Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Which one?

Same as the same. Mark and Debbie are the same. So the 12th you want the 26 review. March 12th 26,

but I I asked that it get sent out to the rest of me. Did it stop at your office or stop?

Okay. I asked if it's sent to the county attorney's office

and to the commissioners on the planning commission so we can discuss the position is none of the none of the planning commission We are going to get started. Welcome to the planning commission meeting. Today is Thursday, Jan uh February 12th, 2026 at 6:30 p.m. Um we are going to start the evening off with a prayer by member sessions. Okay.

And then after the prayer, please rise and join me in the pledge of allegiance. Thank you. Our father in heaven, we're so grateful for the many blessings and for the opportunity we have to serve on the planning commission. We're grateful for the freedoms that we do enjoy and for the bounties of life that we have received. We're grateful for the moisture I've received. and we ask that thy would continue to bless us with moisture sufficient for our needs. We are grateful for the peace and safety of this valley and for the good people that live here. We ask at this time that we might be blessed that we might have clear minds that we might be able to understand our obligations and our responsibilities as we review these applications. And we say these things in the name of thy son Jesus Christ. Amen. I aliance 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.

Do you have a motion for the approval of the agenda tonight? So moved. Motion by member Wilson, second by member Sessions. All in favor? I.

Any opposed? Motion carries unanimous. Any declaration of conflicts of interest with anything on the agenda items tonight? Seeing none, we will open it to public comment. This is just for the administrative items on the agenda tonight. um not the legislative item. And if you do have a comment about either of those two items, please come forward and state your name for the record. Paul Clayton. Um, regarding item number seven on the agenda, um, about the Rollins Ranch development agreement amendment, um, just had a couple of questions that I hope are answered, whether that's right now or or by Mr. Reese or otherwise. Um, in the new in the new proposed map there that was sent out in the packet, um, the property adjacent to my property is now an open space and the road is further away from my my property, which I appreciate. Um, I did have some questions regarding the water retention. Um, where that pond might be if potentially now there's a big pond by my property. There has been water that's come in to my property from from that uh proposed development there. um Rollins Ranch already has existing water issues regarding water retention um detention needing to clean it out significantly. So just wondering the implications ultimately of all of that um because I do worry if that pond were to be backed up or or whatever. Um maybe

I just don't understand the engineering very well but just want to um hoping for some answers on that. Um and and ultimately I suppose and and whether this could be answered tonight or not um the the road over the past several years has been shifted multiple times um from its original concept which is exhibit C1 in the packet uh where the original entrance was uh intended to be uh ultimately uh was chosen to put a pump house directly where that proposed road was. And now of course that's uh an obstacle and and reason for or one of the reasons anyway to move that road. Um curious to know I suppose if there was even u if that was permitted by the by the county. Um so otherwise my previous concerns that have been addressed in in previous meetings um to some extent are addressed but hoping for some answers on those items if that's possible. Thank you.

Thank you. Hi Robert Panel. I live right across the street from Paul Clayton. Um, I wanted to talk about the Rollins Ranch development. Um, I'm sorry to be back here. I feel like we just talked about this same proposal uh last year. This this seems to me like there isn't very much in terms of substantive changes to the proposal to move this road. There's a little more open space next to Paul, which I appreciate. This still puts the road directly kind of leading into my home and driveway. Um it feels like there's an obvious egress and ingress to this proposed development that for whatever reason um the owner decided to put a pump house directly in the path of the road that was approved in 2012. Um I read the reasons for the move, one of them being the radius of the turns. Um, when I look at the map, I mean, we're talking about a road either turning this way or turning this way. Um, I didn't really see any real difference there. And it's it's just frustrating to me that the road is being moved. So you'll have a a road, a house, a road, and create another lot number 22 on the on the exhibition that was shared that also will have uh frontage on three sides. Again, it seems like some of the traffic um and some of that burden for the traffic could be borne by the developer whose private drive was going to be the entrance to this development.

That makes perfect sense. There's already a four-way intersection already mapped out there. Um I do think the open space is a step in the right direction. I don't know if um if there could be more open space. Um and then lastly, I was just going to say online I was unable to I'd really love to know exactly how many feet we're talking from the Paul's property to to where this road starts directly in front of my house. And I the resolution on the files that were available online just weren't I wasn't able to see how many feet it is. I got a rough idea though. So anyway, appreciate you um hearing my concerns and thank you.

Thanks. I read this public notice and I wasn't quite sure what it was talking about because last year we met and we voted or you guys voted on uh moving uh Hidden Valley Road 100 ft to the west and then running it up into a development property. But again, let me point out there's already an existing road there. If you continue on Hidden Valley Road, just goes right straight up into that property. Another problem that wasn't addressed last year was several of the homes on Ranch Boulevard, if we get a heavy snow during the year, they have problems with flooding in their basement. If they add another road that goes directly north where this gentleman's house is, that could be a potential problem for him as well. And uh that was also discussed. And that is also a hill. So any traffic if they develop 25 30 homes up there coming down that road, their lights are going to be shining right into his house. And that was another thing that was mentioned. And so I just want to say that that I was really surprised to see this to see that it's being brought up again because it they don't give much of an explanation. And last year there wasn't much of an explanation, just a minor adjustment. A lot of people are not here tonight. Many of them work at night. one of my neighbors who likes to come to these meetings is flying for the Navy and he's gone and he would love to be here. So

anyway, I just wanted to point that out and I totally disagree with any changes because the road exists. Sir, will you I don't know if I've got your name. Will you state your name for the record? George Peterson. Thank you. P E D E R S N.

Awesome. Thank you. Seeing no additional public comments, um do we have a motion tonight modify the agenda? Aenda and move our legislative item, the reszone up to the top of the agenda. Motion second. Motion by member King, second by member Taylor. All in favor?

I. Any opposed? Motion carries unanimous. Um, do you want to go ahead chair? So, the commission trying to get them scheduled with Watt was not the easiest thing on the planet. So, they are not meeting with him until next Tuesday. Plus, when we had the EPA come out to test, it rained that day, so they canled the test because they can't do soil. Um, so I don't have two of the three main points that people wanted answered. So, we're requesting to table again, but happy to stay here and listen to any additional comments.

Awesome. Thank you. Um, do we have a motion to table to the March 26th meeting? And we would hold it as a legislative item then again and the public could make comment at that time. Motion by member Watt. Second. Second by member Taylor. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Motion carries unanimous. Uh, thank you public for coming. We are going to rehear this March 26th. I just don't want to waste your whole night.

I'm I'm happy. If you guys do you guys want to hold public comment tonight? I apologize. I was part of the problem because I just couldn't connect. Remember at the last meeting we would have a discussion a work session with the with it and it just it just didn't work out and she would have some EPA stuff. I apologize wholeheartedly to you. It's me that's part of the reason for causing this but it's also me that's part of the reason it's opposing this. Um, if we want I'm good for a motion if we want to have a public hearing and then those comments can be listened to and taken into the work session on Tuesday.

I just want to apologize. Okay. Motion by member McMillan. Second. Second by member King. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Motion carries unanimous. Limit of please 3 minutes and state your name for the record. And if it's been said, please don't repeat, just so we can get out of here before 10 p.m. Thank you so much. Oh, motion to go into public hearing. So move. Motion by member Sessions. Second. Second by member Taylor. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Motion carries unanimous. Thank you.

Good evening to all the members. Thank you for your service to Morgan County. My name is John Sherman. I'm a resident here in Morgan County. Uh I would uh like to voice and I've heard a lot of the discussion and and read a lot of the material. I was unable to make the December meeting and the other meeting. Uh but I've got some background on on on what this effort is and why. Um I have two kind of different areas of opposition to this uh proposal to reszone and I'm going to go over them separately just kind of briefly. The first um area that I'd like to talk about is that um why we need to sell it at all. Um the I I know the proposal is to reszone it so it could be priced out, but um Morgan County does not have a lot of public land. It doesn't have a lot of open land. You have 30 acres that is open. um whatever the use is, whether it's a range or or not, if it becomes a park, if it becomes um an archery range, anything uh that that would fit in that community better than perhaps a uh a shooting range. Um I think the the concept of of not selling land is is something that we listen to our ancestors and our grandparents and our parents about and I think it's something that would be wise for the for the county to think about. you have land, um selling it to try to buy more land or get more land somewhere else may not be the best best approach, the best avenue. That's uh my my general comment in that area. The second remark I'd like to make is um the uh the order in which we're going about this and I understand there's some business aspects of it of needing to get some value before you could sell it and do any development and that sort of stuff. But um in the in the staff report, the applicant stated where it's the effect

of um the reason is to establish property value, not sell the land. Um I think most people could, most developers, most realators, um most advisors could probably figure out the general value of the land without it being reszoneed. So if we needed to get the value, you could probably find somebody to to get the revalue. Um and the new range is the other thing in the staff report says that the new range is being budgeted budgeted and coordinated before closing the existing range. What that doesn't say is that the the the new range will be open and operating before this one is closed. It says that it will be budgeted and coordinated. It could take years and years to to um move forward with a if you have the budget for it. If you if you sell the land and get money from a developer to say buy another piece of land or build a a new range, um that could take a very very long time. In their proposed motion at the end of the staff report, it says words the effect of I move that we forward a positive recommendation to county commission. This is if it's in the positive, not the negative. Um and so on and so forth. It doesn't say anything about after we have obtained a new range or after we have obtained new land or after we've have opened a new range. So the staff report says your proposed motion to go to the commission. Uh I would suggest that perhaps you change that verbiage to if if the planning commission votes yes on it to say something like and not until these other things happen like the obtaining of land and so on and so forth. So, I appreciate your time and your consideration of my thoughts.

Thank you.

Yes, I'm the one that made the stink. I better get up, huh? Um, okay. So, I've got some thoughts written down here. Name for the record.

Oh, thank you. Yes, name is Cameron Porter. I live up on Mahogany Ridge adjacent to the property. in my backyard backs up to the rifle range parcel. Um, to my knowledge, the main purpose of the planning commission is to determine whether a request like this is compatible with the county's general plan and on those grounds should either be approved or denied. I believe this request is premature and that the county has failed to comply with the general plan in making this request at this time. Allow me to explain why. First, on the subject of culinary water, on page 38 of the general plan, under goal two, objective one, policy one, it states that the county must quote, require that developments in unincorporated areas demonstrate physical availability of culinary water before approving an application for reszoning or a subdivision plat. This is further supported by Morgan County Ordinance Section 155.023F4. That's a fun one to say which states quote in making an amendment to the zoning map the county commission commission and planning commission should consider for the adequacy of facilities and services intended to serve the subject property including but not limited to roadways, parks and recreation facilities, police and fire protection, schools, storm water drainage system systems, water supplies and wastewater and refuge collection. So let me ask you this. Has the county conducted analyses on any of those public services before submitting the application to reszone? Can you honestly say that the county has given you enough information to be confident in the adequacy of any of those things? I lost my spot. Apologies. The info packet for this meeting essentially just says, well, it's next to existing houses, so it's probably fine. But those analyses according to the plan need to be demonstrated, need to be conducted before the application to reszone is submitted. Second, on the subject of lead contamination, general plan states on page 43 under goal 2 that planning decisions should quote protect the health, safety, and welfare of Morgan

County residents by directing growth away from hazardous areas and sensitive lands. The policy continues on page 44. development proposed in geologically hazardous areas or on steep slopes should be avoided or if allowed done in a manner that poses little or no hazard to life, health or property. Uh I'll let James speak uh in more detail on lead remediation, but I'll just say that the general plan is pretty clear that developing in hazardous areas should be avoided in the first place wherever possible. Third, on the topic of cultural resource, the general plan states on page 44, goal three, that we should quote, conserve cultural resources within Morgan County. The county resource management plan offers some clarification on page 13, evaluate all developments proposed on public lands to determine any effects on water quality, air quality, historic or cultural resources, and recreation resources. By any reasonable definition, the rifle range qualifies as both a cultural resource and a recreational resource. Has the county commission passed a plan to relocate the range? Where is the comparison showing the cost of building a new range versus just improving the existing one? Has it been determined by an engineering firm that making improvements to the existing range is not a viable option? Why hasn't the county gotten any quotes for that? Has the county explored any other option to preserve this important recreational resource besides relocation? Do they have any numbers, anything? So, in order to comply with the county's general plan, this request needs to be denied. I guess it's kind of a moot point now, but on the points that I've described above, analyses of public services, specifically culinary water. I live up there. We talk about the water situation. If I recall correctly, we had to shut our secondary water off early last year. Water is an issue and if it

hasn't been an analyzed, it needs to be before this can be approved. Number two, thank you. We are we're like four and a half minutes. Sorry. Thank you. I also want to say this will will have a public hearing again next month and then when it goes to the county commission after us regardless of our decision. We are not we are appointed not elected. We do not make final decisions. So anything that comes to us always goes to the county commission. So there will be two more public hearings. I'm that's my speech for the night. Go ahead.

Okay. I'm I'm passing around something to show my uh background. I've been involved with shooting ranges in the area for a long time. What's your name? For the record. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Uh I've done a little background research on your lead problem.

Okay. Now, it depends on how many parts per million is in the ground. The minimum taking that ground, moving it out is over $20 million. If it has too many parts per million, you're looking over $40 million. The cheapest route would be to mine it, and that would be about 10 million, and you'll get some of that money back because they pay you for the metal they get out of it. Here's the the thing. Once a range is there, it's real hard to change it. Okay. When I was involved at Wasat Shooters, we had an area that was bad. It was a creek bed. They made us dig it up because we put the dirt back on the range. We could reuse it on the range. If we would have had to move it, we would have had the big uh fees. And luckily in Utah, out in Grantsville area, they've got a place they store that kind of material, but it's still a big cost. The range services are law enforcement, hunter safety, youth groups. I helped uh I'm I'm the gunsmith here in town, but I helped the and it was during COVID and it kind of died, but they got a trap shooting group at the at the school and I'd like to see that go too, but they need a place to do. So that's what Thank you. Thank you, James Shupe. So, I I'll digress on some of the numbers that he presented, but I also did a little bit of my homework uh to explain some of my background. I deal with hazmat materials on both on all three facets, air, water,

soil. So, I do have some working knowledge and experience with this. um did a my biggest concern with the initial meeting that I watched which I was unable to attend was the lack of a plan. Uh these numbers should have been done upfront up and foremost before and presented to everybody. Uh so I went to the courtesy of doing some of my own homework which is what I would expect of all my employees and the people that I work with. We need to understand if this is even feasible. So to his point, the cost of remediation potentially outweighs the price of the land. Therefore, we just sold 30 acres to somebody and then incurred the cost to repair that land ready for sale. We're out nothing. So, the residents of Morgan County are left holding them back. Um, with that, I did a few of the different numbers. Uh I'll I'll leave the some of the dollar numbers out, but realistically to understand what it takes to remediate it is best practice as listed by the EPA to excavate at least a minimum of 24 in down in the burm areas. So we can quantify that amount of soil, right? Uh in a recent news article for the Police Mutual Aid Association, um they estimated that cost at $180 per yard, uh a disposal cost, but that also did not include the screening cost to uh eliminate the lead in the soil that was finding. If they were to just dump and dig that soil, that cost jumps up to $460 a cubic yard. So just doing on Google Earth and looking at the excavated portion of that 30 acres that is 5.3 acres. So some of the numbers I came through on just a bare minimum if all we had to do is the minimum ranged anywhere from 1 million to 3 million just to remove dirt and dispose. That does not include labor.

That does not include any of the other engineering aspects that would have to be done from cradle to grave. Now the cradle the grave portion of that means we are subject to that for eternity. That's how it's written. We own it forever. The county once that goes into remediation if it's ever dict ever detected again remediation starts all over. So some of the engineering controls for the waterershed that would have to be considered would be the drainage system on the shed. I beg you to go and look at the topographical map and the watershed of that range. All those houses, all that land below, it all sheds that direction. You have to have a way to prevent that with consistent well monitoring. That would have to be regular. That would be dictated by the UDEQ. And I will finish with one last comment. What is the motivation for this to go through in the first place? Uh without a plan that leads that leads us to speculate. A little extra research I did myself. Uh that land was recently sold to an LLC uh IPC if I'm to be exact which is under under further investigation based out of Texas. uh with the manager of that being one of the project managers of a construction company who specializes in multifamily housing units. So without a plan, I'm left to speculate of what is the real reason for selling this land. Thank you. Tim Whit, been a Morgan County resident

for 15 years. I have five sons and I can tell you over those 15 years, we've spent a lot of time without rifle range. Um, it's not just sentimental, right? We talk about our first or excuse me, our Second Amendment rights, the right to bear arms. There are a lot of counties in Utah, not a lot of those counties have a rifle range. we do have that rifle range. Um to to take that away before we have another one set up is just putting the cart before the horse. Uh it seems illogical and irresponsible. And so we owe it to the Oregon County residents who pay exponentially more taxes, property taxes, just about anybody in this state uh to continue to provide those those resources for our for our county members, for our county citizens. Uh that's about all I've got to say. I appreciate your time. Thank you for my name is Jason Rudd. Um, I have not done near as much homework as some of these gentlemen, which I appreciate. And I just know after last meeting, I got the impression that previous planning commissions had had allowed more construction to go up there. Let's put tons more apartments and houses on the other side. We did all that and then we realized, oh wow, rifle range might be in the way here. And now we're trying to backtrack. We seem to have created our own problem by building all this other stuff. And now it feels like let's get rid of the rifle range to fix the previous stuff. And I I recognize people's lands. I just don't feel like this is the best outcome for all the reasons that have

been said before. Thank you.

I just want to clarify for the record, and this was mentioned last go around. All of the developed land that is next to the gun range is city property. It is not county property. We didn't do that. We don't have ownership over that. That wasn't that wasn't here. So, they did put multif family housing next to the gun range. It had nothing to do with the county. Sadly, no say over that. It was all done at a city level. We're different entities. So, for the record, blame stone. I've lived here for I don't know a long time. The only thing I want to just point out is the purpose of this is for them to put multi- housing on there which they're considering is affordable housing. But let's look at the affordable housing they put in Mount Green already and there's not a person in here that can afford that house. So the their definition of affordable housing, let's be honest, is not affordable. The other point I wanted to make is we're trying to put affordable housing for our kids to stay here because they grew up here. This is what they like that the reason they want to stay in Morgan is because of what they do, the way they were raised. We start slowly nipping away at all that stuff. Why do we think our kids are going to stay? Part of the affordable housing that we're supposed to be addressing is how do we keep our children and be able to keep them here so they have a place to grow up and raise their family the way they were raised. And if we keep whittling away at that, there's no reason for them to stay. Let's think about that.

And this is not a back and forth. I know it seems like that, but I will also clarify this is not for affordable housing. This is simply the county wanting to zone it residential, not high density, to get the most money they can so they can use that money to go start a new gun range. So, this is not they don't want it to be affordable. They want to get as much money as they can. It's currently not zoned at a zoning ordinance that would give them high value as Kate mentioned. And so, this is simply to use those funds to go find a better space in the county that is not next to multif family and livestock. Did I cover it, Kate? Okay.

Yeah. Do you have a motion to go to public hearing? So moved. Motion by member Taylor. Second. Second by member Wilson. All in favor? I. Any opposed?

My back is out. So I'm walking like an old lady today. Um I have so many questions. Um, and I again I know it's not a back and forth, so please get with me after the meeting. Um, I don't know what land was sold to an LLC. I have no idea what you're talking about. Um, we have not sold any county property. We are not intending to send an sell any county property. That this is not an application to sell the property. This is an application to reszone the property. Um, it is fully the intent of the commission to open a new range if this even happens. Um, but we're nowhere near that until we get the EPA study. Um, I love the idea of an moving it and or leaving it and it being an archery range. Whoever said that, I actually love that idea. Um, there is a commission meeting on Tuesday. The four o'clock work session is with Commissioner Watt about the EPA. Um at that same meeting I'm requesting the commission to create a rifle range committee regardless if this is reszoned or not reszoned that we've derelictked left that range un unkempt for too long and need to correct the soil regardless if it moves because of the neighboring properties. So that that is going to work. um the culinary water, sewer, and all that. That study was way already done because it's in the count the city's annexation plan, which is why you have your house because they annexed that property and built all that housing right there. Um I think what else have we looked at? Any options besides moving it? Absolutely. We've looked at actually expanding it um further out because if you look at the history of the gun range, it was actually a gun range, not a rifle range. And now with um the highowered rifles and everything else that you can get

nowadays, like I don't want to hit dumb sheep. Um so that was that is actually what we're looking at as option B is extending the length of that rifle range. Um if if it's determined that we're going to keep it there because if I'm going to keep it there, I want to blow stuff up. And then if I can't blow stuff up using everything possible, then it has no purpose. Um cost of remediation, again, um I 10,00% understand that the numbers of remediation outweigh the cost and the value of the lot. Um I'm not going to be sad that the commission wanted this brought forward because it is definitely taught me a lot about rifle ranges and and EPA. Um, but it was always the intent of this project to make a better rifle range, whether here on its current footprint and extending it or somewhere else. It is we have never said that we're closing the rifle range. We have never said anything about affordable housing going up there. Um, none of that none of that has ever been stated. So that um again we are meeting with having a work session with um Commissioner Watt Tuesday at 4:00 right at that table. Um we are also in the commission meeting I'm requesting that they create a rifle range committee because regardless if we reszone it, sell it, which every developer that has asked me if this land is for sale, the answer has been a hard no. This land is not for sale. Um, and again, we do have a verbal first right of refusal with the city that if we were to get rid of this property, it the city gets the first choice to turn it into a park. Like it's that's been stated since day one. It will not. So, if they pass, it'll go to a developer, but or obviously someone else who wants the property. It is still our intent at the end of the day to get the best use as we can out of a rifle

range. If we can't do it on the current footprint, I'm I love the idea of leaving it as an archery range and then creating a rifle range elsewhere, it's just a question of money. So, I think whoever brought up that idea. Um, and if you are interested in being on the rifle range committee that I'm asking the commission to create, my card is on the back. All of you that have done your research, it saves me extra research. If you could send that to me, my business card is in the back. Um, and that's that's all the notes I took. Okay. March 26th. March 26th. Yes. And the work sessions are public. Very much so. So, you can come here.

The work sessions are a discussion like they're back and forth unlike a meeting like this. So, Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Act um item number six on the posted agenda is the Wasatch Peaks Ranch subdivision phase 3A.1 preliminary plat application which is file number 25.045. 045. The applicant of course being the WPR entity. The location of the project being approximately 52 33 West Was Edge Peaks Road uh and is identified by the parcel number and serial number in your meeting packet tonight. The current zoning is a resort special district with a development agreement. The acreage affected by tonight's propos proposal is approximately 25.27 27 acres combined and the request is for preliminary plat approval of the subdivision as 13 lots. Madam chair, uh phase 3A was recorded um fairly recently, I believe last year. This is an addition to that phase to include those 13 lots. Uh phase 3A uh in entails larger ranch style lots. Madam Chair, and the review for this application consists of reviews from the county engineer, the county planning department, and the Morgan County Fire Department. All having reviewed and finds that this proposal meets uh the standards from our code and and follows good planning principles. Otherwise, the applicant is in the audience tonight. Madam Chair, and staff Josh and I are happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thanks. Any questions for staff? I I do have a question on your proposal details. One place says it's 23.01 acres. The other it's 25.27. Is it the 25? In the first paragraph, it says, "A parcel being subdivided consists of 23 01 acres and will be divided into 13 single family lots." I'll let the I'll defer to the upcoming on that one.

Okay. And then another question. Um, most of this subdivision is already contained in 3A except for maybe a little sliver maybe like lot 6D68 that's going to come in is being properly brought into the subdivision. Why not having um more of a a plat amendment to 3A as opposed to a new subdivision in the middle of 3A? Is it just

um we went back and forth? Okay. Sixes. Yeah. Okay. Accomplishes the same thing. But there's there's a couple others too that we've gone back and forth about what to do that that will be coming forward in a future meeting. Um we just tried to figure out the best way to handle it.

Okay. Just a question um about the fire. You said the county fire reviewed this. Is that is that the county fire or is that the Wasatch Peaks ranch road and fire district chief fire marshal whatever who actually reviewed that?

Um I can answer that. So, the county is currently providing fire review of Wasach Peaks Ranch until um Wasach Peaks gets their fire district up and going. So, the new fire station in uh Peterson is staffed by county staff. Um, seeing no additional questions, the applicant is welcome to speak if you'd like to. And also, thank you for your patience. My intention was not to push you guys down was to

I do have a question for the applicant. I notice D57 there on the the far left is in 3A as D57. Why is it being put in the new subdivision with the same number? Should it be A or or did you change the that lot the size? It looks the same.

Brian Estro with WPR. Thank you for allowing me to speak tonight. Um, D57 was originally not included in the preliminary and so it was removed when we recorded 3A and so we're picking it up now. So we didn't have it in the final with 3A. It was the preliminary. It just So it never got recorded with it in it. Yeah. So back back when it was being brought forward, there was a discrepancy in the number of lots. And so it was advertised for a certain number of lots, but when they gave us the plat, it included an extra lot. So instead of having to renotice and go through all of that again, they removed it.

Okay. And so this is adding it back in. Okay. That makes sense. To answer the question on the the acreage, it is the 25.7. uh you pointed out in accuracy in the previous paragraph. So on the preliminary plat itself you'll see in the lower right hand corner it calculates all the acreage. It's 25.27. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Any discussion? Looking for a motion. Sure. No discussion. Okay. I move we recommend approval to the county commission the WPR phase 3A1 preliminary plat application number 25.045 045 allowing for a 13 lot subdivision of land located at approximately 5233 West Wasach Peaks Road in unincorporated Morgan County based on the findings and with the conditions listed in the staff report dated February 12, 2026.

Second motion by member Taylor, second by member King. All in favor? I I opposed. Motion carries unanimous. Thank you.

Thank you. Waiting. Um, this is application number 25.063. Uh, it is a new development agreement uh amendment request. The previous development agreement amendment was denied. um that created a double frontage lot. Uh the reasons the commission denied it um was one for the double frontage lot and two uh lack of snow storage. Uh the applicants engineer has took those comments redesigned it so that this would not create a double frontage lot. I know there was a comment during the public comment portion that a double fringe lot would be created by this and that is incorrect. uh the Derbano property further to the east uh of lot 22. It's considered a driveway. It's not considered right ofway. It won't be considered rightway. It will never be considered right away if the road is allowed to be shifted. So, it does not create a double frontage lot on that side either. Um, speaking about uh one of the other comments about lights coming into people's houses, every subdivision ever created has uh interior lots that terminate out uh where the houses are on the outside. And uh every single one of those houses uh there's multiples, there's hundreds in the county. That is not in our code. There's no prohibition to that. Um so I just want to make sure that that is completely understood. Did I mention that at the last public hearing uh public meeting? It's not against our code. Uh in fact, subdivision design, there's no way around it. Um

uh with that said, uh the design of the retention was actually a requirement of our county engineer and planning staff. We commented on that uh when the application was originally submitted for the Ponderosa subdivision back in 2022. Um they have finally designed a retention basin. Um the retention basin in its location uh has been looked at by county engineer. Once we get the full updated drainage plan, um we'll be able to do a full review. Uh but from a first uh blush look at it, it looks like it should work. Um, the subdivision will not be able to be brought forward or approved until our engineer has reviewed the retention cals and I should say detention cals. We don't really have retention basins. Um, we have detention basins. We detain the water and slowly release it as opposed to retaining it all. I apologize. Uh, with that said, staff has re reviewed it. Um, the distance between the proposed new uh, street location meets Ashtto. uh which is the transportation requirements for distance between streets. Our engineer has reviewed that and uh said that it meets his concerns. Um and so staff is recommending approval of the development agreement amendment. Uh and I'll just turn it over to allow Ty to go through a PowerPoint for you to kind of illustrate and answer any questions you might have. If there's other questions that come up, I can I can help answer those. Um, quick question just because it was asked by the applicant. Um, how many feet is this from Paul's property? I I agree that I'm just they were asking about the pond.

The distance um road. The road. So, from the road to the back of is it the Clayton's property? Yes. Paul Clayton. Yep. Um, I think the applicant knows the number. I want to say when I reviewed it, it was approximately 40 to 50 feet. Okay. Okay, thank you. Your zoom is better than mine that goes blurry. Hey Josh, do we anticipate that the basin's going to be in that open space in that one portion right down there next to the

Well, this section of the the Rollins Ranch expansion didn't require any additional open space. Open space has already been provided for Rollins Ranch. These are uh the expansions in future phases of residential lots. The retention basin will act as open space when it's not filled with water. And I keep saying retention. The detention basin will continue to act as open space when there's not water in it, but it's not specific for open space. So, I want to clarify that uh the detention um it will be reviewed by the county engineer uh before uh we bring it bring the Ponderosa Plat forward. Uh but from his looking at it, it did look like it would work.

Will the detention basin only serve this first phase? So the detention basin is required for this phase and we'll have to evaluate the the other three phases that that loop around. Each phase will have to provide calculations uh for the detention as they come forward. Uh the reason it was needed in the first place is because of the uh storm water lines that were put in down the line um are they're not large enough to accommodate the water that's going to come off the subdivision without a retention basin. So it'll be restricted by an orphice plate releasing into the system with a

that's what the engineer designs it who stamps and and and gives us the plans and our engineer reviews it and says that it should work. Yes. I'm not an engineer. So that is that a that's a pump station that's sitting in front of Derbano's house where the old road was going to be. Yeah, I'll let the applicant speak to that. Okay. I'm just curious what the how that came about. I long before my time. And I do have a question. The exhibit D is labeled as proposed Rollins Ranch subdivision plat, but if it's going to go in the development agreement, it needs to be concept. Yeah,

I don't want to think we are approving a subdivision plat in the development agreement. Yeah, you can make a recommendation that they change the title to concept plan.

You are you okay with me turning it over to the the applicant now? Sure.

Good evening. Thank you for your time. Um, just briefly, you can go to the next slide. Josh covered most of it, but I just wanted to give a brief overview. This PowerPoint slide here that you see shows the original road and then where we had first wanted to move it to, which puts it right next to Paul Clayton's uh residence. Um, and there were some comments about the double fringe lot, which you know, we wanted to make sure we handled that. And then also pushing of the snow. Those were two things. And then as we went through the issue, we realized the Rollins Ranch HOA does not have the capacity to detain and mitigate the water. So it forced us to put a detention pond on this property. We there was no choice. We have to we have to have the detention pond according to the county engineer on this property. So we wanted to make sure we addressed okay let's not do a double frontage lot. They also brought up pushing snow. So okay let's figure out the snow and then also the detention pond. Now we have a civil engineer that did all the calculations for the detention pond. So we feel comfortable because we spent a lot of money on that that that detention pond will be sufficient. Obviously those calculations will be reviewed by the county engineer and a recommendation we made at that time. But we have done the homework on that. Uh if you can please flip to the next slide. So just quickly and then the next slide. So I already went over that. So this is the new uh proposed amendment. It gives a 0.27 acre lot in between uh Paul Clayton and this road. Now I have to uh point out that

you can't have the road any less than 150 ft between center line to center line. So this is exactly 150 ft. meaning we gave as big as lot as we could in between Paul Clayton's that would make it be sufficient for a detention pond. So we removed the double frontage lot. We also create a detention pond for all of this area and then we also straighten out the road so we have better line of sight for pedestrians and for motorists. So, it really solves all of the issues that were brought up. And of course, one of the issues was pushing the snow. The snow can be pushed right into that area. So, it really just solves all of our issues and resolves the the questions that we received from county commission. Do you have any further questions for me?

I'm curious as to how that location of the pump station came about.

I do not know that. That was before my time. I don't know that that I know from me being here, the biggest concern from the moving of the road was moving from a tighter radius to a more loose radius, which is obvious when you look at the plat map because you don't you're not coming around. And that's also going to be easier for pushing the snow because you're just pushing it straight down. You don't have to go around a corner or anything. You're just pushing it straight into that that detention area. Okay. I want to say it was like 2018. I think we've talked about it. I just was curious.

Oh, it's before. We need someone who was here. Debbie, I was here, but I don't. We didn't approve anything. We didn't approve it. Okay. So, the alignment of the road It seems to me another alignment would be through lot 22, but I I'm guessing that that would make the center line to center line intersection separation too small.

Right. We can't move it any further east. And that was one of the the things that was brought up is can we move this away from Clayton's residence? And this is the furthest away we could move it. But keep in mind we have to have a detention pond. like we can't get around that issue. So, we're trying to accommodate all of the requirements and and and the public requests. It's hard to get them all, but we're trying to that 150 foot separation. That's the minimum.

That's hashtag, you know. Yes. And we didn't want to go closer to Paul and go and have the, you know, because you could technically make it more narrow at the top and go closer to Paul, but that's not what we wanted to do. We wanted to give as much separation we possibly could. And that open space, that's where your pond's going to go. Yes. And that's adequate as far as preliminary calculations go or

our civil engineer did that. And so obviously uh we had I sat down with Mark Miller and Jeremy and he looked at it and he said preliminarily it looks great. So, uh, yes, we had a big conference call a few months ago with Mark Miller, R Cibble, Jared, myself, Josh, and what they went through all the calculations. I'm not an engineer. That's just what happened. And then, so this is what we ended up going through. Am I blind? Am I not seeing lot 21? There's not a lot 21. Oh, it goes 20 to 20. remove it. Oh,

lot 21 is open space. It's like floor 13. Yeah. It doesn't exist. They It never exists. And again, you know, I would have reumbered it, but the engineer thought that was sufficient. So, I'm not going to argue with his numbers.

And just to to put kind of Paul's question at ease, I know he talked about his water. That's one of the reasons why we have to have the retention color to mitigate any other water. So to put u that's why it has to go and that that's what it will prevent is that flooding that he's currently having. Was the land owner currently trying to mitigate the flooding on Mr. Clayton's property? I don't know that he knew there was flooding until they first had a meeting however many months ago. I don't know that he knew that or not. That was the first I heard of it. Since then, has there been a plan to mitigate in the meantime?

I don't know that we've had much water. We did last two days. Thank God. Yeah.

So, property owners were are required by state statute to allow water to flow into their property at the same rate that it's historically flown float in flowed flown whatever. and then it has to leave the property where it's historically left at the same rate that it has historically left the property. So I there's there's been no development on this part of the property. So I'm not totally certain that that that property owner had has to mitigate anything uh currently. Once development occurs, he's obligated to make sure that the water continues to flow onto the property from the same location, route it through his property in the development and then allow it to leave the property at the same rate. However, because they're tying into an existing storm system, the engineers designed those detention basins uh to a certain um certain depth, certain release rate, and they only detain they only design it for certain storm levels. I'm not entirely sure which storm levels they design it to, but it's not every storm. There's only certain storms that they design it for. So,

is that a new is that a new requirement where the water flows in a certain rate at a certain rate? How how old is that? I'm curious. Um, I can ask the county engineer, but as far as you've heard of it before, I'm just Yeah. And it's not just this state that has that. I I do have a question regarding the new wording in the development agreement. To me, it sounds more like findings. I've never heard a persuasive argument for the amendment in the amendment if that's making sense. I think they were listing the reasons. They think that it makes sense.

Is that necessary to be in a development agreement though? The reasons why. I I don't see anything wrong with that. I mean, quite often we have the recital and it is kind of nice when we're having an amendment that we see why it's being amended. It's going to fly motion. motion discussion.

I move forward uh I move we forward a positive recommendation to county commission the Morgan County Reszone application number Oh, I'm on the wrong one. I scrolled too fast. There it is. There it is. It's always the hard ones to get me right. Yeah. easier if you're on the right page. I move and recommend approval to the county commissioner for amendment to Rollins Ranch development agreement to revise road alignment for improved safety and to accommodate existing infrastructure as listed staff report based on the text listed in exhibit C of the staff report dated February 12, 2026 20

with added condition to label exhibit D as concept. Yes. With the what Debbie said. Motion by member McMillan. Do a second. Second. Second. Member Watt. Additional discussion.

Label exhibit D as concept. Positive recommendation. All in favor? I I. Any opposed? Motion carries unanimous. Any business or staff questions for us? Any business or staff questions for them?

I have one adjustment. Oh, sorry. Go ahead. Uh, one small adjustment. I know we're pushing it till uh, March 26th, but on the in the packet um, under item 8, um, there there was a portion in there where it said that we had talked about it in a previous meeting with today's date. Yeah, it's the top line. We'll find it. Okay.

And then down at the bottom of the paragraph, it also has today's date. So part of the discussion previously was the double fronted lots and I I can't for the life of me figure out why a double fronted lot is bad, why it's in the code. I see it in other codes. I fight it in other places. But can anybody answer that question? Why is a double front lot bad? Why should they be banned? Josh, I I don't have any negatives against double frontage lots. You find them in every subdivision. Uh sometimes it's necessary to double front lots within a subdivision to give a buffer between the main collector, arterial, and the interior subdivision. Uh most of those lots are going to be um fenced by the developer. Uh it gives those lots um they double front, but typically gives them a free fence, free wall. Uh but every place I've worked um they're in every subdivision. We did one of our flagship subdivisions in Haramman that has a main drag going up it that has no access, very limited access to it through roundabouts. And every one of those lots is double fronted, but they have a fence along the back. And it's fantastic. And to me, this precludes anything like that from happening in the county where it's it can be an amazing thing. So, I don't know. I I guess I would like to direct staff to review that, see if there's a reason that that shouldn't just be pulled out of the code or if there's ways to modify that to protect whatever 50year-old crazy idea that was. that is now still

lingering in the code. If if the planning commission so desires, um if you want to make a motion and get a second and a vote, then then the planning commission would um staff would recognize that as the planning commission giving staff a direction. Um but there has to be a motion. I I would make that motion to to review the double front lot uh prohibition prohibition in the code. See if there's if if there's a reason why that's there. if there's a better way to to do that and allow for that or if it should just be stricken all together. Motion by member Taylor. I'd like to second that.

It seems like there could be some adjustment there for sure. All in favor? I I Okay. Um I will do some research. I will bring that research back uh before I draft the text amendment uh and get u everybody's opinions. We'll we'll hold a work session for that. Can we do ridge lines before that? No offense. Sorry. I think the ridge lines will probably take additional research um that with the other text amendments. I I don't want to keep pushing that off. I apologize.

Thank you. I made a motion when I first started about sensitive land and ridgeline protection. So, I was getting offended, but it's okay. It's not personal. We can have double frontage and fridgine protection.

We uh we do have a draft of the geohhazard text amendment um that we've put together. Uh our county engineer drafted the bulk of it. uh where we're we're not going to uh well, our code already allows over 25% if they get a conditional use permit, but it'll make average lot as opposed to just removing the 25% completely. Um and so there's a there's a calculation for average lot in there. Uh the funny thing is our definition for buildable area already referenced average lot, which is was interesting to find. Thank you. That's going to be coming to the next next plan. The guns are after.

Thank you. Thank you. Um motion to adjurnn. Uh approval meeting minutes. Oh, sorry, sorry, sorry. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Didn't have enough caffing today. Do I have a motion to approve our January 22nd planning commission meeting minutes? Motion by member King. Second by member Sessions. All in favor? I I. Any opposed? Motion carries unanimous. Motion to adjurnn. Motion. Motion by member Watt. Second. Second by member Wilson. All in favor? Any opposed? Smash your crazy name.