Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Twil County Planning and Zoning Commission meeting held in the uh chambers of the Tula County Building. Um our first order of business is the pledge of allegiance and we'll have uh Mr. Tim Gilly give us that pledge of allegiance. He didn't hear you. He didn't. Tim I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you.

Awesome. Uh are we okay? No worries. No worries. So, uh next time we'll do a roll call. Uh, Commissioner Beckstead, Beckram or Beckram, sorry, my fault. He used to be here. Commissioner Beckram. Commissioner Scott here. Uh, Commissioner Hope is here. Commissioner Stz here. Wonderful. You look like Oh, oh, I did get it right. Commissioner Alder here. Fantastic. Commissioner Dao here.

Wonderful. Thank you very much for being here. Uh the third item of business is the reading and not a reading but the approval rather of the last scheduled meeting of July 16th. Is there any questions or corrections on those minutes? Mr. Chairman, I move we accept the minutes as written. Second. So it's been moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Beckram. All those in favor say I. I. And it passes unanimously. Thank you very much. Yes, ma'am. Would you like to ask Commissioner Mitchell to bring his chair and join us since we don't? I would love that since you authorized me to do that. Commissioner Mitchell, please join us.

There's no chair. No, no chair. It's like just like bringing your bed up. [Laughter]

Welcome and thank you for participating. You all have your mic. Great. So, the next item of business, uh, under subdivisions, SUB 2025-00001, uh, Matt and Doug Hogan are requesting a preliminary plat approval for West for the West uh, South Rim subdivision. And we'll hear from Trish on that.

Yeah. Trish Shukllo, uh, planning staff. Can you hear me? Okay. Um, so if you guys remember, you approved a reszone for this a while back. And so the subdivision um process has started. So they're requesting preliminary plat approval for um that's going to be a phased project, but in total there'll be 226 residential lots. Um there will be um some drainage easement that they're keeping open and then they'll have another lot that's a retention pond. Um so yeah we're just um looking at approval for preliminary plat um there'll be five phases along this um and all the reviewing agencies such as fire engineering health roads um planning have already approved the preliminary plat so we just are looking for your approval. Um, any questions?

Any questions for Trish or the applicant before we open public hearing? So, we're looking at 1acre lots. Correct. Yeah. Um, give or take a couple give or take. Yeah. They have to be one acre minimum. So, they can't be smaller than 1 acre. Um, because we did repeal RPU code. So, if you're familiar with the South Room, the benches at Southroom, they were able to get some different size lots for that because uh they were under that development agreement which they gave open space to get those condensed lots. But here we we repealed our code. So, it's just an RR1 zoning one acre minimum.

Thank you. Anybody else question? for Trish. Um, so it says here that it's going to be developed and processed in five phases. Do we know how long those five phases are going to take to complete? Um, I the applicant could probably better answer that question. Um, it just I'm I'm sure it's up to their timeline. Um, I'm sure they're looking at final right after for at least phase one right after this. So, pretty quick, I'd assume. Okay. It's all a matter of how fast you buy them. Yeah. I'll fast so

any other questions. Okay. So, I move that we open public hearing. If if there's anybody in the audience would like to speak to this matter, please approach the podium. Uh say your name and where you're from for the record and then sign the uh the official ledger and then speak your mind. I've already signed. My name is John. Will you turn the mic on? Good. You're good.

It's green now. Uh John Dick um 2994 uh ridge line. It's along the eastern edge of this uh just about straight to the right of the number five on phase five. Um, I sent a letter about this uh a while back questioning the density and the compatibility with the uh South Rim phase one, two, and three previous development. So, my first question is uh in regards to that, is it the county's intention that this will be treated as a completely separate subdivision or as some kind of an extension of the existing South Rim phase one, two, and three? We don't answer question.

Yeah, unfortunately we're at a public hearing setting, so we're not allowed to ask those questions. Uh if the applicant chooses to answer that on behalf of in his remarks, then that would be fantastic.

Okay. I I'll hope they'll they'll do that. Uh the second one was regarding the compatibility with the nearest development, which is of course phase one, two, and three, which is mixed uh fa uh one, two, and three acre lots. Uh there is some open space along the western edge, but a lot of what had been considered open uh space or trails internal to that have now been closed off either by the property owners or uh through overgrowth or other reasons. So I'm not sure how that gets counted as open space when it's not usable uh to the residents uh in that area. Um the other points are in the letter and I wasn't here for the last meeting but I was told by somebody who was that that letter was received by the by the council. So, I hope you'll still consider that. Raise some points regarding uh water, septic, um the traffic on Silver Avenue and the potential impact of the uh the pit uh if that goes in on those houses. We've already got three houses that could be affected by that pit. Um and so this would add another 226 potential houses to that uh to that list. And as you all know, if you've stood out in that field for more than about two minutes, you can't decide which way the wind is coming from because it comes from all directions. So thinking that it's a prevailing west wind and the dust will all go to the east um is number one not the case. Number two, on my way here, I counted 14 5 acre or more lots and homes along the southern edge of Silver Avenue, just again just to the east of this. Um, so the claim that you can only sell oneacre

lots in this area seems a bit of a stretch. That's it for me. Thanks. Thank you. Anybody else have any comments?

Seeing none, I move that we close public hearing.

Great. Um, so any further questions um for the applicant? Do you want to hear from the applicant? I'd like to I would like to hear from the applicant. I might have a couple of questions.

Right. Doug Hogan. I'm the applicant. I I'm happy to address at least the parts that uh I think that I can confidently address that were raised with the one public comment. The question about how does this subdivision tie into or connect with the benches at South Rim subdivision. It's a completely separate project in terms of whether or not um we've tried to keep in mind where trails exist, where open space exists, where infrastructure can be um utilized in a smart fashion. I believe we've attempted to do so as best we can. But um one thing that I I noticed and I think it's probably worthy of comment um I attended a Southroom special service district uh meeting and I I think there's a lot of misunderstanding about the various boundaries. For instance, the boundary of the benches at South Rim subdivision, you can see it's pretty well defined. You can see where the houses are and where the lots have been built out. The boundary for the special service district is not the same as the subdivision.

It encompasses much more land than just that one subdivision. In fact, it encompasses this proposed subdivision as well as some other additional land. So, at that meeting, there were some concerns expressed about, well, would residents in this new proposed subdivision be able to walk on the trails in the benches at South Rim? My answer was any member of the public can walk on those trails. They're it's open. Um question was asked about whether or not people in the new subdivision would be able to go to the park in the benches at South Room subdivision. Amongst the people at the meeting there I I'll I'll admit there were some people that thought well why should they get to come to that park? I think the belief was that it was only the homes in the benches at South Rim subdivision that have been paying taxes that have supported in addition to grants, generous grants that the county's offered to get that park built. But the very land we're talking about has been paying taxes to the service district um the entire time. In fact, before anybody occupied any one of those homes, this land was paying taxes in that. I don't see any reason why any member of the public couldn't go there. So I I think there's some confusion about the difference between a subdivision, a second subdivision, a special service district, the county in general, all the different layers of control and governance. So to the extent that um I'm clarifying this is a separate subdivision. Our intent is to try to make certain that the connections make sense that the roads are in a way that the roads department says makes sense. We've attempted as best we can through engineering and through consulting with the agencies that have done the review to make sure that all the proposed

improvements make sense. There was question about um water. Um there's there's adequate water. There's as part of this subdivision um there would be a million gallon tank that would be installed. That's a larger tank than currently provide service to the benches at South Room subdivision. So we're attempting in every way, shape, and form to address to meet or exceed the requirements as as they exist in current law. Um question about traffic. I don't think I can say more about traffic than what the traffic study provided. I don't know that I'm confident to give an opinion beyond what's in that traffic study. The the folks who have done that review have credentials that would exceed mine. Um what I can say about the road is when there was five houses out there, people didn't like the road. Um now that there's over 200 houses, people don't like the road. Um I imagine when these lots are all built, people won't like the road. Um, are there things that could be done that would make great improvement to that road? Absolutely. Um, and I think those are things that the the roads department but the county is well aware of. There's a corner that's been a bad corner, a blind corner right by Rick Wheeler's house and just past the Huntsacre property. You kind of come around, it's kind of got a weird bank to it and it's a blind corner. That's been a bad corner my entire life. It's gotten a little bit better each time the county has worked that road. It's gotten a little bit better. There's some spots on that road. Again, not necessarily related to our subdivision where the drainage when you get a big storm, water collects and the covert that goes underneath the road doesn't seem to be quite in the right spot. The low spot's not where the culvert is, so

water accumulates. I think they're well aware of that. Um, so in time will will some of those changes happen and improvements come? I I I believe they will. Um, as to the question about open space, I'm not exactly sure what was being asked other than um this is dramatically different in terms of open space and the benches at South Rim. I must do close mention the reasons why the the code section that allowed for the benches at South Rim to to be developed the way that it was no longer exists. We can't develop it the same way that prior subdivision was done. So with the existing code, we're doing what we can. And so that's that's the best I can answer that question. There there may be other things that you're wondering about that I haven't touched on. I'm happy to answer questions that you might have. I there was one other thing I I forgot. Timeline that was brought up. How soon county ordinance actually um dictates how quickly we can go. We can't go any faster than we can sell. And there's some really good reasons for this. I I I spent quite a bit of time with our engineer talking about this very idea. If you go several years back, those of you who remember what things were like before the mortgage crisis in the 2000s, um projects could be done, all of the improvements put in. And so the county might be taking on five phases worth of improvements with roads and everything, all the infrastructure done, not a single lot sold. So the land's still being assessed at a very low value. It's a raw, it's a a buildable lot, but there's no house on it. Well, that doesn't mesh up with the amount of revenue you would need to take care of these new miles of asphalt if you're not assessing a home on that lot. So,

Towilla County along with many, many other jurisdictions kind of put a for lack of a better word, I'll call it a circuit breaker provision in that doesn't let you get too far ahead of yourself in terms of putting in the improvements and then turning them over to the county. So we have to hit a threshold that's dictated by code and I is it 45%. I 70%. So we can't go from phase one to phase two until we hit that threshold. Right? So that's what determines it. So the the short answer to the question is as soon as the market allows. Um as to when we would like to start, we would have liked to have started a year ago.

But it's it's a lot of work. And for those that haven't gone through this process, there are some really good reasons why it's a lot of work. There are a lot of really good important questions that need to be asked and answered and it takes a lot of time to sort through it and to do a good job at it. So the amount of time it it it takes a long time. I'd have liked to have had lots available to sell the first first of this year. It's not the case. So as as soon as we can get there, that's the timeline we would like, but we want to make sure we fully comply. Any other question? Thank you. That was great. Thanks for the clarification. Question. Sure. Judge Hogan, you may have already alluded to part of it. You said you're going to put a new water tank in. Is that going to be at the same elevation or higher of the existing?

It'll be at it'll be at a different elevation, a totally different location. It should be It should be shown and I I don't recall exactly which which breakout in your packet shows the tank and the elevation. Okay. you know, I I couldn't find it and I was gauging it off the old tank and worried about phase three was the drop between the two. And in fact, it's gonna it's going to be at a higher elevation for for pressure reasons if you're trying to gravity flow and you want to hit the right pressures to make sure. What I can tell you, without specifically saying it's exactly right there,

I can tell you that um there was concern about fire flows and we've made certain that the elevation we're going to hit that it meets or exceeds all the required firefls. Thank you. That answers the question I had. Yeah. Okay. This is a good question. Anything else? If something comes up, I'm happy to come back up if there's another question. He answered the questions I had. So,

wonderful. Okay. Thank you. I I I would feel badly if I didn't thank uh Trish and Michelle, their staff. There's a lot that they do. I know there's a lot that happens behind the scenes. It's a lot of work to go through this. So, I wanted to express appreciation for all the county staff that have worked on this and the extensive review that's been done. So, thank you very much. One one last question, maybe respectful self-s serving request.

Yeah. But uh but construction traffic in lie of what you mentioned yourself and other other concerns are I don't even know if it's possible or even legal but whatever but what's the feasibility of having your construction vehicles approach from the west versus the east to ease that that uh traffic tension on the curves. It's unrealistic. Yeah. Could be discussed. Yeah. I I I think we're happy to work on that to the greatest extent possible. Um, we don't want to put anybody in a bad situation. If there's things that are big things, we're going to we're going to strongly recommend that they approach the Mormon Trail. Right. Correct.

Um, when it comes to individuals ordering certain things from other suppliers, I don't know if there's a mechanism where we can require Well, I'm talking the main infrastructure and that's the major, right? Yeah. But that's certainly going to be our request. Cool. Awesome. Thank you. I appreciate that. Thank you. Uh oh, I'm sorry. I almost called a judge. Hold one question. Yes. What's your average number of lots in each phase? Is it? Yeah, that's pretty average. 226id.

Yeah. 226 divided by five. I'm not asking that just idea. The reason is when you talk about so under the ordinance and you would have to have 70% of those laws under contract before you could go ahead and start your infrastructure for the next phase. That's my belief. Correct. And I run into this call and it's a problem because if your watch is moving quick, you're going to run out of building blocks, right? And you're and everything comes. The rule in construction, right? Never start until you have to. When you start, don't stop.

Yeah. Because every time you stop, cost you money.

We're we're certainly hopeful that as things play out that they're favorable conditions and we're able to move through in an orderly and efficient fashion. I also understand that they're they're things that are beyond all of our control. I know when my folks developed the benches at South Rim project, they they uh certainly were not expecting some of the things to happen that happened to them and there was a there was a 5-year hiatus on everything and uh that wasn't good for anybody. Um but I I certainly hope we don't run into an obstacle like that, but our eyes are wide open. We know that bad things can happen. 45 you're probably going to be okay but we've been running off of 25 and it's a killer force because by the time we get 70% or 75

right uh we should have already been doing infrastructure and we have permits for it and we run into that again and again. So the phase we're doing now at the highlands, we're going to have 55 lots in that phase and that may take the heat off then. But it it really creates a problem for the for the builders and developers when you're restricted too much there. I I certainly understand the problem and I also understand the county's reason for having the rule

and having lived through and and seeing some of those things happen. It wasn't just to it was all over the place. You saw developments that were the infrastructure was all in been conveyed to whatever the local jurisdiction was and no homes but roads that needed to be now on the maintenance schedule and they were scheduled for chip seal and there wasn't even yet a house that's been built and so I I understand the reason and maybe as time goes maybe that'll get refined a little better and maybe we'll find the best sweet spot. I I think an effort was made to get it as best as we could for for now the way it's written and we'll comply with whatever is required. Right. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions? Okay, Mr. Chairman. I move that we approve SGB 2025-00001 at the preliminary PL approval for the proposed 226 lot west south room subdivision and there's no okay so it's been uh motioned that uh commissioner Scott has motioned that we approve um SUB2025-00 01. Do I hear a second? I'll second it. Second. Oh,

so it's been seconded by Commissioner Beckram. Uh, any fur? So, it's been moved in second. Any further discussion? Uh, we'll do a roll call vote. Commercial Commissioner Beckram, yes. Commissioner Scott, yes. Commissioner Stats, yes. Commissioner Alder, yes. Commissioner Dao, yes. And Commissioner Hope is a yes. Wait, Commissioner Mitchell. Oh, I'm sorry. Commission Mitch, my apologies.

Only six lashings. Commission Mitch is a yes. So, thank you. It is unanimous. It passes unanimously. Thank you. I I'll get you. I'll get used to you. Don't worry. If I don't, it's just another mistake. Okay. The next item in business is, excuse me, reszones 2025-093. Charles Akerlo. Is that a I fixed his name last time. There's no C in the last name.

Okay. Um, so this is another reason request. Uh, they're coming in fast. So, um, you guys tabled the last one for some some more information from you do. Um, and he's still kind of working on they're aware of the project obviously. Didn't we? We tabled in May and then we voted on it in July. You voted on July. Yeah. Okay.

Yeah. Okay. So, um, so yeah, this is for the inland port. Um, and they're just requesting that these parcels be reszoned from ME42MG. Um, they are very aware of the, um, flood plane areas and they know what they can and can't develop. Um, there's for this reason, there's not going to be a whole lot of development among here. It doesn't say where he can and can't and it also has no address so it's kind of hard to Yeah. So when

it's kind of hard to say yes approved their um what's it called? Their agreement the project area. Yes. Um it's very it's it's spelled out within the contract of the council. Correct. And as a point of point of order. This is a reszone not the plate project. So when that comes we'll know exactly where they can and can't develop. Yeah. So it just encompasses. Yeah, it just encompasses the whole parcel. Correct. Um just to keep it clean. Correct. No, thank you. That's good clarification. Yeah. Um anyway, any other any other questions for Trish? Yes, Commissioner Mitchell.

Trish, I've got actually two questions on this. um the parcels that are identified the third one that says and it ends in a question mark and I don't know if it was you do that asked this question or you on page 167 of the PDF um but it looks like they responded to you or somebody to that we were asking for to identify those parcels and their response was let's move ahead with the application and I will have legal description for you by the by the time you're ready to schedule planning commission. I believe we're at planning commission.

Yeah, the legal should be included all. Yeah. So, even though it has like a question mark on it, that's just the reporters saying um but it it should have its own legal. That's why it was okay. So, cut out. Anything that has a separate legal, it creates a parcel. I don't know why there's a question mark. question marks just in there. Yeah. Right. Thank you. The next one, and you know, the last time we met the 13,683 daily trips, it was a was a thorn. Um, the traffic study that was done by, make sure who that was, Hails Engineering,

states that that intersection requires no mitigation at all to handle that type of traffic flow. not until um 2030. By that time they request a light and then as long as that light is timed correctly, they don't request any other mitigation that will build out by 2050. This is for the inner intersection on I80 from the Yeah. the the offramp off Burmeister to like Burmeister and to I that that's what they're suggesting to light. Um, okay. So, one of the things I asked last time was for a schedule

from the applicant. He said he he never really answered that question.

Um, can we still get a schedule of when we would see how we would see a ramp up in that area of that level of traffic? Um, I think it's just hard to project because they really don't have all of their businesses coming in. They have like a handful of them that they know. And so when the Hell's Engineering creates their um their paperwork and stuff, when they create their study, they do it differently even than what our uses would be, right? So they have their own set of scheduling and so they just did it at the very max high amounts and so it may not even get to 13,000 trips but that's just how Hell's Engineering's schedule works.

Commissioner Scott last time said it probably would never get to that. Yeah. But there should be an expectation from the county of what that growth rate, what that ramp rate is going to be. Yeah. So that's why they provide it as the max amount. residential a little bit easier. Just like I hope I hope they're out in 15 years. Well, but okay. I guess I'm looking at it because from a business side, you bet they've got a schedule, right? From an investment side.

Yes, they So, I'm not sure what that looks like on their end. Um, I know that he did mention that they they don't have all of the businesses that they want to come in yet and that's something we can also request at that time. Yeah. Before we approve the plat or development, I would like that. Yeah. Through the subdivision and development phases. That's in our perview. Make sure that's all in there. But awesome. Thank you. If I could comment on that question. Um, it's I'm not trying to defend Mr. up by any means here, but it seems like he suggested that that number the 13,000 whatever it was that that would include rail as well. So I don't know that the 13,000 is all on wheels is all in rubber. Um I'm rubber.

I think it's Yeah, I don't think it does the rail and I guess I thought you was traffic just traffic the trips generated per day on on that road on that intersection. So yeah, and I and I I respect the applicant for doing that verbally 10 years from now, five years from now. The only thing we've got is what's in writing here. Yeah. And unfortunately that area is controlled by UD do. Okay.

Um the minute it comes off of Burmester, I don't even think there's like maybe 100 feet off Burmeister that UD dot would still control, but it would all be on to UD do. So that's why you tabled it the one time asking about UD do's schedule and Whenever they're ready, it'll Third and final question. Higgley Road seems to be in there. Is there any way that the county can be that we can assert that the county is held harmless from that mess down there on Higgley Road? Who owns?

We currently don't allow any trucks down that road. It's not a truck route. They are required at their first stage of development when on that that corner uh triangle piece on the MG on that map right now currently. Um we made them put in uh no truck route, no truck entrance. Everything is closed off from in the port on that end. Um so they're they're they can't access it right now. only they were only able to access it because they were building out the road and the only access to get to that property was Higgley. Now that there's actual road access somewhere else, they cannot access Higgley until that is developed through.

Okay. Thank you, Trish. You're always awesome. Thanks for answer my questions. I don't I'm going to ask I'm gonna ask with this. Can we limit the heavy trucks that go through Grantsville? Can we Can you close that? I wish to to the traffic over so many gross way off Burmeister. Yeah. Going south. Um, so they're forced to go north to the freeway because it is part of a it's part of the major transportation plan for a truck route.

We do and half of it goes into Grantsville. We did limit the other road. I thought the we can because it is capped um currently with infrastructure right Burmeister they are um providing that infrastructure of our max of our max infrastructure limit so we can't um like I said it is it is marked in our transportation plan as a major road so as development comes in if they build that infrastructure out which they are currently doing. We can't stop.

Okay. Yeah. And then we have to probably figure out if if we were to ever come up with that idea, it would be super hard, but it does enter Grantsville, too. So, how are we making Grantsville by I wish they'd get on board. I'd like to see it not go Yeah. through grants. But as like I said, when development comes in and they create that uh threshold, you know, it's right. That's what we want anyway. We want that infrastructure to come in through that area. That's what we planned and projected. Right. So, Commissioner Scott, yes, ma'am. I from I80 to Vegas Street. Yes. Is truck route.

There's a truck. Not a truck. South of that. That's okay. I mean, they still use it because it's Grantsville, but that's Grill City. That's Gransville City. We've got the other one, the old Lincoln Highway that they can use and just alleviate some of the truck route there. So, if they didn't use truck, they could get fined, I guess. Huh. Only if you catch. Great. Any further questions from the Thank you very much. Okay. Um, if none, I will move that we open public hearing. You don't have to move. Oh, that's right. New rules. Open it. Public hearings now.

So, if there's anybody in the audience would like to address this issue, please approach the podium, state your name, where you're from, sign a ledger, and speak your mind. I got to love it. We have a huge audience, and nobody wants to say anything. Cool. All right. Um, cool. Uh, seeing none, I'll move that we I have to move. Public hearing is closed. Sure. Um, okay. Cool. Any other further questions or discussion on the issue?

If we choose to move forward on this, um, the last parcels that we move forward on Acurl, we put the condition on there that those U dot studies or those study traffic studies go to UD dot. Correct. Absolutely. Absolutely. is the correct received they have received study and are taking it into consideration on their 2040 plan. That's the next one in line. Thank you. That's good. Any other questions? No sir. Then I would be open to hear a motion.

Get my place. Mr. Chairman, I move that we uh recommend to the council an approval favorable recommendation for reszone 2025-093. I'll second that. So, it's been moved uh with the favor motion by Commissioner Dao for REZ 202593 been second by Commissioner Scott. Um any further discussion? Okay, we'll do a roll call vote. Uh Commissioner Mitchell, yes. Commissioner Beckram, yes. Commissioner Scott, yes. Uh, Commissioner Stetts, yes. Commissioner Alder, yes. Commissioner Dao, yes.

And Commissioner Hope is a yes. Thank you. It passes unanimously. Okay. Um, the next item on the agenda is the general plan amendment GPA 2025-103 uh by Jake MacArthur. Mr. Chairman, at this time I have to Okay, it'll be noted. Thank you. You can stay here. It'll just be just put tape on your mouth. Oh, then go down there. You shall not speak from here. Ready? Yes, please.

Okay, so Trisha Clo, planning staff. Um, this is general plan amendment. Um, I know you kind of had a few in the past, but just to recap, kind of helps to work backwards. Um, so the applicant has requested to have a building permit on his property, but currently cannot be granted one because it is below the minimum acreage amounts. Um, and in order to reszone the property, to make him in compliance, he has to request a general plan amendment so that the reszone falls in compliance with the general plan. Um, and so that's what they are requesting here today.

Would you mind saying that again, please? I I know it's a lot. I was trying to simplify it. So, um, currently there's there's not just one property, but there are quite a few in this area that have um been split off, which makes them non-conforming parcels for the MU40 zone. So, the MU40 is a 40 acre minimum in order to have a legal property to build on. Um those are our development standards in our codes. Um because they are below that, they have to request a reszone to be in compliance with those minimum acreage even though they're already built.

Yeah. Aren't these grandfathered in?

No, not all of them. Some are. Some are the 40 acres and grandfathered in and the smaller ones are not. Um, and so in order for them to get a building permit and to develop any of these properties that are not conforming, um, they have to go through a reason. But, um, the council has made it clear that any reszones that don't conform to the general plan, they want the general plan amendment first. So, that's what the applicant is requesting. um and a couple of neighbors around as well because all their properties are in the same situation. Um so that's what they're requesting is that the general plan changed from open space um to residential. And as you know, our general plan does not have um clear guidelines on what residential is. We just have low, medium, and high residential. So, it is up to you guys to determine what would be best.

Oh, agricultural. You're right. Okay. They want agricultural, but you can build houses with Yeah, that's right. Sorry. What was that? I have a question when you're ready. No, I was saying it's it's going to be agricultural. So, and then um Yeah, that's fine. So, then the residential one won't Yep. It's just egg. So is it is it fair to say that we are addressing this issue to make the current residents and or possible new residents compliant to what they already have? Yes. Yes. I mean because some along the way it happened

and I don't know any of them. Well that's not true. I know one of them two of them but whatever. But but I mean obviously we can't change the past but they were allowed to live there right only on some of them. grandfather

the ones that were found. So we Okay. So there is a cut off date to make those grandfathered lots or what we call legal non-conforming, right? And the date that you could be in compliance is that your lot had to exist or parcel had to exist the same from January 10th of 1975. So, if those lots that we found were before that date, they're legal non-conforming. They have all vested rights and they could build on it. So, that's why some of those houses got out there. The rest of them are within the 40 acre minimum requirement.

Okay? And the ones that have been split off after 1975 without going through a subdivision process has to go through everything. They have to go through the entire process to make their lots illegal, buildable. And how many are there? I'm not sure. Um, it's quite a broad area that they requested. I didn't do all the research on what were conforming or not conforming because it does take a lot. It says right here 23 parcels around Rush Lake. There's 23 people live there.

Well, that's just what they want to be included in their amendment. I don't know how many of those parcels are either legal non-conforming or non-conforming. So, they just requested that whole area. So, is it their intent to to develop once this is if this is approved? Um, I'd imagine. Uh but with it being agg the the lowest acreage we could allow on a is 5 acre minimum. Um so and that will probably come next is the reszone to what zone they would like to see. But yes, they could put houses out there um with those which is fine. I just want to understand the future.

Yeah. So it'll be up to the applicants in those areas to decide what a zone they would like to see reszoned to. But our minimum a is 5 acre minimum. So that not telling us what we just need to reszone it to a it's not a resone just amend the general plan. Amendment to the general plan, right? Which as you can see there's lots of egg around there. So it should be com fairly compatible. The only question and as you can see is in the staff recommendation is just keep in mind that this is a a lake. Yeah.

So we do have to be cognizant about where those houses are going to be placed and all of that can happen as development goes on. Let's just tell you right. Yeah. and they'll be forced to build with certain standards because they'll all have to apply for the same flood plane permit and that will determine on what their development restrictions would be, right? And I'm sure and and they're well aware of that because they currently live there. Yes. So, I'm sure a couple of the people in the audience can attest to that. Cool. Any questions for Trish?

Trish, thanks for the heads up. with the material I went through that I'm looking more towards the future and more towards protecting the county's ability to um exercise control on that land as an open space. What prevents that to slip into u some type of conservation easement that we end up with dogooders in the future um challenging us and to hold us to that standard as opposed to if we make the decision now go agriculture we retain u jurisdiction on that because once once we go open space permit and some type of conservation easement I get really concerned I've seen ugly things happen in other states

but if I'm not mistaken if I may please that would be irrelevant because they currently live there current residents on there so they can't make them move to be a conservation area. This is for Mine's a general question for the whole subject. Oh, long term. Well, no, that's what I was trying to Thank you. But my next comment was we're talking about 23 parcels. We're not talking about massive acreage.

Good question. Well, there's quite a bit of BML land right in the middle. Yeah. And then about probably I would say average although we know what can happen to BLM land. So exactly. So you just never know.

I didn't see anything. The only thing I saw is 23 parcels. Oh well yeah there was another there's another map on the very beginning but okay this so I guess my question pertains to not the people that are residing on there right now but how do we manage that land in the future the other land um I guess I guess my question would be I don't know what not above it land we're not managing it now you you are you have the latitude to do it until somebody steps in and tells you

that's something other than what it is. And and I'm no lawyer, but um it would seem self- serving for us to put that as agriculture now to maintain maintain our management ability on that prop those properties in the future. I guess I'm I'm a little confused. We don't lose purview just because we change it to um MU40. No, from MU40. I mean, sorry. I mean from well, yeah, from MU42. Well, to agriculture or to

Yeah, it's currently not in in any conservation protection, right? Um they're all privately owned. Um which they can continue managing privately owned still zoned correct I mean accordingly right yes so they are zoned MU40 so they are vested into that MU40 no open space limitations no limitations for each zoning correct yeah they're zoned by the plan so yeah so whatever the M4 zow my research correctly thank you yeah we just we don't have they don't currently exist as a conservation correct correct

no good good good question. Okay. Any other Did you have your hand up? Yeah. So, I counted up here somewhere roughly around 48 parcels listed here of different sizes. Okay. And you've got a list of is this correct here? There's actually nine applicants is what there is, but we're talking about more than what these nine applicants have. Is that what I'm understanding? Yeah.

Okay. So, so there's a problem. And like I said, some of the one property I looked on here was like uh uh 7.5 acres. Uh another one 17 18. Then there's a 40 acre one. There's a 0.5 a half acre. Uh

and people gotten these what I guess what I'm saying is people people who acquired this property in good faith uh they own it right. Uh I look at private property rights which I believe in private property rights as long as you're not interfering with your neighbors. That's where I have a problem. If you're interfering with the rights of your neighbors then you're creating a problem rather than solving a problem. and is what's the simplest method to solve this problem for these applicants? What they're going through right now,

right? um they have to do the general plan amendment to put it in agg in order for them to get a reszone in order to put their properties in compliance with the minimum acreage amounts so that they can go through the subdivision process and not be in violation of those minimum acreage amounts and so they can get a building permit. So, they're they're they're trying to be compliant with what is requested as if as they already have. How do I say that?

They're trying to be legit. They're already there. They already own it. That the property rights are there. The zones are there. The property lines are there. They just want to be uh compliant with our with our current plan. And then also that gives them the freedom to do what they wish on their own land. Well, yeah. Well stated. Thank you. So we're we're just proposing for these nine applicants because there'll be other open space around them that will not be amended at this time or does this amend all of that open space that was green? Whatever their legal descriptions and the the maps that they provided in that just for these applicants then. So what other pretty much

if one of the other 23 lots they'd have to go through the same process. Is this for the 23? This is all 23. This is for all the nine. Correct. No, this is 23 lots. But but so you're talking about land owners, but if you look, some of these lots are, you know, the land owner owns multiple lots. I was just curious what the opinion of the others around if they, you know, want I had any, as you can tell, most of them want it and we we haven't heard that yet. have to require that all everybody proposed and the surrounding people are noticed. So they've all received notice. No different than what our previous as a resone. It's all the same.

So yes, and we we just went through a general plan amendment in April for the same a similar type thing for similar property. So this is just the start. So it'll only be Michelle, could you go back to that that one? It's just those. It's just that area that they're proposing in the yellow, right? To cool public hearing.

Uh any further questions? I will now open uh public hearing with the stipulation of if you're going to approach the podium, please state your name, where you're from, sign a ledger, and you have a twominut time limit. Um and Tony, Commissioner Scott will be my time. Oh, yeah. Great. You reminded me. So wonderful. Uh so if you like to approach the podium, fantastic. Speak your mind. Is she a stranger? My name is Michael Dao. I don't think we've met.

You clearly can't follow direction because you haven't stated where you're from.

I am from unincorporated Twilla County. Um, so I just wanted to read to you what the definition of open space is in the newly adopted general plan that you guys adopted in 2022 before my time here. Um, open space means the area reserved in fields, pastures, parks, courts, courses, and other similar open areas or is the portion of the conservation subdivision that has been set aside for permanent protection. Activities within the open space shall be restricted in perpetuity through an approved legal instrument. Um, if you look at I apologize. cuz I was going to print this out, but my printer caught on fire. [Laughter]

A little too much information there.

So, if you look at advisory opinion 153 from the Office of the Utah Property Rights for Budsman, it states um the owner of a parcel identified as privately owned open space is not obligated to preserve that parcel as open space unless there has been specific dedication to a public agency. Um preservation of open space may be made a condition of development approval either by ordinance or imposed by the land use authority at approval. However, simply identifying a parcel is open space is not sufficient to show that dedication was a condition of approval. Restrictions on development or on property rights must be a must be construed in favor of the property owner. A condition that property be preserved as open space may not be implied or presumed but must be definitely stated. Once again, that's opinion advisory opinion 153. Um, I I think it was a mistake that was made putting this in open space on the general plan. It's quite a large area because it is private property. There were already building rights.

My apologies. I want my 5 seconds back. There were already building permits that were given in 2022 when this was adopted. Um, and so I I just think it was a simple mistake. Um because as it is defined in the general plan, open space provides permanent protection in all perpetuity. Thank you. Well, thank you. [Music] I'm Jake MacArthur.

You're the one that got wrangled.

Yeah. Um, as as Trish has stated, um, it's made it very hard for all of us out there to, uh, get building permits and stuff like that. You have lots ranging from 18 to 39 acres, which are clearly under the 40 acre um, requirement. So that's what the request is for is for this uh to be requested to change the from open space to agriculture. And this is the first step as Trish stated for uh reszone. Um it's made it very hard to get any for power services permits for power services, stockwater, irrigation, agriculture building because the lots are non-conforming and we want to follow and comply with the county codes. So, and that's all I have.

Thank you. Thank you.

Appreciate that. I'm CW Thompson and I live in the lake bottom. Um, to answer a couple questions that was asked, every parcel every parcel is owned by an applicant that's on that list. Um, and there is more parcels not part of the application that are in the open space in that area that we're asking to move. Um, two years ago I was able to get a get a permit for two powers and a permit for my new home. I only have 39 acres, but I but as of now I don't have a conforming lot. We're here to amend the general plan for the purpose of a reszone. The purpose of a reszone is to change our lots so we have conforming lots. Thank you.

Anybody else? My name is Al F and uh I just recently purchased property

413 South Highway 36 Stockton, Utah. I just purchased that property in July 3rd and uh not realizing that it was under this situation with all these these these problems because the property was built in 2010 2011 with permits and everything established and I've resided there for 10 years with no neighbors or any any other situations. I recently purchased a property re thinking that the county signing permits and all this stuff. It's established facility and now I'm in the same boat with all these gentlemen out here with this prop problem. So, um I've only been there since July 3rd as a property owner, but I've been out here since uh 2010 when the property was built. So, um I just think there should be some sort of adjustments made because all I'm not going to do is just add a new home to that property and replace the existing one. So, but reszoning is fine. I'm good with that. I just need to move forward because me and my wife bought it with the idea of living there. So, and that's all I have.

Thank you. Thank you. Please sign. I sign first.

Oh, look at you the schedule. Way to go, Harry Potter. Awesome. Anybody else? Okay, seeing none, uh, I'll close public hearing. Um, and before I ask you to give any comments, I have one. Um, first of all, thank you. I I appreciate the process. Um, good, right, and different. I haven't voted obviously, but I appreciate the process for the benefit of the commissioners and and the public. you know, the general plan, they're guidelines. They're not laws. They're not rules, per se, right? They're zones and and they're not even ordinances to be quite honest with you, right? And so, when you have a plan or an idea or an opinion to observe, change uh the general plan and the current zoning. This is the process. So, thank you. Uh it was awesome, civil, it was professional. Um whether you win or not, I don't know, right? But I appre I appreciate the process. Um, I appreciate you going through the process of of wanting to own land. I mean, um, obviously we Oh, he's not sitting there. He's over there. But I don't know who's at White House, but we approved the White House here just shortly, right? So, obviously the the due process works. Um, but I just appreciate that and this is part of the process. So even on the commission side, they're not and I don't I'm not saying you they're doing this, but they're not rebuttling, they're not fighting, they're not protesting against the general plan. They're following the process, and I truly truly appreciate that. So, thank you. Now, anybody else have any any questions for Trish or Yeah. Okay. Then I would be willing to receive a motion.

I'll make a motion that we amend the general plan to we recommend recommend recommend a favorable approval for the general plan to go from open space to agriculture. It has been motioned with a favorable recommendation from Commissioner Alner uh that for GPA 225103 and it's been seconded by Commissioner Scott. Commissioner Scott. Is there any further discussion? All right, we'll do a roll call vote. Commissioner Mitchell, yes. Commissioner Lectum, yes. Commissioner Scott, yes. Commissioner Stz, yes. Commissioner Alder,

yes. And Commissioner Hope is a yes. Thank you. It passes unanimously. And that said, the next item of business is well, comments. Planning Commission comments. Is there any? Not at this time. Hearing none. Move to adjourn.