how challenging it is. I mean, on one side, they want to be able to afford housing because housing and food, food, shelter, and medical care is all I hear about on social media and how it needs to be affordable or free. And and and the downside is is that it doesn't come free. But on the other side, they want to maintain their open spaces and their their huge lots and their huge homes that nobody can afford. And I think, you know, we had public comment. I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't say this, but Casey came up and talked about how uh a house payment includes interest and principal and your tax your taxes and there was concern about smaller houses carrying the tax burden of the whole whole community. And that's exactly what you spoke to. um and and they don't even consider what it takes for a developer to get past the finish line and how hard it is to provide affordable housing. We all have concerns about water and we all have concerns about traffic and we all have concerns that our kids won't be able to afford to buy a home. Um I have those same concerns. Uh but honestly there has to be some give and take from bodies like this that will allow some sort of housing cost to come closer to affordable which we don't because we do listen to our constituents and we live in these communities that don't want highdensity housing. For some reason we hit a threshold of frustration when we hear highdensity housing and nobody wants it. But honestly, when

housing is a right and shelter is a human um need and a and and people assume that it's an entitlement, but we aren't. We are we're blocking the opportunity to provide housing because everybody thinks that the developers are giving backdoor deals and accusing people of who are trying to make decisions for long-term impact to support our communities and insinuating that there's some nefarious purpose to our conversations and our process. when in actuality uh it's a burden that we carry so other people can have the luxury of of almost you know thinking that that it's it's a mandate that we that we are even having these discussions. It is because our property owners have a right also to do with their property what is allowable and what is reasonable and we have to be involved in reasonable conversations. So unless there is a documented drawback to the health, safety and welfare for our community, we have to consider proposals. we have to do it. And we talk about how unaffordable a $700,000 house is, but then you want to keep the zoning at half acre when it's a $800 or $900,000 house that is going to be built on that. And it's counterintuitive. That whole this whole discussion is counterintuitive. So, um, thank you for explaining really what real world development looks like when we're trying to build housing and all of the

challenges that are set before you and us in these in these discussions and try to bring some sort of uh logic and and reasonable discussion to um maybe a community who isn't willing to learn and engage engage in the in the process and learn about all the ins and outs of housing and development. I I would love to have a conversation about, you know, true affordability and bringing that to Grantsville, but uh we get roadblocked by our community members and it's it's really a very sad thing. We have processes in place to talk about what it takes to provide the infrastructure. We have long-term plans for in infrastructure. the environmental impact was the wetlands that we cannot build on. So we have to move this direction. We have to move towards the south in order to build housing. And so um it's not setting a precedent. I feel like each of the I've always said for a year now I want to take the discussions and the decisions that we make and create a spreadsheet to make sure that we are applying that logic equally and fairly for everything that comes before us. But I haven't been able to do that because every instance, every discussion, every unique opportunity to discuss a development and consider it has its own qualities. And so setting a precedent is not even part of the part of the formula. It's not even a factor because um because the uniqueness of every opportunity that comes before us. I haven't been able to do that. I haven't been able to set a threshold and say this is where we were at and so we need to apply it in the future. It's totally impossible. Okay. So um it's not double density. it is it is a net value of 30 or 40 housing um units that um uh I

think is compatible with our neighborhood character with the goals that this community has. So um we we can talk about the arbitrary pieces of it if a development plan actually came before us but right now it's just about zoning is just looking at the zoning and changing the zoning from half acre to quarter acre. That's that's all this discussion is and it is not arbitrary. It is a reasonable and logic discussion that is considering what the future land use is of this piece of property right here between um pair and and Hollywood next to quirk. That's it.

But the implication is that it has to be this zoning in now. And I don't believe it's correct. I think that we um and that's fair. we have an opportunity to evaluate this in the timing that is right for the city. I don't disagree with the numbers that have been put forward. I I understand what's being said there. It's just do it in the right way. We're not saying no forever. We're saying let's let this thing be done the right way. So that's how I feel. Okay. Any further discussion? We good? Yep.

Okay. Okay. I still um value the presentation and the proposal and the discussion and the public comment and I think it's great and I think it's awesome and I love you all. We will entertain a motion. I move to recommend denial of to the city council for the proposed reason of the Wellstone subdivision located on near Pear Street and Court Street. Second. Okay, we'll take a roll call vote. Cameron Cameron Molton. I agree with the denial.

Joe Montgomery. Same. Okay. Oh, Jason said what I did. Sorry. I oppose the denial. Jerry Merrell, I oppose the denial. Jason, I um uphold the denial.

Sarah Moore, I oppose the denial. So, uh the recommendation of the city council is a denial for the reszone based on the quorum voting. And uh we will close that item. Thank you all. That was just so good and such a great learning experience. I just love it. I could be here for another three hours. Who's on board? Can we take a five minute break? Yes, we can break. Yes, let's take a five minute break. That's a great idea. I'm just so reinvigorated. That far lives for it.

Stuff keeps me up at night. I'm sure I'm going to get there.

It's like a microphone outlet or something, isn't it?

just say no not that say you have to do okay okay so we will call this meeting back to order after our five and seven minute break combine and we will move on to agenda item Five, the presentation, public hearing, discussion and consideration, the propos proposed amendments to the parks and transportation capital facilities plan, the impact fees facilities plan, and the impact fee analysis for Grantsville City. Um, so if uh we can move on to uh the staff presentation. Yep.

Um that would be great. Bill's going to join you if we'll start. Will you start uh state your name? Yeah, my name is Robert. with enzyme engineering land surveying. One thing I do want to correct is it's for drinking water, public safety, parks, wastewater, water rights acquisition, and storm drainage. Transportation is excluded because we're waiting on the transportation master plan to be finished before we amend that one. Right. Okay. Thank you. So, I don't know what officially you need to do to correct that, but yeah, just wanted to point that out. I think we just need to state it in the public record. Okay. Let me make sure I'm reading the right thing. Hold on. Shelby, are you still there?

Oh, took a 10 on the agenda listed on the agenda. So, it is okay. Okay, hold on. I've lost my place. Okay. Um, sorry. I just wanted to make sure Shelby was here. If she is available, I just wanted to make sure. But please.

Okay. Yeah, I'll continue. Yeah. And so we amend these annually. You know, we we did amend them last May, all of them. We did amend parks and transportation in January 2026. Parks was just kind of cleaning up some projects, some costs. Uh transportation was just how we were charging impact fees. You were basically for commercial basing it based on trips based on a traffic study. Uh so that was the cleanup that was done in January. uh impact fees. They help fund expansion of public facilities. I'll kind of go through each one of these items. You know, plans are amended yearly. Like I mentioned, we meet with city staff in December and then a few times like once we get we meet in December to go over projects and then we update and get feedback from city staff before we come and present to planning commission, city council as as a work session and get your feedback and then incorporate that before we take it to city council for approval. Impact fees do take 90 days before they are approved by city council before it goes into effect. And we do have, as I mentioned during the work session, we do have a bunch of developer projects that we know are developer driven. There's, you know, wells, tanks, you know, other items like that that are 100% developer and we show them just to show them and have them on the plan so we're planning for them and we can incorporate their capacities and improvements into the the plan, but we purposefully keep those out because just to keep impact fees, you know, lower and more competitive.

Okay. uh demographics. I'll show you that in the upcoming slides. We did adjust it based on the adjustment we made to the sewer rate study. We brought them down to be a little bit more conservative. We looked back like the last five to six years. The growth rate just hadn't been quite as much on on average over like the last 26 years. It's like four and a half to 5%. There was spikes during COVID years of 10%. Uh but yeah, so we lowered it down. What that does is if we did in 2022 when we first amended them after I think it was 2016 previously but 2022 was you know after the co years and and we increased and we thought a lot a lot of projects and developments going to come in and then it didn't quite happen. So we're going more on a historical average and we also look at you know census data and kindergarter institute those those other data points and do that annually so we can react accordingly and we determine capital improvement projects based on those demographics and then the level of service for each item. And then there's also in the impact fees, you know, non- capital improvement project costs such as interest expense, existing capital assets, professional expenses, and future debt service. So this is what the population growth looks like in the next 10 years, growing about 6,000 people to, you know, 23,192. We look at the 10-year window because impact fees per project, you're supposed to use them within a six-year period. If it is like a longerterm project, like for example, the wastewater treatment plant that's now being built, you can extend that if if you got a good reason and you're planning to to fund it.

uh connections what we when we look at you know our service connections and ERC's we are equating it all based on actual water usage in Grantsville so that ERC per unit that's based so an ERC is an equivalent residential connection the single family is one and then all the other ones are adjusted based on what the water usage is per like for trailer per example it's a little bit more than actual single family unit uh and As we talked during the sewer rate study, that's that's due to just having to oh having to uh run the water during the winter. Oh, really interesting.

Yeah, we do look at it's it's very high level. I would say this is not as detailed as like a general plan or or any type of master plan. It's it's a little bit more high level kind of the 30,000 foot or 30,000 foot view. We do look at different planning areas and and then associate kind of where most of the growth's going to occur and and proportion it accordingly. Uh this this table shows you in that 10-year planning period just the growth in units and ERC's. One thing that we did update this year was we we lower previously we had the same growth rate for residential and commercial which as we look back at the last six years with building permits and sewer connections, water connections just wasn't realistic and it's it's more like a quarter of what residential growth is. So we've made that update.

Can you go back a slide from that? Uh, so the or so the flux north so what are the uh uh I'm just trying to see the growth. Oh, those are just the areas. Those aren't those are just the areas. Okay. All right. I thought you were Oh, I may not have that in here. It's in the bit. It's in the ride up, but we'll Okay. Most of the growth we're anticipating is going to be kind of in the southwest flux area. Yeah. Because that's where the city seen a lot of applications occur. Yeah,

makes sense. So drinking water this is what's the level of service is based for indoor based on actual usage for the city and as I mentioned during the work session the outdoor we've kept it as the space number just because there is some concern and this was when we well I guess today or this year is going to be another year where there's going to be a lack of irrigation water but yeah we we keep it a little bit a little bit artificial officially high just to account for, you know, that August, maybe end of August, September where Granville irrigation company runs out of water and people are using the city water for irrigation

or we have a water main break that floods it. Have you ever had to go back and improve wells because of drought conditions or or once you've done a well, it's done kind of thing? No, you do go back and you and you rehabilitate them. you do like if if their yields gone down, you will go in and at least brush and bail them. Potentially, you'll use chemicals to to treat them and then brush and bail them and and brushing just as as it sounds. You brush the screens, clean them, and then as the material falls down, then you just bail out the material in the bottom. So, that's all considered in this. Yeah, this is this is just new projects, right? And and more growth related. Okay. The cap facilities plan does have some projects that are replacement like replacement water lines, sewer lines, that type of thing. That's not impact fee eligible.

Okay. But it it considers more project like that. Maintenance would be more your sewer rates, your water rates. So rehab isn't So rehab would be part of that. Well, I guess I shouldn't say that because if you are if if we're in here and we are because of new growth, you're doing that. Yeah. If we are rehabbing it and you get additional capacity out of that well that you didn't have, then that could be impact eligible. Okay. But it it may not be right. All right. Robert, would you mind going back to that slide? I'm sorry. I was just I was trying to look at your pressure zones here. Yeah. And you've got a gray area right here in the middle of the city. Are you talking about this this blue or Oh, is that blue?

Yeah. Oh, it looks gray, but I guess it would be encompassed in the blue. Oh, yeah. It does look kind of gray. Yeah. Sorry. It's just my It's just my monitor. Okay. I just couldn't see a what it is. It's the underlying field is a different color than Yeah. And so it showing up. You're so smart. Exactly. You're amazing. It's just weird. It's not you, it's the earth. Thank you, Robin. So, yeah, for drinking water, a lot of the levels of service and standards are set from the state. You can see there like the pressure requirements and that type of thing.

Okay. And that's what kind of sets where your pressure zones and everything are. This is a list of all the capital improvement projects. There was some comment from the public just on, you know, storage tanks, wells, that type of thing. So, the Bates well, that one is Ivory Homes is constructing that one. They will be developing it next week. So, start developing the well next week. That one they they think they'll at least get a thousand gallons per minute, potentially, you know, up to 2,000. You never know on wells until you actually test pump them. What's the current well they're doing right now? Or which one? The up there in that in Northstar RV area. There's Yeah, that's the Bateswell.

Bateswell. Yes. And then the other one that's above Northstar is the the tank. That one's been sitting up there for a while because we're waiting for the NY green water line, which Ivory's constructing that. The city constructed the tank. We're waiting for that water line to get to the tank so it can actually be filled across the road. Yeah, because you got to do the lake the leak test before you back fill. And that one should be see green there there should be passed off the end of this week and then uh it'll be about a month and a half, two months for them to back fill and get everything finished up on the tank. So it'll be about middle of June. How big is that tank? It's a 2 million gallon.

Okay. And that one, it was previously you you'll see on that one, that one's kind of right here. That one was previously impact eligible, but now that the city's at a a deficit, right, it's not impact eligible anymore. Interesting. Interesting. And so, yeah, and we've got, you know, the next 10 years, we've got other, you know, water lines, you know, uh, a lot of them are to help with looping throughout the system, so you you can maintain better pressure. And then there's also, you know, wells and and tanks planned as well, additional ones. Great.

This map, it's kind of hard to see. I can kind of zoom in, but yeah, this shows you on the water system kind of all the improvements that are in the brighter colors with the the numbers on them that are planned. Um, but a lot of these are due to growth. But then you'll see like kind of throughout the main part of the city, a lot of these are replacement of just lines that are either 4 inch or 6 inch. Some some may even be 2 in that you that are replaced with an 8 in line because that's the minimum standard. So drinking water, the overall the impact fee went up slightly. it went to up 400 for a 3/4 inch meter which is essentially your single family home. That was mostly due to just the we had reduced the population projection a little bit. So there's just less you know ERC's in that 10-year planning period for the impact fee.

Okay.

Public safety. So level of service. A lot of this was based on, you know, police department, fire department input and looking at, you know, the the kind of national averages and that type of thing. Um, so yeah, that's we haven't really changed this in gosh, two or I think it's been about two or three years. We've kind of kept this the same. public safety. The the big change from last year to this year, which you'll see a reduced impact fee for that, is we're still showing it kind of in the tables, a future satellite, fire station, and ladder truck, but we've we've removed it from the impact fee eligible costs. Now, if we get, you know, a bunch of development, you know, either on the west, south, or east side, we can always add it back in and then start collecting impact fees for it.

It's just going to be tied to growth is what you're is right. Yeah. Do you remember what the proposed uh projected cost for the fire station truck was? I have to Yeah, I'll have to look. I I think it was like three and a half. Don't quote me on this, but maybe just for the truck. Three. Well, the trucks So, for impact fees, the like a ladder truck, I think I believe it's like a million dollars. They're pretty expensive. Yeah. More than that now. I think they're probably closer to three. Yeah. And then Yeah. the fire stations, you know, three to four million. Yeah, they're expensive, too.

Yes. Very expensive. We spent $600,000 on one and got a shell in Duchain City. Yeah. Yeah. Got a shell of a building. Nothing in it. Yeah. And with impact fees, I would mention, and I think we've got it covered in there, but yeah. Like emergency vehicles or anything like that, you it's got to be 500,000 or more to be impact eligible. Okay, that's why they're so expensive probably. Well, there's I I think they're if I remember right, I think they're built by probably just one company or maybe there's a handful of companies and I know one of them's like around the Chicago area, but

yeah, that doesn't surprise me. I do paratransit and we only have one provider, one builder for paratransit vans to service the whole nation. It's quite a racket, I think.

So, I'll zoom in here. We're just showing and these are approximate, you know, they're subject to to movement and we're showing where potentially future satellite fire stations could could go uh you know, outside the 10-year planning period kind of spread out throughout the city. And then, uh, you know, potential potentially an animal control shelter. That was another thing we adjusted to. We anticipate the animal control shelter like like 50% of it would be funded. We didn't specify what agency but you know it be kind of a joint venture and I would I would mention city hall we show in the cap facilities plan but that's not it it just can't be impact eligible. Okay.

Okay. And because of some of those changes you know the impact fees have gone down. You'll see previously for single family and multif family, we were charging per dwelling unit. That hasn't changed, you know, for the proposed and but for non-residential, you know, we're we're not going per thousand square foot building area. It's more based on non-residential unit. And I did add this, it's it's in the report, but I did add this calls per unit table into the PowerPoint just so you know where that data came from. So the police department, they they put together that data and for 2025 and sent it to us and and so we're basing it based on how many calls per unit for single family, multif family, non-residential. That's why that factors kind of shows up how it is more calls than I would have expected. Yeah. Sorry. Yeah. So these are they're curated dispatch calls. Yep.

Wow. Thank you.

So parks level service there. We haven't changed that in a while. That's uh you know four acres per thousand population. Uh capital improvements. Not really too many changes here. Some of the improvements did get moved off the list. There was some improvements to Eastmore. We did update Scenic Slopes Park. You know the utilities pump track site improvements. That's the actual, you know, current cost. You know, the the big cost of it. And then we we did we did update some of the park improvements just the construction years just to keep the impact fee balance. You can go negative for one year but you don't usually don't try to do more than one year in in the negative. Yeah. So this just shows this figure shows where all the various parks are are located throughout the city. impact fees because of just some movement of those those uh projects and a couple of the smaller ones just being constructed or improvements being constructed. It did go down slightly. And yeah, I've got a note here. Yeah, just developer constructed parks are shown as not impact eligible. And I do want to point out that yeah, some of those like like if a developer is constructing a park for example

and it meets their need then they may not be charged an impact fee.

Okay. Wastewater the level service is based on actual flow into the treatment plant. They get daily meter reads going into the plant. So this is this is pretty much the the flow into the plant, the average day flow. And then capital improvement projects and impact fee list is we've got uh there's a few that are developer constructed. The westbank intersector segment one and two are just the upsize costs uh because and that's driven by the desireette development. it it needs at least a 24 inch uh the for long-term growth in the area a 36 inch will be constructed and then the big one on there is the proposed you know wastewater treatment facility which they had the pre-construction conference last Thursday and we'll start moving on that project.

Great. And you can see on this one, most of the most of the new projects are to get to kind of these larger developments that are on the outskirts of town. The city in 2018 and 2019 did a lot of improvements in on the on kind of these corridors throughout town to improve and get a little bit more life out of the existing system. And that that gets calculated into the impact fees through buying costs. So sewer did go up slightly, not a little bit more than a hundred bucks. There were some projects for for sewer for wastewater that we looked at a little bit more detail and were able to move outside the 10-year planning period. And a lot of that was just to because because impact fees and and rates go kind of hand in hand. You have the same projects for both, right? And you got to pay for them. So yeah, we we did that just to try to keep tutor rates lower and it and it does, you know, it does also impact the impact fees.

Okay. Water rights acquisition. This one's pretty straightforward. It's it's based on, you know, the same the indoor use that's based on actual meter data. Outdoors based on state data or state requirements. The only change in this one you'll see here is the uh water right quantity for multi-unit. What what really changed that was we just looked at it and and also looked at town homes as well and adjusted it accordingly and so it went up a little bit just based on that water right quantity. And the big driving force with water rights acquisition is that if you can find water rights, right? Like the the 29,000 that's 29,000 per acre foot. The the cost of water rights

storm drainage what I've shown here is real quick. Is that that price is that based on previous sales here in Grantsville or where where are you getting that data from? Yeah, it is based on previous sales. I would say county or city or where did you get it from? I like there's like the there's various exchange exchanges of water rights and you know you can even search them on KSL and that type of thing. That's why I was saying if you can find them, you know, like that 29,000 if somebody said, "Hey, I've got 100 acres at 35,000 or 40,000." Somebody might just jump on that and say, "Oh, wow. There's that many available, you know?" So, it's it's I mean, I'm just curious where like how granular is that number?

I think it's low. Yeah, it might it might be low now. I've talked to other development builders, right? Twilla City saying it's lower. I'm just curious if Grantsville if this is based on some Grantsville data or if you're just saying you pulled it off from some county website or county number or Yeah, it was based on market data, but yeah, it's just hard to find water rights. Okay. So, yeah, I mean, we can make that adjustment and increase that. The village I'm dealing with right now, it's cost them more to get a water right than a building permit. Yeah, the rate's very fluid. It is very fluid. Well played. It's late for that. Well played. Okay. Sorry, I can keep going. So yeah, we we can adjust that and it'll it'll bump those up. Yeah,

I'll make a note of that. Need to work that phrase into your report somehow, too.

So storm drainage uh there there isn't I mean there's the West Bank study and we've got those costs shown in there on the preferred alternative for that. Uh there's a few improvements, you know, the city has done like on Clark Street, there was a storm drain line put in there and a few costs there, but there there is no I guess I'll mention this. I'm showing kind of the design requirements which is essentially the city's level of service. Uh and this shows just kind of the existing storm drainage like tributary areas. um this was the Clark Street storm drain project which is now constructed and then you know it's kind of turned sideways but all the improvements that were proposed in the West Bank study which and in the write up there's I can't remember how many hundreds of millions of dollars they had in there but it's it's a lot but impact fees are not charged for storm drainage because the city as a whole the developers come in and they build you know their retention basins any improvements to channels that type of uh doesn't mean in the future you couldn't, but it would mean that the city would be paying, you know, collecting impact fees and paying for more regional improvements such as a regional retention or detention basin and then, you know, larger, you know, canals or or pipes.

Too bad we don't have that problem. That's all based on the fact that the the developer is going to maintain. This is my questionires. Yeah, they may be allowed if there's a if there's a path for them to discharge, they they can discharge if they're not impacting downstream properties. Okay. Oh, Eagle Mountain's out of control. Draper.

Yeah. So, this and and we we do this as best as we can when we look at at their impact impact fees because a lot of times it'll it'll say per ERU, but then they don't really give a a like like on their website or wherever they list their impact fees. They don't give a list of like how they actually charge them to like a 5,000 foot retail building or a industrial building. So, we have to we have to kind of take Grantsville's level service and and and get it as close as we think it would be. So, so yeah, this kind of these these kind of show you impact fee comparisons with like a 5,000 square foot retail, like a million square foot industrial building,

you town homes, single family, and uh apartments. We get challenged very often. I don't know. Yes. I guess city attorney. I was watching. He's watching mammoth challenge impact fees is that they are very very heavily regulated by state code a lot of we have to have this kind of study done if we're going to charge anybody anything.

So we've got all the documentation all the backup all the study all the legal recourse that we could possibly muster so that if there is a challenge we're pull this out of our back pocket and say choke on this. So we do try in the past. Yeah. And we do try to and that's why we do try to use a lot of local data because then it's easier to back up instead of saying oh well this is a national average and yeah we have to we have to it has to be project driven. It has to be specific to our city right. It has to use real numbers. You can adjust for inflation but even that number has to kind of follow a a historic thing not just pull it out of your ear.

Yeah I think we're using three and a half%. We were using 3% but it's but to your point it'd be nice to use a higher inflation number because that's realistic but then we've got to use like kind of an average. Do we have many waivers in our city? Do we? We don't typically offer waivers. Uh I work for the city of Riverdale and uh they don't have impact fees at all. They just it's open door policy. Come on in and we'll take care of everything. But you know what goes on in Riverdale, right? They've got 8,000 residents and about 20,000 hourly shoppers. Retail. Yeah. Yeah. So, um they don't care.

They don't It's not something they're worried about. And it's one of the things that they use to incentivize businesses to come is they just say we don't have any impact fees. But who wants to live in Riverdale, right? There are some very nice areas of Riverdale. And uh that's all I'm going to say. Um found two maybe. Yeah. The hard thing is getting back out onto the road and anywhere else outside of Riverdale. You get to Riverdale, but then you got to get Yeah. Um, so yeah, we're uh the idea is not to be an outlier in any of this, at least not too much. So So we don't wave much.

Yeah. We don't we don't pull out any excess attention and um then we can give waivers if if it's warranted. I like how you've indicated on the disclaimer that the the areas that are similar to population of Grantsville and also the proposed Grantsville versus the existing Grantsville. Oh, yeah. I think you had that that's very intuitive question. Yeah, I can't remember where it was. Last year. Yeah, I think you did last year. Yeah, exactly. Thank you.

Yeah, and it is I mentioned this maybe after the meeting last week, but it is tough to compare them because Yeah. All and to Bill's point, all cities are different. You may have Riverdale that's 8,000, but it's got so much commercial, right, that they don't need to charge it back fees. Oh, it is hard to compare them. Okay. Yeah. Any questions? That was riveting. Is the rodeo is a rodeo eligible for impact? No. Dang, we maybe had it covered there. Entrance fees. Okay.

Eligible for entrance fees. Popcorn. You have to make it all in. That's great, Albert. Thank you.

Okay. Um, so we'll bring this back to the commission for discussion and consideration. Not any cons. I don't know what I questions or don't think I could contribute anything until a future. I have no comments. Very well put together a presentation. Thank you. Good job. Just so I understand why did we see that last week and again this week? So last week was an introductory first go and then this time it's for action. Okay. I wanted to make sure you understood it.

I understood everything. Yeah. We weren't in an official meeting last. That's fine. I was just curious. Want to make it fluid with you. Very fluid. Okay. Okay. So, we will entertain a motion. Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead. We need to have a public hearing on that. Oh. Oh, but everybody left. Do we have to do it again? There could be someone online.

Red's gonna act as a citizen. Thank you. Thank you. I forgot. Um if there's anybody online that would like to enter public comment into the record regarding the consideration of the proposed amendments to not parks and transportation, but the capital facilities plans, the impact fees, the facilities, the impact fee facility plans and the impact fee analysis for Grantsville City. Please raise your hand. Okay, thank you. I forgot to make that clarification too because transportation is something else as Robert noted when he approached the podium and we didn't realize we were not recording. So, so then we will uh since there is no public comment indicated that anybody wants to enter, we will consider a motion. I move to recommend approval to the city council for the proposed amendments to the parks and transportation capitals facilities plan impact fee facilities plan and impact fee analysis as presented.

We're not doing the transportation part though, right? Oh yes, sorry. Um sorry without the trans. Let me reread this. I move to recommend the approval of city council to propose amendments to the How about this? The uh amendments of the parks and trans. What? This is take out the transportation. Parks, capital, facilities plan, impact fees, facilities plan, and impact fees analysis as presented. Well, it's more than parks. It'll be basically everything except for everything on here except for transportation.

Okay. Golly, let me start this third time. Well, I move to recommend approval to the city council for the proposed amendments to the park capital facilities plans, impact facilities plans, and impact fee analysis as presented. Did I get that one right? I'll second. He doesn't like it. Well, so it's just the capital facilities plan. Just say amendments to the capital. Way to go. Tyson, where were you on number two? Come on, man. We can make it till 11:15. That'll be the latest I've ever been here. Move that part. That's what he just did. That's what I just did.

No, because Yeah, it's got drink water safety. Yeah, everything in between amendments and capital transport should be removed. I'm not going for it. I got it. I got it. I'm going to do it. Can I do it? Go for it, C. I move to recommend approval to city council for the proposed amendments to the capital facility plans, impact fee facility plans, and impact fee analysis for Grantsville City. I got a nod. Second motion. John seconded. Okay. Any further discussion? Thank you, Gary and Cameron. All in favor? I.

Amen. Okay, we will close that agenda item five and move on to agenda item six of presentation. Oh, um the discussion for the approval of the minutes from the March 24th, 2026 commission training meeting. There any discussion that the commissioners would like to enter into the public comment? Nothing here. No. Okay. And then we're going to just note one change to what was posted because page

page 342 to 346 are not valid to these minutes. 342 to 346 are not valid to the minutes that we are reviewing and approving or reviewing and considering approving. Um just as a technical oversight. Um so I I think I got this one. I'm gonna try this one. You're gonna laugh at me, but I'm gonna try this one anyways. I move to approve the amendments from the March 2020 March 24th, 2026 planning commission with the redaction of pages 342 to 346. Perfect.

In the packet. I second that. All in favor? I I. Great. Thank you. Perfect, Gary. Okay, then we will um Sorry, let me get the right agenda here. Uh let's see. We will close that item and we will move on to the report from city council from city staff. City staff. City. Oh, sorry. City staff.

I'm missing a page. So, my last page was that page. We did get the dates for the um next planning conference. It's in September in uh Davis County. Can't remember where exactly more to come, more details to come, but there it's the 9th and 10th. September 9th and 10th, which should be a Thursday and Friday. September. Please try to make it. Yeah, that's right. That's a Wednesday. Sorry that you didn't make it to the last. I meant I meant um 10th and 11th then Sunday. Yeah, it's a Thursday and Friday. Oh, and it's at the Davis Conference Center.

Yeah, I think so. Over by the Leighton Hills Mall. Yeah, that place. Did you get an email, too? Yes, they used to have a Roosters there, but I don't think Roosters is there anymore. Rooers is kind of the only reason to go up north, right? Yeah. I'm not even joking. My husband and I went on our first date there. Did you go on the one on 25th? The one on 25th. So good. Yes. A great place. I've never been. That's a barbecue place. Well, if I did, it's a it's a brew pub. Yeah. Yeah.

It's got salad and sandwiches. I ordered steak. My husband ordered salad on our first date. I didn't know if I could ever see him again after that. It was very embarrassing. But okay, roosters, if you guys go, I'll buy you I'll buy you dinner. So, and then submit reimbursement. So, start thinking about that now. Um, we do have some other fun things coming up. Um, can't go long into details, but uh stay tuned and eat your vitamins and lots of good stuff coming up. Make sure you sign up for the next rodeo grounds cleanup because I didn't see anybody there. I bought tickets if that counts. Did you?

I bought tickets for my family. Waiting for my kids to tell me how many tickets I need to buy. I am. Are they almost sold out? Oh my. I mean, goodness. I don't know if we're almost sold out, but Good. A lot of people are interested. Let's move to Del Peak. Bigger facility, bigger. Just have to buy a bunch of tickets and then give them away, I guess. Scalp them. Okay. At the door. You can for anybody online that is listening. They you can purchase them through the Grantsville City website. They're $10 a piece. 15. It's the best deal really. It is a great deal.

Family 60. It's 50 bucks. So you get a deal when you buy more. There's a family pack. So Oh, I didn't look at it long enough. Maybe that's what I was looking at. Okay. Anything else? City staff Shelby, are you still there? She signed off a while ago for keeping us straight and we appreciate all you do. Yes. Appreciate your sharing of knowledge and definitely guiding us. So since we don't know what we're doing that well appreciate

it's not true. You guys are doing great. And um the the hard thing is that you have to balance your own heart and mind against the developers needs and concerns against the residents and their concerns. And you represent 15,000 other people who didn't show up tonight. What are they thinking? Well, according to Facebook, we know what they're Facebook. If you had if you had a hundred people speaking out on Facebook about something, that would be a huge response, but that's still 14,900 people that you don't know what they're thinking and feeling.

Well, it feels like they're treated like horseshit. Is that what she said? Yes, that's exactly what she said. I tried to ignore that. She really did. She was at four minutes by my clock. Why is there not a clock in here? Isn't that a problem with city council, too? Why do we not have a digital clock that counts down? We actually do on our on the I know but for like the speaker to see like Oh, is it on there? We can start it. Okay. I just think that'd be useful. We can maybe makes her job less uncomfortable if she just Oh, I beeps or something.

Tyson wasn't here, so I made sure that I would be well within my rights to have Officer Morris re remove anybody who uh got boisterous to gotten that bad before? Really? Yes. Oh, boy. Becoming a nuisance. So, oh, what were you talking? We have a planning commission member that wouldn't stop talking. I'm just kidding. She's sitting right here. It wasn't you. I was sorry. Okay, Jason. That's okay. I know I went off, but I've been incredibly stressed about that conversation and I'm just trying to encourage people to put aside their personal feelings and think about what is best for the city. Won't somebody please think of the children?

Nobody listens to me. We all listen to you, Mrs. Love Joy. That's right. Okay, we will close the report from the city staff and move on to agenda item number eight, the form open form for planning commissioners. I think we already did that. Thanks you guys for the feedback. I won't get on my soft box anymore. That was comment was not directed at you. It's okay. I can take it. Constructive criticism is the best way to identify needs for improvement. Go for it. How do you think are we open? It's like I just

I just just from my understanding so three of us are pretty new. How how do we end up with three? Is that like the normal I I guess what I'm getting at is it seems like as I'm as I'm driving home or to work after meetings, I'm thinking, "Oh man, if I had done this before, I would have better questions." Right? So, as we do this more often, we're going to have more experience know what to ask. But it seems like with a large percentage being brand new, it is not. You guys are awesome at asking questions. I think desperation was is maybe the word. So were they were they were terms up? How did three seats become vacant so quickly? Great question. People just stopped coming. Yeah. Well, or people decided that they

or they resigned. What's our Is there a term? What's our commission? It's three years, isn't it? Four. Four years. Except for mine that was three. Mine's up next year. Yes. Some of you may have taken some spots. I think Jason city council unless you get really no four years as your four years. Just depends on the cycle, right? Okay. Depends on. So there was just some churn that turned three seats quickly. Was it? Okay. It could end at different times. Shelby would be the best person to ask that question. That's not important. I was just curious. You're here for

I'm not worried about I think this is this is a blast. So I just I just curious how three seats it just seems we had a couple commission members that chose to step down due to other commitments. So because they don't they're not appointed and all of that. So and Derek he went to city council. That's true. He has so we had two. So it's really just two then. Okay. chose to step down for other committees and that's resulted in three open seats. And we're so glad you're here. Yeah. Wouldn't be the same without you. It was good times. Good question though. Be really really good at this in three years and nine months.

Oh my gosh, you guys are spectacular. So thoughtful and open and and I'll I'll read City Code on R15 on their next page. Yeah, not accusatory. It's going to be the planning commission doesn't even know the zoning now because of you, Gary. Yeah, I looked at the landlord like, well, yep, I look like a fool. That's right. No, no. Okay. Uh, we'll close that and then we will request a report from the city council for agenda item nine.

All right. Um, well, thank you all for your service. I appreciate these uh these evenings and and your your dedication to representing the the people of Grantsville and our citizens and also the city. Um there's one thing that happened in our last city council meeting that I just wanted to bring up um to you and and you you'll see it eventually. Um we had a presentation of a concept plan for Sunage Terrace subdivision that was presented to us. Um there's a lot of history behind that particular subdivision and um there there's been multiple plans that have been brought before and even at public outreach and I mean you can go back and and and look and and see a little bit more of the history behind that. But um ultimately um that the direction was given to them to come back with halfacre lawns similar to what we we you know we we experienced just today and um they came back to us and they they have things formulated. Um there are a I'd say a handful but there's actually quite a few lots that are under a half acre but they're so close within a thousand feet. So in our discussion with him, we um we told him as a city council that we were okay with what he had proposed because they were so close to halfacre, but with the rideways and everything we're asking to do um including the the 108 ft requirement for Green, which seems kind of weird that that's on the west side of town and we just talked about night green on, you know, the center of town, but um you guys were here for the transportation discussion and saw how that loops all the way and how that kind of gives us some cohesive connectivity throughout the city. So, please um just just understand the history behind that. Maybe do a little bit of research behind how much

community outreach there was with that and and take that into consideration when he comes before you. Um but he did present it to the city council. We told them that we were okay. 44 lots that were just within a thousand square feet under um but um under the circumstances know there there are times when you know we can allow that. So question for you Red on that. Are those halfacre lots? What are they are they how are they being supported with water? Is it just culinary or are they going to have irrigation with those will be just I mean I guess that's for him to to decide. I don't know how he was proposing that he was bringing us forth with a concept plan.

So those type of details happen later on down the road provide water either way. sell them. We're out of secondary, right? There's no more secondary unless we build another reservoir. There's no more shares. We can buy a sh They won't split more shares. Yeah, there's secondary water. Yeah, they can for $29,000 a share. No, that's that's different. Oh, there's there's a distinction between secondary water and an underground uh acre feet of water. Big difference. The secondary water comes from the mountains, right? Goes to the reservoir.

They're selling the wet stuff. No, no. The the paper water that you buy, the the access to the underground stuff, that's the expensive stuff. Yeah. Yeah. But they're just selling you the water, not the right. So Oh, anyways. Yeah, there's there's

so I would just um encourage you to to when that does come up come before you, that would be Sun Sage Terrace subdivisions phases four through six. Please um do your due diligence in those regards and look back at the history. Maybe ask um Shelby some questions via email or give her a call. She can give you kind of the backstory and history behind all that and how many iterations of this that this body has tackled and then gone to city council and back and forth and direction given those letters. Here we are. So how does that technically get approved then? be non-compliance with the zone. Is it just a conditional use that you guys

um I it will be I'll I'll defer to you on the the legal aspect of that, but it's it's a variance. I I would so variance, but you have you have to show a hardship per variance. I'm I'm just trying to to know how so we're prepared to so the the hardship for us in our discussion and the direction we gave him was the fact that he was encumbered upon by uh giving the city the entire 108t on the far west side of his property for um for that street.

Whereas we were going to be able to encumber the individuals that live adjacent to that property and take away by imminent domain um 54 feet off of their property. um whereas they're already there and he's developing and so it was it was more of a a a meet him in the middle so to speak. He was will only to give something. So our cover is the variance based upon his impact. Exactly. All right. So would we use RM7 for that? No. I think it's a I think it's a 15. Are you sure?

Why would we use RM7? That's a multiple residential zoning for mid density. Don't don't don't confuse the issue. Um, so the the zoning is R121. Okay. And that's what it is. He he came with us with a PUB that had multiple different types of designations and open spaces and parks and everything and did community outreach and and we didn't like that or I'm just No, it's not necessarily we didn't like that. The public didn't like that. Some of them did, some of them didn't. The and ultimately shut that down and then the city council shot at them and told him to go back and say, you know, the general plan at Baker.

Sure. Um, you know, go back to the drawing and he has. So, just giving you guys heads up. Sure. That that's going to come to you and you're going to have to have a little bit of the history behind the whole situation. Yeah. to come prepare for this meeting so that you understand. Yeah, I appreciate that. I would encourage all five of you to talk. Yeah,

it's a good question like how are you going to accomplish this? What vehicle are you going to use to get this done? Perhaps an NDA needs to be reduced to the end or something like that to or or or some some amendment to it to to to make sure that it's you know solidified. Those those are the agreements that that we'd be willing to accommodate. Yeah. Sessions. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. All right. That's it. Oh, there's so much more we could talk about. The Mammoth did win. Yes. Up. That's how you know it's a series.

When the visiting team wins on the road, that's how you know it's a series. So, oh yeah, go ahead. Go, John. Ask us. No, I I'm just totally not a hockey guy. So, are we in the playoffs? Is that is Oh, yeah. We're playing Las Vegas, baby. Whoa. All right. We finally have a team to cheer for again. That's right. Hey, next. I've just gotten so few and there's so much fighting. Next year there's going to be two. Just watch. Tank Lake City is tough to watch. Hey, we'll put some Skittles on it next year. They'll both be in the playoffs. I don't have um I don't have anything else that's that's pressing that you guys need to know. So,

okay. So, no work meetings scheduled next week because I don't know what I'm going to do with my Tuesday next week. Enjoy it hanging out with you guys. Oh, so the open house is next Thursday though. Is that Do we need to be there for the Master Transportation open house? How How important is that? Good. I'm not going to say no. But is it important we're there? I don't want to go because I've got a conflict. So I just want to know is it standing room only? Standing room only. Any kind or anything? Okay. Sweet. That's I have a conference too. So tickets. Okay. Then if we have nothing else to discuss, we'll entertain a motion to adjurnn.

I would like to motion that we adjourn at this 11 109 hour. Okay. I I Good job. Thanks you guys. Robert, you stuck it out the whole meeting.