Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

call to order this uh meeting of the Utah County Planning Commission on this uh May 20th at 5:37 p.m. And we do have a quorum present. I do think there might be still one commissioner we saw coming in. So, we might have one extra here in a minute. Um, just as an announcement, there is a sheet in at the door. If you do wish to speak to one of the agenda items, then um there's a place to to uh sign your name for that. So, if you'll uh make use of that signup sheet there uh before we get into the uh action items of the agenda. But our first item of business on the agenda is to uh review and approve the minutes from last meeting and I think they've been distributed. Are there any uh edits or changes or objections to the minutes as they've been published? I move we accept the minutes as sent out. I'll second that. Moved and seconded to accept the minutes as they've been published to us. All in favor say I. I. Any opposed. Okay. The minutes have been adopted. Um we do have uh two conditional use applications and uh for is it Mosida Mosa one mo there's Lorraine we will uh I guess we have a report from staff we'll start with Yep. I've been told it's Mosita. Moita. Okay. Um Greg Robinson of our staff will handle this too. So I first um this is a a conditional

use request to um utilize alternative fuels for the previously approved um conditional use the under the permit number being CU 2025-01. The um staff report is is a little bit misleading. I uh probably should have been more clear. This is not an amendment to an existing conditional use. This is a separate conditional use um that is applicable to the previous one. It's kind of a little bit convoluted, but it's important to make that distinction that the we are not addressing um the conditional use that was previously approved. We are only addressing the alternative use of of alternative fuel and the um effects of of that. So just to be clear, um the conditional use CU 2025, which I have incorrect on there. So th this this one page that you distributed kind of explains more about that than what Yeah. Yeah. So the one page that I distributed is is an updated recommendation based to be more clear about the separation between the original approval and this request. Um so just to go through this um the the applicant is requesting to utilize alternative fuels um as part of this natural gas power uh electrical power generation facility. Um their intent is to use these alternative fuels in um the situation where that the natural gas their connection to the natural gas gas line is interrupted. Um it is not um based on the application, it is not meant to be a consistent use of that um those

alternative fuels, but um just as a backup to the the natural gas um connection that they currently have or are proposed or have approved through the previous conditional use. Um they uh requested this to enhance um the the facility's energy resilience is what is the way they stated it. Um ensuring uh stable and reliable power during potential natural gas interruptions is um uh the application kind of goes through the uh location and oh sorry let me I'm not used to doing two things at once. Um so this is just a more closed in. This is part of a overall facility of solar and specifically for the natural gas. So there's um several conditional uses associated with this um with this facility. Solar a natural gas facility and now alternative fuel sources for that natural gas facility. Um just a zoomed out view of where we're at. Um this is just an I this is the previous conditional use that was approved and then the location of the the natural gas the liquid liqufied natural gas um tanks and the diesel storage tanks which I that looks like I spelled wrong again. Um it the the dimensions of those tanks were not specified in the application just um so uh it's not necessary unless there's an issue with the height. Um if they go above 40T which I I don't know what those dimensions are but if they do go over 40 feet a conditional use would be required to address that. Based on the images that were submitted in the application it doesn't appear that that

would be the case. So um the applicant did not request a extension to the expiration date. However, this is associated with the previous conditional use which they did request an expiration date to be extended to March 18th 2030. Um and since this and the next item is um associated with that facility, it seemed appropriate to um include that extension uh on this conditional use. Um we did send this to the other departments uh specifically public works and the fire marshall. The fire marshall did have is continuing to coordinate with the applicant um on the fire requirements. However, he did when when asked, he did want to include a rec a condition that um hydrants be um required as per his review. Other than that, um the applicant is here to address any any questions or concerns. And as as st was stated before, the additional page that I submitted um is an updated recommendation staff recommendation of the approval language. If you choose to use that, it clarifies the separation between this and the previous conditional use. I have a question. Go ahead, commissioner. Do we have sufficient water pressure at the place for fire hydrants? They will. So the so two things the fire they will have initial discussions with the applicant the applicant can probably address this a little more. They're anticipating um having a connection from come down from Eagle Mountain. Um

however the fire tank the tank that is on the next request um is there to provide enough it's so they will be required to provide enough storage of water to um meet fire code requirements. So they they will have to have enough pressure to pressurize those hydrants. They will have to meet all fire requirements as per um fire code and the fire marshall's requirements. Okay. Any other questions for staff? Um would would the applicant like to speak to your application? Please state your name and and and who you represent. Switch over to the other. I'm Greg Propes and I'm representing the applicant and just have a few comments. I'd like to confirm first of all that indeed the the operation is in uh of the backup fuel facilities would be strictly as a backup uh means to be used in the event of outage on the natural gas system either on the pipeline itself or on the supply end. So, in other words, if we had a contract uh um interruption or a or a physical maintenance outage or a forced outage on the uh Kern River pipeline which supplies our facility, uh then we would have uh recourse to the backup fuel and uh we would prefer probably to in the let me say first of all, it's not entirely sure that we're going need to install either the diesel or the uh liqufied natural gas. Uh liqufied natural gas would be the cleaner burning fuel. It would probably be in most

respects the preferred alternative for us. Uh we'd like to make uh make sure that we're meeting the air emissions requirements in any event and that we're not burning a fuel such as diesel that would cause higher emissions during any brief time when we would have to burn our backup fuel. Um the events are very rare. They may not ever happen. Um and so one of the things that it will be entering into the process is ongoing discussions between us and our customer about what is the degree of additional reliability that we need with respect to the backup fuel. It may well be that we're uh going to be okay as is because of the numerous shafts, the very uh reliable pipeline system, and the fact that there's numerous sources of supply up in uh Wyoming for fuel supply for this facility. So, we anticipate um maybe you can help me. Okay. Uh no real comment on that. You can see the identified uh location where we would have the uh LNG storage tanks and you can see an uh on the picture an example of these storage tanks. The tanks you see here are are what we call bullet tanks. It's a it's a insulated tank, a double tank uh because LG is held at 260 degrees below zero and it's gasified and then it becomes just like regular pipeline natural gas. So the idea here is we have a concentrated form liqufied form of natural gas that would be available in the event of emergency outage on the pipeline system. So that's

the concept. Um it would be a relatively small area. We uh these tanks are uh various sizes but they can you somewhere around uh 25 to 75,000 gallons per tank would be uh typical and how many of these we would need sort of depends on what range of time that we need to cover. As you as you're probably will recall from last time, we have a very large solar and battery energy uh system that is actually providing a very large percentage of the electricity that we'll be generating. So, we're still working on the question of of how we would functionally integrate the backup fuel supply with the regular gas supply. And it will uh require us to continue our discussions with the Kern River and the various community of gas supply companies before we enter into our contracting. But this is the concept. It's a it's a safety and a reliability matter and it's it's something that we do because our ultimate customer data center is going to expect that we're delivering around the clock every day to their full requirements. Uh here's another picture. The picture on top you could see would be a typical uh u you know a flat bottom tank. These are typically used in larger facilities. I seriously doubt we'd be using it in this case. I think we'll have probably several of the smaller size of tanks, the bullet tanks that we'd be using. Now, in the alternative, and let me emphasize that alternative, we won't have both liqufied natural gas and diesel as a backup fuel. It'll be one or the other. Diesel is more commonly used.

Uh we could burn them in these turbines as well. The problem with diesel is that it creates more emissions and it also tends to gum up your machine over time. And so it's something that there's a better fuel and that's liqufied natural gas. It's becoming very common around the country and around the world uh for use. It's now shipped all over the world. And it's a it is natural gas, but you have to deal with the issues of how you deal with a super cold material and how you gasify it and prepare it and uh integrate it with your regular uh fuel supply. So, that's what the uh request is all about. And if you have any questions, I'd be happy to respond. Where are you in the process with your negotiations with Eagle Mountain for utilities for services for water and uh disposal of your cooling water? Uh we've already we actually have entered into an agreement with a development agreement with Eagle Mountain and we're in the process on the water and water disposal of looking at alternatives still because we could still conceivably we have a thousand acre feet of water rights and we could conceivably put a well right out at our location instead of bringing the pipeline out. So in that event, if we went in that direction, we would have a well and then our big water holding tank and then, you know, provision for the fire hydrants and so on and so forth. And that uh you know, as as uh Mr. Robinson was describing, we'd be working with the uh county's fire engineer on the design and uh construction of that system. Is that development agreement something that's recently been entered into? Yes. Within like last couple of weeks. Okay. because I talked with a friend of mine out there and they had heard about the the project but hadn't

there was no nothing had been resolved as far as no agreements as far as connecting to the water system and stuff like that. So I just wondered where that was. Thank you. Any I've just out of curiosity how how do you keep it at a minus 260 the those tanks? It takes energy to do that. You you you have you have uh it you have a a cooling system that's not different in principle from from uh air conditioning. You know, you you have big pumps and compressors. That's how you that's how you do it. Boy, that's that's a challenge to keep it that cold. Indeed, it's a real challenge. There's a lot to it. And so it's not something that we uh undertake lightly. It's something that we do for the reliability and because that is what the customer will need. So if you have a disruption in power supply, what's your time frame before those tanks warm up to a point where they become a liability? Well, we have we have backup generation. We have backup generation so that we can start, you know, if if we need to, we can start and operate one or more of our units with our backup fuel and using the backup generator that we have. We have a separate backup generator that is diesel fueled. And that backup or black start generator will help us start one of the main uh generators. And then from there, we'll have plenty of power to keep them cool. Yes. Okay. I have a question. Um, a couple questions. So, what why why do you all of a sudden need I mean, what happened?

Is something going to happen in the market that you feel like you're going to need the extra diesel or is this was this kind of ultimate the plan from the start is have like maybe a two-phase plan. do this initially first with just the the gas and then and then consider this other kind of a a stepwise fashion. No, the only real reason for this is that that as we we've just started working with Kern River and so hypothetically we're just in a situation where we're early in the process. We we are not totally informed on the entire maintenance history and the likelihood of of either scheduled maintenance outages on the pipeline or un uh scheduled forced outages in the future. But it's something that our customer is going to demand. They're going to demand that we have to have you know 99.99% availability of power from our facility. And in order to do that, we had have to demonstrate to them that we've got some sort of backup fuel. And it wouldn't have to be the LNG. It's just that LG is cleaner than diesel. And we want to make sure that we're complying with the air quality regulations as well. So that's our preference. Why now? I mean, because you you had the original application that came out, you were just doing the national I mean, was that why all of a sudden now you need this backup? It's not really an all of a sudden. It's just that that as you continue on in the process, it becomes clear that we have a uh a requirement for reliable fuel for the facility. And there's still a couple of questions about whether the pipeline system and the supply contracting at the northern end of the pipeline is going to be sufficiently reliable. So that would

be the the kind of the only thing that if you could say has changed and it hasn't really changed. It's just something that as we continued to work in the process became clear that this was a an issue that we needed to be careful to cover. So So in some ways you maybe anticipated that that was going to be like it's going to be a phase project. You're going to first do one and then do the diesel and do the the No. Um, it's really just going to be one project. And this backup fuel is really only to be used in the in the event of you could think about it kind of like an emergency. It's a it's a fuel emergency because we would be losing our natural gas supply of fuel from the pipeline. We always considered that it would be a extremely unlikely event to happen and we still do. But for us to have that attitude does not rise to the level of the level of assurance that our customer is going to demand. That's really what this is about. They have to be able to finance their facility uh put in hundreds of millions of dollars of investment into a data center knowing that the power is always going to be there no matter what. And so even if there is a fuel supply problem on this pipeline, as unlikely as that has been historically and as unlikely as we think it will be in the future, we need to make sure we can demonstrate to them that we've got this covered. And that that's why we're asking for this change now, but it's not like it's a phased project or something. It's just a reliable project. Yeah, but if that's what I'm confusing. If you knew you're going to need this anyways, then why not just do it the first time around instead of having to get a second, you know, application in? The degree to which uh, you know, the issue might arise only

became clear as we continued to work on the problem. So, and so that applies to the transportation. So, how many more you're not anticipating you'll need it, but is that is there going to be an impact on like roads? is is I mean now you have you have diesel and then you have the um the liquid nitrogen um and so what um or natural gas. So what what is what impact is that going to have on just on more more traffic more trucks? There would be a certain number of trucks required to fill the tanks in the in the case of liqufied natural gas. That product would be coming from a facility out by Magna that is a specialized LNG facility and would be specialized trucks, insulated trucks that would bring the the fuel over to our holding tanks that I've showed you. In the case of diesel, we could get that product from any one of a number of suppliers and it could come from a number of directions, but it would all come through uh the routes through uh Eagle Mountain and on the county and we would have the agreement with Eagle Mountain on the roads and the agreement with the county on county roads and we'd be in full compliance with both of those agreements. And so as we identify first whether we're going with liqufied natural gas or diesel and then what our hall routes would be once our uh supplier is pinned down and we know those routes exactly then we'll be working with county roads to make sure that we are meeting whatever the county wants us to do. So, so you don't expect a really huge um more volume of trucks in that area unless you're actually utilizing it. Yes, that'd be exactly right. There'd be a few trucks when you're filling the facility and there be a few trucks from time to time if we

ever have to use it. And then it's likely that at some point, whether it's diesel or whether it's LNG, we would want to uh use that fuel, clean out the tanks and refill them with a fresh fuel so that we're sure it's going to burn properly. But in the aggregate, the number of of trucks that we would need, it it's a very minor amount of traffic. and we'll coordinate fully with the county roads on what that exact load would be. It's different sizes of trucks depending on if you're talking about LG or diesel. The the big uh LG trucks are a specialized large truck coming from a facility up in Sole County. The diesel may come through Provo and Spanish Fork and lots of fuel suppliers can sell you diesel, but um once they get around to that part of the county uh coming through Eagle Mountain and through the county uh roads down to our facility, we'll be fully meeting those road requirements. There was the biggest thing with this application is just um the added LNG just seems to be the like the the most like that could be the most like fire hazard and that that's what people would be most concerned about. I think so. I think that's fair to say and that we'll be working with the fire marshall on the size of the tank, the configuration of the tank and the fire hydrants and everything that we need to do to make sure that that's in full compliance with the county. What is your comparison on footprint for your storage requirements for uh diesel versus LG? Approximately the same. Should be above ground tanks for your diesel similar to to those. Yeah, it's

not going to be that different. uh on the the the slide we had before uh I think we said an acre and a half estimated for the unloading zone and the tanks all of it. So it's a fairly modest it's a matter of how many hours you want to cover and it's a very sophisticated model modeling exercise to determine how many hours in a facility that you're using primarily solar and battery backup but then a certain amount of natural gas generation. It depends on your season and and the weather and it's a nightmare to uh model, but it's a very sophisticated exercise. And what we're trying to do is to get to a level of reliability that our customer and the financial community will recognize so that this project gets approved and financed. And that that takes all the approvals to get us there, including all the you working with the fire marshall and working with the roads department, everybody else in the county to make sure that we're complying. Do you have an example of anywhere else where you guys have this as a model that is No, we we don't because we're primarily historically uh we're primarily a renewable project developer. Um, and we've primarily done wind projects and solar projects and sometimes a combination of wind plus solar and sometimes a combination of wind plus solar plus battery. But um, you know, I can say that that our engineers HDR have a subsidiary that does these sorts of LNG projects not only around the country but around the world. And it's a very wellaccepted

uh technology on the uh LNG. You just have to make sure that you have competent professionals, pro proper construction, careful management, but that's not different from anything that you do at a at a facility like this anyway. It's very consistent with how we have to operate everything. So it it's not something that is uh disturbing or concerning to us. It's just it just means you have to know what you do and you have to exercise utmost caution all the time. So that answer your questions. Okay. Is there any further questions for the applicant? Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Um, we do have uh some have who have requested to speak to this agenda item. Um, I'm not sure. Do we need to open to a public hearing before we take comment? Not this one. No, it's just comment just for public comment. So, we have um Holly McKini that Holly, would you like to speak to this? Okay. So, I'm Holly McKenna. I was here a month ago to talk to you guys about this whole project. And I don't know, do you guys remember when I said that is in our annexation policy? And they said, "No, you're not." Anyway, I get an email from Utah County saying this email um please note that while this portion of the subject parcel lines within Fairfield City's annexation policy plan, the specific 34 acre project site associated with this conditional use request is not located within the boundaries. So, I don't know if you could bring up that map that has uh the location of the

project. Yes, that one. If you would look at that, Fairfield is in the pink and it is very clear that this project borders more of Fairfield and nothing of Eagle Mountain. We've never denied them annexing into us. Our water line is closer to Fair to their project than Eagle Mountains is. And we actually have a roadway that joins right in with this project. And so I think that it would be beneficial for Fairfield to annex this in if it's going to be annexed into any community. Um, a couple of things that I Eagle Mountain is overallocated on water right now as we speak. They have they have overallocated on housing on all their developments on water and so that is a huge issue for them. So, I'm not sure how they think they can provide water to a power plant that obviously is not even close to their boundaries and it goes through my annexation plan. They have not considered Fairfield to even annex them in. Um, it is it is well within our annexation policy like I tried to tell you last time. Um, one of the agenda item refers to alternative fuels. Uh, that's pretty ambiguous. I would probably suggest if you guys do pass this as an addition to the conditional use permit, you state exactly what you're allowing instead of saying alternative fuels because that kind of opens up the door to a wide range of fuels that maybe we don't want out there. Um, other than that, I I just think that if you guys would consider Fairfield annexing them in, I think that we're well within the boundaries versus Eagle Mountain. And I think that it's it's why are they trying to skip us? You guys need to ask yourself that question because they're going to be coming through my town and they're going to

impact us more than anybody else. And also a good thing to make note of too is that pink square that jogs down right there is methane gas, which is a natural gas that could produce power. So, I think that you guys need to take a step back and look at everything, all the impacts of this before you just pass in something. And I also question whether this was notified correctly. It seems like it was not notified correctly to property owners that should have been notified when I the guidelines that we have to go by as a town are very strict. You've got to say exactly what is being put on a conditional use permit and who is affected. And I don't think that that was properly done. So anyway, just consider those things and then keep in consideration that our roads do need to be taken care of if they are going to use them because I'm telling you it's a lot easier to come through Fairfield to get to that project than it's going to be to go through Eagle Mountain. And please consider that. So could you clarify when you say that area is methane gas? Could you clarify what you mean by that? The little square that comes down that's in bright pink. Uh there's that white square in the middle, right? Yes. It's a municipal landfill and so they have 17 wells burning methane gas right now. So power is a huge issue that's going on out there. I also have customers that need it and we are looking at additional power sources to provide for that. Is that Inter Mountain Regional, which Okay. Yep. Inter Mountain Regional Landfill and then just Kitty Corner to that is North Point Landfill. Yeah. They they currently don't generate methane. No, they don't. But yes, terrifying. Inner Mountain Regional Inner Mountain Regional Landfill, they actually produce enough methane gas to supply a large quantity of gas for power to do almost 8,000 homes. It's a lot, but power is

such an issue out there. But I just think that um obviously it borders a lot more of Fairfield than it does Eagle Mountain. I don't think any of that's even in annexation plan for Eagle Mountain. So, I find it shocking that they're in a development agreement with Eagle Mountain to take their water, especially when I know that Eagle Mountain is overallocated on water right now. So, and I haven't heard from them that they were in a development agreement and I've talked to their council members about it. So, well, I I I guess I just would ask for clarification. We we don't suggest or control any annexation topics from from our side. We so you know we're only dealing with the county lands and whether they get an agreement with one city or another is is outside of the right. I just wanted to be on the record that we have never denied an application for them to annex into Fairfield. They are closer to our roads and they're closer to our water line and it seems like a pretty big land grab to come from Eagle Mountain just so they can have the benefits of a power gener generation supply when it's clearly going to impact our town more than Eagle Mountain. Okay. So, thank you. Thank you. Can I ask you a question? Sure. So, in in what ways do do you feel like it's going to impact your town more than Eagle Mountain just because it's closer and Well, I mean, it's closer to us and uh the other solar panel, the other solar company that's down there on the south side, they've came through Fairfield and they've tore up our roads and so there wasn't anything in the conditional use permit for us to actually get any money back from them to help repair the roads. And that was mainly why I came down to you guys, what was it, a month ago, and I just said to please consider that. And I stated then that this project was in our annexation plan and they said they weren't. And then I got an email from the county

saying they indeed are they are in our annexation plan. So I, you know, it's just hard when we're such a small town and then these big projects get permitted and it affects us and then Eagle Mountain wants to take it because they want they want the revenue from the power supply and you know it obviously is closer to Fairfield and if you were to look at who it actually borders, it's Fairfield, it's not Eagle Mountain. So please consider it. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions for me? No. No. Okay. Thank you. I do I do have a question for staff before we go to the next. Is what on the notification? Can can we explain what we did on notification on this? Sure. Um we we send notifications to all adjacent property owners who are adjacent. Property owners. That's the requirement for this. Yep. Um we have requirements in our ordinance and we meet those requirements. Um, we send notices 10 days prior to the meeting. Um, and we have a list that we can provide the commission if you want to to show that we've we sent those include and we um specifically sent uh the email to Fairfield to make sure that they were um the city made Yeah. noticed about this to the city. Okay. So, we met the requirements of notification. Yeah, correct. Okay. Um, so that was Holly. I Kirk, I think you were for D1. If there's Kirk, um, Beecher, that's later on. That's what That's later on. That's later on. And then Stan Smith wanted to speak to C1. Is Stan here I didn't mean to put an X in there. I want to speak. I just want to hear. Oh,

you want to hear it? Okay, that got it. All right, that sounds good. All right, thank you. Uh, Holly, I guess I guess we've gone through everyone that wanted to speak to this item. Um, is there any follow-up questions for staff? I have one. So, on the original uh well, your original recommendation, item six, it talks about uh improvements and maintenance of county roads and whatnot. And then on the new one, does the line item six there refer back to the line item six on this one? So yeah, that's that was kind of to be more clear that that requirement of those improvements and the access route um that those requirements are part of the original conditional use that will be enforced as part of this facility and this facility is required like so it it's kind of part of the same thing but it's not. So this this conditional use is contingent on the first original or conditional use being constructed and meeting those requirements. Those requirements include the the the construction of the road, the route um and coordination with with uh public works to amend the the county road map. Um it w we just wanted to be clear that that that requirement is part of the the first conditional use which still will be enforced. Um but it's not specific to this conditional use. It's not a requirement of this conditional use because this conditional use is contingent on the previous conditional use. It's it's weird, but just so that we're clear and we're not it it's it needs to be um the reason we're doing this is so that it may it is clear that we're not modifying an an existing approval that they have been vested and they've gotten the approvals they they were required to get and we're not

opening that up again to address those concerns. Um the changes were just made to make sure that it's clear that any condition that is required for the original approval in order for this to to this conditional use to be utilized would have to be um enforced as part of that uh part of this approval and the previous approval. Did I confuse it? Did I confuse everybody enough? Sure. Is it is it typical to um to require I mean if they if they do drive through the city of Fairfield or the what is it the town of Fairfield and or the city of Eagle Mountain is there can we put requirements on that or the city or anyone? So that's a that's a very difficult um that is a difficult question um mainly because the roads are for public use um and requiring um routes and and things of that nature can be difficult to enforce especially when they're in a different jurisdiction. um there and also roads generally are built um to a certain standard to allow the traffic that that is on there. So those while while um we we want to ensure that there is uh safety and if there is a specific route to provide additional safety, there are c certain conditions that we can enact. If it's through a high pedestrian area or uh next to a school or something that creates a health safety problem that that could impact that, then I think that there is an ability for us to impose um requirements for that.

However, if we're just um going to restrict the use of vroads, it's really something that's difficult for us to kind of get into. And I I don't know if the our attorney wants to address that or not. Um if if I didn't cover anything, I'm sure he can fill in. Come on, attorney. Let's hear about use of roads. Use of roads. Well, first of all, I'll take the position that we're not going to regulate anything inside a city. It's it's simply we're we're not going to go there. um whether we we've in the past we've given cities notice that we're approving a conditional use in the county. Uh that's simply putting them on notice. They have to exercise their rights and and and and their whatever they feel like they can do to enforce it. Um the problem you have with roads is um how do you decide that this developer is doing something to a road and it's not the other half a million cars that use the road that year. So we don't get into that and luckily it's not our job. It's we don't even have jurisdiction to do that. Uh when we get to the city line we're done. That's as far as we go. We have no jurisdiction. We have no control. Um we have no ownership. Um there's there's nothing we can do except give notice. We've done that on other um conditional uses. Um I don't know if it's been successful or not, but it's it's the most that we can do. We we can How about which which uh town or city they work with or through or none? None. We can't no stipulate any of that in any kind of conditional use. No, I don't know. I'm I'm just asking questions to follow up to make sure I know we we have we have made recommendations. We have tried to

coordinate with other jurisdictions in in certain cases. Um however, as as Dale has said that we we like as much as we can cooperate with those jurisdictions, we we do try. Um but but again as Dale said, we're not um able to regulate in somebody else in in a different jurisdictions. It it is it possible that both both Eagle Mountain and Fairfield have annexation plans for that same area? Um not at this time. Fairfield just recently updated their annexation plan. Um they the if I can just kind of if I recall correctly and I I definitely can be wrong. Um the boundary comes down this way and follows this parcel this way and then comes straight across this area. The location of this site is right here. That's where their annexation policy plan goes to. So not quite down to this. It it it it does cover so this parcel specifically um is does have a stem that comes up that way. So it is included um in that um but it the site for the facility is right there and the line for the annexation policy plan is right there. Um, and just to follow up with that, the county does not enforce or um force annexations on any property owner. It's up to the property owner to decide those things. Just just to be clear, annexation is a city procedure. Sure. Has nothing to do with the county. We we provide uh we mail notices on an annexation and we have the right to object to an annexation. Uh but we we don't participate in the approval, in the review. Um and and we clearly don't force annexations. So

um we encourage annexations. Um property is better regulated inside a city, but if it falls outside a city, even a city's annexation plan, we try to cooperate with them, but we have to treat it as county property. There's nothing else we can do until they actually annex. Need at that point the land owner can object to the annexation and decline to be annexed. Right. Right. They they have their own rights to object. There's a way to force them into an annex sanction, but that that has nothing to do with us. That that is for the cities to do. Um I had one more question on my mind and I just forgot it. Um, okay. I'll ask a question. This may seem like a silly question, but let's let's just to consider uh if they did not have an agreement development agreement with Eagle Mountain by us approving these permits and conditional uses, does that does there is there any implications or uh that that they could go to Eagle Mountain and say, "Hey, this has been approved for the county, blah blah blah." Does it give them any extra strength to go to Eagle Mountain and and have Eagle Mountain approve this facility or grant them utility access or anything like that? Um I I I can't see that. I mean obviously there there's going to be impact on the city and and obvious there may be some um incentive for the city to work with the developers. Um this uh not just solar developer any kind of developer where there may be an impact and it may be um helpful for a a developer to coordinate with with the

city. Um, and I I I can probably think of a few instances where uh a a property developer as in residential development have has used the county kind of in a way to um kind of utilize the a leverage with the city to kind of cooperate with them. In this case, I don't know that this there there's necessarily any leverage. I think that the developer has found an area that is um conducive to their land use and and that they would have developed this um and they're probably I I mean they may be happy to stay in the county the entire um duration of their their development. So, it it just depends on this the developer and and the impact to the city and and the city's willingness to kind of coordinate with them and and and see what they can do to cooperate in in the development of the property. Thank you. Okay. So, I just uh maybe one last question. The question I was thinking of uh under what conditions should would we I mean a conditional use under what conditions would we deny? I mean what what is what are the keep just because we don't like it is it has to be a safety consideration. What's what are the reasons we could deny? That just happened to be a topic of last month's um uh I just wanted to hear it again. Yeah. So you would have to find a detrimental impact that could not be reasonably mitigated. Now, staff is good at identifying those. If they have if it's not in a staff report, you you should feel pretty comfortable that they've that they've

looked at those. However, if one comes up in in your minds in a comment and you feel like we feel like there's a detrimental impact here that has not been addressed or has not been reasonably mitigated, you need to speak up. We we need to look at it. um either if we can we can address it here tonight. If not, we can continue and and get you some more information on it. But but your hands are tied in a sense that you have to identify that detrimental impact and and articulate that it has not been reasonably mitigated by the measures that we've imposed with these conditions. Okay. Thank you. Is there any further discussion from the commission? Yeah. Um, so you talked about Eagle Mountain having um their overallocated their water usage and then you mentioned that the the um LG will require a lot of water to keep it cool. So how how is that so that that seems like a that seems like kind of an issue. um like is there going to be I mean and and that's the thing it's like that's why it's helpful to have people coming from these different communities because I mean I'm I'm in a community where we're impacted by water usage and um and and that that can be a really limiting factor. We would not be using water to cool that it's I thought that's what you said that you'd need water. No, you you're using pumps. You're using pumps and it's sort of similar to a an air conditioning system where you have a a medium that provides the cooling. You have and you have pumps and compressors to provide the cooling because water

would not cool this. It has to go down to 260 below zero. So maybe I can also clarify. So um they did indicate for the turbines that they anticipate using water for cooling. Um the liqufied natural gas will not need will will have its own cooling system. Also to clarify the water that they have are in water rights which means that they have the water. It's their water. It it is only um how they so basically like like Greg was talking earlier they could put a well in locate their water rights at that point and pull a thousand acre feet of water out of that well I mean it's kind of but they have a sufficient amount of water thousand acre feet is a significant amount of water um and they they have that water um based on what what they've representatives, they they own that those water rights. And so they would have that right to be able to um pull that water if approved by the state to to um pull that water from that location. Historically, historically at when we started talking with Eagle Mountain, one of the early things we were talking about was the possibility of us providing a portion of our water rights to the city and in exchange they would pro provide us water for our facility and then we would give them back a moderate amount of waste water that came off of the facility and then they would dispose of it. So that's why we started in discussion in with Eagle Mountain in the way that we did and that discussion also included discussion of routes and how would we get access to the site and so it's not like there was an intent to

somehow go around or avoid Fairfield. It's just that we had this historic relationship where we started talking about issues with Eagle Mountain. And another part of the story is that that's the likely location where our customers would be is at data centers to be located next to the other data centers in Eagle inside Eagle Mountain. So it you know history is most of what's going on here. And let me just say by way of future discussions, we have no problem with talking to Fairfield if there's a additional opportunity for a route that makes sense to a a contractor, whether it's the fuel supply or whether it's a construction contractor. We have no problem in talking to them. Can you tell me if the data center that you're working with? Probably need to come to the mic to Yeah. discussion. This is not hard. Yeah, I don't know that. I don't know. We need that. If you guys want to talk after, that's fine. Happy to talk. So, question for staff regarding water. I know a lot of the other um things that we've done, especially last couple of years dealing with lots, subdivisions and and uh divisions and whatnot. There was a requirement to verify water rights. Is there anything required on this to verify those water rights? I mean, I know that I I'm not, you know, stating that that their water rights aren't valid, but that has been something that's been a huge problem in other areas of the of the county where people would say they had water rights and they weren't necessarily verified with the state engineer. Does this are we taking that into consideration with this project? So generally um the

um the reasons typically we require um verification of water rights are generally because it's a requirement in our ordinance. We don't have a specific requirement for water in our ordinance for um a uh electrical power generation facility. Um also it's um it's always difficult verifying water rights with the state when they allocate them um because once they allocate them they say that they have water rights and yes they would have to go through a change application with the state and if they decided to pull those water rights from that location which the state would have the opportunity to review those and and verify that that the water was um there. Um, but we don't have a specific requirement for the amount of water for a facility such as this. I guess I I'll just say one last thing. So, just for the record, I I'm uncomfortable at a couple of things and and and I know there's two sides of the story. Um, but I'm uncomfortable with Fair View is Fairfield coming and and feeling a little uncomfortable with the fact that they're going to get they're going to be getting most the impact via the roads, but not really receiving the benefit. And I'm just wondering from a the county perspective, I I can see that that could be a foreseeable conflict in the future if things get annexed. But and I'm just hearing what she's saying and obviously I'm not hearing what they're saying. But that makes me a little uncomfortable that they're not benefiting but yet they're getting they're getting most the impact and I just want that to be noted. That makes me uncomfortable. But also too I think for you know she's here but maybe there'd be a couple other people that were here if if emails had gone out even three weeks before. We mail notices. We don't generally email or like mail and then she can get around and she could let people in the community know um because I mean communication people take

you takes a while for people you know to take note of things. Sure. I I understand that there's also um just just to be clear that there the problem is that we have certain um requirements when we receive an application to be able to get that on the next available agenda. Our requirement is 28 days prior. we don't have a lot of time to um review, send out notices and and make sure that and and also our ordinance has a specific requirement for 10 days um to notice. Um, and I I I do obviously I understand what you're saying and I don't disagree with you that it's it generally it's really nice to have more input in into um these types of um discussions, but it's also there's there's a balance between both the applicant's ability to do it and also the public's right to review and and have not proper notices. So, I understand that. But the notice requirement is adjacent properties. The notice requirement is adjacent properties. Correct. So whatever other notices we did was just beyond what was required in our ordinance. Beyond what was required. Um, if there's uh a detrimental impact to roads in in in uh Fair View, then they would have to deal with that or they would work with the county or whatever would come out of that. Um, because like you said, the roads are public roads and and the city controls those roads. The city controls who drives on those roads. they they control the the the the condition they're upgrading. Yeah. That that's a city issue and and and and they will take whatever action they believe is necessary. And condition number six addresses the road issues within the

county where we do have control jurisdiction. So also in the area that the that the Fairfield has the annexation that is not within Eagles Eagle Mountain, those roads are being improved by the applicant. they are paving those roads. They are putting those roads in. So those are those roads will be required to be installed at a county um standard for them to be able to get access to those to that facility. And then they will have they will have they will be required to review this this um condition of those roads prior to and after the development of that project. And those are all roads that we've reviewed with the previous application. If I remember correctly, that was something that we already saw. Correct. Yeah. So the so you mean the solar applications? Yeah, we we did review those. This one is different because of the fact that this facility will be occupied, this upgrades that requirement to paving those roads. Um where the where before they would be able to get access on a a sufficiently um graveled road, this one would require them to pave that road. Is there so in your in your report was there a detrimental impact that was still um there's always an impact um there um as far as any impacts that couldn't be mitigated by um by mitigating or reasonable requirements or conditions. Um I I did not in my review find anything that couldn't be mitigated. Um, Commissioner Davis brought up some really good points. She emailed our office earlier about traffic and I think they they're very valid points and I think that they're important to address. Um, and in the process of coordinating with the with the applicant, I'm sure

that we'll um try to coordinate with the adjacent cities where those access roads are going to come and see if we can coordinate with the applicant to utilize those those routes. liquid uh natural gas versus diesel. Um in the so the um approval language that I amended did include um in the recommendation that the Utah County I'll just read it that the um Utah County Planning Commission approved conditional use application a request to use liqufied natural gas and diesel fuel as an alternative fuel source accessory to the So it does specify what fuel source use either one of those right? Yeah, they they did not specify which one they will they this would give them the flexibility to use either liqufied natural gas or diesel fuel. Either one they use, they'd have to comply with state and federal I don't know. I I read it in here, right? I mean, correct. They'd have to be all requirements as per either any state requirements or federal requirements. Federal, state, and local. Yep. Correct. Okay, I'll just make one last note. Okay, it would be nice if is it Mosida Mita would would reach out, you know, um to Fairfield and to have some kind of communication there because you're right adjacent to them and I don't know, it's like we want to be good neighbors. So, hi, I'm Adrien Bell. I'm representing Enyo. Um just representing who? Enyo, the developer that owns Messiah Energy. Just to respond to that, we've been working with Fairfield for over five years. So we are um we've been involved with their planning process. We have a portion of the project within their community. So we've worked with Holly and her and her team. Um we have very

open discussions with them on a regular basis. And also to clarify one other point. Um we're not anticipating using Fairfield's roads. Our traffic and infrastructure is on the eastern border of the project site that will go up through Eagle Mountain. That's where we're focusing our road construction. That's where we'll be focusing our our access. That's where we will be directing our deliveries um and our traffic to the site going down the road that Greg mentioned that we're constructing. So, our goal is not to impact Fairfield. So, I just want to make that clear. Yeah, appreciate that. Thank you. Um, with that I'll entertain a motion. I'm a little confused on which one I should use to make my motion. Think it's this one. Yes. The one that was passed out today. Okay. Uh, I make the motion that we approve the conditional use permit application that is outlined on this page, including the nine conditions on that on this staff recommendation. Is that adequate description? Perhaps recite the number if you would cite the number. The the CU Okay. CU2025-02. Thank you. Is and and as a I know you made the motion. Is as a question, is this incl is this now posted or is this added? It's part of the record. It is part of the part of the record. Okay. So move. I'll second that motion. It's been moved and seconded. Uh is there any discussion before we vote?

All those in favor of the motion say I. I. I. I. Call. Those opposed? Nay. Okay. Sounds it was there. No, I'm good. Yeah. So, we're in unanimous I. So, so that uh conditional use recommendation. Now, this goes on to the county commission. It does not. This is the you are the body that approves that is approved. You are the land use authority for conditional uses. Okay, that is approved. So we we now move to another conditional use. Yes, that's the same applicant, right? Same applicant. Um same procedure. Same procedure. This is same idea of uh this is something that's contemplated in the ordinance. We're just looking at um detrimental effects, anticipated detrimental effects that to be mitigated. Okay. And do we have a staff report? We'll start there. So, similar to the previous one, this is a conditional use um that's dependent on on the um construction and um requirements of meeting the approval or the conditions of the original power generation plant. Um this is specifically for the height of the exhaust stacks and the height of the water tanks. uh the water tank for fire suppression. Um the exhaust stacks they are asking for um a height of 80 feet which is um the maximum height for a structure like this would be 40 ft. Um the conditional use allows that unmanned structures to be to exceed that through the conditional use process. Um they are requesting the additional height to meet air quality standards and also to mitigate noise um associated with their facility.

Um the as as similar um the applicant didn't request a termination date um uh extension but staff has included the termination date to coincide with the um first conditional use for the electric power generation plant which is March 18th of 2030. Um there the I keep forgetting to do this. Um again the same site, same location. Um the exhaust stacks are associated with the turbines which are highlighted in the boxes. They're um they have been approved for up to 12. Um in the previous conditional use um application and the meeting associated with that, the applicants um did state that they may not require all 12, but they have been approved for 12. um turbines. Each turbine would um have a exhaust stack associated with that. Um the water tank is highlighted. Um that water tank is requested to be up to 40 feet tall um to provide uh sufficient fire coverage for that facility. Um there the application includes um conditions associated with that. Um there wasn't anything specific to the this recommendation, but it does include similar conditions to what was um that would have to be met as part of the um conditional use 2025-1. So that was the original one. So hopefully that covers it. If you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer those as well. I have a question. Oh, and maybe I just read this wrong. In the staff recommendation, their recommendation is to approve a request

for the height of the exhaust stacks to exceed 40 feet and the water retain to exceed 20 ft. But in the staff summary, it says that they were pre previously approved for 80 ft. Um, if I did say no. So, so the facility was previously approved to include up to 12 generators with each generator requiring an 80 foot exhaust. Maybe bad grammar. Um, the the facility was approved up for 12 generators. Each one of those generators would require a stack. It was intended that that sentence be separate that they were approved for 12 generators. Each of those generators will require an exhaust stack. Each of those exhaust stacks will require a conditional use for to exceed 40 ft up to 80. I see. So we just approved the the facility. Yeah. So the current approval for that facility would not allow any any structure to exceed 40 ft. Okay. This conditional use would allow the stacks and the water tank to exceed the require the minimum required height um as per our ordinance. Okay. Hopefully that's clear. I'm sorry about the grammar. What what types of detrimental impacts does this have other than aesthetics or view or I don't know are those detrimental impacts that we consider um that that there have there can be um requirements for appearances. Um there have been conditional uses where that that's been a case um where they mitigated sites um or um different things of that nature. mainly the the probably the biggest issue um with the conditional use that is being mitigated is the reason that they're asking for the additional heights is the air

quality and noise. So there the request is so that um they can mitigate detrimental effects and by asking for the additional height those those effects are hopefully being mitigated. The location of this this site is kind of on the back side of um whatever that is. Mount that mountain, right? What is it? Yeah. So, West Mountain. West Mountain. Lake I'm sorry. Lake Mountain. West Mountain. I get it back. So, it's not I mean at least it's not even visible from this side, right? Yeah. It's not going to be visible from this side and it's going to be adjacent to um some um topography that's going to exceed that height. So from the other side they're probably not going to be as visible as well. Um not to say that they won't be visible. They're 80 feet tall. They will be visible. Um however um when they're adjacent to other things that are breaking up that it's le they're less noticeable, I guess is probably the correct term. Mr. chair. This is Bryce from staff. It's also important to um remember that we're only considering the stacks above 40 ft and the water tank above 20. Is it 20? Yes. So, you're not considering the visual impact or any detrimental effect of the stack in its entirety. Only that portion that would be above 40. Yeah. Because it's already been approved. Well, it's Yeah. The ordinance by right allows allows it 40 and then allows an expansion through the conditional use process. Similar to Greg's answer your your previous question, we've it's generally in the past similar requests have been have been um associated with effects related to visual impact and on occasion some some safety for fall zones, but those are usually mitigated through the building code and engineering standards. So there there has been the Oh, go ahead. Sorry. Go ahead. No, go ahead.

Oh, I just going to say that um where where those have been identified as um potential um detrimental effects. Some of the mitigation uh mitigating conditions have been um non-reflective paint um no logos, those type of things. So, I have an additional question. Yes, please. So, I noticed that we have in condition number three, we have a maximum height stated for the stacks of 80 ft, but I don't see a companion one for the water tank. Seems like those would go together. We should have both those in there. Is there a reason to know? Yeah, you you you're correct. I pro I should have added um so the approval does allow it to be exceed 20 feet, but you're right. It doesn't have a maximum height. So, they are requesting 40 feet and it would be appropriate to add that conditional use. Okay. Sorry about that. Apparently, I'm falling asleep. I fall asleep. We'll probably add add the friendly amendment to to 40 ft on the water occasionally. Occasionally. So, I have a question and and I know that in the prior approval of the conditional use permit, we talked about uh fire hydrant placement and approval of the fire marshall. A 40ft water tank won't provide the minimum fire flows for that. So, are you guys addressing that with pumps? And I guess we could wait for the the the owner applicant to address that, but but 40 foot won't won't address fireflow. That that that height alone won't provide you fire protection. So, I assume that with the approval of the conditional use permit and the approval of the fire marshal that all of that would be addressed with his approvals. Yeah. I mean, independent of this process, those codes need to be met. And so the hope would be that their design is uh tailored to meet that that requirement. Correct. Do you know if we

need to adjust this 40 ft according to those requirements? I don't know if the fire inepth review. My bad. So the fire marshall hasn't had hasn't had plans to review this. Um they would they would probably require those plans to be able to review that. Um, as um, Commissioner Love did state, they could augment that through, um, the addition of pumps. Um, also, uh, the fire marshall, like like Bryce was saying, uh, there are specific requirements for fire flow, the amount of flow, and also the amount of pressure, which they would have to meet separate from our our approval requirements. and that that would be addressed in um condition number two that they would have to meet any applicable um zoning, building health, public works and fire safety requirements and those things if they are in conflict with any other conditions would be the primary that would take precedence. So if um if I understand you're if they would need to come back and then ask for additional height to meet that fireflow requirement then they would have to return to this um based on this um the approval for a maximum of 40 ft if that was required. So thanks I I have a a question for commissioner love a little perspective here that power plant rocky mountain power plant by vineyard how how tall are those stacks? Any idea? Sorry, I can't answer that question. I'm not sure. Uh 120 ft comes to mind, but those so those those are the uh those are the cooling towers, right? Which are talked about. So they're not 120 ft, but I know that at one time they had talked about putting in some poles up to 120 ft, but I'm not even sure if they've got poles that high now. So I sorry, can't answer your question. Okay. Thank you.

Any further questions for staff? Should we have the applicant uh speak to the request? Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Have that again. Thank you. Just going to switch over really quick. The the second one. Sorry, this one. Yep. Oh, let me get the Okay. Um, so to focus in on the stack height. Uh oh. The reason we're requesting the increase up to 80 feet from 40 feet, we actually had this in our original application and we didn't call it properly to the attention of staff in time for it to get noticed included in the notice. So, this originally was a notice issue. So, sorry about that, but what we're trying to do is to uh make sure that we have things corrected. And the 80 foot is the standard design height by the manufacturer Gen General Electric. Part of the reason that they have it that tall is for emissions. The rest of it is for noise control. And they and they actually have continuous emission monitoring equipment inside the stack to monitor uh nitrogen oxides to make sure that those are kept in compliance. That's continuously monitored right inside the stack. The other thing is that they have uh noise reduction um uh baffles inside the stack to I don't know how they work but they decrease the amount of uh noise associated with the facility. And so that's their standard design. They can be done less than that but how much less is a matter of uh contention and individuals site hard engineering. Um, I am aware of some facilities that

have been down around the 60 ft level, but if you're trying to get it at 60 ft, then you have to make sure that you're able to meet your air quality requirements while doing that and make making sure that you're meeting your noise requirements. So, and on the 40ft water uh fire uh tower, the whole process there would be working with the uh fire marshall to design and have that engineered to com uh meet the county's requirements. So that's what we'd be doing and we'll have the the pumps as required to uh have the pressure so that the from the uh hydrants you have sufficient water pressure and volume to meet the uh fire suppression uh requirements. Um so uh I don't know the shape of the tank and the size of the tank ultimately. This is going to be an iterative process with your farm fire farm marshall and so that'll determine how that what what the final uh height actually is. Uh this gives you one perspective on what you see out there. This slide shows the the stack heights way in the distance there showing what the stacks would look like in the distance. This is from the nearest residence to the project site which is 2 and a half miles away. And this is what that party could see from their house. Now there is another thing out here that that did not get added to this uh model simulation and that is the existing power line. There is an existing power line that has towers that are 120 or 125 feet big lattice towers that run along parallel to this road. And in fact, it would be

shown on the next. Now, here's a model showing what the the same stack heights would look like from the turnoff from Lake Mountain Road, which is a mile away. And as you can see from that perspective, the 125 ft lattice towers appear to be way taller than the 80 foot stacks. That's because you'd have to go back. These towers are around 1,000 ft apart. You have to go back five towers away to get back to a point that's equal distance with where those actually are even at a mile away because 5,000 ft. So, um, and you you'd see even a greater difference between the perceived height of the towers and the perceived height of those stacks if you're um further away like this 2 and a half mile. And if if I were to give you a um a similar in fact I can find one similar rep representation. Here's a representation from inside of Eagle Mountain City, which I know is not directly material to your considerations, but you can see here what it what our facility looks like in relation to what the meta data center that is out in Eagle Mountain looks like right now. We're way out in the distance. We're that little blip way out in the distance. So, this is even further away than the 2 and a half mile. It's more like I what six seven seven miles at that residence location. So truly it's a remote location. You don't see a lot out there. And what you see are mostly going to be the lattice towers of the existing power line which is way taller than you know our stacks

would be. So uh any further questions I can any questions for the applicant? Um I guess the the remaining question would just be the height of the water towers whether or not the the 40 is sufficient for you to have the totally sufficient. Okay. Because we'll be we won't be relying on the elevation to create the the the force behind the water. We'll be using pumps to create that pressure. So I don't even know that we need 40T to be honest with you. But it whatever it is, we're going to figure out with the fire marshall and that's what we'll do. I think your bigger problem will be your the amount the volume of your water needed for fireflows. It's going to be big storage. It'll be big. So, with up to 12 units, is it I don't I don't know if this is part of our um uh conditional use permit we've already granted, but are they going to be uniform? You're not going to have one 70 ft and the next one over 80 and and then, you know, one, you know, you know, with I don't know, one that looks you're not going to have different shape. You're gonna these are all going to be identical as is your plan right now, right? Exact same machine times 12. It's a General Electric uh LM6000 PF+, meaning it's dry low combuster, meaning it uses uh a dry low combust combustion process to control oxides of nitrogen rather than using water injection to control nitrogen. The only water injection we do, which is why we use so little water, is because we do inlet cooling as well in the summertime when it's hot out to drive down the the temperature of the air that's coming into the machine such that it will produce more power. But uh it's very uh

efficient and effective. That's why we've chosen the technology. And we are way less than a thousand acre feet of use. Uh, I don't even think we hit a hundred, do we? Okay. It's not a thousand. We've got a a huge margin. And so, um, on the on the fire, it's a matter of storage to and we'll be working with your, uh, fire marshall on that. And so, we'll satisfy his requirements. Any further questions? Thank you. Um, thank you. Thank you on that. And I know Holly already left. Um, Stan wanted to hear about number one and two. You've heard about it. Do you want to speak to it at all? No. Okay. I think we've got all our um request to speak taken care of. Is there any further discussion on the commission? Is there a motion? Um, I'll make a motion. Um, I would move that the Utah County Planning Commission approve conditional use permit CU2025-03, a request for the height of proposed exhaust decks to exceed 40 ft and water tank to exceed 20 ft as part of an electrical power generation facility subject to staff findings included in the staff report and the conditions items 1 through nine with an amendment to condition number three to include that the height of the water tank to not exceed 40 ft. Second. Go ahead. Second. What is the What is the height of the stacks in the motion? 80. 80 on the stacks. And she she

specified that in number three that the water would be 40 feet. 40 feet. So, it's been moved and seconded with an amendment uh to um approve the staff recommendation. Um is there any further debate or discussion on this before we vote hearing? None. All those in favor say I. I. Those opposed say nay. Again, we've got a a unanimous vote in the affirmative. So, that's been approved. Okay. We have on our agenda uh section D here an agricultural protection area um for the relief mine company. Yes. um our planner who normally does these. I guess there's graduation going on now or something. Graduations this time of year. He Greg's going to be an all-star and step in and pinch hit and I'll I'll assist a little bit as needed, but Greg will give you a brief presentation. So, um this is an a request for an agricultural um protection area. The aggra an agricultural protection area um is uh so is a protection that property owners um using agricultural or practicing agricultural can you utilize to protect themselves from um certain uh uh I don't know what the best term is complaints that may res re um arise from the operation of their their uh agricultural operation. Sorry. Um it pro protects from nuisances um complaints

and it also um allows protection from change zone changes or zoning regulation changes. Um the state code um requires that they're in state code it requires that they are protected from those nuisances. The protection from zone changes means that they will not be um any changes that are associated with that property. They were still under the same zoning regulation and zone um requirements as was at the time that they were approved. Um the this is a benefit to a operators um just to be able to um protect themselves from any encroachment or any complaints from encroachment that may may come from development. Does it also I'm sorry does it also protect from uh uh eminent domain type? It it does it does add add another layer of protection from eminent domain. Um, so they're they're they would anybody that would have to go any jurisdiction that would like to go through eminent domain would have to go through another layer of protection in or for the a protection in order to um do that. Generally um it's not something that most jurisdictions want to mess around with. Um, also just to follow up with that um the property owner um in a protection does have the ability to get out at any point without any cost to them. They can u make that request to our office um and that goes through the proc the nor the state required process to be removed. Um, and they also are allowed

to take advantage of any underlying uses in the zone. Um, any buildings or other uses that they want to do associated with that. Also, it runs with the land, meaning that it's not associated with an individual property owner, but it it goes from if they sell the property, that ad protection remains. Um, there are certain um requirements by the planning commission. The planning commission is a recommending body uh to the county commission. They will make a recommendation uh or you are required to make a recommendation to the county commission who will make the final decision regarding any new agricultural protection area. Um these are statemanded mandated roles um to analyze the pol uh the objectives and policies um for this area to apply state code criteria which I'll get into in the next slide. um recommend any modifications if if there needs to be any modifications and then review any objections to the proposal which um to date we haven't received any any uh objections to this proposal or modifications. Um and then finally to make a recommendation to county commission. This is the criteria set by state um state code. Um there uh first the is the property currently being used for agricultural production? Is it zoned for agricultural use? Is it viable um uh for agricultural production and will it u will anticipated transgricultural and agriculture support continued agricultural use? Um we'll kind of go over the criteria a little bit in a second. This is the area that's being requested to be included in a in the agricultural protection area. Um it is the yellow.

Yes. Sorry. I'll zoom in a little bit more. So this is this is the area that is within the Salem City annexation policy plan that is adjacent to Salem City. Um the area in is about 175 acres owned by the same property owner um the relief mine um company. Um current uses include um growing alphaalfpha, other grasses and grazing cattle. Um their request is for um for um crop production and for um grazing. That was what they requested. And it's important that that those that what they request is what is being protected against. So they need to request specifically what they're doing on the property in order to be protected from if they do something besides those even if it's agricultural that the a protection would not protect them against those. However, they could easily modify the act protection to include those uses but their request only includes um grazing and crop production. These are a couple slides include that identify um prime farmland. Um, prime farmland is a designation by the USDA that kind of um identifies areas that are um most suitable for growing crops. The areas underlined in blue are um the areas that are identified as um prime farmland based on that um those criteria um that the USDA sets. That is about 10% of the area. Um the rest of it is um not suitable for is is not prime prime farmland but suitable for grazing and other um similar type agricultural uses. This is the zoning

that exists on the property. Um on the on the side on the right it is um zone RA5 which is an is a zone designated as an agricultural zone in both our land use ordinance and also in our general plan. The other areas in the C1 zone is not specifically defined in our uh land use ordinance or general plan as agricultural area. However, um the C1 zone includes many um permitted uses that are agricultural in nature including grazing. Um I think this there are a couple um images that uh kind of show the area. Um the staff report included um kind of a review of the criteria that and we kind of go went over some of those. Um let me just go back to those criteria again just so you kind of can see those. Um so it is currently being used for agricultural production. Um it is zoned for agricultural use. Um they have been using it as for agricultural purposes. So it appears to be a viable agricultural produ viable for agricultural production and there isn't any there aren't any trends that appear um to um not support continued agricultural use of the area. What is what does trends mean like like construction going on around it? So I I will tell you that I'm not the expert and it's a difficult thing to kind of I've tried tried to find examples or or reviews or statements that kind of clarify what was intended by that it is state code. My best guess is that it it just means that there aren't any any trends that would negate the continued use of like any kind of agricultural advancements

that would negate um the use of the property for agricultural use is my best guess. I'm sorry. I maybe the attorney's office can give us a better clarification, but there it's it's not clear and most of the most of the uh come on farmer things I looked at didn't we got a farmer on our board. We we do have a probably someone more expert in it than in agricultural protection areas than I am on on our planning commission as well. So could you go back to those pictures, please? Sure. the upper left picture there certainly appears to be excavation and some some type of development or something going on with that. Is that parcel is that showing a parcel that's part of this that is not part of this um parcel? There is um a significant development. Um I believe that um we have a representative that probably can speak to that or we can talk about that but it's it's not our property. Okay. Sorry. Yeah. Dair property. So I I don't Yeah. Okay. So, it's it I I don't believe and I wasn't the one that took the pictures. I don't believe that this is part of that um property as as far as I'm aware. It's continued to be used um similarly to what it has been used in the past. Um and unfortunately, the applicant is not here today to be able to clarify that any more than that. So, I have one question. How does the relief mine company get into agriculture instead of mining? So, the Relief Mine Company owns um a lot of different property. If you want to go to the the GIS map. Oh, I didn't never mind. I didn't bring it up. Um they own multiple property. This property has been um not is not part of the mine. Um the property that they own that they own a lot of the hillside um the relief mine that kind of I don't

think I have. I don't think I can. Another one. Oh, right. Sorry. If you want to zoom out or go. Ah, that's me. I get to do that. Sorry. So, north of that section. So, you can see the um kind of um where that Yeah, I don't know that I'm I'm not going to be able to point. Um so, the property that this that they're requesting is not part of that relief mine. It's farther to the north from that location where the actual mine is. And from my understanding, the only mining that they're doing currently is um is more for gravel than anything else. They're not doing any additional mining in the mine that I'm aware of. And with it being in an act protection zone, the use wouldn't be able to change over to mining or critical use environment. So things, right? They could use any utilize any use allowed in that zone currently. Um, if the if this is approved, they could they could change the use. However, that use if it's not part of the approved agricultural protection area, meaning it's not associated with crop production or grazing. That's not protected by the agricultural protection area. They could start using it as a mine, but that's not protected and um under our ordinance. However, a mine isn't an allowed use in the RA5 or C1 zone if I recall. Okay, so just to hopefully that clarifies it. Probably made it worse. Just uh I assume the red is Salem City. Is that correct? Correct. And the the uh Woodland Hills is the green. Yes. Okay. just just to speak to this that there's a new development several hundred homes

and a hotel and all of this stuff that directly adjoins this piece and I'm sure that's I I'm not familiar I I do know Boyd Warren but I I'm not familiar with uh uh the other folks the whoever's developing this. Oh, but anyway, it's a u I'm sure the impetus for this is to protect this area from the new neighbors that are coming in up there. And I would I would speak in support of of making this a protection zone. Okay. Would uh any further questions for staff? Sorry. Is is are you the applicant? Are you I'm an adjacent property owner. Okay. Okay. Well, before you speak though, is there is is the applicant here? No, they were not able to attend. They weren't able to be here. Okay. So, we'll So, you're here to you're on an adjacent property. My name is Kirk Beecher and I'm um Okay. representing Central Utah Water Conservancy District. Sullivan knows me quite well. For better or for worse. For better or for worse. And if you go to the county map there and zoom in on this area. Okay. So the area that is being worked on or considered here is that one area that's not in Salem City right there in the middle and then the parcels adjacent to it to the east over to those 5 acre lots that are along that long edge. Um, those are privately owned. The ones to the north that are oneacre lots are privately owned. Everything to the west and north except for where the five homes

are there in the middle just just east or just west of the city tank property. The finger that sticks out to the right there, that's owned by the district. We own 26065 acres there. We're planning on building a water treatment facility on that site. We own the gravel pit that's there and we're actively designing and working on that design right now. Um, normally I'm on a city planning commission in PAC and normally when people come they whine and they complain. I'm here to say we have no issue with this. So it's not a problem. Now, Treehouse uh Park, which is um to the directly to the west of the parcel that's there kind of inscribed in between the Salem City um boundaries, is a um it's about a 500 acre, 450 acre parcel that will have uh luxury homes, um town homes, condos, a water park, a a classic golf course, all those kind of things. I'm sure that's why Boyd and Company are doing this so that they're protected from the complaints when they're next door because the area there that's in the inscribed area, they actively run a lot of cattle on that. They they run cattle on that all the time. Um, we actually run some cattle on the properties to the north um by lease with with a Salem resident as well until we use the land as well. So, we actually are using it for grazing as well on the property. Um, we have no issue with it as far as the district. And so, just so you know, that's all I wanted to say. And if you have any questions, I'd be glad to answer them. Just thank you.

Yeah, I appreciate Oh, go ahead. Oh, go ahead. So, and that was as we've talked about agricultural protection zones and areas in the past. That's, you know, one of the concerns I've had and this hasn't doesn't have anything to do with Central Water, but uh Tony Special Service District has lines that go through an agricultural protection zone and that creates some issues. So, so does the district. Yeah. And I think you guys had to reroute the the line going out to Eagle Mountain in Saratoga Springs because of that. That's the only thing that I guess is is a minor frustration because I certainly respect the desire and the need for people to protect what uses go on in their private on their private property and stuff like that. The the concern I have is is in in some of those other cases where infrastructure either already exists or you know makes sense to go through these that there should be some allowances that they could be worked with the property owners to give that permission or an easement or a rightaway to install those utilities. By and large, those utility companies um make make the homeowner or the property owner whole after construction. U yeah there's always going to be a few instances where it maybe hasn't been 100% but but based on my understanding of the agricultural protection zone as well, I don't it was created how many years ago? Uh about 1996. a long time ago, you know, and to my my understanding is there hasn't been one request to remove or grant a variance to those agricultural uh protection zones granted in the in the entire time that that's been existence because they do

have a lot of power and and they're they're backed up in that. So I I just, you know, I I'm glad that you're here to say that that that we don't feel that it'll have any detrimental use to adjacent to our property. So yeah, because that's something that, you know, they're not going to stop issuing building permits. And um you know, infrastructure has to go in to support those building permits when they are issued. And so I just, you know, I'm I'm glad that this doesn't affect that. and uh you know because there are other projects that's why I'm here is to support it because in all honesty like I said I don't ever hear support when I'm sitting in your chair. Okay. It's always it's always the complaints. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks for the information. Um so again I want to ask a question to um to to staff. Um Uh now I know this is a recommendation goes to the commission county commissioners. Uh what justification would we come up with to deny to to not recommend this? I mean like uh I'm trying to think I'm seriously trying to think what like what's the reason we would uh Greg kind of Greg kind of shared the criteria you're looking at and so it would need to really be focused on one of those criteria being met. One procedural note I would I would make is this process requires another board to do a review. The agricultural um agricultural advisory board which they have done a review on this. Their expertise is agriculture. So, so was that done before? This was Yeah, it was. Um, there's no It wouldn't always be done before. There's no certain requirement, but there's two boards that need to make a recommendation to the county commission. The agg advisory

board and the planning commission. The the the A advisory board's expertise is agricultural. And so, I think that's really their their intent. Um, you're a planning board, so you're looking at maybe some some planning related potential issues. Um, some areas, as Commissioner Loves uh referred to, do have some planning issues related to preservation of corridors and acquisition of corridors and and those of those nature, which you do have the ability to recommend that those areas be exempted out. We've won a few of those battles. We've lost most of those battles. there has been a few that they have um held out some some areas that were pl for plan corridors along roadways and such. Um but those are the criteria that you really need to focus on um in the event that uh you know you felt that it didn't uh warrant a recommendation a positive recommendation from you. To follow up on that, the advisory board, the agricultural advisory board voted to recommend approval five to zero. Is it is it common to have a request like this where there's already residential lots? Uh so those those lots that are um to the um sorry yeah sorry to the east of there. Um those are not approved buildable lots. Those are not those are just divided pieces. I'm not I would be surprised if those were divided going through the right process. long time ago. Okay. Right. But they're not developable lots as it currently ex as they currently exist. They do not have frontage. But to your your point, Mr. Chair, it's not uncommon to have an operator feel an encroachment coming, wanting that extra layer of protection. Some of these people that are moving in aren't used to the bailing at night and some of the smells and some of those type of

nuisances that this offers a little layer of protection. May I? Yes, please. Well, and also I'm my question would be okay that that area there is going to be all developed into homes and whatever. Okay. Now, as I recall, if if those lots are divided or whatever happens over there, that landowner is notified that they are next to a aggra protection area. Correct. If I am I might be wrong on the distance. I I'm pretty sure it's 300 feet. Um any subdivision within 300 300 ft of an agricultural protection area is required to have a note on the plat um state identifying that there's an agricultural protection area in the area and there's specific language specified by state code that needs to be included on a plat so that all property owners adjacent to that agricultural protection area are made aware. Yeah. So they are I mean they're they're aware of that and that's that's another layer of protection for them too. So were they made aware of this that's come before the commission tonight? We do. We send we do send we have a a noticing requirement. We have multiple noticing requirements that are quite extensive that we have we have to not put send property notices out by mail. We have to post the property. Um and there are multiple times that we have to do that. The noticing for this application is much more significant than the noticing that Commissioner McMullen. So, they've had their chance to Yeah, it was a larger distance, too. Okay. And they'll have the chance to have um their there will be a public hearing on this at the county commission level. Okay. Are you ready for a motion, Mr.

Chairman? Yes, I'm ready for a motion. Okay. I make the the motion. I move that the Utah County Planning Commission recommend approval to the Utah County Commission of the proposed creation of the relief mine company 2025 agriculture protection area for agriculture protection which includes approximately 175 acres and based on the staff report and minimum findings listed above. Moved second and seconded. Is there further discussion, questions, commission? See, there's no questions. We'll call for a vote. All those in favor say I. I. I. Any opposed. Okay. Looks like that recommendation will be moved forward to the county commissioners. We do have an other business on there that we added to the agenda last meeting to talk about the resolution of uh rules of conduct for public hearings that was sent out. I printed a copy so I have it uh for myself. Um is there any discussion? Uh does anyone want to open that discussion? And where did I put it? I copy. So, as as we're thinking of that, uh, as Mr. Chair referred to, this was something that we we had some training on and there was discussion of, hey, how how can we review this? And so, staff has just uh put it on as a discussion item. Um, you're welcome to get into depth in this tonight. You're welcome to. This is not I don't think it's super pressing, so we can continue it if needed. It thought we we thought we were

putting on a meeting that was a little short, but was it what? So, it is included in the packet tonight. It should be, but I've got the last page. Last page. Okay. So, the only you know, I I read through this and and um I guess the only thought that maybe I guess the thought is is there are we being too liberal with allowing public um comment? That that's probably the question, right? Is it is is it allow, you know, does it lengthen our meetings on unnecessarily? Is are we, you know, collecting comment when maybe that's not really um helping in the decision? Possibly. I don't know if that I maybe some cases that that's happened. I don't know. But the only thing I could think of that could be added that might uh give us some lever is that maybe uh this is just my thought. My only thought that I had was that maybe within the uh maybe within 48 hours or something, maybe someone requests that it be open to comment a particular agenda item. And only when it's been requested to be open, then we would allow people to sign up to speak to that thing. So that it's not show up and request to speak and then they're just always allowed to speak. it has to be for thought that they want to come and speak uh within a certain number of you know hours before the meeting that they have to request that. That's that's the only thought that I had as a uh an edit to this. Does and I haven't looked at this at all. the state law where it addresses public hearings, does it have anywhere where it addresses whether or not people need to or can or be required to sign up beforehand or is it that it's intended

to just be open to anybody in the public who wishes to address the body? Kind of a mixture. So, it's very clear about which items require a public hearing. when we kind of went through that training um that all meetings, public meetings are are public meetings to be open to the public. So people can come and observe, listen. Um the only time that it is required in state code to allow people to talk is when it's a public hearing. Mhm. And so, as Dale kind of pointed out, we kind of backed ourselves in a corner with this resolution way back when to where it contemplates that both public meetings and public hearings are allowing people to to speak. Um, I'd like the chair's suggestion. Maybe we staff can work on some language that uh I think two number two is our problem. Um, I'll pull it up, but maybe we create a a number three that that's that's good language for a public hearing. You know, we have a way to allow people to speak through the u through a request, but maybe we create another one that's an optional gives you some discretion along a for a public meeting. Um, I don't know what the parameters you want to set it as, but um, you know, whereas distinguish between the two. One's a public hearing when you have to do that. you know, these are the rules for public hearing and then a public meeting allows some discretion whether it's a unanimous vote from the or not unan a majority vote from the commission or just the discretion of the chair but um at least give you some some discretion right I I suppose my underlying question is if we have something like number three that uh or number two whichever it is that is applicable to a public hearing it sort of implies that if you haven't signed up, if you haven't put your name on that sheet, you will not be

permitted to speak. Are we allowed to do that sort of thing to a public comment? That's specific to a public hearing. Yeah. I don't think so. I would think that if someone comes to that meeting, didn't see the signup sheet, sitting in the back, and says, "Hey, I want to talk. Something some comment here has triggered something in my mind. I want to speak to this." I I'd probably hesitate to not allow them to speak, but right, I'm kind of quarterback in here without And if that's the case, are we creating a problem by having that written in here of this is our procedure that if you're going to speak, you're going to sign in or do we just take that out so that we don't give that impression? I I kind of read number three that they could add their name to the list as long as people were still speaking or it's kind of how it reads, right? Sure. They may add their names list until each person has been invited to speak once. But if they choose to not if they for whatever reason don't want to walk to the back of the room, we would allow them to speak in a public hearing. Public hearings are required by law. The statute will say you will have a public hearing before you take this action. And but we're allowed to create some rules so that there's order and having a list, no problem. having a deadline, you know, a time limit, no problem. Um, but we will always allow everyone to speak. Um, as long as they haven't gone over their time. Um, you you just you have to do that in a public hearing. Now, public comment is completely different. There is no law requiring public comment. Um, you could go through your entire meeting and never hear from the public. That that's fine. Um the only requirement is you do it in the open meeting in the public so that they can see and hear what you're doing. That's the only requirement. So should we add something in here that just states for a public hearing the public will be

allowed to speak. Here are the procedures and and then it's clear that we're not limiting participation. We just have rules in place. Right. Yeah. We we can we can draft some. Tonight's a good good example. this there were no public hearings tonight and so to Dale's point absent this I mean there there was no obligation to let anyone talk tonight other than um you know staff gives you presentation and we've contemplated an applicant that seems reasonable to allow them to present their their matter. What would we do if we had a meeting like tonight where we weren't required to allow public comment but we had say 25 people who came and they wanted to speak but it's at the discretion of the chair and the chair declines and they get a little rowdy. What happens then? Where's our guy? We got our one. He abandoned us. He's there. He's out there. I mean did you see that video from Idaho? I think there's some value in um having a mechanism that you're not beholden to public clamor in these in in in administrative issues and you don't want to be. But if there's if you feel or the chair or however you designate, it's probably better to maybe have it the majority of the of the of the board so the chair doesn't feel that pressure. But if if there's a sense that there there's something material here to be added that is is factual and can make can clarify a detrimental effect then you know there's nice to have a mechanism to to get that information and maybe enough to say hey we need to research this a little more and we're going to continue and have staff verify that or whatever. I'll mention how the county commission handles it. Um they deal with the same problem. uh many if not most of their decisions don't require public comment and cannot consider public clamor. So they wait till the very end and then they have

it's on the agenda. You know the last thing on the agenda is public comment and the chair will say okay we're finished with our business now we're going to open this up to anyone in the public who wants to address the commission even though a decision was already made. Even though a decision is already made. Mhm. But the reason I bring it up is because it works. Um, I haven't heard anyone come up and say, "Well, I don't even know why I'm talking because you already made your decision." They still want to talk. They want to be heard about it. And the great thing about your commission is um on some of your decisions, you'll be able to say, "We are not like the one tonight. We are not the last body. There is another body that will hear this." And anyone in public comment who says something, your county commissioners, your elected county commissioners will hear this. CUP, it's not like that. It's done tonight. And and you would have already made that decision and voted before you'd heard from everyone. It's balancing. Okay? There is no right wrong way. Um there may be a best practice. I don't know what it is. Um what what this res the the 2013 resolution is way on the other side. It's it's very heavily favors public comment in this body. I'm not saying that's wrong. I'm just saying it was a decision they made, a judgment they came to and and enforced it with a resolution. Do you know why they came to that? That have you been around long enough to know why they came to that? This guy asked. Yeah. My my hunch is so there was a time in state law that conditional uses were subject to a public hearing and special exceptions which was kind of a conditional use and so I think it's just kind of a remnant of that era that really significantly changed around 2005 and and so um we tried to this was a redo of the 1992 one

if you look at the title and we tried to to kind of pair it down a little bit and distinguish between the we didn't do a good enough job because there's still a contemplation that that you come, you sign up, you're going to be able to speak whether it's a me a public meeting or public hearing. And we to to Dell's point about how the commission handles it. I think the Snowbird one we had a couple months ago was a a good example. I think people felt like they were heard and that kind of seemed to temper some of the angst there. I I think that they appreciated it, but it's not you don't have to do it. We're not here to make them feel appreciated, unfortunately. I mean, we're here to make sure we're following the law on these administrative issues. I I personally like the idea of of allowing uh the public to speak. Um, you know, I feel like we're doing the business of the public and and as much as possible to give them to give them a voice. Again, like like I say with the Sundance thing, it really didn't change anything, but the comments and even the response I think that we got written response afterwards, it's like they they appreciated the fact that we actually heard them. We listened to them for that amount of time. Did it change anything? Not really, but but they they felt like they were heard. Um, and so I, you know, I I tend to be I tend to, you know, lean towards the side of of listening to the public as much as possible because there are sometimes when the public don't get here get heard very well and I think that's a that's a disservice to the public. I I think I mean this is zero as a resolution so you guys will direct us how you want us to do this but I I think at a minimum we probably want it if that's the route we go is to create some guard rails a little bit and there are will be there have been times where it's just completely off the rails and it's like it'd be nice to have a mechanism to say okay you know we're gonna this isn't

really pertinent to what we're doing here and we we've heard the voice and let's shut it down type of deal instead of saying well I'm here I signed up I get to speak I guess to you, Mr. Love, Commissioner Love. I mean, I I think and and I brought this up last time we talked is I I see the value like with the the county commissioners letting people speak after. I mean, I I just think it's a little frustrating to give people the impression that they can have an impact by saying something when the reality is our hands are tied. And I I don't I don't know. I I just think that that I'm not comfortable with that. And even, you know, so I I do think maybe after is a little bit better than people that want to stick around. But I hear you. If it matters, yeah, people should speak up. But if I mean that's what's it's a little um you know with this meeting today it's like ultimately it's like I I think she comp you know they're obviously having you know I I'm kind of coming innocently where I'm assuming she acts like you know like they're not communicating and then she comes up and yeah we are communicating and so I don't know if that if I needed that extra information to make it harder for me to think through it more clearly. Right. I can give you a legal reason um to do it the way the county commission does. Um, so what happens is, um, you deny something and we're sued on it and the court will look at your record, uh, the recording, and the plaintiff who's suing us will say, "The the planning commission relied on something that was said that was inappropriate, and we have to prove to the court that we did not rely on that well you can see that if there's a

public comment during the decisionmaking before the decision it's very hard for us to say judge our planning commission wouldn't do that they know that's against the law they wouldn't have relied on that and the judge says but they heard it and worse they talked about it if that public comment doesn't come until after you've made decision there is no way they're going to be able to do that to us and so that's why I've kind of I've been concerned about this resolution. I'm glad we're having this discussion because that hasn't happened that I'm aware of here, but the danger's there. The risk is there. We we have had absolutely maybe not that exact scenario, but we have had several times a conditional use process that was subject to public comment and public comment directly swayed the decision. Uh so the decision was was they just denied it when it should have been apply been approved and it was the applicant sued and and was referred back to the planning commission saying yeah you you should have approved it now you guys you can attach some conditions to it but do your job. So I I think that was a direct result of just the heat of the Yeah. And I and I don't want to be influenced by public comment. So, I think one thing that might address your concern of um maybe seeming disingenuous to the the public in in Springville on our agenda, we had at the the very beginning a disclosure that we would read out that just said that for this type of item, this is our process. we don't have public comment or the or it's a consent item where we've already we can't do this or we can't do this. And so it was explained to whoever was in the meeting

prior to that item coming up. This is what the procedure is. And we could have something like that for items that don't require public hearing. We just say these items are administrative items for which there is no public hearing. Public comment will be accepted at the end of the meeting for on any items that anyone wishes to bring to the commission's attention. And that way it's it's straightforward. Everybody knows what what's going on in the meeting. They know what we can and can't do. And if there's a question, we can explain further. That's one idea of what we could do. That's what you're saying the county commissions commissioners do. They have at the very end. They they do that. They don't have a notice like that, but in essence, that's what they're doing. Yeah. Because Yeah. I mean because sometimes these meetings can go long somebody's like I mean they need to know when they get to say something. So I I like that and that satisfies you. I mean I do think I I agree. I mean I think people do want to be heard and I I think that anything that impacts the public directly and it will it will depict I mean if it didn't if if it didn't impact her from fair view I mean she wouldn't be here. So I I think it's really important for people to feel like at least they were heard. I think that's huge. So you can do it at the end when it's, you know, it's it's just it's less muddying up the waters. On a on a different angle, we as a staff are trying to help you out a little bit and we're we're over time we've been trying to review our conditional uses and maybe determine which ones you you really want. Best practice really has you limit the number of conditional uses you have because of the fact that you're already considering them as permitted. And we've tried to look at the ones that we have designated as conditional uses that we're getting the same approvals, the same conditions over and we have migrated those over to permitted uses subject to, you know, kind of a a best practice list of conditions. And so, um, we are trying to limit the number of of conditional use. There are some that

it's just so when they get to us, you've already denied several possibilities of condition. Oh, what I'm saying is we've we've changed these uses over to a permitted use so that they don't have to come to a public meeting administrator to to make it a permitted use. That's an amendment or an ordinance or whatever and we do those text amendment through you guys text to bring them to you. That's what we're going to do. You guys make recommendation county to follow up on that. Well, like generally there are conditional uses where we require the same thing m over and over and over again. those conditional uses where we do that. We've reviewed and said, "Look, we're do we're saying the same thing. We're requiring the same things for each of these. It's better we make them a permitted use with these conditions attached so that we're not having to have them go through an application process and have you have to review them when we're going to say the same thing and have the same conditions apply to them. So, we just make them conditions in the ordinance, which is the trend in property law that people just know what they can do with their property and they don't have to come in here and battle for it. That's that's where we're going with most of most of these. Well, um, we can continue this a little further and let you guys maybe look a little more depth and maybe bring some suggestions. We'll have a group email discussion about it. I do think I complain with some video chat. I'm all about making a decision tonight if people want to, you know, do that because um I I like what you you talked about. Is it an actionable item tonight? No, this is just something that is a discussion. We can bring back some suggestions, put it on as adopt a resolution. So that's a different thing to actually adopt a resolution. Yeah, we're not going to be able to adopt this tonight. We're just notice is up to discuss it, get some ideas. We've heard a few things, we can maybe um start putting something together.

I I do like the idea that as we cover different uh topics or different types of um topics that that we kind of state up front, you know, here's reasons we could deny this or you know like I mean just generally so that so that they know because I think a few of them like unless there's an impact that can't be mitigated basically we have to approve Right. Yeah. Yeah. That's probably the type of statement we would that's the kind of statement that we should make, right? So, it's not like Well, yeah. If we don't like it, we don't, you know, we're not going to approve it. Yeah. I don't I don't know about putting those in writing or anything, but you handled it right. You handled it exactly the way the county commission handles it. Well, staff, you need to tell us what what are our parameters here? What's our discretion? What's our standard or criteria? That's fine. We will put that on the record so that it's clear. You're just following the law. Yeah, no problem. We know what those are. Just ask me out there. Whether whether it's coming from from me or, you know, a question from me each time or or I'm saying me, but you know, from us to you or if we can even, you know, kind of kind of say it up front, you know, here's the types of things that you uh criteria you would use to deny this request. uh or you know I guess we could just ask that but I think those are the kind of things that would help kind of temper you know whatever comments we would get because in the end some of some of the things she brought up just weren't even in our purview. I mean like annexation and you know and all that. I mean confused in my head that's why the comment where it comes in is problematic. Yes. Because who how do how do we prove that somehow someone's mind on the commission didn't get skewed or or persuaded or off on a tangent on something? It is very hard. But it

doesn't matter in that context whether something did I mean if like again it made me uncomfortable but it wasn't going to change but it didn't matter whether it did or not. Like we had to you know what I'm saying? It complicated. It complicated it but it ultimately it didn't matter. And I I I just think I don't know if she knows that, but I don't think she Right. And so so that that's what I'm saying. It's like I think it's I don't know. I don't like the fact that people come up here and bear their, you know, testimony and it didn't matter, right? And I I think they should know that. I think they should know that that it's not going to really matter. Like I it you know how painstaking it is for you to come up here and you came all the way up here. whatever you know whatever so story you have isn't gonna matter and so why can't I don't think they know that we can we can create a factual statement that kind of indicates what's considered being considered and then have something that allows someone similar to the commission to be able to talk sometimes it does matter to someone to say hey I went down that far I stood up my voice was heard and I'm going to go to sleep tonight you know and rest and feel like I I I said my peace And so that situation would be similar with how the commission handles it. We would state that saying if you wish to stick around and just make a comment related to these issues, there'll be an opportunity at the end. Yeah. So So we're not going to vote on anything tonight. So I guess if we wanted to uh continue this in a future meeting, it would be that we'd want to kind of come back, you know, come back with an amendment we would make to this resolution or whatever. I mean, this resolution is basically our ordinance, right? We follow. Yeah. Yeah. And so, we could we could add another bullet point on here. We could edit one of these, whatever. But if I think all we have on the agenda tonight is just to discuss

it. Yep. And if but if we want to make a motion on it, um I think we'd want to Would would we send that in and put it on the agenda to be considered and then No, there's there's several ways to handle this. We can you can request us to bring this back in our next meeting for to fine-tune the discussion and then that will give staff then at that point you can say I want direct staff to create this this this this and then bring it back the following month for for uh they need direction from yeah that'd be helpful to have some I I I have I I hear some things but it'd be nice maybe you guys can just really fine-tune those a little bit look at everything and then uh give us a a list things to put together. Well, and I and I do think that it's not going to get less complicated. Things are going to get more complicated. And I just think if we I love like we fine-tune it and kind of streamline it a little better so it's not as clunky. I don't know. We'll we'll put a few things together from what I've heard. I don't think we're going to bring it back to maybe have it have it adopted, but at least further discussion a little more zero in on a few things. That's all right. I mean, I think the fact that we've got it is, you know, laid out and and kind of the rules will follow. I mean, I'm glad it's not just open like we we we will take public comment, you know, for every topic and then it's just a free-for-all and we don't have any rules. At least we have minutes. We have, you know, 10 minutes for, you know, a group. I don't know. There's there's there's lots of rules in here. Probably need to know those better. But at any rate, I mean, I I like the fact that it's structured. Yeah, for sure. At a minimum, we need that. Yeah. Yeah. And like I I just feel like like I think the chances of having in the future, in the near future, even more public clamor, as you say, is only going to increase. Yeah. So, I think we need to kind of

like, you know, zip it up a little bit. And yeah, look at he's agreed. Absolutely. So, you might as well just get ahead of it. Well, it's been I mean this is the third version since 1992 and it's the you know it it needs a refresher for sure. Cool. It's nothing new. Okay. Uh so I'm hearing that we'll bring this back at our next meeting with maybe some suggestions and kind of fine tune. Okay. Good plan. Yeah. And if you guys can come up brainstorm and come up with some suggestions. Yeah, I think that's a great idea. So with that we have reached the end of end of the agenda. Move we adjourn. Second. Yes. Okay. All the available. If you listen to your training last month, we don't have to do that. The chair can just I was going to say there's nothing else on the agenda. I think we can just declare the meeting ajourned. I hope that part was the gravel thing. That part wasn't being liked publicly.