Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

and in mark's place and the code is that the alternates would take their place that's kind of my understanding that's what i'm i went to the attorney i have the approval of the attorney so we're good so are we keeping the alternates as of right now yes yeah we're still working on stuff but we're working still working brothers so he was the installment last meeting i guess what i'm wondering is just he was in city council The last city council meeting, yes. He was approved by all city council members, yes.

Sorry, I entertained a motion to approve the agenda. I was just making sure we knew who was voting.

Okay.

I assumed it was good. Should double check. Okay, so moved and seconded that we approve the agenda as it is. Those in favor say yes. Yes. Opposed? Okay. And point two, declaration of conflict of interest. Any declarations? Seeing none, move on to point three. Point three, approval of the minutes for April 14th and April 28th, 2026. Tiffany, I don't remember which date. The 28th. The 28th one, okay. Just a small edit, substituting the names. I think it was just an old one, copyrighted thing. So do I have to explain what that was or? So it just had the, it was like, Ron called the meeting to order and then Chair Micah made motion or like did some business and it's just making sure that the names are squared.

Okay.

Thank you for doing that. Any other edits?

I think he is the co-chairman. He would be chairing if I was absent. Right, that'd be 28. We've got one paragraph, okay. And I would make a motion to approve the rules.

Okay, it's been motioned. We've changed the motion to approve the minutes. Is there a second?

I second.

Moved and seconded to approve the minutes for April 14 and April 28, 2026. All in favor say yes. Yes. Opposed? for updates of business items continue from April 28th, 2026. Turn it over to the chair.

Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair, and good evening to the Planning Commission. Application number 25.012 is the Tremont Rezone. Yeah. Do you have these covered pages? I thought you were done. Oh, are you putting them down?

I'm sorry. I know.

you and i'll make sure you get them tiffany if you don't have these okay i'll get up to you um the applicant is trevor williams uh the owners alliance equity services llc the project location is approximately 131 feet south of the intersection of 105th north and 1000 west date of the application is december 9 2025 the personal numbers and serial numbers are contained within the cover pages that if they weren't sent to you i'll read them now uh parcel number one is zero five dash one eight one dash zero zero zero seven and zero five dash one eight one dash zero zero two five the current zoning is multiple use the general plan designation is single family residential or low density the acreage is 40.88 acres combined and the request has to reason on approximately 40.88 acres of the applicable properties from multiple use to residential R18. This item was heard at the regularly scheduled planning commission meeting on April 28th. Now this year, the comments during the public hearing expressed some frustration that the mixed use zone proposes primarily in town homes for this case with limited housing diversity. There were concerns regarding the single access design and potential emergency vehicle egress limitations. and questions about whether the proposal is consistent with the 2023 integrated land use plan. Discussion from staff and the Planning Commission was minimal. It was mainly just hearing the public comments during the hearing. The Planning Commission voted to continue the item to this date. And so staff is bringing forward the request that this be removed from the Planning Commission agenda at this time per request for revision from the applicant. They'd like to change their proposal and come at this at a different angle. Staff will re-notice for a future Planning Commission meeting once that's ready to go.

Is there any discussion on the motion to table?

Staff will bring it back.

tabling is just a commission action but we will bring it back at a later date for a discussion and a decision so however that translates in your motion okay i trust my career let's make a second it's been moved and seconded that we the tremont project rezone and you to r18

for until when is there a date indefinitely yep table indefinitely okay uh all those in favor of tabling point a say yes yes yes all opposed application it's irrelevant but the other thought was in your staff report i noticed the mu is called

multiple use and mixed use, and it should just be mixed use. Just for clarification, because I'm sure that could become a notice issue in the future, as we call it.

Okay, motion passes. Point B. Mr.

Chair, point B. Point B is the Valley Vistas PUD preliminary plot.

No, that's Cloverfield. Cloverfield, we're in Cloverfield.

Okay, so the Cloverfields PUD Phase III preliminary plot, thank you for the correction, is application 25.009. The applicant is Keith Russell. The project location is approximately 122 feet west of the intersection of 110 South and 850 West. Date of application is August 28, 2025, with the parcel numbers on display before you. The current zoning is R110. The general plan designation says, and I quote, existing residential to remain. The acreage is 3.94 acres combined. And the request is for approval of a preliminary plot for the Cloverfield subdivision phase three PUD for the creation of 24 lots. This was also heard on the April 28th meeting. Common was made during the public hearing expressing support for housing options for younger residents, but raising concern that the proposal could constitute spot zoning and be considered arbitrary or capricious, the Planning Commission discussed existing sub streets in the area and the presence of private driveways. Staff clarified that the sub streets are privately owned and have been vacated by the city. Staff further explained that all three property owners in the area would be required to dedicate land for public roadway and that any private driveways will require recorded road maintenance agreements. And with the Planning Commission voting to continue to this meeting, and staff request that this item be removed from the Planning Commission agenda until it is fully prepared for consideration.

Do you want to speak on that?

I'll defer to Christine here.

Okay. What the applicant is applying for is for an SRFT overlay zone and the SRFT overlay zone was an agreement between a specific developer and the city. It was an overlay zone for a specific area and it's not designed to be translated and used again. So we're in discussions right now on if he does want to use that, if he can proceed. rewrite a new ordinance you'd have to write a whole new ordinance to qualify for the for the overlay that he wants um or if he has to use the PUD overlay or what he needs to do we're actually consulting with our attorney with Dalton on Monday about this well we'll probably call him tomorrow about this but because the legal forward because he's using a zoning type it's not a zoning type it was just it's just an overlay then we're we're working out a better way for him to move forward with this

with this is that any questions on that zoning is not changing it's not a zoning type yeah it's an overlay that's been adopted by the city for a specific project but and he's trying another for another project separate from this yes totally it's completely forgivable because it almost reads like it is a zone type but there's no standards for how to nothing of the sort. So it's a little confusing how it's put forth in our code. And I can understand why someone would look at it as a zoning type, but we want to give the best advice to our applicants and bring this application forward in a manner that is postured for approval.

The way it's positioned in our zoning code is it's underneath the overlay types and not zoning types. And so that implies that it's not, it's just a specific, and there's no, it doesn't say how you apply for it, how you get it. Any reference of the jurisdiction? Yes, we do. We have a development agreement with this. Yeah, we have an ordinance with a development agreement with another developer that used this for his overlay.

So it's basically like when we used to be doing overlay zones for every single development, then we switched to PV to make it more consistent across the board.

Exactly, yep. So we're in the process of figuring out what the best board, and we don't have anything ready for staff right now to present.

But you can't move the UD because it's not fair enough?

We have to, we're looking into that. Yeah. Yeah. We're looking into that.

Okay.

Okay. So we're tabling this one also or we're just?

Okay. I'll just add, just so that you know, because these were continued, that's why we're having this, so that there's a public action after the continuance that we had on them.

Okay.

Okay.

I guess I'm just nervous that we're giving them, like, we've seen this, what, like, four times? Yeah. We've kind of gone through it. I guess I don't want it to feel like we're giving him a runaround.

We understand, yeah.

Is there a way or a thought that we can help them move it along?

I think as soon as we get the things on the back end done, moving it through the pipeline as timely matter would be the best way. And he understands. They understand this. We've been in constant contact with them.

Yeah, yeah. I make a motion we table it then for a future meeting.

I second that motion.

It's been moved and seconded that we table point B, the Cloverfields single family residential transitional overlay, Compact 2 indefinitely.

Sorry, question. So since we did continuance on them last time and tabled them for this meeting, If we table them for now, are we... We're indefinitely tabling them.

When it's ready, we'll bring them back.

It could, in a lot of ways, indefinitely table is a way to kill it, too. Which is not being brought up. It's arrogant. But it's the functional... Our intent is to do that.

Our intent is to give us enough time to figure out what we want to do. And then that also will require...

some of them will require a new hearing and we'll we'll be able to we'll figure that out perhaps this method is preferable to continuing to a future meeting not hearing it again rinse and repeat um the implication here is that staff would be taking on noticing on the next go around not really putting that on the applicant right so you know this is kind of we're picking up the pieces we're trying to get them moving forward we'll take that on

Well, I guess if you can, when we do come back, I'd love to see what the application that he applied for in August of 25 says and what it was approved for. Because if all of us thought that that transitional was really a PUD overlay, and we approved his application based on that, as erroneous as it may have been, and then we've made him jump through these hoops for over a year. You know what I mean? Almost a year. It's not August the 26th yet. No, it was April of 25 when he applied.

As a preliminary plot. Yes. So to approve a preliminary, and here's the issue.

Yeah.

To approve a preliminary plot without the setting of the bonus density would not be a good thing for the commission or the city council to do. The reason is that preliminary plots best two things. One, our subdivision boundaries and two, the lot configurations. Therein lies the issue because if it's implied that a preliminary plot for 306, where are we at? For 24 units, sorry, yeah, 24 units or 24 lots rather, if it's implied that the commission and city council are approving that, when perhaps the bonus density could not even go that high per the acreage, we're putting the brakes on to try to find the best way forward for the applicant so that neither commissions get into hot water or the applicant suggests something that can't be approved. So this one is August.

I do know they started the rezone process in August and the rezone is separate from the overlay. And so I would... venture we will look into this and see what the application really was and where the application is on file and see what they actually applied for but based on my recall and the knowledge of this project is the application was for a rezone and then they brought forth the preliminary plot at a later time so do we not have that application for the preliminary plot that that is what is before you so that's what i guess i'm getting at is what is he applying for Preliminary product approval. Before he has the overlay. And so it's backwards.

It just feels like, you know, because I think they came in originally and they said they wanted to rezone in order to do this. So we said, okay, yeah, you got to rezone it. And then the other, we said, okay, if you're going to connect the dots, you need to bring the road through. You know what I mean?

Yeah.

You got to get a lot of good faith work. Yeah. That's why I'm just nervous that we're just giving in the, you know what I mean? We're But I mean, if it isn't, that's the way it's got to be. I guess it's the way it's got to be. I just don't want them to feel like, you know, we already pushed them like to some degree. Like making them coordinate, making the road go through, you know? I mean, where it borders the CV zone and all of that. I mean, I think it's a good thing.

We'll bring that all up with Dalton too, because that is, we want to stay with good faith with him for sure.

Yeah. And I guess, yeah, there's a way we can even make an exception to say, fine, let them do the PUD and we have 3.94 or something that would make them feel like that we didn't just lead them down this road and then a year later we said, just kidding. You know what I mean?

I just don't want them to feel that. And we could say, have something back to us by June, our second meeting in June. And so you could say we table this part until that second meeting in June. That way we can bookmark and say, okay, ooh, I'd like to see some traction by that date.

Well, it'll come back in the form of a different application. And so on a case-by-case basis, it needs to be considered in a different way, i.e. in a different meeting.

So tabling this would- So the single family residential transition overlay is the problem. You're trying to get rid of that part and substitute it with or something.

Well, yeah, we'll let the applicant know what his options are and what they aren't, and then it'll yield a new application that it already has for this one. It's in its kind of pre-review stage, and so we're making sure all the boxes are checked.

Yeah, he's already been going, he's already filled out the application, the new application, and everything.

Or the preliminary. And so this one, where it came before you with a preliminary plot, it has to come back in a new form, a new application, to process the correct thing in the correct order. Yeah. Okay.

This is confusing stuff. Well, it's not confusing. It's just trying to figure out how can we make sure that we bring it to a certain date.

I guess it's in their report that they're going to fill out a new application. It sounds like he has. Do we receive the new application?

Correct. And before we schedule a meeting date, we need to make sure everything that's required by code is submitted to city staff. It's close to getting reviewed.

you mentioned the pipeline will this move him back because he'll have to get in line again or will no be able to move forward no he'll build an expedition we're aware of the timelines and how long he has waited so it's like we're gonna do our best yeah he's on this give him every consideration possible to help him move forward as smoothly as possible yeah so uh months be too long but we just let them pick the date so we're not

It's not really our job to quantify, I guess, when they're coming back. Just let them put it on the agenda once he's met the full application. Yes. Then we should be fine. Okay. If you're good with it, then what is the motion? Please just make a motion to attempt to table it for now.

Indefinitely.

Yeah, until they bring it back.

And we're, it's been moved. I'll second it. And seconded. We are tabling indefinitely point B, 4B, Cloverfields. 16.235. Those in favor, say yes. Yes. Those opposed? Okay, motion passes. 4C, Valley Vista PUD application.

Same thing for the same reason. I'll still read into the Valley Vestas PUD Preliminary Plot is application 25.004. The applicant is Andrew Peterson, represents the owner of Spring Acres LLC. That's actually not right. Is that not right?

That's not right.

So I'm mixing up the details in my input.

Spring Acres LLC is not right. Okay. But that's not recorded. That's what we pulled off of the county website. It hasn't been updated.

With the project location at approximately the darkness of 2650 West. The date of the application here is April 15, 2025. Parcel numbers displayed on this screen before you. The current zoning is R1-12 with single family residential, which is a medium to high density zone or designation there in the general land use plan. The acreage is 58.62 acres combined. And the request is for approval of the Valley Vista's PUD preliminary plot for the creation of 306 units. So this was also heard on April 28th. There were comments made during the public hearing portion of the meeting regarding Concerns with the proposed density and compatibility with the integrated land use plan from 2023, particularly as it relates to the concentrating higher density development in central Tremont rather than on the outskirts of the community. Additional comments included concerns regarding water availability and water rights, stormwater drainage and emergency access, traffic and infrastructure impacts, school and sewer capacity, preservation of agricultural land, and the use of a PUD overlay. Representatives of the Neighborhood Partnership Initiative, NPI, submitted a packet of concerns and requested specifically that their questions be addressed in writing. Discussions from the Planning Commission included comments regarding landscaping and the use of native grasses in lieu of extensive rock landscaping, as well as expressions of appreciation for the broad range of public input received during that meeting. The decision was to table to this meeting date and staff has the same request that this be removed from the Planning Commission agenda until it is fully prepared for consideration, especially given that the list of questions from the MPI was quite lengthy, touched on a lot of things, and so staff would want more time to be able to address those questions, have a better understanding of the project, and bring it back at a later date. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

in order to table this indefinitely?

I second the motion. Moved and seconded that we table indefinitely and develop this a PUD application. Those in favor say yes. Yes. Opposed say no. Motion passes. Okay.

Because on the date we had specifically said we would do it during this meeting.

Well, it was actually last meeting. The one that was supposed to be last, it was canceled.

It wasn't even supposed to be that one?

No, we pushed it two meetings.

I pushed out another meeting. Anyway, it doesn't matter.

Okay. Point five, public comments.

Yeah, we want to put in the record that we all came here and there was no business. Just for the record.

Yes, we almost missed each other. Even the altar. I did, I did miss you guys.

We appreciate it.

There are public comments, or there are public people here. If you would like to comment, was there anyone in the audience? Okay. Yeah, yeah. Three minutes.

Three minutes. My name is Len Wilding. I'm part of the Tremont West NBI group. I sent out a meeting notice relative to this, and I did get a comment back that I'd like to share with the commission and with the staff. One of the residents, landowners who are in that area is quite concerned that the developer has not yet reached out to them relative to where the roads are going to go and the interaction between the properties. And they want to be sure that I made a request that that takes place, that there should be some sort of a written agreement between the landowners and where the roads are going to be going through their properties. Right now, no discussion has been held between the landowner and adjacent landowners. And I think that should happen. I think it should be something that's important and it should be documented and probably should be put in writing before we ever bring Valley Vista into this board to have a discussion. Those agreements should be completed and it should be handled. So that's all I had. Thank you.

Also along with that, A couple meetings ago, we talked about these groups, whatever they're called, and you were going to email out who was assigned to which group. Did I never get that back to you? I have never seen that. Sorry. It would be great. I mean, I think it would be extremely helpful if one of us could be at those groups to understand. I mean, a lot of these concerns that we've heard could easily be addressed in those groups previously. And if they're not addressed, we could bring them back here and understand what we're

they they meet every wednesday and we've had really good there's actually been a lot of things that have been addressed that haven't been that that was one thing that didn't get addressed that made it that made it here so um but definitely we meet every wednesday and so you're meeting with all of these groups yeah there's different days yeah yeah every right so every you're meeting with all of these groups but you need to be there with them too

Well, that's what we had talked about, I guess, that we were assigning each area, the areas that we live or whatever, for those groups, which we talked about.

They were assigned. I do have them in my chart somewhere, but we can, if you guys have time, if you guys want to take, we've got a North, if you have a preference on where you want to go, we've got a West District.

They were assigned, and we can just do that. I've just never seen it. Do you guys know where your assignment is and when your meetings are?

We can bring it back to the next meeting. Or I can give it to them now. Yeah, just email it to us. That would be even better. Because we don't need to waste time.

I just was thinking it would be ideal if we knew when those were. And maybe also the alternates or which one they go to as well, depending on how you want to survive.

I'm trying to look it up right now, actually.

Just from my memory, how many groups are there?

Four. OK. Just give me a second.

can keep are there any more yeah she could just you know those like comments okay karen ellsworth is east district the east district meets the first week so let's do the weeks first the first week second week third week and fourth week it goes east and then south and then west and then central those are the the and then what we do and whenever there's a public notice then whatever's being noticed to the Planning Commission, we will also discuss whatever's on the agenda at the NPI meeting before. So anyway, okay, so Karen, you are the East District. Andrea, you're the West District. Micah, you're the South District. And Ben, you were the Central District. But it might make sense to put you at the West District. Because you're in the West District. I think that that would make more sense. karen's in the east district because she lives in the east district so andrea do you mind doing the central district what week was that one your central district is the fourth the fourth week and i'll send an email out with all this too i'll type it up before i leave yes when does the south meet the south meets on the second wednesday at seven o'clock here

They're all here.

They're all here. Yep.

And this day on the Wednesdays? Yeah.

So Wednesdays at 7 here. Yes.

So if anyone would like to pop in, be an alternate or myself.

I don't.

No, that is completely booked.

It is completely booked.

Wednesdays at 7 p.m.

I'm a little fuzzy, and maybe I guess we'll figure that out, but I'm a little fuzzy, I guess, on what the purpose of the meeting is in relation to the Planning Commission meeting. We're just having five Planning Commission meetings. Like, just the rest of it.

It breaks it up so, like, for example, we don't have somebody, or like, an entire huge crew is from north-south, west, and central, or east-south, west, and central, all here on the Planning Commission meeting. so we can break it and say the concerns for this area.

It's a discussion instead of a meeting.

Spread it. You can have more in attendance.

It's not a public meeting, so it's not held the Robert Rule, so there can be more interaction between the students.

we haven't done what have you started this is why roland wasn't invited actually we're going to we're going to turn this into uh get a cage and put it out here in the front of the city tickets tickets would be good so you have the ones like that have been very polite

the top and then a benefit is to they offer also invite the developers to be at the meeting so that they can get some bling from some they can work together with the residents and kind of figure out yeah lots of more communication means for better decisions and running water makes your cleaner water

Are we done with public comments? We're moving on then to six. That's commission staff reports. Any reports? Okay, no. Except a motion to adjourn.

Unless, sorry, Chris. No, I said thank you. Okay.

I motion to adjourn the meeting.

Moved.

And seconded. I know someone in their heart is seconding. To adjourn. Those in favor say yes.

Yes. Opposed? Watch the show. They're talking.