Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

We're going to call this meeting to order for the Grantsville City Planning Commission on Tuesday, July 7th. Got to start again. All right, we'll call this meeting to order for the Grantsville City Planning Commission. I'll call it in order on Tuesday, July 7th, 2026 at 7 p.m. at the Grantsville City Hall located at 429 East Main Street in Grantsville, Utah. We'll start with a roll call. Want to start over here, John? John Montgomery. Here. Gary Merrill. Here. Jason Hill here, and Cameron Moulton, Chris, and Sarah are not here today. Go ahead and start with the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States

We'd like to welcome all the public that has come out today. I will walk through a couple of things in the order of how things will work out here as we go through these items that we're going to consider today. For each item, we will go through a separate public comment period.

And so we will start with a We will start with a staff presentation.

which will be followed by the public hearing for that specific item. And then we will have the commission will be able to decide and have our consideration of that afterwards. A couple of things to make people aware of, each speaker will be limited to three minutes. And we will ask that you state your name and your address when you come up to the podium and also understand that we as the commission will not engage with you as you're giving that or you're sharing your comments, but we will listen to what you have to say. We're going to start by opening the first item that we have which is a consideration of a proposed final plot for the West Bend subdivision located at 169 North Taylor Rd located in the R-121 zone.

Perfect. Thank you, Jason and commissioners. So this property is located just east of 169 North Taylor Road. It's in the R-121 zoning, and this is a minor three lot subdivision served by a private road. And so you may ask, well, you know, Our private roads only allow for two dwelling units to be served. And the reason why that we have three lots serving this is this road was already established and created. And so it already had three lots serving it prior to us amending the code. And we are just making this right, going through the subdivision process. And so in our code, it does require that the planning commission approves a development served by a private lane. And so currently this is lot 101 that's already established, fronting Taylor Road. And so lot 102 and 103 are the only lots, the two lots, served by the private lane. And they'll come off of Mack Canyon here, served off this private lane, and then lot 103 and 102 will be served. We have a fire turnaround easement here and a hammerhead turnaround here as well. As we reviewed this, there were concerns with fire because this is in a wildland fire area. So fire has wrote a letter stating that lot 102 and 103 when they build out do have to have a water tank and fire sprinklers just for suppression until that area does build out and we get fire hydrants in that area. Other than that, that was the only concern that was brought up and So yeah.

You chose it for or will these actually look into public water and sewer.

Not unless this were to change and they you know future or the southern properties wanted to develop out and run utilities. So at this time there's not any plans for that. For the for the to to hook up the public utilities or to develop out for the to the South.

If they were so homes on these would it be so big. How unusual is that today in our city.

I'm with our city still being rule, it's not that unusual as development comes we have reduced the amount of septic systems, but this has been reviewed and approved by Twitter for a septic and well.

What would be the cost estimate to connect city? How close is the city?

There's no utilities up there.

Yeah, I mean, how close?

The closest is SR 112. So, I mean, you're probably... Yeah. That's all I have.

Any other questions, Gary? I have no questions. Thank you, Shelby. Okay, I will now open this item up for public hearing for agenda item number one. Seeing none here, do we have anybody online that would like to comment? Please raise your hand if you're online. Okay, hearing no, seeing no comment, we will close the public comment period and we'll now move this back to the commission for discussion. John, do you have anything you'd like to bring up?

Just clarify the background for a decision is, We're being asked to consider this partially because of the utilities and it doesn't look like it's feasible for them to connect to public utilities. And so I think that's been established. That's all I have.

Okay. Gary, anything from you? No. I have no other comments on this one. So I'll entertain a motion if anybody would like to bring one up.

I'll move that we approve the proposed final plat for the West Bank bench subdivision located at 169 North Tater Road and in the R121 zone, which the conditions outlined in the staff report. I'll second.

Okay. All in favor? Aye. Motion passes unanimously. Okay, we'll move to agenda item number 2. This is consideration of a request for a plat extension approval for the Wells Crossing Phase 7 subdivision.

So in our code, it outlines that they have one year to, you know, build infrastructure and record the plat, and they are just running behind. So they have requested a six-month extension, which is allowed under our code and requires Planning Commission consideration. And this is located just off the Mormon Trail. You have scenics. Well, you have phase five here and then scenic slopes to the north. And then you have North Star Ranch just to the west of this project.

Shelby, is this their first extension they've requested?

Yes, on this project.

Do they stay while they're running behind?

Because they're in a floodplain. And so there were things to figure out and how to proceed with that process.

That was my question. Okay. Any other questions, Gary? Nope. Thank you. No public hearing on this. Okay. So this is informational only?

Correct. It is asking for a consideration, so you would have to make a vote, but no. Okay.

No public hearing. All right. I have no questions, and I'm okay with it, actually, so. I'll entertain a motion.

I'll move to approve the request for the plot extension approval for the Wells crossing phase seven subdivision with the conditions outlined in the staff report. Second. Second, John.

Okay, we'll go for a vote now. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Okay, that motion passes unanimously. Okay, we'll move on to agenda item number three. This is the recommendation of our proposed master development agreement for Falcons Landing Subdivision located approximately on Booth Street and Wild Rose Drive.

So I don't know, maybe two months ago I brought this in front of the Planning Commission to ask or feedback on aligning or extending wild rose through there was positive feedback from the Planning Commission. And a development agreement was required with that. And so I'm here today bringing for the final plat. Well, it would be the updated preliminary plat. Let me zoom out here. that you guys can see this wild rose would extend through so instead of having this dead end here and just having this loop wild rose would extend through can i turn that tv so that they can see yeah just don't bump your heads when you walk out If you were looking at Wildrose further, it actually could potentially connect into Ray Street and potentially further and maybe extend North Street in the long future. And so a compromise for Wildrose because it is in the R1-12 and the RM-7. So the lower portion is RM-7 and the northern portion is R1-12. For the developer to lose two lots and to extend wild rose through, it was discussed to reduce the lot sizes to fit. It's right around 6,800 square feet. Let me zoom in. So these lots, so lot six is 9,000, lot seven is 7,000. Then you have your corner lots at 10,000. And then lot seven and kind of this line above, We range from 6,750 to 9,000 square feet. The majority of them stay right around 7,000 square feet. We're asking today for a consideration to reduce the lot sizes in the R1-12 to allow wild rose to extend through and the waiver of the fee in lieu for open space. The fee-in-lieu open space can only be used within one mile or the nearest park. And there is not one that's, I mean, they're close, but not there. And so, you know, approximately $5,000 to $7,000, how is that going to benefit us just sitting in an account?

Anything unusual about the development agreement?

It's using our template that was approved by planning Commission and City Council and so it's pretty basic it just outlines. The extension of wild rose and that the developer has to pay for it, allowing for the lots to be reduced to the 6750 and up and they have to match this layout it can't change and the waiver of the field.

You need to elaborate on the field is for everybody's benefit.

Yeah. So in chapter five or 21.1.15.5, it says a development that is less than 20 acres can pay a fee in lieu instead of dedicating 10% of open space. or 10 acres that the city would require. Because this project is under 20 acres, then they could pay the fee in lieu. So what that means is they go out, they give us the cost analysis of the undeveloped land that says, okay, you know, this land is worth, we'll say $200,000 undeveloped. Then we take 10% of that and that's what would be owed.

In this case, you said that I think a little bit, but what was the value here that would be waived?

We have not obtained a value on this because that's not due until the end of the project.

Anything else?

John?

I got a question.

Gary? We will take questions in a minute when we come back for your public comment.

I guess I'm Just make sure I understand that you just said we won't know the valuation of the property if we do the, in lieu of, until the end of the property being built out?

No, no. So until the final plat is recorded, it's not required until they want to record the final plat. They have to give us that information and then they would have to pay those fees. Okay. And so at this time, because it's still being reviewed and we're waiting on approval of this layout, that hasn't been asked.

Okay. So we're probably talking less than $10,000.

If I had to guess, yeah.

So if we approve this master development agreement now, will we see this again?

That could be something that you'd want to see. It would just be the plat that you guys would see again.

If your best guess is that this is less than $10,000 and it's not material to me for an open space investment, but that's me. Gary, anything from you?

Have we already approved this plot?

Correct. Not this layout. You did approve the older. Essentially. Yeah, you approved a preliminary layout. And I was hoping I and I can pull it up really fast. But essentially that layout had the larger 12,000 square foot lots up here, a large retention basin here and wild rose just circled here. It did not come through.

So just in concept, because my question would be, then Shelby, we're talking about an R1-12, which has a minimum of 12,000 square foot loss, but we're below every lot in here, below what the minimum standard is for the zoning.

So from lots 7, 17 through 22 and to the north, is the R1-12 and everything from lot six to the south is RM-7.

So six going across from 23 to 28 and south.

Is RM-7, which requires 7,000 square foot lots and 10,000 square foot corner lots. And then everything seven to the north would be the RM R 112, which would be the 12,000 square foot lots. When I brought this to the commission approximately two months ago, it was favored that wild rose would extend through in exchange for wild rose extending through. It was offset of the smaller lots.

So we comply with more than half the lots and some exceed and

I guess it was going back to work of previous conversation we had that we denied an application because it didn't meet the minimum standards and here we are again. Not meeting the minimum standards.

And I think there's a there's a continuum spectrum. How severe does it doesn't meet and you know what the city may get for it. So I don't think every decision is the same there. I think this is unique and Most of the lots do comply.

And this was direction from Planning Commission, so it wouldn't have been brought forward if there was direction that it was disliked.

I think one of the trade-offs that we did talk about was that having the road in there was a benefit to the city, and so we were looking at allowing something that was a small change where it's more of a win-win. But did you have more questions, Gary?

No, I just... HAB-Jacques Juilland- Looking more for consistency of decision making. Seems like it's everything's always an anomaly and I just, I don't. I'm not a fan of anomalies. HAB-Jacques Juilland- Part of why we're here, you know, HAB-Jacques Juilland- I agree, but it's but we have zoning for a reason. If we don't have zoning that's then HAB-Jacques Juilland- If we're not going to follow the zoning, then why have the zoning. I mean, there's, I mean, there are, there's some standards that should articulate and dictate decision making. Otherwise it's the wild west. We could just, you know, if you, if you like the decision today, but don't like it tomorrow, it's, there's no standard to really uphold. And I, I don't know, does this open us up to litigation for other stuff for somebody else? Hey, wait a minute. You approve their smaller loss, but not mine.

And that's what I think the same zoning each time we make the decision. Because there will be, there have to be exceptions. But each time we do so, we say why and defend it. So I think we need to, in this meeting, explain why we would do something like this. I think it's clear because of the benefit to the city. And in generally compliance, why I would be comfortable and feel like it's a unique decision, if someone else were to come in and ask us, either I want this or two, or are you not even complaining? considering zoning.

And you can see on this master transportation plan, here's Booth Street, and then here's this road that we would like to continue through. Here's Reese Street, and then potentially into North Street, which could potentially reach to Old Lincoln Highway. So it does create flow and improve traffic for Grantsville.

Same as you're plowing that snow, right? If the whole street were developed.

Correct. So as developments come to the west, then it is on staff as well as the developer to continue that road.

Anything else, Gary?

No, not for now.

I will state that I think one of the things that I look at this on this is that we are seeing why not meeting the letter of the law meets the intent of what we're trying to look at. And I think the continuity and laying the groundwork for that road to continue, not that we can guarantee that it will, but we're setting it up so that it could. That's where I kind of look for you. Okay. Anything else? No. John, Gary? Nope. Thank you, Shelby. Yep. We will now open this item for public hearing. I did a... Agenda item number 3 if you'd like to make a comment, please step forward receive one.

Letter that was sent to find mission.

When lawyer I own the property below that I am I'm concerned with what you've got there for the water that they're going to have. Containment down across there, I want to to know what the 33 feet represents, what it will entitle, and it changes the lots, the zoning changes. As far as I know, this was never ever approved by anybody in Grantsville City. I have the other one that was originally, I never got a hearing or nothing about that. So if you're telling me that this was approved, why wasn't I notified? And if that goes across there, I want to know where that retaining water goes, comes in and goes out. I believe it's a 33 feet across from point 10 to point one. Is that correct, Shelby?

It is 33 feet.

33 feet. What is going to happen? My property's there. What's going to happen to the water? I want to know how it's going to intake and exit to there.

So those are questions that you can come down to the office and ask, but planning commission can't answer questions.

All I want to know is you people know where it's at and what I expect before you start passing things.

Absolutely.

That's all I need to know. Absolutely, sir. Thank you. Thank you, Wayne.

I'm Hank Thompson. I'm at 581 East Clark Street. I bought this property on my north, it's south. And I disagree with giving them lesser property to do. I agree with Gary Merrill that if you want the road to go in instead of letting the contractors tell you what to do, Why don't you just use eminent domain and take that road space and leave the property as it was originally written so that you have a couple of less houses, but they are on a bigger property that makes the whole value of the thing expand. Small properties do not equal value to the neighborhood or to the city. Thank you.

Thank you, Hank.

I'm Jeff Averitt. I live at 589 East Clark Street. I bought the property as well. Some of the concerns that I have, I think there are some inconsistencies as I look at this plan versus how city regulations are written. Currently, and I'm the one that filed the letter. Currently, it says any lot that is on a corner should be 10,000 square feet. I think we have a lot on there that's 9,000 that's on a corner. It seems to me that giving up that much, that big of a change from a 12,000 square foot minimum down to a 6,750 square foot minimum just to run a road through there, that seems very excessive. I think the loss of that property for a road is probably one lot. And you're actually increasing the number of lots from the last proposal. I think it was 21 or 24. I don't remember. We're up to 2028 now, even with the road going through there. So that doesn't seem like a consistent argument to me that, um, that that road was to, it seems like it's an overcompensation for that, right? Also, I think the regulations read that for this zoning, that there's a seven and a half foot side setback and a 15 foot on the opposite side on these lots. All of them I see are seven and a half on each side. So that doesn't seem consistent with current regulations. My concern certainly is with privacy. The lots of budding that on the south side, we've been there for many years, over 20, and I get that there's going to be development. I'm not saying I'm not against or understand that there's never going to be anything there, but... This is a big change to the neighborhood and the privacy there. So when I see these type of lots, I see very tall houses. And when you have these setbacks that are seven and a half square or seven and a half feet, excuse me, between lots, you got a 15 feet between houses, at least as this is written now, which doesn't meet your standard. And certainly we're now looking at a wall of homes basically with little slits through them, right? So... And so we have privacy concerns. I think the last one that came through, there was at least a privacy fence. This one doesn't include that. So I think that that should be considered. It seems like there's a lot of missing information here. We don't know what kind of houses are going up. We don't know what's going to be built here. As has been mentioned, we don't know what the water plans are. Any of that, the street, I'm kind of agnostic. I get that there might be a street through there, but as I look down North Street, you're probably going to have to do some eminent domain somewhere if you're going to get that thing past Ray Street to North, right? I don't think it's a straight shot through there. So I think those issues should be addressed. There are some other ones that we put in the letter that all of us kind of signed off on. We hope that you'll review that and take the time and consider that. Thank you.

Thank you, Jeff.

I will be pretty quick because I can say I'll second everything Hank and these guys have said. So Jeff has said, I agree with what they said. One of my concerns is I think I sent my email to you. Oh, I'm sorry.

Can you please state your name and where you're from? Can you please state your name and where you're from? Your address and your name?

I'm a 573 East Clark Street, Mark Lawyer, L-A-W-Y-E-R. I'm sorry. Thank you. And so... Three of those lots will butt right on my back property line. And so that's going to really affect our privacy, the quality of life. Right now, we've got a beautiful view out of the Sanford Island, open space. I don't see any open space in here. As soon as you're in your plan, you're trying to maintain as much as possible the quality of life, the feel of Grantsville, which has always been kind of a rural, friendly community. And it's looking more and more like the Wasatch Front. And, you know, homes bunched up together, you know, really tightly spaced. So we were looking at increased traffic, obviously. Down to Booth Street, trying to get onto Main Street from Booth Street is a challenge now. I imagine with 28 more homes with two cars each, it's going to increase that burden and the safety associated with that. Now, it looks like you've already approved recommendations. So I don't know if this makes any difference at all, anything I'm saying, but I'm just letting you know my concerns. Again, the concerns are privacy. There definitely ought to be a privacy fence. I would say absolutely, without question, should be a solid, not one that's going to fall apart in two years. There ought to be a solid, well-built, privacy fence to at least preserve as much as possible of the existing homeowners. And then also, and I don't know how much control you have or how tall the buildings would be, but like Jeff said, if the lots are smaller, there's probably economic motivation for the developer to go higher. That would affect our views out there. So the quality of life of the existing residents could be significantly affected. And just for your consideration, I'm not going to be argumentative or anything. And again, Jeff said it better than I did. He had a little more time. He was more thoughtful, more prepared than I was. I put this together really quickly and got an email to you just before the deadline. So I would probably add more if I had more time to comment. But thank you for your time. Thank you, Mark.

Any other public comment? Anybody online, if you'd please raise your hand. Nothing, okay. Seeing no further public comment, I will close this public hearing piece and we'll now bring this back to the commission for discussion.

I would like to point out one thing. You guys actually approved 29 lots originally because this was a twin home layout, which was allowed in that zoning. So those lots are actually 6,752 square feet. So realistically, we are matching this, extending the road and reducing it by one lot. But instead of having attached twin home layouts, we're having detached single family homes. So just keep that in mind. Either way, you're still going to see 28 to 29 homes. It's really just up to the Planning Commission. Do you guys want to see a road extended through to improve the traffic flow, or do you not?

That was my thought, because I agree with Gary. We need to be sure we're making a sound decision. And I appreciate the comments of the public, but a lot of this will happen whether we grant this or not. This is a legal... subdivision use of this ground. I don't know that it calls for privacy fence. I don't think there's only far as that. But I would like if you could just address, I just briefly did but the trade off. This gentleman that brought up is just a proper compensation for the one lot. So just maybe clarify that one more time. So it's clear what the exchange is here.

So currently this layout that is shown on the screen is 29 units. You can see lots that are labeled AB are attached twin home layouts. So they'd be on a 6,700 square foot lot. And the exchange is instead of having those be attached homes, they would be detached single family homes with the exchange that Wildrose would extend through and the fee in lieu would be waived. So either way, this is an approved subdivision. This layout here is we as staff came to the planning commission going, look, it would be better for the city for wild rose to extend through. They're losing approximately one lot. So instead of 29, they're getting 28 lots to run wild rose through.

And they also be detached single family as opposed to twin homes.

Correct.

Which is, I would hope, the neighbors would feel is better. Maybe just to leave some of the concerns, the building height, could you just address that for a minute here?

Yeah, so in our land use code, we do require that the building height does have a minimum. So in the R1-12, it cannot be any taller than 35 feet, and the lot coverage can be no more than 20%. And in RM-7, the building height can't be taller than 35 feet, and the maximum building coverage can be 35%.

And I'm assuming that's the same with any of these homes, existing homes around the property right now.

Correct.

So, and then as far as fencing, in the construction plans, we do require fencing. It's something that you guys are welcome to include in, we could include in the development agreement, or if a motion was made, we could include that in the motion as well.

And the water issue, that's something that's going to face it. Either way, the gentleman can come in and sit down with you and understand what's going on.

Correct. We could pull up the construction plans, have them review it, have the engineer sit down with them, the city engineer, and go over those construction plans to show where it's inletting and where it would be outletting and what water they have to keep on their property. Okay.

All of this has to comply.

Yes.

Can you speak to the other comments that came up that Jeff brought up about the setback and that it did not need city code?

Correct. So you guys approved these setbacks originally. And so when this development came through, it did come through before our seven and a half and 15 feet. It was actually seven and a half slash 15 on this development. And then this is originally what it looked like with the bigger lots. And then they're cut in half for the The units. And then here we have seven and a half for your public utility easement and your setbacks. You have your rear setbacks. That's 25 feet. You got 20 feet and 25 feet. So front yard, 25 feet, rear yard, 20 feet. side yard this came in after the development was brought in is 7 and a half feet on one side 15 feet on the opposite side. You say human after it came in after we amended the 7 and a half because it was 7 and a half slash 15 and because it was ambiguous. There was issues enforcing that so we changed it to 7 and a half on one side 15 feet on the other so it was clear what we were trying to say and pursue.

And that's done whether we approve anything tonight or not, that's done.

Correct. So you can see right here, it actually said five, and then it was an asterisk 15. And the asterisk was set back, shall be as listed or match the easement width, which ever is greater. And so, you know, seven and a half plus seven and a half is 15 feet. And so we changed that so that it was seven and a half on one side and 15 feet as the original intent.

Okay. Gary, did you have anything you'd like to go over?

No, I guess I've just, I've stated what I've had to say, so I'm good.

Just to reiterate what I'm repeating what you said, Shelby, we originally had talked about on the concept approval and just to add to that comment that an individual made that this was not approved. The concept was approved by the commission, but not this actual development agreement. That's what we're doing today.

Correct. So the preliminary plat shown here right now was approved. I don't know last year, I believe. And this was approved notices were sent out preliminary flat flat was approved by planning commission. We have come back to ask for approval of this layout and the development agreement, which is why we're here today with the public hearing as required. So this layout here has not been approved.

Okay. You remind me of one other comment. We've had a few people in past meetings talk about not being noticed and so forth. How comfortable are we with our notice process? Maybe can you summarize that?

Yeah, so... Absolutely. So we obtain a radius report, a 500-foot radius report from Tooele County. So Tooele County goes, they look 500 feet around that property, and then they give us the addresses. And then we print out those addresses, put them on an envelope, and send those letters out. So if the address is incorrect with Tooele County, or you have a PO box or things like that, and you're not receiving it, that would be things to address with UPS and Tooele County. For UPS or USPS.

I see some posted as well. Do we always post on the site a notice as well?

Correct. So we'll post on Grantsville City's website, the state's public website, and we post here. We actually have a paper copy here that is required. How about physically on the property? Yes. There is a yellow sign that is posted. It has a QR code that'll take you to the public noticing. And then there's like a box that has to have the noticing papers in as well.

Can you explain what the timing is on that, like how early that's done just for public interest?

Yeah, so it's posted Thursday or Friday, 10 days before the meeting.

Thank you.

So just for the record, I just want to state in my opinion, we are meeting the requirement and giving adequate notice. And I don't know why some don't get them, but I think the city is doing what they're obligated to do.

Correct.

I don't think I have anything else for you, Shelby. As we kind of close this out, I will kind of, John, you've kind of talked through where your head is. I will say one of the things that I'm looking through on this, I think we are looking for what's in the best interest of the city. And our job here is the Planning and Zoning Commission is to look at how this complies with city code. And I would make sure that anybody here that has comments that feels like we have to base our decision based on that city ordinance and how that complies with city ordinances. But there is another piece to this, and that's where you can go before city council, your elected officials, and state your decision. interest or your displeasure with, with the decision, we are limited to what we can, we can do there, but we do take into consideration every comment that comes in. We just have to look at that as how does it comply or not comply with, with our zoning and ordinances and interpreting what we have for our, our future planning.

Correct. And so this question, I still got time.

We were out. Sorry.

Um, this will go to city council, um, for a consideration and public hearing as well.

And I would invite people that are here, whether you like our decision or not, to please attend that city council meeting and voice your opinion. You can voice it then. Yes. Okay. We don't have any further discussion. I'll entertain a motion.

I'll make a motion. And just to clarify, this is not an approval. This is a recommendation to City Council. So I move to recommend approval to City Council for the proposed planned unit development PUD for the Ellington.

The Falcons Landing.

The Falcon Lane subdivision. For the Falcons Landing subdivision located approximately on Booth Street and Wildrose Drive as presented in the staff report. And I would add that the privacy fence be included, listening to the public, that that would be part of the development.

Is a six-foot vinyl fence, a tan vinyl fence adequate?

I think that would be six foot. I would say a six-foot fence. I'd say the color would be dependent on the layout there. Do we want to say, do we want to specify the color?

Not that specific, but a six-foot fence.

Yes. Okay. Perfect.

So I move that we recommend approval of city council with the fence.

I second that.

Any discussion?

Sorry. Do we have any other discussion? I guess, Gary, did you have anything else you wanted to?

No, I don't think so. Okay.

And then take your vote.

I will go ahead and take a vote. Aye. Nay. Aye. Just for clarification, we'll need to state who. Gary's nay. John Montgomery, yay. Jason Hill, yay. Motion passes. Thank you. We'll now move on to public item agenda, item number four, recommendation of a proposed planned unit development PUD for the Arlington subdivision on parcels 010590-0040 and same proceeding numbers with the dash 0039 located in the mixed use zone approximately at located at 948 East and State Route 138.

Sorry, hold on one second. This is super large file. So this is the Ellington subdivision. It is located in the mixed-use zoning. So this is our highest zoning designation. It's on 33.67 acres at approximately 948 East Main Street, located just off of SR 138. The proposed PUD establishes the overall development framework for the property, including residential neighborhoods, future commercial development, roadway circulation, open space, pedestrian amenities, and utility infrastructure. In October 2022, the Planning Commission first reviewed a preliminary subdivision layout, consistently primarily of detached single-family residential lots. In December of 2022, the City Council approve the preliminary plot through resolution 2022 dash 82. In September of 23, the planning commission considered the PUD required by the mixed use zoning at the time staff confirmed the PUD was procedural but not significant. No significant deviation from city standards were being requested. Since those approvals applicant has redesigned and submitted back and updated PUD, And in June 2025, we reviewed this. We determined that it was ready to go to Planning Commission as a discussion. And so here we are. So this is 33 acres with 255 residential dwelling units. Per the proposed Master Development Agreement, it has commercial fronting SR 138, public streets, private alleys, sidewalks, HOA maintained, public and sewer infrastructure, storm drains, RV and contractor parking and future phased development. And so here is the The layout, this is called Flex Homes. This was something I showed last time. Not sure if you'd like me to play that video again so that we can rewatch the Flex Home layout. It is a layout that the community can grow with. As you buy a home, you can expand that home. It already has the footings. and the infrastructure there to expand. And the price point is significantly low and affordable, which means it's actually meeting the affordable housing of right around 350,000 per unit or lower.

Can we clarify that it's more affordable?

More affordable.

Less expensive.

Less expensive. Yes.

Well, it would actually, some of them would fall into what the industry would consider affordable housing. perhaps 80% or 100% AMI range.

Correct. And so this is actually being proposed in a different community. So we have our flex space, which is 1,200 square foot, three bedroom, one and a half bath, plus you can add a garage and fully expand it to a six bedroom, four and a half bath. Approximately 8.46 units per acre if you go off of gross density with 22% open space. Governor Cox gave it the first home award. This is in Ephraim and they are priced at $349,000 and they are following the goal to deliver 35,000 starter homes that are affordable or more affordable.

Shelby, can you go over any exemptions or anything that we would have to look at in this that don't meet our current city code?

So currently here in the white, maybe my computer will be nice. Um, the 4.34, which is attached dwelling units, um, goes over like 2,400 square feet, 30 feet between attached housing, 25 foot front yard setback. And then if we go to 19A, it's 4,000 square foot single family homes with 50 feet wide frontages, 25 foot setbacks, 20 feet rear. 25 feet fronting the side streets, 7 1⁄2 and 10 feet or 15 feet on both sides, landscaping, commercial. Then it references 4.34 for parking in Chapter 6, how many visitor parking, 900 square feet of living space is the minimum, then open space for Chapter 9. Then if we go to Chapter 12, PUD, and these right now, the things in the white are what's being met. Chapter 12, which is a PUD, references 19A and 4.34, which would be here. A minimum of 20% open space of the total project area to be used for landscaping or open space. And then the project containing a residential component containing more than four dwelling units, at least 10% of the total parcel acreage shall be improved, fully landscaped, amenity-rich, and active open space. 50% lot coverage, 4.34 in Chapter 6 for parking, Chapter 9 for open space, 4.34. And then we go into the PUD districts shall provide 25% of the land area's commercial use, which may be reduced by the city council in its full discretion. And for lots against boundaries or passive use landscape, buffer of at least 30 feet wide. And then we go into moderate income housing and setbacks. Then if we come over to this side, this is what the applicant's asking for. So they have 256 single family detached units. I need to update. I must have fat fingered that. The flex space minimum is 680 to 2,100 square feet. And that is That's not the unit. That's not livable space. That's the actual lot itself. They would be two- and three-story units. The flex gen, which is 3,000 to 3,090. The flex garage is 2,500 to 3,700 square feet. And the flex premium would range in between 3,800 to 7,000 square feet. The majority of these are... 30-foot accommodations with alley and side loads. The public road, they're 15 feet to living space, 20 feet to garage and private alley parking areas, 10 feet to living space. So these are the setbacks they're asking for, which is a significant reduction. 20 feet for project exterior private alley, parking access, 5 feet minimum driveway width versus the 25 feet. With no parking, 20 feet maximum driveway and no driveway allowed between 5 and 20 feet. And then you have your 15 feet living space or 20 feet to garage. Again, a setback on the corner lot. 10 feet on your side yards. And then 6.36 acres or 18% is open space and would be maintained and landscaped by the HOA. The applicant did ask for 60% lot coverage versus 50%. And then parking, they are providing 1,100 parking stalls, which is approximately 4.29 stalls per unit. They're providing 38 parking stalls in the RV parking. And then visitor parking is 413 for a total of 1,138 total parking stalls. And then they're providing 6.36 acres, which is 18%. which is a little shy of the 20% to 25% of the open space. And then they're providing 3.05 acres of commercial, a minimum of 900 square feet of living space, which they're meeting. And then on the buffer, they are providing a 7-foot buffer instead of a 30-foot buffer. And then I go into moderate income housing saying that 50 of those would need to be dedicated and deed restricted to moderate income housing. But as the price point is right around $350,000, they would be meeting the moderate income housing pricing. We would just make sure 50 of them are deed restricted so they can't be sold for more once they're maybe built out or expanded.

What is our city consider moderate what do we specify in a month from on.

So we just follow. Follow what the county is. So we do work with the Tula County housing authority closely to district these and to work with them to be able to purchase these for their buyers.

So this would be about 90% am I at this price point. I just ran a quick calculation. They might for 4 person household in this county is 97,000. So just doing the math and so forth that if you were to be restricting of where I would consider affordable housing martyrs 80% am I or less less than a percent of my would be about a $320,000 price point that Someone could have. Or about 3 and 4. I guess about where we're at would be 80%, barely 80% with some down payment. So I would point out too that I think this is great and I support it. I don't know that one thing about this concept, even though I support, we have this look. probably about what initially gets built because adding on to the home to me, doesn't seem real realistic in that you'd have to refinance your mortgage. You'd have to come up with the cash. So how you would capitalize additions to these homes, maybe we can be enlightened here tonight, but you know, I, I don't know that that's going to be realistic, but it's great when just to get what they are planning, build up front, you know, the initial home. So I don't, I'm not, placing a lot of confidence or I don't think we should on these guys will all build out all three phases of the home and be able to afford it. I don't know that that's really good. But it is, again, I think what would be considered moderate housing at this price point that they're suggesting.

Shelby did this in my mind, maybe I didn't even confusing it. But when we talked about this initial proposal, I thought we met the open space requirement and now we're just a little under. Did that change from where we're at before?

It has slightly changed. So the lower west side of these, you can see these yellow and pink lots have changed and reduced that open space.

And I mean, what was the reason? But yeah, sorry.

To meet unit count and to adjust for the road sizes and I mean, it's ultimately the developer's property. This is HOA maintained, so the city would not be maintaining this open space.

And these would be private roadways?

These would be, these western roads would be private. This big, I think it's Cook's Lane, would be public. This would be a public road, and this would be a public road as well. So this big long one's public, and then to the east would be public. These ones to the west are private.

All the alleyways would be private?

Yes.

Shelby, you brought up 1,100 parking stalls. Is that 1,100 number included with the commercial up front?

No.

So they're just 1,100 just for the units themselves?

Yeah, so garages, parking stalls here, and these parking stalls, yeah.

So they're asking for a seven-foot setback with existing property rather than the 30-foot, which is a 70-some-odd percent decrease in our setback.

On that western porch? Yes.

That's pretty dramatic. I guess this is where it even comes to right here, like, concept. I hear a lot of people say, well, this is just a concept. This is just a concept. But concept, as we've seen previously, this is the reality of what they want to build. I think that's I mean, it's a mixed use. It fits the property and what he wants to do. But some of these requests, I think, need to be addressed before I would be comfortable moving forward with a lot of this stuff, especially that seven-foot setback for the stuff against Sun Valley Ranchettes. That's right on top of your property. But I do agree with John too. I think some of the, I mean, the concept is great. It's innovative. It's not new. Doing some more research, this is what I do in my industry. It's not a new concept. I mean, it's been tried before. Do I think this is going to be, has a potential to be a little bit better, especially being a HOA and maintained that way? Yeah. Does it take a long term? I've seen more and more right now that people aren't moving. People aren't finishing basements. People are doing additions to their house because they're not willing to move to a bigger, nicer house. the ability to flex up and to do additions. I think some of the upper floors, finishing an upper floor will happen before adding a garage onto a house. I know that some will happen. But how long does it take to get all built out? Who knows if that ever happens?

I wouldn't count on that. But for me, just the fact we're getting this far, affordable housing for people in this room's kids to be able to stay in the city, especially as they just starting out, it's not going to get any better than this. And there'll be some compromises and maybe some discomfort with some of this. It's not going to get better than this. This is, this is hard to do and to be hitting these price points. It doesn't get better than this.

Are they going to be... Yeah, Joe, you can come up, Joe.

I'm understanding about 320,000 to 40,000, right?

Yeah, the starting would be 320,000 to 340,000. And I don't know that... You mind going back to the open space? Because on ours, we have 22%. If you look at the left-hand corner. So we meet that requirement. Oh, yeah. Yeah. So I was like, when you said that, I'm like, my stomach dropped.

So are you, this is going to be starting entry level less than what you're seeing in Ephraim?

It'll be more than, a little bit more than Ephraim. The land cost, the difference of the land cost. The land cost and actually the development cost, believe it or not, a little bit more. And then if you'll go to that seven foot question. So on that side, on the west side, there is the seven foot with the trail, but it actually, to go to the structure, HAB-Jacques Juilland, I mean it's way more than seven foot before you have that structure. HAB-Jacques Juilland, So you're more like I think we can most of them are at 30 plus before you hit the structure. So even though it says only seven to the sidewalk to the trail that that goes around there's there's more buffer.

Maybe we could get that clarified in the past.

That's helpful.

That's an important clarification.

I appreciate you keeping the open space where it was. We talked through that.

I was a little bit, why are we doing that? That's seven feet from the property line.

You were literally right on top. If it was seven feet, you would be, right? But we tried to make it so that you have your trail, it's a buffer, you'll have a trees in there, and then you'll have an additional 22 feet before you hit a structure.

This is a home payment around two grand, something like that.

Yeah, I think like 1850 or something like that. And what we're finding, and I know it doesn't make a lot of difference to people who are existing, right? But nowadays, it's not a traditional 30-year mortgage. It's a seven-year arm, typically, and especially for these homes. So what happens is they haven't saved enough to do... but to say it, but they, they, they'll refi the equity and build what they need as they grow, you know? And I don't know, I don't, I'm not here to tell anyone how to get their money. We'd all like to pay things with cash, but.

It can happen. I just think that's good.

I just. I mean, it's, it's, I'll be honest. I don't, I don't think it's idealistic, but I think it's an opportunity. Sure. Can I ask a question in Japanese?

When you get to public comment, you'll be able to walk in there. You can talk to him after. Sorry. Can you state your, we didn't have you state your name.

Joe White. I am with real estate. I don't want to downplay the flex part of it. My point is that it rings the bell for me just to get this initial structure in. And that would be gravy in my mind, if they could really flex something.

And the flex spot comes from not just the ability to add on, but these are designed in such a way to have an ADU for multi-generational. So you can have separate living quarters if needed. And so that's kind of the flex part too. It's not just flex where I can have this little bit of house now, but as every family has different needs right now, not all fits one, but this has the ability to meet those needs. And then, you know, when people are ready that they can sell and move up because they have equity.

Shelby, do we know, is there a proposed lot or a proposed light on Allington and Main Street?

So UDOT controls SR 138 or Main Street. And so UDOT would require a traffic study on their end, and it would determine if that traffic study called for a light.

So we've done our UDOT traffic study, and they call it a warrant. It doesn't warrant a light. But they already gave us requirements for the X-cell, D-cell lanes, things that we have to put in.

That would be part of your development.

Yeah, that's all part of getting the UDOT encroachment permit.

Do you have any more questions?

No, I just, I really wanted to address that setback and now thank you for, it's seven feet to the trail and not to the property line.

Yeah. Thank you, Joe. You're welcome. No other comments or questions right now. We'll move to the public hearing portion of this. I'll now open it for anyone here that would like to come up and speak to this. Regina, item number four.

Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Clayton Barney, and I live at 3842 Sun Valley Drive, Grantsville, Utah, which directly borders the proposed Allington development. I am here to formally oppose the master development agreement for this project. While growth is inevitable, it must not come at the expense of the established property right and rural lifestyle of the current longstanding residents. I've lived there 29 years. My primary concern is the extreme density of these 243 flex units. Their encroachment of our agricultural heritage under Grantsville Ordinance 2022-14. Animal use is prohibited. within 100 feet of a residential dwelling. I want to state for the record that my property has established preexisting animal use. According to the protections in Ordinance 2022-14, because my use precedes this development, I am legally grandfathered. However, by allowing the developer to place high-density dwellings directly against my property line, you are creating an immediate permanent conflict. You are placing new residents in a position to file a nuisance complaint, legal issues against pre-existing use. I am asking the Commission to do a few things before recommending the MDA. Mandate a 100-foot non-buildable buffer on the developer's side of the property line wherever they border an existing large animal lot. This is the only way to truly honor the 100 foot separation with the intent of the city code. Reduce the density, 243 units on this acreage is inconsistent with rural residential field promised in the general plan. That's Grantsfield's general plan. Take into consideration longstanding residents over a developer who doesn't even reside in the area. Do not allow this high density flex project to strip away the rights of the neighbors who are here first. Please vote no or require a significant perimeter buffer. Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Clayton.

Good evening, Commission. My name is Nadine Hunt. I live at 3746 Sun Valley Drive, and I apologize. I was not able to hear the young lady as she gave quotes and everything, so I hope I don't. Say the wrong things there. I am writing to formally express my strong opposition to the Arlington subdivision PUD parcels, while the applicant Ironwood Real Estate LLC proposes a mix of commercial and residential uses. The density units per acre totaling, give or take, 243, and I think it's a few more than that, units is an unsustainable burden on our existing community. I urge you to deny this proposal for the following reasons. Water emergency mandate. Governor Cox on May 21st, 2026, executive order declared a state of emergency due to historic drought. Grantsville is currently rationing water, irrigation, adding 243 new units will deplete reservoirs that have are already at critical levels directly threatening the water security of existing residents and their livestock. I second concern is safety and fire access the a link 10 P U D features private streets. or according to the plot plan, alleys, we require confirmation that these roads meet the 20 foot width and 55 foot outside turning radius required for aerial fire trucks, ambulances, and all emergency vehicles. Failure to ensure this access puts current and future residents at risk, as well as Grantsville City. which could possibly be a lawsuit for not meeting codes. Density and lot size. The developer has required significantly reduced lot sizes, some as small as 20 by 30 feet for townhomes. This extreme density is extremely incompatible with the surrounding large lot character of East Grantsville. Plex homes, to my knowledge, are not required to pay property taxes. Will the revenue from these homes cover the city's long-term cost to serve them? If not, who pays the gap? I respectfully request that the Planning Commission deny the recommendation for both the Allington PUD and the Master Development Agreement. And I would just like to add, is there anyone here, any of you or anyone in this room that would be interested in purchasing one of these homes? Thank you, Nadine.

We can't engage, but thank you for your comments. Thank you.

Hello, my name is Kayla Cameron. I live at 278 West Main Street, apartment B4. I'm representing my mom that lives, or my family that lives on 3575 Sun Valley Drive. And I am urging the Planning Commission commissioners to oppose the approval of the proposed Ellington subdivision development. Traffic congestion has been a significant issue within our city, with minimal improvements over recent years. I believe addressing transportation concerns should be our top priority before approving large-scale development that includes both commercial and residential projects. According to the city's general master plan, transportation infrastructure has not been updated since 2005, despite including statistics from 2013 to 2015. Whether it has been over 20 years or 10 years since the last update, our streets and traffic management systems require urgent attention. In October of 2025, UDOT reported our major highways are deteriorating and will continue to worsen. They have identified the need for improved local road networks and based their assessments on the assumption that both SR 112 and SR 138 are widened. Even with these assumptions, projections indicate that traffic volumes will more than double in six years. UDOT has recommended additional connector roads and the installation of traffic signals along these main routes. As residents, we should not wait another 20 years for a new traffic signal or improved infrastructures. Introducing a large mixed-use development will only exacerbate existing traffic issues. While I understand that they are primarily state-managed roads and that any modifications must go through UDOT, it is ultimately the responsibility of the city and its leaders to ensure that a future development aligns with the city's master plan. I respectfully request that the city conduct a comprehensive traffic impact study for this project, considering a full build-out. Scenarios, potential expansion, school drop-off and pick-up times, deliveries, construction activity, and emergency response needs. I do not support the approval of the Ellington development until a traffic... Until a traffic impact study has been publicly posted, reviewed by the city, and enforceable off-site improvements are agreed upon and implemented prior to occupancy. Thank you.

Thank you, Kayla.

All right, good evening. My name is Marty Grant. I reside, recently moved in to 269 Cook Lane here in Grantsville. And tonight I'm speaking specifically about Flex Ready Homes and their unproven concept here in Utah. In order for their business model to work, they state they require regulatory flexibility and they need cities to change their rules to make their business model work. Kurt Mapp will be a Flex Ready spoke at the Utah State Legislature pushing in favor of House Bill 184. Battlefield City Mayor Kate Bradshaw and Cameron deal with the Utah League of Cities and Towns voice concerns and opposition. To give examples about flex homes, regarding HB 184, Mayor Bradshaw stated that this bill fundamentally interferes with the authority of city councils, negatively impacts our longstanding land use policy, and creates a flawed process. To the disappointment of Flex Ready, Utah did not move forward with this bill. That matters. Utah said no, and Grantsville should not volunteer to become the local test case. Flex Ready has given presentations to Eagle Mountain, Ephraim, Nephi, Helper, Heber City, Santa Quinta, Tooele, and now our town. From public record, the only city I see biting on this is Ephraim, and it's only 34 flex homes. They haven't proven their model works, but they are asking Grantsville to be the guinea pig. They want this to be their flagship to help them sell to other cities. and six out of seven cities are pushing back. Councilman Cheapwood of Heber City gave strong opposition and Councilman Ostergaard of Heber questioned Flex Ready's affordability claims. The truth is the home is affordable to the first home buyer. It will not be affordable when resold. Councilwoman Barney of Heber asked for a proof of concept but none exists. Helper City also pushed back. Mayor Peterman stated that they're premature and fears their ability to provide services. Helper council member made the motion to deny development annexation, partnered with Flex Ready, and the denial passed four to one, which was a smart move. In Eagle Mountain, Commissioner Pengress stated his concerns that the initial expense did not translate into direct value to the buyer. City after city after city has done the wise thing and pushed back against Flex Homes. So we've got one development. Sorry. One development, 34 homes in Ephraim. That's it, and it's not finished. Flex homes is an experimental concept. They've been trying for years. No other city is buying their model, and I fear they're about to make Grantsville look like a fool. Please recommend disapproval. Thank you. Thank you, Marty.

Hi there. My name is Jeff Nestegard. I live at 3610 Sun Valley. Borders the property on the Plainview South. Just want to start with the facts because you guys said you vote on the facts, right? I believe Joe, if I understood correctly, he was going to, they were going to be priced slightly higher than Ephraim due to the land costs and the development costs. Ephraim currently has one house listed in the flex ready and it's listed at 369. That's on Utah real estate right now. Heber, they're proposing $450,000 as their starting point there. So, you know, we're going to fall somewhere in the middle. So realistically, it's a $400,000 house. The other thing is that there is 2,339 already approved higher density houses in PUDs in Grantsville. And I wanted to ask, does the traffic study that was done include those PUDs that are going to be done? because all the feeder from 20 Wells is going to go right on the main street, right? So does that traffic study actually include those planned houses as well, or is it just taking into the current conditions? That's a big concern of mine. This property is landlocked kind of, if you will, by two highways. The property is kind of designed as a walkable neighborhood, similar to Daybreak, which I understand is really great for starter families, things like that. However, you can't walk to the rest of the town from where this property is located. You have to go down a major highway, which doesn't currently have curb and gutter, doesn't have a sidewalk, things like that. My other concern is the commercial area setback. We all see on the master transportation plan that Main Street is planned to expand. I understand that's a state-run thing. However, with how close the commercial area is, is the eminent domain just going to take away from the Grantsville residents on the other side of the road when it does come time to expand? That's a big issue. Um, and then my last concern, obviously I live there is privacy. Um, you know, you've got 24 to 48 cars parked in the, not in a garage and a parking stall backing right up next to sun Valley, which is all acre lots. Um, that's, that's a huge issue. Not only do you have, you know, one to two backyard neighbors. Now you have 24 to 48 cars that you hear going in and out all night long headlights. The way they pull into the parking spots, those shine directly. Actually, the one on the far right is my property, and that's going to shine directly into my bedroom window. So when 24 cars pull in and out, in and out, all hours of the night, day, I get headlights. The other thing was the walking lane. That is the seven-foot setback. That's a potential of 1,100 people that want to walk this neighborhood because it's beautiful. It's a great design for what it is, not the location. Jeff, you're out of time. Ah, man. Hold on.

Take my three minutes. No, it's all right. I was finishing. Let me say something.

If you want to say something, we can, but we've got to limit it to three minutes.

My name is Ken Goodrich. I've lived on Sun Valley Drive. I was the first one to move in there. We are a agricultural area, like our livestock, as Clay Barney said. When this was brought to us a few years ago by Joe, Joe, Joe, Joe, he proposed, let's do this. We said it was in the county at that time. We met with the county and we met with the city. We agreed to these different lot sizes. behind Sun Valley Drive was going to be half acre lots behind us. You may have that somewhere in your records. To cut this down short, so I'm not here all night, I've only got three minutes. That was agreed to by Joe White, Tooele County, Grantsville City, and us. Not this, PUDs don't work. They don't work. I don't know what you build, partner. I was a contractor and I owned Goodrich Homes. High density living, that will bring our values down. You know it as well as I do. Our homes all work between half and $1 million. The homes east of us, the Phelps and the Allens, those are all three-quarters to $1 million homes. What you're proposing here is nothing but house. I agree with the parking coming in. Actually, I've got a, it looks like a retention pond right behind mine, right behind my property. Where's that water going to go? Where's it going to go? He's got, let me look. He's got like four or five of these in here instead of one large one, like over here on the other side by Walmart and a few others. They don't have three or four. They have one. He's got them scattered throughout here. What I do disagree with, we're going to have a whole lot of neighbors behind us. and a whole lot of more noise. Now, I don't know if you'd want that where you are at. I don't care what Governor Cox says. He has a multi-hundred-dollar-acre farm where he lives. I went through that recession of 2001 to 2008. ARMs are the worst thing that ever happened. Ronald Reagan brought that in in the 80s. It should never have happened. When that final starts coming in and payments, that's when people lose their homes. And I agree also with the gentleman who said they may buy them at 350. They damn well sure won't sell for 350. What's 50 units out of 200 and something? Come on now. You guys got to say no to this one. And I agree with you on some of the things when you say change in lot sizes. I've been there. I've been there when a developer comes in besides me. We did Draper Heights. And we fought him. No, you're not going to go from 12,000 to 7,000 because that's not right to other builders. And there was a lawsuit. And that developer lost. So what I'm saying is you've got to be careful here. Thank you, Ken. Okay. I want to thank you. I want you to consider Sun Valley Drive and everybody else in Grantsville City, not just us, the entire community. So thank you.

My name is Robert Smith. I live at 3829 Sun Valley Drive, the first house where if you slide that forward or this way, please. My house is right there. That's my property. I just moved there two years ago to get out of the city. Because I thought Grantsville would be a really nice planned place that it would be done like Ranchette's next to us, like the first plan they had. I would agree with that. I'm totally with that. But right there, you're going to have all the lights all the way down there shining in all of our driveways. Going to be people looking over the fences. There's going to be... just, I've seen this happen before. I'm a contractor too, but I'm a retired contractor. And all this stuff that I see that's going to happen, I think this type of thing should happen on the outskirts of our city where all the other stuff is, but where all the ranchettes are in this whole valley, it should follow suit or half acres, quarter acres. And then my biggest concern, I'm also a pastor. You know what I think about people's Children. Where are all these children going to go to school? Are our schools big enough for this? Seriously, are they? The road. I can sit on my back porch and watch the traffic back way past the meat market. I can't even get out on my road. Takes me 10 minutes and I have to push people out of the way to turn left. I don't think the studies have been done good enough to allow this big of a development to happen. I'm totally against it, 100%. And I don't think it's right. I think we need to stick to the country living, keep it downsized. When people come into Grantsville, do you think they want to see all of this? This is our country. We can move wherever we want, but let's keep it to where it looks nice. Grantsville is a beautiful place. I never realized how beautiful it was till I moved here. And I went, wow, this place is nice. And then you bring in all this big city stuff right into the beginning of our city. When you drive down main street, I think it's cool that there's houses on main street and not all developed into all these big high rises and apartment buildings and all that stuff. It almost, it makes me ill. When I step out on my back porch and watch the sunrise, you know what I'm going to see? How tall are those houses?

35 feet max.

And how tall is that front commercial building? Because that's what I'm going to see all the way. You see the parking lot? That's the back of my garage. And all those lights are going to shine in my property. So instead of seeing the moon and the stars, I'm going to see all the lights. And I'm going to hear all the riff-raff. You don't think it brings riff-raff? Watch and see. Thank you, Robert.

Either way. Either one.

All right. My name is Dylan Nash. I live at 3654 Sun Valley Drive. So Jeff, I'm on the far end. I'm Jeff's neighbor. So yeah, I agree with a lot of things that have been said. I do remember the plan from the prior one, I think it was 2022, where there was lower density and a transition of density that was approved. That seems perfectly reasonable. This is very, very different. So my big problem is that the issues now with growth not growth versus no growth. Like it's whether this density and land use pattern is compatible with the existing neighborhood and Grattsville's general plan. So they're asking for some exceptions. There's a lot of things that it's like, Oh, we just need it a little bit different here and here and here. And there's, there's a lot of exceptions. Um, In general, it's just a really big difference. You know, like other people have pointed out, it's not quite the same. So in December 2024, the Planning Commission discussed Warm Springs ranches where the applicant sought to move from rural residential 2 to medium density. The minutes state that commissioners concluded they were not in favor of going against a general plan and future land use map. So existing nearby homes in Sun Valley and other places include one acre residential lots, a high density, small lot, approximately eight, I think it said 8.46 units per acre. Planned unit development next to that pattern creates an abrupt density cliff. I encourage you to First, prove compatibility with the surrounding one acre low density uses, then apply the city's own December 2024 precedent. If the commission previously resisted changing the future land use pattern where current zoning matched the future land use map, then it should not create a different standard for this development, the Ellington development. If the proposal is not compatible with that plan and the future land use map and surrounding one acre land uses, deny it or continue the item until the applicant submits a lower density transition plan with buffers, larger perimeter lots, setbacks, open space, fencing, and visual cross sections. I've lived in Tooele County my whole life. Erta, Tooele, Stansbury, Grantsville. 2014, I chose to move to Grantsville because of the lower housing density and friendly neighbors. It has some excellent qualities that attract those who choose to live here, such as Robert, who just said he moved here two years ago for this exact reason. So... Please, and I understand you guys probably deal with this a lot, but like, and maybe this is how you do it, but please view this development proposal as though it is near your own neighborhood or the neighborhood of someone close to you. Is this really the direction we want to take Grantsville? I don't think so. You know, maybe if there's a transition to that, you know, further away, like we work our way up to it, but just an abrupt transition, it doesn't feel like it fits. So thank you for your time.

Thank you, Dylan.

Hello, my name is Trista and I live at 947 East Durfee, which is at the very back. Yeah, right there by those pink spots. Thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. I'd first like to address a process concern. Very few residents in our neighborhood actually receive the mail notice of this proposal or this meeting. That is very concerning for a development with such significant implications for our existing environment and daily lives. I believe that comprehensive notification should be a mandatory part of the process. People deserve the chance to be informed and involved when changes of the scale are being considered. Secondly, I want to share my experience as a homeowner who has already dealt with real world impact of a similar development. My first home was built in 2020. It's relatively new, it's very well maintained, and it's located in a neighborhood that historically had strong resale demand. It's surrounded by comparable single family homes with large yards. However, a high density complex was built directly across the street, just out in front of my door across the street, and right after I moved in. So from that point forward, selling my home became extremely difficult. This is the second time I've put it up and listed it for sale. And I'm running into the same issues. The first time I had to take it off the market because I ultimately couldn't afford to keep it on the market and pay for two houses at one time. I had to take it off because it simply wouldn't sell. Every realtor that I've spoken to has pointed to the same factor. The presence of high-density development across the street has significantly reduced buyer interest. People are hesitant. They worry about the traffic, the noise, parking overflow, long-term neighborhood stability, light pollution. I know along with everyone else here, I moved out here and I believe they did too for peace, space, relief from the noise and the congestion of the city. So even when buyers love the house, they hesitate because of what surrounds it. That's why I'm here today. I'm not speaking in hypotheticals. I'm actually living the outcome of a project just like this one that's being proposed. And I'm deeply concerned that adding another high density development will damage the resale value of my current home. For most of us, our home is our largest financial investment. When developments like this are placed directly adjacent to single family neighborhoods, the impact isn't theoretical. It's measurable and it's personal. So I understand the need for growth and additional housing options. I'm not opposed to development whatsoever, but I'm asking the council to consider long-term consequences for existing homeowners who already experienced these high-density projects and how they affect resale value. My own difficulty selling a newer home shows how these impacts can be. Once that value is lost, homeowners have no recourse. Thank you, Krista. Thank you.

Anyone else?

Hello.

My name is Kimberly Smith, and I live at 3829 Sun Valley Road. I'm married to that man right there that we just moved in two years ago. Let me start all over. Anyways, I understand development. I really do. We sold two and a half acres in Magna, and they put a development on there, a small, manageable one. So we're all about that. We wanted to build one home back there. We had a lot of fights with the city, so we ended up selling it to a contractor. And so we're all about people have a right to do what they want with their land to a point. When you have these, we used all of our money, all the bit of money we had to try to get into a home. that would have a nice acre, because we had two and a half acres. So here we are. We've built a nice shop. We're all planted in. We don't want to move again. But living with this right on our doorstep, when we moved into the neighborhood, we realized there would probably be new homes. And we were fine with that. And the half acre lots, that's fine. But when you're coming to something like this, we have so much land out here in Grantsville. there's some that's going to be planted here and there. Why can't you do it by a non-existing home if you want to try something like this? Because when you're doing it by a neighborhood like ours, we have three streets, basically, that are pretty pricey. And to put something like this here, it's going to really hurt the property value. And I'm all for This man, he wants to make money and develop. I just want you guys to think about if it was you. I live a lot. I was a nurse and I always lived a lot by doing unto others and treating people like I'd want to be treated. And if you just bought a home and you're retired and you got an acre lot and then you think this is going next to you and it's going to kill your home value. How would you like it? And I'm just really wanting you to look at that. We have so much vast land out here. If you decide you want to do something like this, can't you find another location? That's all I'm asking is just to think about it. And as far as like an HOA and all that, if you don't have a high enough HOA in something like this, as my realtor put it, homes like this, they could turn into like a mobile home park feel. They can get run down. What I heard is that they're looking at $50 a month HOA. You're not going to be able to keep the outside up, $50 a month. It's going to have to be higher. And these people are going to be probably stretching on their budgets. How are they going to keep it up? How are they going to even add on? I have a son that has a house in Tooele, $350,000 a year. I mean, $350,000 he bought it. They just make it. They're a young couple, and their house payment's like $2,300 with taxes and insurance. That's a lot for a young couple. And you're going to be looking at houses like that, and people, when they're barely making it, they can't keep it up. And then if they're not keeping it up, how are those house values going to go up? Thank you so much. I appreciate you.

Hi, my name is Teresa Jensen. I live at 980 East Main Street. I live across the street almost from Tooele Valley Meats. I'm sorry I never kept a tally of how many accidents have happened in front of my home because of angry speeding drivers that can't stop long enough for somebody to turn into that business that's been there since before I moved here in 1997. It takes me an average of 17 minutes to get out of my driveway during any time that there's the morning rush, the evening rush coming in. Recently in January I had a medical emergency and it took the ambulance people quite a while to get out of my driveway even though they had sirens and it doesn't matter. People don't want to pull over. The speed limit is 40 miles an hour and people are going 55, 60 miles an hour by the time they get to my house from the traffic light. It's like a zero to 60 seconds to see who can get there the fastest. and the accidents that keep happening on Main Street are gonna keep happening. And it says UDOT will evaluate the traffic concerns with this coming out, not even a half a mile from that traffic light. I understand that, oh, two traffic lights in a row, that's going to kill these people. They have to stop twice. But look at the amount of people and the amount of accidents that are going to happen with people having to take a left-hand turn out of there or trying to make a left-hand turn to come home into their subdivision here. It's just tremendously dangerous. And I agree with this man that's just been here two years. I love the peace, the quiet, the beautiful sunrises, the sunsets, and the stars at night. And with all of this, right now, my house is set back from the road, and they're talking about increasing the size of this road so that more traffic can go by. I can't open my front windows because the amount of carbon monoxide fumes that come into my house from the exhaust from the cars going by. I have asthma and it's just a tremendous, unless you live there and you experience it on a daily basis, you have no idea that, that pollution, what that is doing to my lungs, to my air, you know, and to not be able to open my front windows or side windows. That's just, We're going too fast, and people don't care. And they seem to rev their engines there because right past my place, it gets to go to 50 miles an hour. My niece was killed on that curve, head-on collision. People are going too fast, and it takes the sheriffs to be out there. We don't get sheriffs to sit out there. All they have to do is park a car like they do down in, oh, I forget the little bitty town, but they got a fake sheriff sitting in the front seat, a dummy. But people slow down. Thank you very much.

Hi, I'm Michelle Barney, and I live at 3842 Sun Valley Drive. I'm the third lot in. So the property with a butt right up to the back of our lot. We have animals, high-dollar animals, and with all of the traffic coming in and out of there, that would be a definite nuisance. 1,138 cars in and out with the traffic. There's just... To me, it can't be done. There's just no way. And I think... Other people in this room also have livestock, animals that do cost a substantial amount of money. And with the lights and the people and the traffic in and out of there, I just, I feel it would be a bad deal. Thanks.

Thank you, Michelle.

My name is Corey Clark. I live on Sun Valley Drive. I agree with everything that's been said here, but I, you know, Joe come and talk to us back in 2022 or whatever it was. And the plan that he came up with at that time, I feel like worked for him and worked for us. Obviously, he was for it then because it passed and it went that way. This is a... If you're looking at our community, this is a gateway to coming into our town. And from what I'm gathering from everything that's been said here, this is an experiment. I don't know that this is the place for an experiment. This is where everybody comes into our town and sees this is the first thing they see when they come into our town. Also, just with... your job as being a planner, I feel like planning something is creating a balance that helps the existing people work with the people that are coming in. And there has to be a balance in that. And I know that's hard to do at times, but if Grantsville wants to experiment with this type of thing, I think this is too large for an experiment. I think that a balance in this would be some different size lots working into some small things, you know, to try it out, not 200 and however many there are, 40 units all in one spot. Also, I worry about the crime. What keeps good neighbors is distance, and whenever you pack something like this together, I feel like the crime is going to go up there, and I just hope that you'll consider these things as you live here, too. This is part of your community, and Having something like this that close together can create crime, inevitably. I think you could pull up any study on that. Any time you have an abundance of people living that close together, you're going to have issues. And I just see that that would be something that would be down the road. You know, everybody that built or has bought a house, just like these people that have talked, they buy an acre for a reason. You want your distance, you want your space, you want some privacy. That's why you spend the money to get it. And if you're trying to keep this balance, you don't put something like that right against the fence of it. You work your way out of it. And I also believe that higher density housing should be directed more towards where your amenities are for groceries and things. A lot of these people are going to walk. That's why they're living in this or in apartments or things like this is they'll walk to entertainment. They'll walk to get their groceries. So I feel like this is a very poorly suited place, regardless of whether I live there or not, putting it in between two highways with no access to any of those things by walking. I just feel like it's a hazard and it'll be something that will affect everyone. We already had a death of a child that was on a motorcycle going past our drive. And I just don't see the sense of having this many homes next to a highway with children and stuff. I think you're asking for trouble. So anyway, thank you. Thank you, Corey.

Thank you.

My name is Kathy Baker. I live at 105 South Liberty Landing. We try to get out on the highway, trying to turn left or try to turn right, and it takes us such a long time. Having this many homes right so close just doesn't seem feasible for where there's so much traffic already. I know in listening to your comments, it sounds like you guys have made your mind up, but we're really here asking you to please consider not to do this. We're asking you to please listen to us. We're already citizens of Grantsville. We came here because we wanted to be in the country. This is not country. We understand there's a lot of growth going on and we understand that A lot of growth has already been approved right here with this commission. But we're asking you to please don't approve this. This is way too high density for where we're living. We understand that we want some lower housing, but to try to do it this way just doesn't seem feasible. And we're asking you to please consider our feelings where we live and what we're doing. Because we love Grantsville, we want to see it continue to grow in a good, positive way. But this doesn't seem like a positive way.

Thank you, Kathy. Is there anyone else here that would like to make public comment?

I'm Trevor Brimley. I'm at 950 East Main Street. Based upon this map, it backs up to my home with the commercial building. Sorry, I'm just trying to take emotion away from this. I feel like we need to do an assessment how much water is going to be used. I'm coming from a public works background. We need to understand and calculate how much each household is going to use and determine where's the closest well, if we're going to have booster stations, where the subdivisions are going to drain when it rains and snows. We need to get, as a city, we need to get some kickbacks as well because building is going to happen. I'd also like to have the old approval brought up and kind of compared to the new one. Thank you.

Thank you, Trevor.

My name is Christopher Fields. I live at 169 Taylor Road on the very, very west side of Grantsville. I'm nowhere near this development, but something I would like to point out here, listen to everybody, is I've been here 51 years. I have nine kids. None of them can afford to buy a house here in Grantsville City. I have a daughter moving to Virginia to find more affordable living. Another daughter moving to North Carolina to find an affordable living. And I have two boys that moved to Missouri to find affordable living. I don't know that I necessarily agree with something that's like this personally, but we got to have affordable housing here in Grantsville. And that's something that the City Council and Planning and Zoning should be putting together $350,000, $369,000 for a home. The average median income here in Grantsville City is right around $68,000, last I checked. And that's pretty low income. You've got to have two incomes in order to afford a home. Now, if we do what everybody else sounds like would like in here, have half acre, one acre lots, well, he's going to have to sell those homes for $590,000 to $655,000, $700,000. And then our kids here aren't going to be able to afford to live. So we need to have a responsible decision so that this developer can build a subdivision somewhere. And it's got to be affordable for kids, because I'm the next person to be moving out of Grantsville to a more affordable area and be closer to my kids. And I'd hate to see other people here that have children have to have them move out of Bullitt County, out of Utah, and not be near them. Apologize for playing devil's advocate on that a little bit, but I think that the affordable housing here is pretty sad that a developer can't come in and build a home that's affordable for what the median income is for a dual household income. And I think that it's responsibility of our leaders to make sure that that can happen. I appreciate it. Thank you, Christopher.

Oh, which one?

My name is Carrie Gregerson. I'm at 845 East Main Street, directly across from this development. Just something to bring up because I agree with everything that's been said. Something that hasn't been brought up is our schools. 20 Wells Elementary is only a few years old. It already has a 25 to 1, 22 to 1, depending on who you say, teacher to student ratio, with the state being around 25 to 1. We've already hit student-teacher ratio at that school, you're talking about 256 homes. If you're looking at averages for student generation rate, it's probably about 0.4 children per home. But you're looking at these homes as starter homes with younger families with more children. And we all know we live in Utah. So that number is likely higher. If it was even 0.4, we're looking at at least 100 students being added to Grantsville's current boundaries, which would be sending them to 20 wells, 100 students, this additional four classrooms on the very low end. And we've had an amazing experience with our kids who are now in junior high and high school at 20 wells. Great teachers, great principal. and the teachers care about their students. They have already pretty high teacher to student ratios. They're doing a great job. I've loved the teachers that we've had, but I worry about those great teachers burning out by additional classroom sizes and Not to mention along Main Street, you have bus pickup. That area is students getting bussed to 20 Wells and the junior high and the high school. You already have morning traffic and a lot of upset people that sometimes don't even stop for buses that are stopping along Main Street and the neighborhoods. What happens when now you have additional 100 or more students who are required to get bused in because they're not a safe walking route, what happens to the bus routes, the pickups, the capacity to transport those students safely, and teachers to be able to provide them education efficiently. That's one of my concerns. I also would like to clarify from a previous comment If these properties indeed will pay property tax, since education funding, there is a portion of that education that is funded by property taxes. We've seen our property taxes increase in the five years that we've lived here. And I think that's a very important thing when you consider the growth, additional children in the system. If these aren't expected to pay property taxes, that's further impact on these families being able to have their kids adequately educated.

Thank you, Carrie.

My name is Ira Malmgren. I live on Sun Valley Drive, 3751 Sun Valley Drive. And I agree totally with pretty much everything that's been said here tonight. I have a daughter that lives in Harriman, and they have a seven-year-old boy. And they live in a development such as this. And honestly, when we go over there to visit them, we can't even get up and down the street. It's so narrow. And the poor kids there, they can't even go out and play and ride their bikes without some parental supervision. Now, when I grew up, I know I'm spoiled, but I grew up in a rural area such as this. And we... We're able to ride our bikes and go out and play with our friends. This, you can't do that. Any time that these kids want to go out and play, they have to have their parents out there because there's so much traffic going up and down the street, they don't even have sidewalks. Now, to me, that is not living, and what that amounts to is these kids... go in or mostly are confined to the house doing, what do they do, most of these kids? They spend time on their phone. And you know as well as I do that that isn't good. They need some outdoor experiences. And that just isn't going to happen here, I can guarantee you. Thank you.

Thank you, Arnie. Any other public comment?

We have one online.

Okay. Go ahead. We'll take you and then we'll take the online.

I'll make this quick. I don't really even know what to say. I'm kind of peer pressured into a little bit of this, but my name is Mike Fleming. I live at 293 South Cook Lane, just on the south side of that subdivision. I moved out here about five years ago, sold my house in Taylorsville, built my dream house out here, figured I'd live out here for the rest of my life. Didn't expect something like this to go in. What I've seen out here though is just people aren't really all that careful. Speed is way too fast. People aren't paying attention. Witnessing that accident back in four years ago where that kid was killed. It's just, it's too dark. There's too many people, too fast. But then going on these flex homes, it's like just looking at it, it's, are they really that affordable? Yeah, the initial cost might be cheap, but when I built my house out here, granted it is a little bit bigger in these houses, my property taxes were about $3,800. Now I'm paying over $5,000 in property taxes. All my neighbors are the same way. So it's not really affordable with these people can't even pay their mortgages because of the property tax increases. And then my biggest concern is just sewer and water. Grantsville has been in the news lately about how the sewer system is not up to date. We need to bring it up to code. Once we do that and all this infrastructure is built, I mean, are we going to still be the code? Are we going to have the same situation that we're in already where we have to rebuild a whole new sewer plant, increasing property taxes, making these so-called, unquote, affordable units not affordable? And then looking at the website for the state and stuff like that on these things, they mentioned... With these flex homes, they can be used as rental properties. If they're really used as rental properties, are they held to the standards that rental properties are sprinkling systems, regress, emergency systems like that? I'm just concerned about people's well-being out here and the safety. And then also just, I love this town. It's nice. It's small. I want to keep it that way. Thank you. Thank you, Mike.

If you're going to hold on just a minute, we're going to go to an online comment that you can go ahead and jump up.

Yes, this is Mark Cox. I live at 3707 Sun Valley Drive. I've been in construction all my life, worked with utility planning for subdivisions and cities, and there may be a need for this affordable housing type development, but as with Real estate, it's always location, location, location. And it's being mentioned that this type of development may be better suited to be available to the schools and to the shopping and grocery stores, that type of thing. And the traffic issue has been... brought up, which is a very serious concern with this many people coming onto the major highways on both ends. So anyway, I just want to voice my opposition to this development in this location. Thank you.

Thank you, Mark.

Hi, my name is Kristen Estegard. I live at 3610 Sun Valley Drive. I have a 16-year-old that will be moving out in three to four years, hopefully. And we do understand the need for starter homes. And of course, I want my son to stay local. But isn't the 2,300 plus affordable starter homes and the already approved PUDs not enough? City should plan accordingly and space out higher density housing houses to not affect the neighbors. Grantsville PUD code section 12.4 chapter 10 states architectural design, massing, scale and heights of development shall be designed to fit the scale and aesthetic of the surrounding properties. The amount of affordable housing already approved will soon outweigh the amount of final homes for sale. To finish what my husband Jeff was saying about that walking path that's right on my backyard, that's 1,100 tenants that will have direct quick access to my backyard, our backyards, potentially increasing crime and obviously our privacy issues. I think everyone here has such great points and I'm so proud of us neighbors for being so passionate and being here and thank you for your time.

Thank you, Kristen. Is there anyone else that would like to make comment? Is there anyone online that would like to comment?

Yeah, we have somebody else.

Okay. Pick the next online person.

Hi. This is Michelle Marriott. I live on Willow Street, so I'm a ways from this property. But... week after week, I come to these meetings or I log into these meetings and it's just continually been these developers trying to get these high density housing approved. And we already have a lot approved. And if you talk to people who live here, we don't want these high density houses. Like, They're building houses so fast, and it just seems like we just keep packing them in and packing them in, and we're going to need new schools, and we're going to need all this new stuff, and our taxes are going to go up, and nobody can afford our taxes as they are. We moved here four years ago from Bountiful because we got pushed out of Bountiful because they kept – building all these houses. And we had a subdivision almost just like this by our house. And it is a slum land now. And it's probably 15 years old. And it is seriously, it's so bad. So I've seen a project like this go bad. But I just think if you listen to everybody in town, I mean, there are a handful of people that, you know, want these smaller houses and this higher density. But if you talk to people, nobody wants this here. Everybody moved out here or has lived out here and enjoys the open space. And those of us that are really lucky to have open space don't want these, you know, 20 houses in our backyard. So that's all I've got.

Thank you, Michelle.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else online that would like to speak?

Yeah.

If you are, please raise your hand.

Yeah, but I just let somebody in. So let me just make sure they don't want to. Yeah, I think we're good. Anyone else begin?

Yeah, that's it.

That's all online?

Well, thank you for letting us speak. My name is Stephanie Wheat. This is my husband, Chad Wheat. We're at 317 East Box Elder Drive. And we waited. We moved out here in 2019 and we waited two years because we did not want to move to a development. We wanted to be in an already existing home that wasn't going to put pressure on resources or take up someone's land. We wanted to be a part of the community without being a pull on the farming and we wanted to just replace whoever left. And I understand wanting to live near your kids, but sometimes if those situations come up and we can't live, our kids can't move closer to us, Sometimes the answer is to move out and closer to them. So we feel like, you know, the taxes have gone up every year since we've moved here. But along with that, our homeowner's insurance has gone up. And once the taxes go up, as everyone knows, they don't go back down. They go up and up and up. And I feel for the community and the people that are being taxed out of their homes. They may own their homes, but between the taxes and the insurance and even just the general upkeep of their homes, they're having to leave. And maybe they don't have families to go to to take care of them or to help. So I just ask, and also the crime, We came from West Valley City and we had a lot of high density things built up around our home. We moved there in 1974 and we went from tumbleweeds and farmlands to wall-to-wall houses and concrete and it affected our kids and we moved out here for a better life and to be a part of a community that wanted a better life for everyone. So Even though it makes them money, the people that live here and have lived here for so long are not gonna benefit from this. And you've already heard people come from other areas to come to Grantsville to get the peace that they're seeking, that they didn't have where they lived. So we oppose this. We don't live near this, but it's gonna affect everyone. So we wanna fight for the people that have to be close to things like this. So I thank you for your time.

Thank you, Stephanie and Chad. Last call for anybody here in person. All right, last call for anybody online, please raise your hand. Okay, seeing no further public comment, I will close the public hearing portion of this. And we'll now turn it back to the Commission for discussion. Gary, I'm going to start with you on this and what to think about here from what we've listened to tonight.

I mean, I think the thing that still comes to my mind, which I thought a lot of people brought up, which I agree with, is just the traffic in and out of this area. I'm I mean, Joe, you may have mentioned that the state didn't warrant a stoplight here, which truly surprises me. I mean, with already how much traffic is coming in, I'm sorry, not 38. I even see trying to get out there. I'm surprised with a parcel this size potential that there's not a warrant there. Do you know in the traffic, do they take into consideration the other lots that have been approved in the city and county?

I'll tell you this much. I'm not a traffic engineer. And so it's hard for me to stay why they do their things. I'll give Shelby, I think Shelby has it. I don't know if she has the UDOT version, but I'll give her the, everyone can look at it and determine what they found out.

Shelby, can you also come up or just, discuss for people here and everybody online as well, what's going on with our current status of our traffic study and what's happening with that?

So recently at the last city council meeting, the Grantsville City Master Transportation Plan was approved. It was recently pulled up on the screen earlier today. So that states that SR 138 and SR 112 are major arterial roads and those are 117 foot right of way which comes from each half of the side. Granted, those roads are controlled by UDOT. We also have a corridor agreement with UDOT in Grantsville City controlling accesses. But ultimately, it comes down to UDOT that will determine when a traffic study warrants a stoplight. And once we're, you know, Unfortunately, once we're past the conceptual stage and we're reviewing a preliminary or a final plan, that's when UDOT will determine if that traffic study warrants a stoplight or not.

Or someone dies.

So why would we add to that?

Parachute does a perfect job. Exactly.

Don Nottoli, We're not here to add additional comments i'm sorry we had the public comment portion now, so I did keep maintain order here we're going to keep going, thank you for answering that question Shelby. Don Nottoli, Can we can you ask one more question that did come up when they talked about what the fire code was for the for those private lanes and whether that meant that. And maybe that's a discussion between either Shelby or you can answer, Joe, but how was that designed and does that meet current fire code? Yes, it does.

I want to give, I know that the planning staff is an easy target because of what they do, but we started this a year ago and this has been nitpicked a ton. The mixed use zone allows up to 15 units per acre. And this project could have 10-pack townhomes together to meet. I mean, and you wouldn't have to get any deviations. It's allowed by law. It's not even a zoning change. The zoning's already in place. So in working with staff, we went back and sat down and developed this into what we thought was a great plan that wasn't townhomes. It wasn't a 10-pack. It wasn't this. And so we came up with single-family detached homes. They are taxed. I don't know where that – I wish they weren't, I guess, maybe. But they're taxed just like every house out there. And so in going through this, we went through three renditions with the fire department. They reviewed this and did approve all of the alleyway access and everything that met their standards. So long story short, yeah, it's been approved by the staff and by the fire department.

Dr. Willa, fire department?

Shelby. I think it was. Question, I mean, because a lot of, I know we've had some other issues with this with some permitting and stuff. How would the... existing houses on Sunset on Sun Valley ranches with how with existing barns or existing stables. How will that affect, would they be grandfathered? I know that was brought up. That was a question I had. How would that work going forward with these potential townhomes or these potential houses being within 100 feet of a... No, that is a great question.

So I do want to point out that they are actually And in toilet County and are not within grants for city. So the code reference for grants for city would not apply to this at this time. So I did pull up grants are sorry for the county's Results here. Sorry.

And so with full counties land use ordinances.

the chapter 14 and chapter 15 of the land use post, the 100-foot setbacks wouldn't apply to theirs because they are in the county. And so their 100-foot setback that they're referencing, they would be vested already. They already have the animals. They would be vested. They are in the RR1 in Tooele County.

Okay. Since it was brought up, the uses that could be here, could you clarify, Shelby, because their property There was zoning in place. So could you just talk about what density could be here with no PEUD, just straight up? What kind of buildings? Could it be commercial? What's permitted here in this neighborhood by the zoning that was in place when these homes were purchased?

Correct. So permitted is a commercial use, the CN, CS, and CG zoning, as well as this is a mixed use. So single family homes on 4,000 square foot lots HAB-Masyn Moyer- As well as townhomes on and we don't have a restriction on a 10 pack or 12 pack. So yes, Joe could stuff them in and and line the streets and he could do it with a alley that's 26 feet wide and his 166 foot right away and he could HAB-Masyn Moyer- supersede the 256 units that he's putting in if he were to completely fill this up. So there has been some give and take from the developer of what can we do that our children can afford, people my age can afford, versus I don't want to live in a townhome. Who wants to live in a townhome? Who wants a townhome behind us?

Well, maybe one or two, like we keep talking about young families coming in and buying these houses. I know recently my mother-in-law moved from a larger house in West Jordan to a smaller property in Tooele. She wanted a smaller house, less to take care of. I just wonder how much of this will happen. Joe, has there been any thoughts or what are your thoughts, I would say, as a

proposed fence between you and the sun valley ranchettes would there be a is that part of the development i'll put a 12 foot if they want i don't it that defeats the whole purpose of a view right so if they want i mean we do a six foot vinyl fence that's i don't have a problem i don't have a problem putting that in and giving them the privacy it's it's an amazing it's an amazing uh thing that we deal with, right? Because it is an emotional thing and you can't, you can't argue with the passion and stuff that people have. Um, but we've worked really hard to make a, um, a project that kind of meets the needs of what's immediate in our community and then, and still make it. So it's, you know, it's, it's appealing, but it's not, I get it. It's not appealing to everybody. It really isn't, but sure. Townhomes aren't appealing. Um, And there is, there isn't not just, this is not just a carte blanche I'm doing this. There was some pushback. Like, I don't know if it's, I mean, it's surely appropriate. So if you give me five minutes. There's a sewer line that runs from Main Street. We go back. Yeah, it goes all the way through up to Rami Groups. property. I bought this property in 2021. They came to me later that year and like, we need to have this sewer and we need to put it in right now. Why? And they were explaining that they wanted commercial stuff. They wanted to get done. And if you don't give us the property, we're going to condemn it. Okay. Condemn it. Fine. And that was my attitude. Like, you know, you don't have the right to eminent domain. The city does. The It's not necessarily what I wanted, but they were anxious to get it. And so we gave them the easement and the agreement that I negotiated with the city back then. And I don't think any of those people are in office now, but in 2021, when we negotiated it, I gave the easement and they gave me 250 connections in exchange for that fee, in exchange for the sewer. We got it done in a month or something like that. So not too long after that, I get a bill from the Romney Group for half a million dollars telling me I got to pay my sewer fee. And I was pretty miffed about it because it's not what was talked about in me granting them the easement. So this concept... brings in back. And I'm, I live here. I've lived here for 52 years in the Valley, not Grantsville per se. I coached here for a lot of years, know a lot of kids, have great experiences here. So in in negotiating this instead of just putting in all the town homes and making that we try to do a nice project, but we've agreed to pay $2,000. I think it's, what is it? 2000, maybe 1800 per lot back for that sewer cost to help the city. So it's about a half a million. It's about a half a million dollars over the project. So we've worked really hard to be compatible good neighbors, right? And one gentleman spoke that it's an experiment. It's not an experiment. It's construction. We're not reinventing the wheel. We're doing it just a little bit different and allowing people to have a little bit more flex ability in what they build and how they can build. We want them to be able to live here and build a garage. But just like everybody else, they do have their freedom. Once they buy the home, if the market goes up, they can sell that home and benefit from the equity, just like everybody here. There isn't a single person today that would sell their home for the same price they bought it for. So the key is not to bury people in affordability. It's to help them become and do something different. So, I mean, I appreciate it. And there is a whole backstory of other stuff that we don't ever get into in these things. But I promise the water's been completely vetted. We have all of the irrigation rights we need. We have all the sewer capacity we need. We have all, all those things have been done in the year it has taken to get here. So it's not, it's not like we just, we're going to put this in and shove it down people's throat. That's not the case. We want to be good neighbors. We'll put in a fence. I don't know what the restriction is. Six feet, eight feet, probably six feet.

Seven foot is max. Seven foot. Without a building permit.

So, so I mean, if that's the, that's the thing. So it's not like, I said, it's really hard to fight emotion. I'm not trying to fight emotion. I'm just trying to give you the Paul Harvey rest of the story.

Can you speak to the, I know one of the comments came out about the smallest size of the lot and the smallest size of the home.

Can you clarify what that is? The smallest size of the home, I think, is a 1,200-foot, three-bedroom, two-bath base. We call it a base. On what size of lot would that be? I don't know for sure. It's on our drawing.

Let's see if it's here. Oh, sorry.

164. 168. So you're... I mean, my tool of math is kind of bad right now, but... What is that? 104,000 square feet? Yeah, so... That's the square foot.

Yeah.

So, yeah. So, and it's only 50%. So your, your smallest lot is 3,090. Okay.

680.

That's the footprint, right? The house itself.

These would be the smaller, the smallest units.

Yeah. Okay. Gary, do you have anything more you'd like to?

Yeah, I almost wonder if we couldn't treat the city. I know Tracy brought it up with a big meal cop car. I've been by it many times. It made me laugh. Like sometimes I wonder if we should put an old used cop car. somewhere out by 138, just to slow people down. I think that'd be funny. And I agree with you, Joe. I think there's a lot of emotion here and it's, people want it, but sometimes it's one of the things I run into, it's like, it's okay as long as it's not in my backyard. I think it's a common occurrence. That's just the public opinion, right? Like I tell people, hey, you need to put this somewhere else. Well, then it's so it's, it's okay if it's in somebody else's backyard, but not your backyard. And I've got a son right now. I've got a son and daughter-in-law and a two-year-old grandbaby who's living in a basement apartment. Plus my mother-in-law's heart who moved into a smaller house. She finished her basement. And that's all they can afford because everything else is going for $500,000 plus. Um, and I mean, somebody said this, you know, when you sell it, it's not affordable. And I agree with you, right? That's very true. But nothing is affordable minus original purchase price. It's, I bought a house, my original house I bought in on the other side of the mountain. I paid, you know, under $200,000 back in 06 and moved 10 years later, pushing almost 300,000. What's, what's considered affordable. I don't, Why don't when you brought this to us a couple weeks ago, I'm like, hey, I looked at this like this. My viewpoint on this is it meets the code. It meets the zoning. It is your property. You're doing something with your property. And I just have a hard time telling you like, no, you can't do this, even though it meets all the criteria that the city and the city is You've met the water, you've met the connections, you're doing what the land is zoned for. I know people are going to probably hate me for this, but I have a hard time telling the property owner, if you've met the minimum requirements for what the property is used for, how can I tell you no? That's kind of where I'm sitting at right now. And I think we've talked about this before, the ability for people to have affordable options is extremely limited, not only in Tooele County, but even through the Salt Lake Valley. We're becoming more and more of a bedroom community as we grow. I mean, it's as much as I kind of find, I no longer think we are a rural community. I think we're, as Salt Lake's growing, we've become more of a bedroom community. I think we're Harriman 20 years ago. It's a good, bad, or indifferent, but I think that's where we're heading. And Like I said, I'm in construction. I see a new house built. It's not a new concept, but maybe this is, you know, it's to your point, it's just different. I guess I just go back to my final. I'll leave this like I said, it meets all the requirements. I don't know how we can not give a recommendation forward.

That's what I got. That's all I got. Thanks, Gary. John. Well, there's a lot of motion I respect it. But there are facts that the ground is zoned a certain way. When you bought the property, it may not have been zoned that way, but there's a legislative process where it gets rezoned. The fact is it's zoned what it is today. So this landowner has his rights and you have your rights. We need to respect them both. So we're trying to reach that balance. But when you bought the property, You bought it with the potential of this happening. You may not have known it, but that was your responsibility to find that out and to be aware of it. So it's not a reason now for us to say no to another property owner when they have their same rights you do. And it is what it is. It could be much more dense. It could be much more commercial than is being proposed here. And there's nothing anyone can do about it as long as it complies with the existing zoning that's there. So that is a fact. It's not one that's maybe comfortable for everybody, but that is a fact. I've also heard about, you know, we want to treat others how we want to be treated and so forth. But we we can just forget about the people who are trying to find a place that is affordable. And there is nothing else grants would be this affordable. We have hardly any apartments given our population. In a relative to other cities in grants feel this could be a bunch of apartments to go apartments or 18 units per acre density we're talking about 8 I think in this case. So if we want to just pretend like those people don't exist, they can't afford this and maybe they'll struggle and so forth, but they deserve a place in our community. And so I don't see how we can just ignore this need and ignore the rights of this property owner. And so I'm with you. I feel the same way. I haven't made up my mind. I clearly voiced support for this because it's something that we need. So we have listened to you and haven't made up our minds up front. And so I think we've heard the public today. But we have to respect the rights of everybody. That's all I have.

Thank you, John. One thing I wanted to clarify, Shelby, and I'm going back through some of my notes from some of the comments. Can you talk through what the planning is going into with the new sewer plant? I know it's a hot topic because people aren't excited about a new impact fee. But one of the questions was, can our new sewer system support growth? And the comment was, we're going to have 1,100 plus units coming in here. What does that look like? And how does that work within the new sewer system that we're designing and building?

Correct. Yeah. So our new sewer system would be able to handle this growth plus what is currently vested. Now if we came to a time where we're transitioning between our old system and our new system, we could hold building permits and stop those until that time came. But that, I mean, that's last case scenario and if we were past our capacity.

And remember, these were given that vested right in 2021 before all of this stuff came in. It was our service agreement. Sure.

Part of my interest in bringing that up was so the public can understand that this isn't just something where we've designed a system that's only working for today's problem, not with the future growth and plan. I will go back on a couple of things. I took a lot of notes and I take exception to the comment that, at least for myself, that our decisions is made. We really have to look at everything that's going on here and we do have to work as a planning commission to focus on facts. And the, we call it that nimbyism, or I don't, I love, you know, we heard the comment several times, I love growth, but I just don't want it right next to me. It is something we have to balance. It is passionate and no one, people don't want something different around them when we get that. That isn't something that we can work against with, or we can understand that. And it's the same thing I think all of us would feel given if it was next to our house, but we do have to look at what we're doing as far as with the city ordinances. And I, if I counted right, we had 23 different people that commented that I'll tell you, thank you for coming out. I think this is amazing and awesome. Partly because it helps us make a really informed decision. But I would invite every one of you, and I already said this once before, but go out to the city council meeting. This is just one part. We look at this and you have city council representation here. They have to go through the same process and listen to this. We have to go back through and look at how is the city protected? How is a developer, how is a landowner protected with what they have and what they can and can't do to what I think you articulated well, Gary. And so that's the part that we have to go against. And we're kind of the whipping post for the city. And we are volunteers that come here and try to look at how we best build that plan. Things I'm looking at right now, I think this meets the intent of the zoning requirements within this parcel of land. We do have, I know there was a mention about HB 184. I believe that failed in part because the state was trying to take control over what the cities could do, not just that they couldn't build things, but the state was going to say, we're going to relegate it and tell the cities what you can and can't do in your own city. And so that's where a lot of that hang up came, not that we wanted to maintain that control and look at it from a case by case basis, which is what we're doing tonight. So I can't, from what we've looked at here, I can't find fault with what we're trying to do and what, Joe, you're asking for in this situation because it meets, it is compliant with what we're seeing here within the city and and that's where i'm coming from but i i really want and then please please go out to the city council and voice your concerns because that's where your elected officials can hear more of your passion and what that comes into play we represent the city on what we're trying to show that we legally can do and and protect that piece this the elected officials are where you get to to voice that and and talk to your elected officials that way that's part of that process but thank you for coming and being here this is it makes this It's really hard when no one comes because then we have to try to guess what we think is the best, and having input like this really does help, and it matters.

Can I make a correction? There's actually 24 if you include Chad and Stephanie.

Grantsville math, I guess. And I would just say, too, we're not ignoring the feelings. The ship is sailed on, so the zoning is in place. The rights are there, and there's nothing we can do about it.

You're changing.

Okay, comments, comments, we're over, I'm sorry. We're done with comments now. Hey, if you guys want to comment, you can talk outside, but we literally, this is our working group now, and the public comment is over. I'm sorry that ship has sailed. Okay, that being said, I will, if we have another comment.

Maybe there's a gap. I don't see a gap in there. Okay. livestock products.

So these residents aren't going to be sorry to all these complaints. But I agree with you, John.

I think this should be something that should be noted with each buyer as you're going over. I assume I think at the HOA you've got to sign all the CC&Rs. This should be a part of this that hangs for?

I don't see a reason why that couldn't be worked in there as far as the... See, it would be something we'd want to

Probably the easiest instead of doing, because title would be really difficult and they wouldn't read it anyway, to be honest with you. But the best place to do it is require us to put it in our seller's disclosures and they'll sign those seller disclosures.

So that'd be your initial sell, but would that be subsequent sales? That's a good problem.

Yeah, I don't know about that, but. So it would be down the road, 10 years. Here's the problem you have that you'll have with on your deed. Anything on your deed is really scrutinized by your mortgage lender. And they're going, wait a minute, you don't have full rights to this because there's this, they call it an encumbrance, right? There's an encumbrance on your title.

Excuse me, can we stop? Can we just ask this gentleman to not talk anymore? I'm just really having trouble hearing with him talking, so.

For me, clear title is really important when you're selling real estate. Anything on the deed. If you put it anywhere else, I'm fine with it. Deeds are really hard for mortgage companies to overlook. On the plat, we've always done an agricultural protection zone and cross-hatched it so that everyone on the plat... knows it's just no one's if it's on the planning that'd be the easiest i don't know maybe it's the it's the most easily to say i mean it's here but buyers do have some right to to review back to even like on when they cite like when they sign their hoa documents to acknowledge hey that you're part of an hoa that could be part of that it could be in the hoa yeah and we could do that an acknowledgement is that um

It's only if you're currently exercising that right, that it's protected or there's some, I should say protected, but there's consideration for it. Or is it, how is that determined? Like, is that something that we could say, you know, hey, these are currently the rights of, or the options for the property borrowing.

No, you're doing the right thing. We won't. We can't engage it right now, but we will. We will take care of it. We will discuss it.

Okay. Yeah, I just would like to make sure that there's something that's done about existing property rights so the people affected by this have some assurance there that more than just beyond the initial when the property sold at that moment. So thanks.

Thank you, Dylan.

If you want to come to my office or give me a call, I'd be happy to answer your questions.

Is there any other public comment? How about online? Anybody, please raise your hand if you'd like to comment. Okay, no one online has indicated they want to discuss anything. I will see no further interest. I will close the public comment period and return this back to the commission for discussion and consideration.

I think the question now goes to Tyson, how would that work? Speaking to Dylan's question about future animals, would that still be covered?

Well, there's some interesting things at play when considering that a lot of that area is in the county, not in the city. And so we don't have a right to regulate what goes on in the county. And so the county's rules are what are going to control what goes on on their property. Some of the rules So, for example, if one of these new homes wanted to somehow the lot size found itself in such a configuration that it was the right distance and the radius was there, they would have to respect the distance between the residential home that is existing in the county and the large animal where that would be kept. on their side of the fence. I don't think that it's conceivable that a large animal would fit on one of these lots. But to that end, these are the county rules that are at play here. But the spirit of that law and rule in our city is that those who are moving in should have a reasonable expectation through due diligence as to what they're buying into. And so if they're buying into some environment where there's an existing large animal, where there's been a history of that practice in that area, then buyer beware. But if someone has bought in and suddenly this new agricultural practice comes existing homeowner from some new impact or use that may come to interfere with their quiet enjoyment.

So I have a thought. Still in the CC&Rs, if we had an acknowledgement, because it isn't in the city, so our code, you know, that you would talk about wouldn't necessarily apply. It could be annexed in time or whatever. But if we just have acknowledgement in the CC&Rs that there are animals you know, in this area and they're subject to grants for city and county regulation. They know that and so that.

I think I know where you're going. I like it. The problem is I don't they're going to say who are we Are we to Tula County or to Grantsville City?

It's considered both. It could be subject to either.

So what we've done to mitigate this is in that key sheet, the property owner has animal rights until they don't from the municipality that governs them. And then after that, if you have horses and your animal rights are taken, you're still grandfathered in. But if you don't have animal rights at that time that the city HAB-Jacques Juilland- takes those away you can't put new ones on does that make sense.

HAB-Jacques Juilland- Yes, I don't know we get into that nuance just that they have acknowledged the CCR is that there is an ordinance, both in the county and city that may apply and they need to make them, you know. HAB-Jacques Juilland- There we are aware that. that they exist and there are animals there.

We'd probably have to reference, I mean, we'll reference both codes in the CCNR so that, in some kind of an appendix, I guess.

And that they've acknowledged that they've

At least they're aware of it.

Could we say something that it butts up to areas that historically or can't have the option to have livestock or animals? So it's not specific to saying what the current code says, but that they acknowledge that that is an option. Because I think, to Dylan's point, I think protecting them and keeping them from someone coming and saying, hey, I don't want you to have a horse there because now I live here is not fair to anyone. I agree with you.

I just want to make it very clear. Speaking to the rights that they exist.

and they acknowledge that yeah so did you get that because i didn't okay okay all right with that yeah all right anything else john gary nope okay um I'm going to make a motion this time. One of the things I did read, and I know you have in here, Shelby, some recommendations that I'd like to try to include in here. We can restate them or have them just be part of the record that's already here. But these were basically saying that I'm going to make a motion to approve, but that we continue with all these staff recommendations as well. Do I need to state them or can I just say that they're listed?

Outline in the staff report.

Okay. Okay. I will make a motion. that we approve for recommendation the master development agreement for the Ellington subdivision on parcel 01-0059-0-0040 and 01-059-0-0039 located in the mixed use zone approximately at 948 East and State Route 138 as presented by the staff report, including the recommendations that they listed in the report. And do we want to add in the

Yes.

So we also include that they include in the CCNRs the seller's disclosure that they will be in the proximity or whatever we stated previously in that discussion. And then also we talked about that they would place a fence around the subdivision.

A fence between the Sun Valley. Fenced on the eastern or the western section of that.

Yes. So probably the western and southern section because those four homes. Do you have a fence height?

I'd say between six and seven feet.

No less than six feet.

Say no less than six, no more than seven? Three. Three. Identify when it has to be put in? So with each phase that's built, same fence, but you're not going to go put the whole entire fence in. That's the phasing. The problem you have.

Commencement with the phasing.

Yeah, OK. Commencement with the phasing.

Good call.

That was a long ad hoc recommendation. Well, it's a recommendation after all. So if you can gather all that and make an aside with the. All right. I second them all. Thank you. All in favor? Aye. Aye.

Aye. All right, that motion passes unanimously. Okay, we'll go to agenda item number six, and that's discussion of the approval for minutes from the last Planning Commission, which occurred on June 16th, 2026.

No issues here? I make a motion to approve the minutes from the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting from the June 16th, 2026. HAB-Jacques Juilland, Her second all in favor aye aye okay unanimous.

HAB-Jacques Juilland, We will move forward to the next agenda item number seven report from city staff.

HAB-Masyn Moyer, Um, I don't have much, but I just wanted to kind of give you guys an update on HAB-Masyn Moyer, Numbers and things like that that have come from community and development. So we have increased. HAB-Masyn Moyer, I don't want to say cells, but how much money we have collected from permits. From when I first started, it was as low as $200,000 in my first fiscal year, $600,000 in my second to $800,000, and now at $1.2 million this last fiscal year. So it goes to show that, yes, Grantsville is growing, but with the additional staff, we are doing our due diligence and making sure that we are collecting and billing fees as we should to cover the cost, because that is how community and development covers our costs. With that, our permits have increased from 25 to 50, where we are at 135 permits that we are collecting.

What's our city budget?

I don't know. I wasn't there for that discussion. Sorry.

That's a significant portion.

It is. It's just we're growing and we are doing our due diligence and collecting fees, so it's great. That's all I got.

What percentage you say is delinquent? Are you 100% collection or what were you?

No, they're, I don't know, probably 30%. And it's more just the fact that it's not delinquent, but like timing, timing of it, you know, we have permits or we have like a fee from an MDA that's due, but it's not due until the plot's recorded. And so it's kind of like in that awkward stage where we can't collect on it until they want to record it or not as a recording stage.

Okay.

Things like that.

Fair enough. Anything else?

No.

Thank you, Shelby. We'll now close that one and move to the next item, which is 8, open forum for the Planning Commission.

I get to start off again? You can if you want.

I look to the right, I guess I'll let you go.

Hey, I, first of all, great job to the city for the parade, for the carnival, for the car show, which I want to kick my dog. I know, should I say that on record? I got pulled away from the car show because my dog got out. So I had to leave, but the fireworks, I love the, uh, the grand finale four different times. It was awesome. But as I say, very, it was very well put together. Even I noticed like I drug my wife to the parade. She was surprised because I'm I always complained about going to the parade. Like, hey, my daughters aren't involved. I don't need to be there. I'm like, let's go. The parade was great participation. It was very well put together. I know there's a lot of, I saw a lot of city staff out there working, blocking off roads and working their butt off. But very well done. Very well done.

To add to that, this was our first year announcing at the parade and I had a lot of people come up after I was announcing the parade but came up after and said that they really appreciated having the parade announced as well as I had a few of the entries reach out to me and say that they appreciated it. So good job on whoever made that call.

I do have one other question which I've seen this pop up on Facebook. Is there any way to coordinate with Tooele City to rotate times so we're not always at 11?

It's been asked a million times. It's a fight I haven't fought yet. Okay. And I've also had a lot of people, there's both sides of the story, obviously, every story. A lot of people that say, no, don't make it at night. We enjoy going to the flag raising ceremony and having the breakfast and participating in the race and all those things that allow you to have the parade at 11th. And so they enjoy the morning activities and say, don't touch the time of the parade. So we haven't addressed that yet.

I will say this for the parade. I give props to the chief putting the signs out with the cones of please don't cross this. I've seen a lot of times where they're throwing candy and kids are out in the middle of the street.

Right. It was very beneficial. Next year we'll even move them back a little bit further to create that just a little tiny bit more of a buffer.

But I would just say props to all the city and how much time you guys put into that. It was very well done.

I echo what you said, Gary. I think it was awesome. We actually had some friends try the Waffle Love truck for the first time. The food was awesome, but it was just a great turnaround overall. I think everyone gets excited about a late start for a parade until they've been out there for an hour and a half and their feet are cooked on the asphalt and then it feels hot. But outside of that, I think it was a great day overall. But kudos to the whole city staff because I think it was an amazing job.

Yeah. The job.

And thank you. And I will say again, we don't tell you enough, but thank you for all the work you do to help us be successful up here. Cause there's a lot of work that goes in behind the scenes. I know to get this ready and we appreciate it. I would not be able to do near as good as job without, without you all helping.

So. Thanks for fixing my email every other week.

Anything else, John Gary? Nope. Okay. We'll move on to the next one. A report from city council, Dr. Derrick.

All right. We haven't met since the last time you guys met. We canceled our meeting last week because of all the activities with the fourth, which I was going to say, I thought the staff did an amazing job, too. I don't want to see another hot dog for about six months. But it was great. The mayor put in cheese every night, tons of hours. So, Heidi, thank you. I'll bring that up at the meeting as well, too. I'm just kidding. I won't say the turnout tonight. I mean, it makes it a long night, but I honestly wish that every meeting was like, get the community involved. What side you're on, just to have people come out and express their feelings, it's great. And I hope that we get that same turnout at city council. I think Jason did a great job. Thank you. Yeah. It's always, always great to see. And it's using their name. It's yeah. It's crazy. The meetings that I think we'll have people here that are people ones that do have meetings. It's you can never predict it, but other than that, I don't have much. I know it's late. I mean, I do have a lot. It's really hard to sit here in silence, but we do it. So do you guys have anything? I think our next meeting is next week. You guys want to take anything back to city council or.

so nothing that's top of mind right now you guys do a great job again thanks for your guys's support and volunteering your time hey derek maybe one thing in jest the cop car like bicknell see if we can find a way to put that out on the street i do think that'd be funny i i fall for it every time i go through they're going to tory and grover i go through like oh there's a cop like Got me again. It's funny. I figured the locals would catch on.

When I was serving hot dogs, I had another lady come up to me and say the exact same thing, but about West Street. So we might have to get a fake cop car.

Or maybe a camera. That's a revenue source.

That's all I've got.

Thank you, Derek. Okay, if there's no further business, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. I move to adjourn. Second. All right, we're out. Thanks, guys.