Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Chance coming.

Yeah, we do. We would like to welcome everyone here tonight. We're grateful that you've taken the time to come and meet with us, express your views. We welcome you and we also welcome you to speak if you'd like to during these hearings. Um, having said that, I will be acting chair tonight. Uh, my name is Steve Wilson and

if you have any questions, please feel free to ask me. Um, we'll go through as the agenda is uh written. We've asked member King if he'd be willing to say a prayer for us. as we start this meeting and after that we will rise and repeat the pledge of allegiance. Our father who are in heaven, we are so grateful for the blessing that it is to be here as a group of neighbors and friends, family and a community. We ask you to bless us with thy spirit tonight that we will be able to enjoy the communication and camaraderie to discuss the things that county community to make the right choices. We are grateful for thy goodness for thy beloved son. Help us remember him especially during the Easter season. We say this in the name of Jesus Christ.

Thank you 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. I'm calling for an approval of the agenda by a member of the planning commission. So moved. Second. All in favor? I. Thank you.

Is there any member of the commission who would have a conflict of interest on any of the items on the agenda tonight? Thank you. Um, so we've got a lot of interaction that's going to be ahead of us tonight. Um, I'm just going off of my experience here. We are going to open this up for public comment to the public and you're welcome to address us on any items that aren't going to be listed that have public meetings already. You'll have a chance when that happens. So if there's anyone here who would like to address us on any issue or topic, we'd be glad to hear from you at this time.

Can we clarify? So the administrative, there won't be like a public hearing portion for those and then for the legislative, we'll have their own.

So if anyone wants to address any of the administrative items 6 through 8, now is the time. And I think it's limited to three minutes. Doesn't look like we're going to need the three minutes. Okay, having said that, then I think we'll please come up. Just state your name so everyone knows. Mr. Chairman, I'm Brandon Anderson and uh commission. Um we're here again. We were here not too long ago on another item of Deep Creek Road last fall, I believe it was. Um I'm speaking in regards to the agenda number eight item. Um understand the zoning is already in place for that I believe. So, it's just a final CL approval. Um, Lance Crowley and I, Reinie, I think, came a couple of years ago and did a work session with the county council in regards to Deep Creek Road and the safety of that road. We spent an hour in here talking with them and going over some different items. Um, they agreed that there were some problems there. Uh, the county attorney we t we've talked to multiple times. Um then when the thirst and reszone came in here not too long ago, we we came and addressed it again. But um they they did pave the road last summer and it made a big difference. It's it's really nice to drive on. Um the problem with it is that we lost about a foot on each side of pavement because they wanted to pave it in one pass and not do two down and up.

So we lost about a foot on each side which makes it even more of a hazard. Um I think road's going to speak a little bit more about it, but uh the bus driver, uh Debbie that drives the school bus up Deep Creek Road is very concerned. Um the corners there on Deep Creek Road, as you come around them with a school bus, you've got to take a little bit wider turn. I think it was about a week and a half ago, I was coming around the corner, the blind corner where we're talking about this final plat approval. the bus was coming in in their lane, but because she has to make that turn, I had to go off the paved road into the gravel so I wouldn't get hit by a school bus. We've addressed it several times. It's still an issue. We still need to take that into consideration. Um I don't like to see any um approvals that are going to add more traffic to the road until we address that. In fact, I believe the um county attorney said in the last meeting we were in here on the first zone that that isn't even a county road. So, so I don't believe that the county even has the authority to approve a a building lot. Um so that being said, it has happened a lot. We've been in here I think the first time I came in here I was 18 years old speaking about the safety of the road and I'm 51 now. So, and I've been in here several times speaking about it. Um, it does need to be addressed. I I would heavily consider that if I were s I used to sit next to Steve or Chairman Wilson. Um, uh, when we when I was on the planning commission way back then, it was still an issue and it still is today. So, I'd appreciate it if you take that into consideration when you're uh, discussing that. It's on a blind corner that lot where they made the driveway. Um, and it's very dangerous. So I I would hate if any of my family got injured there because it would put a huge liability on the county. So I appreciate your time. Thank you.

Uh Lance Crower. Um I've bought a few different lots going up the first to Deep Creek and I've come in a few times and talked to everybody about the road being a county road, a not a county road. I've probably been told, well, we come in a month ago and two months ago, met with the attorney, he said it was a county road. Then here at the meeting, he said it wasn't a county road. But I've talked to other county council members and they've and I've read in back in the minutes where they've allocated money to figure out what they needed to do to make it a county road. And there was certain steps which have never been done to make it a county road. Then yet people know that, but then they still call it a county road. Um, and when they some of those county members were up there surveying it a few years ago, I stopped by and talked to them and and there's so many different like I have ditches on one side of the road. I have water lines that feed uh 10 houses on the other side of the road. So, there's no way to make that without moving some of those those uh water lines or ditches. Um, in the last couple months, we've seen two wrecks on that road. I saw one right in front of my house and I've seen one right right where the the new driveway is going for Kyle Brown and right there they've put ditches and uh for the runoff I I don't know it's right next to the road though. But if it is a county road those I mean I don't see any other county roads in in the anywhere that have that type of um ditches right next to the road because it's not safe. Um uh again, you know, we've been here multiple times. We've been on the the county the planning commission or the the Milton area plan committee ever since I've been here. Um opposed to it. It's very unsafe and I'm opposed to any

kind of building without going through the right steps of Deep Creek. Thanks, My name is Ron Whittier and this is involving item number six on the Patterson Place conditional use permit. I don't think that that needs to happen tonight in my personal opinion. The property referred to here is under a court order right now. I think it ought to be tabled until that is resolved. I have the court order here with me. I don't know that I need to go into details other than the money that was used to purchase property which involves the Patterson Place was money that came from the store and I have all that here. I just think until litigation is resolved, it would be better to bring that up at a different time. Thank you. Ty Eldridge. I also live on Deep Creek Road. Um, the applicant, and we're talking about number eight, uh, is entitled to a building permit or subdivisional approval if his proposed development meets the zoning requirements in existence at the time of his application, absent a a compelling counterveailing public interest. Um, we did talk about the road and the fact that it's never been dedicated as a public road. The

only way Deep Creek Road can be dedicated as a public road. If the land owners themselves don't do it is if a party takes their claim to the second district court and the district court reviews the evidence. And if if they're successful, then now Deep Creek Road can be a public road under a really narrow circumstance. I don't think you'll be successful, but that's the avenue you have to go. You can't just say it's a public road. A land owner when they purchase a piece of land has a bag of the ombbudsman calls it a bag of marbles. And one of those marbles that we all have is the rightway. You can't just come and steal it. A judge can through, you know, the judicial process take it from us, but the county attorney or the planner or the county commission. Nobody can take that away. Now, what's the risk though? Because this isn't the first time this has come up. uh building has been approved in Deep Creek that should have never been approved. When we had the last meeting, the OMBbudsman was present. I had the opportunity to work with Brent Baitment who was the onbudsman after that uh particular one that gave the speech. And he said to me, he said, "If they're issuing building permits, you can go get a tear down order." Okay. So, let's let's play that through. Approve the subdivision. Someone spends a million plus on a house. A landowner below who's affected by this takes it to the district court and says, "Look, it didn't meet the zoning requirements.

This has never been dedicated as a public road." The judge issues a tear down order. The guy just spent a million plus building the house. Who's he going to come after him? If the county issued the building permit and the subdivision, they're going to come back after the county. They're going to want their money. So, that's why this is uh a compelling counterveailing public interest. We need to resolve Deep Creek Road before we do any additional building up there. And there's possibly a couple, you know, loopholes through that, but and one of them it's a private road and the applicant has the the proper uh rightway granted from each landowner and recorded. Land falls under the statute of frauds. This stuff's going to be recorded. It's not just, oh, I have a prescriptive right. A prescriptive right is a claim. It too has to go to the district court. the court reviews it under a narrow set of circumstances, it's granted, but it's the land owner or the the judge that can grant the rightways. That's it. So, that's all I have to say. Thanks. Thank you. My name is Daryl Howard. I go by rope. Um, everybody in this room probably knows me as Ro. Um, I'm discussing item number eight as well. I live up Deep Creek. I've only been up Deep Creek about 7 years. Um, I completely understand owning a piece of property that you want to develop. However, when the county came in and narrowed our road up,

um, caused some serious problems with this driveway. The driveway now has zero shoulder on one side, has a covert on one side that's that's open. Um, pretty pretty dangerous corner. Like like Brandon said, we've already seen an accident right there. Um, we've got water issues right there. We we didn't have a winner, but I mean it's it's a big deal. David Conir drives my son on the school bus and she she is concerned about that corner. Um, just wanted to add a little bit to what Brandon had said. I think we need to work on the road and the issue with the safety of that road before we continue. and Brown, I'm speaking on number eight. Uh, first of all, I feel your pain. I was on planning zone only for about 5 years, so feel free. Uh, I don't know why we're still doing public hearings on parcels that are in zoning. Back in the day, we did away with them. If we were in zoning, there was no more public hearings. It just causes a lot of contention and strife among communities. Lots being said about the road. It's a class B county road. The safety has been mitigated by a 20 mph speed limit. There's many homes on class B county roads. And that's what it is. It's funny. Uh Todd Thirsten came in a few months ago. He was in zoning and he got eight lots with very little opposition. How convenient.

Now there's opposition with one lot on many more acres than what Tom has. So I appreciate having a hearing. speed. My name is Dean House and uh I'm addressing uh article 8 myself and I mean every one of us been here and beat on this road thing till we're purple in the face but it's still not being addressed and there there's no blame but there's no way of fixing it without somebody putting up a lot of passion and uh the main thing is to me is the density and the safety and the road is is a no-brainer. But once you open the gate to one, then you've opened the gate to a thousand. and until you can get up and down that road with an ambulance and a and a fire engine and police to control it. What are you going to do? You can't put them off in that ditch. They've tried that and you're stuck. So anyway, that's my opinion and I'm I'm against anything being built till

there's a lot of things addressed. Thank you. You guys ready to move on? We appreciate the public input from you. We've taken under advisement. So moving on, we'd like to go through the administrative parts of our um this first number six is the Patterson Place CU. If if I may comment on the one comment for number six, uh this is a conditional use permit. Approval runs with the land. Uh the temporary restraining order has nothing to do with this application. The application was filed. uh a fee was paid and we process the application accordingly. Uh if the judge comes back and voids it out, that's that's their prerogative. However, um we're going to process this accordingly. Did did the attorney want to answer?

Yes. Um there is a temporary restraining order, but it doesn't affect this property and it's between private parties. Um I double check they the land is titled to them. They're entitled to their application. if they check all the boxes. I think the TTRO and that private law suit is absolutely separate from here this application.

Mr. Vice Chair, uh good evening and good evening to the planning commission. So item six on the agenda is the Patterson Place commercial CUP conditional use permit. It's application CUP 26.002. the applicant and uh is is in the audience tonight, Mr. Vice Chair. That's Dylan Patterson and her husband. And the project location is approximately 4215 North 3800 West. If the vicinity map and other maps could be shown up, we could get clarification right away on which parcels we're talking about tonight. Mr. Vice Chair, uh for clarification, it's not the parcel involving Hines Country Store. It's a property to the south and to the west, an agricultural parcel and a commercial prop property. And so the request for tonight, Mr. Vice Chair, is approval of a conditional use permit for the C2 designation that is required for a public/p private resort with dwelling complexes and associated commercial sales. Um the next three items are actually um as has been stated administrative items. The C2 designation for the next two items means that the planning commission has the planning commission has approval or authority to approve these applications tonight. Um, and the nature of a CUP for the benefit of of those in the public, a little bit of education is to is to review properties and to apply uh conditions to um impacts that we can uh reasonably anticipate. Um staff has uh suggested or has written some some of those conditions that the planning commission could go off tonight or you can come up with your own conditions uh for again for the next two items. I'm going to read those. One that any existing or future outdoor or indoor lighting associated with the use shall comply with the county's dark sky ordinance be fully shielded and directed downward to prevent glare or light spillover on neighboring properties. Two, that the property in and operation shall remain in compliance with all applicable

county, state, and f federal regulations to ensure continued protection of public health, safety, and general welfare. That hours of operation shall be limited to 6:00 a.m. to 10 p.m. to minimize impacts on surrounding properties. Four, that recreational, sports, and community facilities, including um indoor uh including outdoor courts, play areas, and food service areas shall be maintained and operated to minimize noise, litter, and other disturbances, and shall be designed to ensure safe access, circulation, and use by the public and residents of the facility. Five, that all other local, state, and federal laws are adhered to. And so in the spirit of a of a cup, the the scope of a cup can vary widely down to cups assigned to some home occupations all the way up to heavy impacts like gravel pits and and and depends on on on what staff reigns in. We we might reign in the county engineer for something like a gravel pit. But um for this one, the review was conducted by planning staff and the fire department, hence the suggested um conditions in your in your meeting packet tonight. Um, otherwise this use falls under um a use that I'd like to quote from the applicable use regulations table for uh for rural and agricultural districts. Uh, the use is as follows. private park or recreational grounds, private recreational camps or resorts, including accessory or supported dwellings or dwelling complexes, and commercial service uses owned or managed by the recreational facility to which is it is it is accessory. Um, and so with that, the application comes forward to you. That's where that C2 designation comes from, Mr. Vice Chair. Um, and and planning staff recommends approval of the cup tonight. Uh, a recommendation for this body to approve. Thank you. Does anyone have any questions?

For staff, I do for the applicant staff.

Can you clarify the process when they come in for a specific part of this? I guess I'm wondering about uh recreation place where you've got something going on and a bunch of people come in at the same time, leave at the same time, traffic things. I I know that it's been mentioned in here. How does that work? So for tonight um the application is for the use and so it's not an approval of the design that the subsequent application if approved tonight would be a site plan application where where what you just mentioned will be very much more closely man u monitored and reviewed. Um conditions from tonight will be u imposed and as Josh said will run with the land. Um but again there is another application that is substantive. There are a lot of things to review in that in that application. um looking more with the fine tooth comb at that time and so this is just for the use tonight.

Their narrative said that no engineering needed um that's strictly for the conditional use permit. Engineering drawings will be required for the site plan and the design which includes lighting, landscaping, parking uh and design of the the community structure. Uh we'll look at all that as far as their narrative is concerned. Most of the things that they're proposing I think fall in line with the private or public resort uh with the commercial uh sales associated with the private resort. The the things that I don't think um fall in line are the storage leasing for construction or professional companies that need temporary parking or mobilization areas. I don't believe that falls in line with the uh private resort with dwelling complexes and uh associated commercial sales. So that's staff's u opinion on that.

Is that addressed now or at the site plan? No, that would be addressed now. You would you need to uh limit the scope of the conditional use permit uh in your stipulations. Um if there are identifiable reasonable negative impacts, you can apply a condition that reasonably mitigates that impact. The question is um you have to identify the negative impact and then the stipulation has to be reasonable and that's from the state statute. Our county attorney can help you determine if it's reasonable.

But calling out a use that's not compatible with the with their zone. That that's not No, that would not be considered. Yeah, that's not considered a negative impact. It's just wouldn't it wouldn't be allowed. So, you just need to articulate that in your motion. Um, and then just strike that as one of the allowed uses, the storage of the construction. Mhm. And the leasing of land for mobilization. Yeah. That

that doesn't really go in line with the private resort um dwelling complexes and associated commercial sales. But that wouldn't limit their own their ability to stage their own materials for their own construction or park there for their own construction, that sort of thing.

Well, the parking um the materials for their own construction, that's just part of a building permit. Um we usually have a pre-construction meeting after the site plan is approved. And that pre-construction meeting um is run by our engineer and it has all the uh individuals that need to be there uh related to septic well um power generation um the engineer uh and anybody else that our engineer deems needs to be at that that meeting. And that pre-construction meeting is recorded and it's where we give them um direction on how to stage their construction. And typically that construction should be cleaned up after it's completed before they get CFO.

I noticed parking wasn't addressed as a con one of the conditions. Do we like that has to be on-site parking or is that just a given? Uh that's a given based on the site plan application that they still have to go through. Okay. So this is just the use. If there's negative impacts that come from the use itself, you could articulate those and then reasonably mitigate them. Uh as far as design, we'll handle that during the site plan. So under this uh conditional use permit under the zone, do we even have the ability to grant the use of something that's incompatible with the zone?

Uh no. That's why I'm pointing it out now. So when you make a motion, you can strike that portion of what they're proposing and say the other items are in line with a private public resort, commercial uses, dwelling complexes, but this portion is not approved. And then we can put that in the approval of the conditional use permit. So it is identified and highlighted. And would it also be wise to just add something in there that says the uses have to be compatible with the underlying zone? Um, typically there's a stipulation in there that it has to comply with all local, state, and federal laws. And I think that covers it.

So even if we were to approve it and forgot to put that in our motion, it still is that's that part of the application is void. Uh, yeah, typically. But I would prop I would recommend that you add that as a stipulation of approval um for the sake of me or whoever comes years after me. Question. Yeah. As well. So there's no misunderstanding. Is there a a resort definition in the ordinance that we could nothing to refer to?

Nope. Just an intention. Um, if you look at the land use table, it talks about what the use is and it's sort of its own definition. We don't have a separate definition for resort. Um, that might be a good idea. Okay. Thank you.

Hear from the applicant. Hear from the applicant. Thank you, Jeremy. We'd like to take an opportunity to hear from the applicant if he's or she is interested in talking to us.

Thank you very much. I appreciate your time um and consideration of this and um I am grateful to see that uh you did do your due diligence in seeing that we do own the property. Um, the man who spoke is my brother Ron Whittier and his son Cody Whittier is my nephew and we are in litigation but we haven't even gone to court yet. This started when my nephew accused me of stealing from him and there has been no evidence. There has been no discovery in that separate litigation. I just wanted this to be put on the record. We haven't even been to court over this. They do not have any evidence of this yet. They are going around to the community trying to make our name. So, I appreciate that you had done the research on that and I would appreciate um to be put on the record and say I hope that people in this community will wait for a court date before they accuse somebody or they think somebody has done something and let us have our day in court because we purchased that property free and clear. and did nothing wrong. Just like we intend to have this conditional use permit, we intend to do nothing wrong. We want this conditional use permit so that we can help the community because that's what we came here to do and we have been stopped from doing that. So, if you would be willing to grant us that, we can start helping the community get again with community um

service projects, community events, um that the a place where the community can gather together because as we grow, that's what we need. We need somewhere to gather. We need to be able to keep a hometown feel as we grow, and that is our full purpose. So, I appreciate your time on this and thank you.

Thank you. I'd also My name is Gary Patterson. I'd also like to respond. I also appreciate the due diligence that the committee has done to uh find out exactly what's going on with with the land and and whatnot. Also, I'm appreciative of the planning and zoning department because they've been helpful in letting us walking us through this process. I do appreciate the questions that have been asked. I see by the little sign there's no Q&A between us. Um, but as my wife stated, the things that we do or would like to do on the property are there to benefit the community and we will follow the letter of the law because that's what you're supposed to do. Be truthful in what you do. And so um we our intention has always been to follow the law, the book, the rule book. Um, I would probably also like to add that if there's something that we run into through the planning department that they let us know ahead of time because we want to do it right the first time so that we don't have to come back as has been stated in a previous argument for a different item on the agenda. I would like to do it right the first time. And so it's a new process that we're learning, but we're willing to work where we can. We just need those folks that that know the system to help us learn the system. I appreciate your time.

So, as the applicant, you have the ability to do question and answer back and forth. The commission is did say that they had questions for you. Uh that comment is for the public comment section. Okay. It's not back and forth. Yeah. Okay. So, the three minutes doesn't apply either. Correct. Uh, it doesn't. We have some questions. Okay. Who would like to go first? We'll try and clarify them. Well, I had a question, but staff answered my question. Okay. And I would also, if there's something that you can help with their questions, we appreciate that as well.

So, I've got a question. Um, might be a little bit early, but I was wondering about the hours of operation. uh with what you guys are thinking about doing in the future, um are you anticipating late nights um like 10:00? Is that reasonable or are you thinking there could be events that get over, you know, 11 12 after that?

I don't it's it's difficult to predict that in the future. Um, I did read that and see that it was from 6:00 a.m. to 10 p.m. If the event is if that's the law, that's the rule, then it the event will be over by 10. As for dispersement, I can't control that. I don't believe I'll be able to control that. Now, linger linger longers, if you want to call them, that hang around, I can always help enforce it. Um, but I don't see any reason why it it should go longer than 10 o'clock with the exception of maybe if there's a gathering on New Year's Eve, something something of that aspect, but that would probably only be on my personal property.

But, but most likely, so the events that we'd be having are like reunions or weddings or those types of things. and they usually don't go past I'm thinking we're going to be done by 9:00 and so you have a good you know or somebody coming to eat food or a play um those types of things. So they get over early in the night it's it's not I can't think of anything that would last until 10:00 other than New Year's Eve bonfire but then we have to get permits for that separately anyway. Anyone else? What do you have a question for?

We would invite you if you want to to come out to the property if if that's appropriate. Come out to the property, ask us questions. I'm sure it's going to come up as each a lot of each other, I'm sure. Um, if you do go out to the property, just two at a time. That way, it's not a public meeting. Am I one of the two? No. Yes. And that is an option if it's available and I'm not opposed to that at all. Thank you. Is that everything? Yeah. Unless we have another question for you. Okay. I'll hang out. Thank you.

Like to turn the time over to the flying commission. Do you have anything you want to address? Can you put it back on the uh conditions that you as a staff proposed?

They go over two pages. Uh the first condition is about dark sky. I think that makes total sense. I think they all do really and I don't have any problems with them. I was just wondering if anybody else did. Um, you could state that uh the events need to be over by 9, giving them an hour to clean up so that the site is done by 10. That I believe would be a reasonable condition. Can I come back up? Sure.

Um, I'm all for the 6 a.m. to 10 pm thing. And I did read that all the lighting has to reflect downward. Um, I'm not a huge fan of a lot of lighting, so that's probably only going to be the bare minimum that is required to have. Um, I don't know that if I like the idea of restricting me before we really even know I before we know what the the requirements are going to be. Um, I just would hope that I should be allowed to at least from 6:00 a.m. to 10 p.m. because that's what's in the in the requirements for the conditional use permit. Um, could possibly table that idea based on a site plan. I don't know.

I wouldn't table anything. It's a soft denial. You don't want it tabled because then they never have to bring it back. Um, okay. Strike that from the record. I I I think there's enough information here that they can discuss and attach any reasonable stipulations for negative impacts that they think may occur. Okay.

Uh they have that right to do. Um 6 to 10 that's generally in our code for other things as well. Um, but if there's a lot of cleanup or a lot of noise after 10 o'clock typically, um, there's been other conditional use permits that it's been restricted that they have to be done by 9:00 and then it gives them time to to clean up. So, it's not an unreasonable you're still there at the site till 10:00. Uh, as far as dark sky ordinance, our code does require commercial type lighting to be turned off one hour after closing. Um, uh, or 10:00, whichever is later. So, um, in this case, you'd be required to turn the lights off at 11:00.

Okay. So in the I mean if you go further down um the additional conditions we need to comply with the following standards is contained within there's a pretty good list of of items I think that address some of the future concerns. Can we or do we even need to incorporate those into our recommendation? Any stipulation that you incorporate into a conditional use permit has to be tied to a reasonable to mitigate a specific a specific identified and articulated negative impact. Okay.

So you have to identify the negative impact. You have to articulate why it's negative and then the stipulation can be added to mitigate that. Otherwise, conditional use permits have to be treated as a as a permitted use. That's by per state statute. And I'm going to push back a little bit. It's not negative. It's detrimental. So, I think that's a little higher. It's higher. Yeah. Yeah. I don't have any, but I was just questioning. I'm I'm good with it.

What Josh? What happens over time if you know we're we're just we're approving kind of a blanket list of things that can be done here and what about the unintended consequences of that? What if what if it turns out to be a disaster and um harmful to the neighbors?

That's why we have code enforcement um we have a code enforcement uh code. We just updated it. Uh there are specific things in there that identify nuisance and noise, odor. Um if there's traffic issues, uh we can revoke uh the zoning administrator has the right to revoke a conditional use permit temporarily and then we have to set it up for a hearing to bring it back. Uh and then the the planning commission since it's a C2 would then revisit it at that point. Um the other thing you can do is you can put a time limit on it so that they have to come back and renew it um one year, two year, 5 years or whatever. That way we can review to see if there's been negative impacts. That's also another option. I will say that to date I don't think we've ever we may have added one or not. I don't think we've ever added a a a renewal requirement.

Can I ask under condition number one, the county already has a dark sky ordinance. Why restate this as a condition? Um, I think it's good to restate conditions. Uh that way there's no ambiguity or confusion uh for me or my successors or whoever takes my job uh if I if I leave and it's good notice to the applicant going in before they do their site plan.

You might you may already know this but um it is zoned commercial highway right now. So I some of the comments have been like it's a res it's in a residential area and actually it's in a commercial area.

It's splitzoned commercial highway and then there's A20 in the back. The commercial highway portion allows what they're proposing. The A20 requires the conditional use permit for the resort um commercial and uh residential You got anything else, Charles? All right, let's uh I would open to taking a motion.

Debbie had some notes. I know Travis had some notes. Do we want to add add any other stipulations or conditions other than what's already listed? Um other than I guess I had a note here to remove uses that are incompatible with the underlying zone including but not limited to leasing of storage, parking or mobilization areas. Do you want to make the motion? Sure. That was an open-ended question. I was waiting for anybody. If you had the condition,

if there were more,

I move that we approve the Patterson Place commercial CUP application number CUP26.002. allow for a public private resort with dwelling complexes and associated commercial sales at property located approximately at 4215 North 3800 West in unincorporated Morgan County based on the findings and with the conditions listed in the staff report dated March 12, 2026 and is modified by the conditions and findings below which is remove uses that are incompatible with the underlying zone own including but not limited to leasing of storage, parking or mobilization areas.

I'll second it. Any further discussion? All those in favor? I. Any nays? Motion passes. All right.

Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. Um, item seven on the agenda is for the Young Powersports commercial CUP. The applicant is Steve Peterson. Let's see. Oh, uh, the So, Steve Peterson is the applicant, Mr. Vice Chair, and Jeremy Draper, the applicant's engineer who prepared the drawings, is in the audience tonight. And the project location is 5759 West Canyon View Circle. It is identified by the parcel number and serial number in your meeting packet tonight. The current zoning is Highway commercial or CH and the acreage is five clean acres 5.0 00 and a request is for approval of a conditional use permit. Again, the C2 designation that is required for an auto sales and service center from the commercial code. Again, in the use regulations table applicable to that uh subchapter are two uses, new automoer, oh my goodness, new automobile dealership and auto automobile repair services. Both have the C2 designation. made it pretty easy to just call it at that. The planning commission will approve this cup tonight. A review has been completed by planning staff and the fire department uh recommending approval for this item to the planning commission tonight. Uh this uh is located within the Canon View Commercial West subdivision. I again would like to read uh suggested conditions from your meeting packet. Senator, Mr. find that um one that any existing or future condition or outdoor or indoor lighting associated with the use shall be shall comply with the county's dark sky ordinance be shielded directed downward to prevent glare or light spill over onto neighboring properties and be extinguished at the close of the business. That was number one. Two, that all repair and service work shall be conducted within enclosed service bays and no outdoor repair activities shall

be permitted except for temporary vehicle staging and customary to dealership operations. Three, that hours of operation shall be limited to 6:00 a.m. from 6:00 a.m. to 10 p.m. uh to minimize impacts on surrounding properties. that all vehicle display, storage, and service activities shall be conducted on site in designated areas with outdoor display and customer parking organized to prevent congestion, maintain clear access to public streets, and minimize impacts to to neighboring properties. Again, that was number four. And number five, that all other local, state, and federal laws are adhered to. Uh, yielding my time. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. question.

I don't Do they want to Does the applicant want to say anything? I have a a question for staff. Um maybe the owner and then maybe Jeremy after that.

Thank you members of planning commissions. For the record, Jeremy Draper with Raven Associates for the Civil Engineering Project. I appreciate the presentation by Mr. Lance there. One of the questions that I do have is um item number four about the location display of vehicles. I know talking with our client, they would like to actually have some of those display vehicles up along the freeway frontage. Just want to see if that would be acceptable for as part of this application or if we need to designate that on the site plan itself.

Um well, they'll be they'll need to be designated on the site plan along uh with uh along with being addressed in the phototric plan because I would imagine they're going to be lighted. Uh the conditional use permit though if they can identify a reasonable detrimental effect, it can be uh reasonably mitigated through screening, landscaping, um or a requirement that the lights be turned off at a certain time to reduce distraction to drivers on the freeway. Uh so it is something that can be addressed here for um if if they can if they see that as a negative detrimental a detrimental effect then it can um it can be addressed tonight as a stipulation but the site plan will also have to show them show the design um probably elevations of the of the displays things like that.

Thank you. Okay. The question is, this is Young Powers Sports. The conditional use permit was stated on mobiles. Aren't you doing recreational vehicles there or am I mistaken? Yes, these are ATVs, recreational vehicles

because there is a conditional use for recreational vehicles and not automobiles. Recreational vehicles uh from my interpretation would be larger vehicles that are going to be um habit inhabited um and driven around. Uh these are kind of recreational toys. It said Yeah, it says recreational vehicle dealers, campers, motor homes, boats, ATV, motorcycles, and similar. Okay. What's the What's the conditional use permit on that? I I believe it was a C2 too also. I I'll have to get in to code.

Yeah, it's my understanding. These would be the ATVs. UV.

That's what I thought. Powers sports. I think it was under scrolling. Yeah, it is a C2 under commercial highway.

So, it still requires a conditional use for it's still the same. Yeah, but it's just a different description of the use. Are we okay then, Josh? Okay. Anyone else have a question? How did that dog leg or the panhandle come? Why is that there, Josh? Um, it's for drainage. That's correct.

Um, so the uh this property was supposed to have a retention basin uh above ground. I believe it's under construction to put in the retention basin right now. I'm not sure how that was missed during the construction of the subdivision improvements. Uh, however, when it comes back for the site plan, my understanding is that they are going to underground it. No, we we actually do maintain it. Oh, you do? Okay. Then that's that's new information I didn't have. So,

yeah. So yeah, we're still keeping the freeway side above ground. All of that subdivision, this property is encumbered by the uh roadways uh detention requirements and so all of the storm water from the subdivision comes through this property. So we had to maintain that also increase it in size just for our dog lake is the outlet. I see a rough site plan on here that's a little confusing. Um, do we normally see the site plan or even even at that level with a cup? Josh,

uh, conceptual drawing is, uh, absolutely something that they can submit to attach to the conditional use permit. It doesn't tie it in. It just shows what could go there. Uh, they're going to have to go through and dimension everything out and um, show us how it how it's going to actually fit through through the site plan. This is just a conceptual drawing and lighting was mentioned, but I think with the dark skies restrictions already in place, I I would rather not see that place go dark and have vandalism and theft and all that. I think the dark sky is plenty restrictive already. Just

Yep. That's completely up to you if you want to identify a detrimental effect or not. That's completely up to you. That's not staff. I guess it would just be leaving the lights on longer than the one hour after closing because it the lights would still be pointing down for Is that a restriction? Oh, that was that was a restriction from the last item. It's on this one too. It's on this one. That that all the lights have to be shut off an hour after oper after you close. That's for all commercial lighting. That has nothing to do with the the conditional use permits at all. That's our dark sky. It's code. Oh, okay. Never mind.

You have anything? All right. I'm open to motion. Doesn't sound like we have any restrictions, any conditions, staff conditions. Yeah. Staff conditions makes sense. What about changing it to recreational vehicle dealer and we can change it in the motion? Good.

Mr. Chair, I move we approve the Young Powersports commercial CUP application number CUP 26.001 001 to allow for a recreational vehicle dealer at the property located at 5759 West Canyon View Circle in unincorporated Morgan County based on the findings and with the conditions listed in the staff report dated March 12th, 2026. Second. All those in favor? I I any nays motion pass.

So before Jeremy go ahead, get ready. Before Jeremy uh presents his uh or gives his presentation, Deep Creek Road is absolutely a public road. We've been maintaining it, improving it, plowing it for more than seven years. uh state statute talks about uh 7 years or more if a public entity maintains, improves, plows, spends money on, collects his taxes on a road, it becomes a public road. So, it is absolutely a public road. Does that mean it doesn't there's not things that need to be fixed? No. There are things that need to be fixed. But this gentleman has A20 zoning. He's got the right amount of property. he has the frontage and he has entiti zoning entitlements to develop that property accordingly. So this is an administrative subdivision. Um I'll let Jeremy do his presentation. Um but you know there are some things that are going to have to be redesigned but for but um he has met his zoning requirements. And the state code is 72-5-104. And it's always been my understanding in Garrett's unless and maybe he said something different recently, but that it has definitely been dedicated through public use for over 10 years. And additionally that continuous use even though um it doesn't have to be every day um it can be seasonal or when necessary or that kind of that kind of thing. And in addition because the county has been maintaining it that's further proof that it has been used as public thoroughare.

So is that different than just a private prescriptive claim? It is because we're talking about government maintaining and a specific statute that allows government to have a public publicly dedicated highway.

So is that treated as a uh I guess the equivalent to a perfected prescriptive use by a private individual? They just don't have to go through that perfecting process with a judge. So, additionally, the public can also claim itself a public dedication that the public has a right independent of the county to utilize that road. So, if just the public has been using it for 10 years, um they can claim it. So, even if say the county goes, "Hey, we don't want to mess with Deep Creek anymore." and we petition to abandon it and it gets abandoned by the county, public still might have rights that still exist,

that would not have to be perfected or whatever adjudicated by a judge. When I read that statute, it just says that it well, it's also kind of conflicting, but it just says that a highway is dedicated and abandoned to the use of use of the public when it has been continuously used as a public thorough affair for a period of 10 years. So you um so there's a so the county has a status but the county is not responsible for the condition of the road for safety conditions for any of that. It's just you're connecting the county status in terms of this application.

That's correct. because we've been maintaining it, then it is a county road until we abandon it. And again, there might be private easement rights, there might be public easement rights separate from the counties, but in all the conversations we've had, and it's been a while since I've looked at this code, but I have looked at it thoroughly, is that it's definitely because we've been maintaining it and we paved it recently. That is a county road. Thank you.

And actually, I was wrong. It's 72-5-105. That talks about all public highway, streets, or roads once established shall continue to be until they're formally abandoned or vacated and that's the one regarding the county. Once the county steps in and starts maintaining, we're stuck until we abandon. Is there is there an obligation to maintain it to a certain standard then or improve it or is there an ability to even uh widen it and expand the claim?

Uh that's what impact fees are for and impact fees are collected through development. Okay. Is that is that is that listed in the in the capital facilities plan that justifies the collection of impact fees? Are there Yeah, we we don't collect a lot of impact fees. So, um, yeah,

going back to my original question, is there an ability is the does the county assume an obligation to just maintain it in its current state or does it have does it have an obligation to improve it? Does it even have an ability if it's if it's if the if the ownership or ability to use it or the right to use it is based on the statute you just said, is there an ability to expand that? Like say you wanted to add another two or three feet on either side to make it wider. Is is the county Does the county have an ability to do that?

I think there's only two ways that that could occur. property owners could dedicate additional property to the county or the county could do a condemnation and those are never popular. Yeah. And I don't think we have a duty to maintain it all the way to county standards because that's not what we got when we started maintaining it.

So there's no obligation on part of the county to re-engineer the road or bring it up to any specific standard normal or consistent with the state road. Well, it's not really gerine to this conversation either. This gentleman has an application for a small subdivision that has the frontage on a public road. And so the discussion should be around the subdivision, not the state of the road. I guess that's that's where we need to be. I get that, but we were here once before. This is the same conversation. It's going to be the same conversation every time somebody comes in to develop legal entitled land on Deep Creek Road. That's that's the issue here. Yeah, I get you.

Where I was leading with this is should we be as these properties are coming in and requesting subdivisions or applying for them? Should we be asking for additional rightway dedication along the front? Now, you have a bunch of different private land owners. Um, yeah, you're gonna have they're never they're never going to agree. They may they may not, but you start at some point requiring additional dedication of road right away along the frontage somewhere. If that would have happened, secondary access, his frontage, the applicant's frontage start,

we could start with that. Those requirements are typically outlined in our subdivision regulations or our engineering design details and we don't define that. So, it's an exaction I'm not sure that we can make. I don't know if we can make them give us land either as part of an application.

Not without that requirement being fully defined and adopted in our ordinances. Um there are multiple states around this nation, cities, counties, towns that require that exaction, but it's completely defined what they're allowed to do. Um and we don't have those definitions in our code. It it has been done well, I want to say recent 10 years ago, the county was requiring it with subdivision. I don't know how or why. I mean, I know why, but I know I do it all the time. Donate a lot of land for roads

that our code defines what a street is. It defines the width that those streets have to be and it requires a certain amount of frontage. And so when a subdivision comes in, there is dedication of streets based on that street design. However, in this case, it's an existing road where he has existing frontage where he's not being required to put in additional infrastructure other than how to serve his lot and to uh detain runoff. Is that because of the size of his subdivision? Is that a minor that that that does not trigger those frontage improvements?

No. Some minor subdivisions have internal street systems to serve the the the number of lots that they're proposing. This is one lot with existing frontage. No, I I'm talking about improving the existing frontage. So So if I do a subdivision that's 100 lots and I'm along some partially improved road, am I obligated to improve my frontage on that development? And if so, then where's the cut off between when you have to and when you don't have to based on size?

The cut off is when the uh county engineer says that it's needed for public health, safety, and welfare. And in this case, he hasn't said that. Jeremy, did you give your presentation? Did not. I'm happy. Go ahead. Sorry. Sorry. Minor detail.

Mr. Vice Chair. Item number nine. The Hidden Hills Estate Small Subdivision Preliminary and Final Plat. It's file number 25.048. The property owner is Mr. Kyle Brown with the applicant uh and and coming forward tonight. Uh representative being Jeremy Draper, engineer for Reevco. And the pro project location is approximately 1815 uh Deep Creek Road is identified by the parcel number and serial number in your meeting packet tonight, Mr. Vice Chair. The current zoning is uh a mix of rural residential abbreviated RR10, agriculture abbreviated A20, and the multiple use zone which is abbreviated MU160. The approximate acreage is 94.81 acres. And the request for tonight, Mr. vice chair is a preliminary is for a preliminary and final plat approval of a one lot subdivision. Um not exactly unlike uh conditional use permits but the planning commission will approve this uh I mean has authority to approve this application tonight. Your motions are adjusted so you can read them off in that manner. Preliminary uh and again for small subdivisions of 10 lots or less. Preliminary and final plot applications are combined but not without following the the code requirements for distinct preliminary drawings and final plot drawings. Uh preliminary plot drawings are detailed include contours and information about utilities and other things like that. Uh is there's usually applicable grading, drainage or utility plans. um lot sizes are confirmed at at this time along with uh surveying calculations and other things like that. The final plat um strips away a lot of a lot of that information, but it's the document that is prepared for recording that includes the signature blocks from county staff confirming reviews uh has acknowledgements from the property owner

and uh survey certificates and all of that. So the review the reviewing staff, Mr. vice chair includes the county engineer, the fire department, the county surveyor, the county recorder, and the planning department. Uh looking specifically over um looking specifically over standards from our land use code regarding uh property layout. Uh again, there being 94 acres in a 20acre minimum zone. uh frontage uh there being more than seemingly double the amount of frontage more than double the amount of frontage for the zone. No, 330 ft and there is 500 ft. So there's more than enough frontage, Mr. Vice Chair. Uh roads and access are reviewed during during this process. Uh the the water source as approved by the Weber Morgan Health Department is reviewed. the fire protection by the fire department, uh, sewer systems, things of that nature, as well as, uh, geologic hazards from from a geoscoping application being reviewed by the county engineer and county geologist. So, all those reviews having been done, all of those aspects having been been reviewed, uh, you have recommendations from, uh, from staff to approve this application tonight. Uh, having just checked on the review from approximately an hour and a half ago, I'd say there have been multiple cycles of review, Mr. Vice Chair, the substantive changes having been made by the applicant and his hired engineer, uh, there being actually no suggested edits uh, when it gets time to record the the outstanding issue being a the final title report being reviewed. That being the only comment outstanding at this time, Mr. vice chair. Um, with that, um, Josh and I are happy to answer any questions tonight. Thank you,

Chair. So, what we're looking at now has all the edits on it except these are fresh copies, Madam Chair, from about uh the engineer emailed me, I think a week and a half ago. Okay. You can see the dates on the versions dated. I won't I won't guess but the versions the dates are on there madam chair. Okay. The applicant engineer

uh I yeah I have a question. The the bend that everybody has expressed concern about. Are you guys aware of that? Staff aware of that?

Yeah that was one of the holdups. Um Mark Sorry, Mark Miller um had concerns about where the current driveway comes out. Uh he believes that there's going to be some issues there. So, we had the uh applicants engineer add comments to the construction drawings, I believe also to the preliminary plat that the driveway is going to be shifted uh down Deep Creek Road to increase sight distance to 150 ft. So that'll that'll take place before he can get a building permit. The construction of um the new driveway driveway location will be required. An engineer might be able to speak more to that

and drainage was addressed. Drainage has been looked at multiple times. Um John Beerard can speak to that if you'd like. Uh county uh county engineer uh who deals with water can speak to that if you want. I I guess that sort of answers part of my question, but the other question is the exact location of the bend that everybody's concerned about. Did it run off the road? That sort of thing. Is that right at the start of Deep Creek Road off of Morgan Valley Drive? That Esther turn right there.

I can assist with that as well. Also again for the record, Jeremy Draper Reven Associates, the uh bin that you're talking about is not on our applicant's uh property. It is just south of there. And so as mentioned, the site distance that we're looking at for the driveway is measured such that we're looking from the center of where that bend is where they can see the driveway so that Mr. Brown and his family can exit safely onto Deep Creek Drip Road and not impede the traffic that's now continuing down the road. We're aware of that. We've looked at that. Mr. Brown actually spoke with the neighbor there to to talk to him about removing some of that hillside to help improve that site distance. Unfortunately, the neighbor did not allow him to do any grading on his property. But we've been working greatly with staff and with the engineer, Lawrence County engineer on this and we've had as been said several revisions to this. Um, also just to address the dedication, no dedication of right away, Mr. Brown is offering up dedication for the half of Deep Creek Road that he owns along his furnish. And that will be dedicated to the county at once this plant is recorded. To what width or 33 ft half width?

Anyone else have any questions for J? I I do. I'm not seeing the 10-ft utility easements. It it's a lot that's required under our code. There are 10 foot utility easements. So, it is really just the scale of the drawing because we are looking at 94 acres here. Okay. So, they are there.

They are there. There's that. There's also a easement separate ease easement for Deep Creek Irrigation Company as part of getting this driveway in. We did have to work directly with them to relocate their ditch and their line cuz when we cut that driveway in that irrigation line was 5 foot in the air. So we had to reroute that to make sure they could still continue to flow.

That's what that 10ft irrigation easement is. cuts down onto the property and then heads over. Okay.

So, the movement of the driveway is is happening. We don't have to make that a condition or anything. It's No, it's reflected on the plans. That was the hold up. It needed to be done. Yeah. On the construction drawings. And it sounds like the dedication's happening. So, we don't have to make that a stipulation either. Uh, yep. Very good. Any other questions?

All right. Then I guess I'm open to a motion. I'll make a motion. I move that we approve the Hidden Hills Estate Small Subdivision Preliminary Final Plat application number 25.048 048 allowing for a one lot subdivision of land located at approximately approximately located at 1815 West Deep Creek Road based on the findings and with the conditions listed in the staff report dated March 12, 2026.

Second. All those in favor? I. Any nays? I Oh my goodness. Madison, I forgot you were there. Let the record show that the real chairman of this board voted against it. No, I think she said I She voted. She said I. It was just delayed. Okay. Sorry. I said I into I'm Yeah, I agree with you all. Sorry. There's a delay, I think. Thank you, Madison. Madam Chair.

All right, moving on then. Go to the legislative process of this. Thank you. Next one is Howard and Kelly reszone. J.

Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. Yeah. Item number nine being the Howard and Kelly reszone application 26.002. The applicants being uh the namesake Howard and Kelly Thirstston, residents of 1300 West Island Road. The par and and and the property being identified by the parcel number and serial number in your meeting packet tonight. The current zoning being agriculture abbreviated A20 the 20 acre minimum zone and the general plan designation reflecting a similar designation of agriculture no abbreviation. Uh the acreage being 26.00 acres and the request for tonight, Mr. Vice Chair, is to re is to reszone property from A20 to RR5, which is a rural residential 5acre minimum zone and reflect that change on the future land use map, uh which is a graphical depiction of the county's general plan from agriculture to ranch residential 5. Uh, county staff having reviewed this proposal or the the application, having collected a fee, and having reviewed the the merits of the zoning, um, have have written findings into the, uh, meeting packet tonight. If the commission were to find merit in this reszone, could could rely upon these findings for a motion. Uh, I'll read those, Mr. Vice Chair. The first finding that the proposed amendment is appropriate given the surrounding rural residential character and existing infrastructure. Mr. Vice Chair, I'll clarify that RR5 zoning is adjacent in an adjacent PRUD subdivision with rural residential 1acre minimum, the RR1 zone being uh less than a few hundred feet away to the south um ending shortly before the property boundaries. I'll continue too that the requested reszone from A20 to R5 is

unlikely to adverse affect adversely affect surrounding properties several of which are 2 acres or less. Three, that the amendment supports county land use objectives and maintains an orderly development pattern. Four, that the proposed resone and future land use map amendment to rural residential are consistent with existing land uses in the area. Mr. chair with with that again the applicants in the audience tonight and staff Josh and I are happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you Mr. Vice Chair. Thank you.

Do any of you have a question for staff public hearing? I make a motion to move into public hearing. Second. All in favor? I I I

We would welcome the public, whoever has comment on it to come up. Please identify yourself as a name for us and then proceed with your comments. Good evening. I'm Kelly, excuse me, Schulberg. I live on Island Road. Uh my concerns are the road itself, which we've already heard a lot about this evening. Uh the bend at the Longassess property is very narrow and if we add any more vehicles on that road, I hope that some improvements with the uh development for the road will be in consideration. Thank you.

Uh yeah, my name is Kevin Thirsten and I'm not a very good public speaker, so I took a few notes. Uh, as she said, the road coming down the island road between Rouser's telephone pole right by their house and the BL lodge's uh fence is approximately 25 ft. Um, another thing I have, he already has two homes on 26 acres on A20 zoning. I think that should be resolved before uh we reszone to do anything else. Um we've had public hearings and public meetings on reszoning and the map. He didn't show up. Um he does not have a rideway down through that. The county abandoned that road. It has a sign that says end of county road as it goes through my property and that road is not 66 ft. Um, which when I built my house, uh, just as a note that the county required us to give a 66 foot rideway and pave a graveled road back in 1990. Um, if that was illegal, then I think that's really a disgrace and a disservice to the community to make people do something that's illegal. Um, and I think that the county really needs to address that when you're putting roads on uh on an existing road, it needs to be to county standard before you build a home there. Um, this road is the same as Deep Creek Road.

Um, it has the same issues. Um, it says it's a county road, but as we know, the county can abandon roads at any time, as she said, and then you become with a mess. Um, there's already twice as many homes as was on that road when I built my home. Um, I built there because I don't like traffic. I don't want traffic. Um, and I think we need to think about what we're doing. Um, and with the homes that are already approved on that lot that are got county um, county front, county road frontage, uh, there will be more homes there than there is up Deep Creek if everybody finishes building them out. Um, that's all I have. Thank you. Uh, my name is Mark Walker. I am the land owner directly to the south of this property. Uh, I've had knowledge of this area for all of my life. Great place to live. Dead end road, no traffic. My concern is is that we're developing or asking for 5 acre lots when we have no access to that property at all resolved at all yet. Uh, all the border of that property is is private privately owned land. including myself and all my neighbors. Yet there's we're

seems like we're spot zoning a change in the middle of of this island here of this area. There is no access to the public access to this property. Uh my concern is why are we doing this when there is no access? Uh I I hate to be the one that says, you know, I'm here. close the gate in the canyon, but at the same time, let's get some resolve issues resolved before we change the zoning in the middle of of other areas like that. Thanks. Uh, my name is Howard Thirsten. I've lived down there my life. Grew up there at the end of that road. Uh my grandfather moved down there in about 1928 and has been using a rightway and access down there ever since then. Few years ago, the county went in and they've paved the road from uh Kevin's place down to where my place begins. right there. It's been paved. The county has went in and they've uh uh put a asphalt topping on the top of that. They've pushed snow there since uh I was a little kid when I was a kid. They've hauled gravel down there, graded the roads. Uh I I'm in the opinion that this is a road just like the Deep Creek Road that the public has been using it since 1928. And under that I'm don't see where there is a road issue. This is the same deal that they're talking about up deep

creek. I don't think it any has anything to do with the road. My neighbors, they've come in and they've built on their lots now because I would like to have a little place for possibly my kids to build a home and move into the county because that's basically the only way they'll ever be able to afford to. Uh I hate to see that this county would shut the doors on that. I'm Albert Jensen. I live on that same road. Uh the road that is in question right now is actually owned by Kevin Thirstston. It's right through his property. There's no deed stuff to the county at all. The road has always been an easement for for living structures down there and for farming the uh property below the houses. Uh if there's any when we built Kevin and I there was a big uh cluster about the road and where it's going to go and all. Well, the future road is supposed to go between Kevin Thirsten and Mark Walker, both of them sharing a bit and going straight down and out. Uh I I don't know. It's just something that I'm sitting there going, "Okay, how we why are we doing this? Why are we trying to get it?" I understand Howard would like to take and you know make us build a subdivision all and sell and make some money or have his children live there if

they want. We're it's in the middle of a flood zone. I mean the river washes out and there goes everything. Uh I don't want any more building down there. I don't like to see it. Morgan's County and city has grown way too big since I moved in when I was eight years old. I now feel I'm 150 something years old, but it's it's hard to see this happen to a community that is that was so close and all. And I'm I'm sitting there going, "Okay, where's the ride away through it? Is it down the property line of Kevin and Mark? Is it Are they going to take away Kevin's property and make it? I don't know." So that, you know, I would get some answers here before we actually go and reszone and find out where we're going with it. So, thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening. I'm John Patterson. I'm one of the three trustees for the Fred and Jim Thirstston Trust. Uh Howard's Rezone has nothing to do with the trust. Uh the other two trustees, just for the record, are Kevin Thirsten and Marilyn Thirstston Garfield. Uh, one thing, um, we may have to do, there's three homes down there that predate Oregon's, uh, zoning code, and I believe we'll likely need to have a bubble reszone, and that road will be, uh, an issue for those pro for those homes as well. Thank you. Uh Kevin Thirsten again. I don't know if it's right that I come up here more than once. Uh but the county did pave that road uh down there several several years ago, but it's probably been about 10 years ago that the county abandoned that and just left it alone. They quit plowing the snow. I actually had to go patch in potholes in it last year. Um, just want you to know that that road is no longer a county road or has a county rideway. Um, there is a fishing access that goes down to there which is a contract with the fishing game and the trust also Howard. Um, so they do have a fishing access but that contract can be eliminated at any time and that right away goes away with that. Thank you. Motion

to go out. Yeah. Motion to exit public hearing. All seconded.

All in favor? If I can address a couple of the comments. Uh this is not spot zoning. As you can see, there is RR5 adjacent to the property in two locations. Uh if they were wanting to reszone it and it was over out in the middle of nowhere and there was no zoning like it, that might be considered spot zoning. I don't know if Utah has a law against spot zoning because if you look at the county, there's a lot of areas that they could say it's spot zoning. Uh the other thing is uh resonings do not require access. Uh the access requirements are contained in the subdivision regulations and in order to subdivide property, they'll have to address uh the uh the access and providing frontage to all proposed lots. Okay, open it up for questions. Um, I believe the applicant wanted to speak.

Where is it? It's about Thank you.

I was going to say Kevin and Mark Walker went up and uh put a sign up there saying that it was a private road. I don't know that they actually had the right or the ability to do that where there was no talk or consideration for the people further down the road. That was just an action they took. It was not a county action and that uh road the county was down there plowed just a few years ago. The snow and that on it. It hasn't been abandoned for 10 years. That's about all I wanted to say about that. But obviously that road is not a issue with this at all. So thank you for listening to me. You have have any questions?

Got one for Janet. Has the county actually abandoned the road gone through the process? So, I don't know about this road specifically, but in order to abandon it, like the county would have to like have a formal resolution or ordinance saying we abandoned it or it would have to be taken to court and the court saying, hey, county has abandoned it. There has to be some formal abandonment, not just, oh, we didn't use it or we didn't maintain it. that once it's once it's a county road, it's a county road until we say it's not.

And usually with the abandonment, the rightway is divided and aotted off or sold. And so I

and that varies and that's not something like I would ever get into because some people usually what they do they divide it between the two property owners on each side to the middle but some property owners actually own further over and that would have to be established privately between those parties how far their property line goes. questions.

No, just out of curiosity, this zoning map looks kind of wonky that R5 and some of those lots on the existing subdivision. I don't know if that's pretty accurate that it would happen like that. Um I can look at it further but there has been a lot of parcelization from property owners over the years and until recently property owner could bring a meats and bounds legal description parcel off their land whether it meant zoning or not. Um this was a subdivision. I remember it. Yeah. I

It's You think it would have gone to the the reszone would have taken in the whole parcel that was being subdivided, but Yeah. I mean, we can look at it um and and see a little bit further. Um but I have seen some pretty wonky things. Yeah. With property. Adam Chair, do you have anything?

Yes, I'm here. Sorry, I keep turning myself off mute. Um, I mean, I think it would be nice. I know this is not part of the application, but it seems like we do have a lot of these discussions about these roads, and it would be just nice to know, is it technically a county road or is it not? But that's my that's my thought.

I would agree. I think there needs to be a master transportation plan done. Uh it would identify roads like this that need to be improved. Uh we should also look at uh implementing impact fees for development which would allow us to expand and improve um and give us the money that we need to do that. And I believe there is some sort of map, I don't know where to find it, um that states what the county roads are, if they're B or C or whatever, because we get state funds on some of these roads.

Ready for a motion then? Any other discussion? I'm open for a motion. I can give you a motion. If you roll to it, I move we forward a positive recommendation to the county commission for the Howard and Kelly reszone application number 26.002 002 changing 266 acres from A20 to RR5 and reflect that change on the LA future land use map with agriculture to ranch residential completely based on the findings listed in the staff report dated March 12th 2026.

Seconded second. All those in favor? I.

Motion passes. Uh the next item is the geohhazard text amendment. Um the first time we brought this forward I believe was last uh July, June, July. Um at the time I was not aware that we had actually been directed to bring it forward and there was some confusion on my part for that. So I apologize. Um when um the commissioners directed us to bring it forward, I was not able to attend that meeting. Um, however, uh, last year the county commission, uh, did redirect staff to bring this forward to clarify and, uh, clean up some some stuff as well as to, um, provide changes based on the recommendation of our engineer and geologist. Uh, both uh, Mark Miller and Bill Black were um, intimately involved in rewriting this. Um, I reviewed it uh, but they pretty much wrote it. Our code already included the definition for slope uh in that it defined average slope or well it didn't define it. It stated average slope would be used. However, uh we didn't actually define what a what what slope was. And so I'm going to turn the time over to uh John Beerard. Uh he's going to talk a little bit about uh the reasoning behind defining slope this way and how that'll affect properties. Thank you. Um John Burggard civil engineering. Um the average slope um there's a couple ways to calculate that and I won't get into the details but uh

um the one just a brief overview the the simplest ways high point to the low point divide by the distance. Uh but that might give you if you have a steep slope on one end of the property and the rest is flat, it gives you uh uh an exaggerated um calculation of the slope. Uh the the most appropriate way that takes into account the the area that is the most common slope um is to calculate it by the contour map. And there's a formula that takes that into account uh it's the length of the the contours and uh the contour interval and takes into account that and the area and there's a formula and uh and if you use that that that better reflects the site as a whole than than taking the high point to the low point. So I don't if you want more details you can but it it's uh it it's one of those formulas that uh it's simple and but at the same time it's it's not um intuitive. So, anything else questions?

Any questions? I Yeah, I think it'd be nice to have some examples of what you're talking about and the different ways to calculate the slope. Well, we define it in our code. That's how we're defining it. Yeah. Yeah. That's But we're That's the recommendation. That's the recommendation. the the other way. Yeah, I got you. Just one point to another point. Yeah. And if the slope comes, you know, down and there's a cliff on the other end, you you get an exaggerated view of the of the slope. So the distance divide by change in in elevation is is the other way. So

I have a concern. Are you done?

Yeah, both of you done. Uh no, I was pointing out on here the buildable area was already defined. Um we just modified it to state um the bolded part or what we added. So it already included the language has an average slope of 25%. Um it was worded a little bit differently. Uh and then the definitions include the way we're defining slope. Um we're not getting rid of the 25% prohibition. So, uh, any lot that has an average slope greater than 25% still would not be buildable. Uh, can you explain that? So, if I have a thousand acre parcel and it's jagged peaks, but there's this beautiful meadow at the bottom right off the road that's unbuildable. My entire parcel is unbuildable.

Well, the meadow portion might be buildable. Um, not in your not in this, there's an absolute prohibition uh against building building on greater than 25% slope on a parcel. No. The way that this is written, if if that if the parcel triggers that, then the entire parcel is unbuildable. The average slope, right? Well, there's some people that don't have um greater than 25% near the road and they can access it without cutting into 25%. And those lots uh if it's a legal developable lot, they have a right to put the house in that area.

That's not what I read. Where did I read that? It any parcel with average slopes that starts out at 15 to 25 shall be subject to compliance of this ordinance. Average slopes greater than 25% are considered unbuildable. That's correct. So the average slope parcel of the parcel. Okay. So if you have a parcel, he goes through his calculation of average slope. It's a thousand acres and it's just jagged hillsides. Down at the bottom there's a beautiful five acres. It's perfect. It's perfectly buildable. That entire parcel is non-buildable. Well, it shouldn't it shouldn't be non-buildable. If there's a way to access it, it should be

I agree with that 100%. That's not what this amendment Well, this first buildable area, right? Areas over 25% slopes shall not be included within any buildable area or building envelope. Is that excluding the meadow? Yeah, that's that's excluding that's what allows the meadow to be built on.

Right. So when you have a parcel that's a majority of it's greater than 25%. If you can cut a road in there to the place that and and do it with in an area that the average slope is less than 25 25% or less then you're going to be able to cut in your road. You're going to be able to put the house um but you're not disturbing the greater than 25%. That's the intent. So this second sentence, average slopes greater than 25% are considered unbuildable. Unbuildable. Yeah. Any parcel.

Yeah. So the average slope of a parcel is calculated using that formula. So, if you have a portion of your lot that has an average slope and you're not planning on hitting any area that's greater than 25% average slope and you can maintain your house in an area that's 25% or less average slope, you're going to be able to put a house there. If it's a legal developable lot or parcel, I I guess I would like for that to be clearly written in this. Okay, it's really confusing. It looks like it'll take out the whole parcel. Yeah.

All right. So, I can um if you want to continue it, I can do that and bring it back. Or if you want to make that a stipulation but to be done before county commission, I can do that. It's however you want to handle it. That's that's how we should handle it. But the intent is to prohibit development on greater than 25% average slope. Do you just take away the word average? Slopes greater than 25% are unbuildable. That kind of says it up there in the buildable area already, right? But the average slope is what allows people to a little more more leniency to get there.

The average slope of the build of the building envelope or buildable area, not the whole parcel. Yep. I can add that language in so that it's more clear because we obviously don't want we don't want any But so it's the try. No, go ahead. I'll wait. I can wait.

I My question is, sorry, I think there's a delay. The is the average to Debbie's question, but that's not great either. If you say, okay, part of the buildable parcel is 35% and parts, you know, or 30 and parts 10. Um, so you're saying it's not that there's no allowable 25, everything has to be under 25%. Are you saying the average of the buildable envelope has to be under 25%? Because those are two different things. So, the intent was to say your building envelope on that parcel, the buildable area of that parcel has to have an average slope 25% or less. It wasn't in it wasn't intended to grab an entire parcel of 1,000 acres because obviously the average slope of 1,000 acres

and you only have two two acres that you can fit a house on, it it takes out the entire parcel. That's that was not the intent. The intent is to allow the engineers who are calculating the the buildable area of a parcel to put a square there and use the average of that entire area. So they don't have to meander their roads throughout all the places that are less than or 25% or less. Absolutely.

So you can have over 25% grade in your buildable envelope. The average just has to be lower than 25. That's correct. So, if the portion of the area that's going to be your buildable area has an average slope of 25%. There could be some places with greater than 25%. Um, but the geologist and the geotech engineer that are going to create those reports will include the mitigation factors that they have to put in. And it could include a retaining wall. It could include peers. I mean, it could include a a myriad of things for them to mitigate to address public health safety. That makes me better.

So, it's not a 25% prohibition though because you can build on over 25% grade, which is not what our code currently allows.

Well, um, the code is not clear because the definitions currently talk about average slope, but we don't define average slope. And so there's a lot of what do we do with certain properties that come in? And to date, properties that have had greater than 25% slope, if they've been able to meander the road up their parcel and avoid the 25 the greater than 25%, we've allowed them to build there. That's the intent. The intent is to say your buildable area has an average slope of 25% or less. You can mitigate it. You can do grading there. you can do what you need to do to get up to your house safely for public health safety. Um, but there's going to be mitigation factors. So, this is meant to clarify and to provide a little bit more leniency to property owners um in how they calculate their buildable area.

I think that's great. Um, does how does this affect the roadway getting up to it crossing a 25% slope? And and I guess what I just heard from you is the intent is maybe twofold. To look at the property as a whole, but also to allow them to define some area within the property that could meet that sub 25 even though maybe the overall property exceeds the 25. Is that correct?

Yeah, that's the intent. So that people that have a piece of property where the majority of it is 25% greater than 25% but they have an area um this this what the intent of this was to allow them to be able to build a home um and get there meeting our code. Um so how does this how does this restrictor affect the ability to cross maybe a 25% slope with a driveway with a road or something like that? just because we haven't allowed it currently. So if your road has to cross a greater than 25% slope, our engineering geologists have said no, we we haven't allowed grading of those slopes. Uh even though the property is massive and there are places that a house could be placed safely uh with mitigation of soil and slope. Um, but this would allow them to grade an area where they could put their house, do the mitigation, even though a portion of it might include greater than 25%. So, what if you had to be oddly specific a 70 acre parcel that had beautiful benches carved out of it, but but you have to cross roughly 50 ft of 25% slope in order to get to these wonderful benches. being oddly specific because I'm describing an an actual piece of property that I've dealt with for 20 years and it's it's about 50 feet of 25% slope that I have to cross in order to get to the it's not in this county to these amazing benches and I've been held hostage for 20

in this county not in this county 20 years doesn't sound familiar

for 50 ft of access roughly 50 feet of access across a 25% % slope. So, I think that's ridiculous. And I would like to see if if we're headed down that direction that it would be nice to give the owner of the property the ability to at least plead their case and come up with a plan. Uh, as I understand it, you pay your geologist, the applicant pays their geologist to come up with some work plan that's presented to the county geologist. And then they pay the county geologist to review the work plan. and they say go. Then the applicant pays their geologist to put this thing together and then it goes back to the county geologist to review which the applicant also has to pay for or at least that's the process 10 years ago when I built my house that I had to go through.

So the way it works now is you submit a geoscoping application with a work plan. The application fee is $50. Uh the work plan is submitted to our geologist and engineer. They review it. They look at where you want to do your cuts, your trenches, your board pits, um everything where they can look at the soils. Uh and they do if there are slopes, they do a slope analysis. John can correct me if I'm wrong. Um and then after that, our geologist is on site when they do all the geologic work, the trenches, the board pits, things like that. Our geologist is on site when they do that. He's looking at it and then a report is generated. But if their geologist puts mitigation factors in there, we don't change that because we don't want the liability. So if their geologist and geotech engineers say there needs to be a retaining wall here, it needs to be constructed X, Y, and Z. Um our geologists might say, when you construct that, I want to be on site. And recently we've had um we've had an issue with the retain wall where the geotech engineer uh had to be on site to watch that wall be constructed because the original wall that they constructed was not sufficient. I think it's a fairly solid approach what you just described and that the county requires uh and it shifts the it it's comprehensive enough that it should make the county feel good that there's a process in place. It shifts the responsibility of this over the property owner and his representatives or her representatives. I guess going back to my original that it's it's used as a a weapon. It's weaponized against me in this other county because there is a prohibition of crossing any 25% slope. They don't define the length of that. And

if we don't define the length of that, it could be five feet. It could be a mound of dirt. It could be if you go small enough, it could be a grain of sand that you have to go up 25% to get over one side of the grain of sand to the other side of the grain of sand. I hate to see that weaponized. Is there a way to, I guess, balance this instead of just saying absolutely no, do you think we'd be opening a can of worms by opening this back up and making it broader? Um, our code already defines um, buildable area as a minimum of 5,000 square feet. So, an envelope for a single family home subdivision in a subdivision has to be a minimum of 5,000 ft.

But to get to it, if you had to cross 25% slope of 20 ft, 10, but you would be fine. But the driveway is because Josh just said the the average is what it is. Yeah, the driveway meadows would way outweigh it. You just said both though. He said the average to define the buildable area but a prohibition because the geologist and the geotech have said absolutely no crossing of a 25% uh with our current code currently current code current code is is this are you proposing to well the access is part of the buildable area. So you have to be able to get to the buildable area. So, we're going to include access as part of that in that calculation for average slope of the of the

Yeah. The area that you're going to use for the building envelope plus access to get there has to be part of the average slope calculation otherwise it won't work. Is that clearly defined in here? I didn't see that. I It doesn't address access roads or the grading of roads going over 25% slope. This is just dealing mainly the buildable area. It doesn't really talk about if you want to continue it. I can go back, Mark Miller, Bill and I can work on language to add that about the access. Um, and then we can

I know we still need to have a public hearing too, but my other thought, Josh, is I feel like I spent a good amount of time because you and I had this conversation at our last meeting and so I dug to try to find the 25% and when it was put in and all the things. Do you think it warrants? This is a huge deal in our code and I think the code is really messy and some of these things are listed in definitions. Some are under geologic hazards. Does it warrant? Can we have a work session? Is that a crazy thought? Because I feel like this is a big topic and it would be nice to maybe have a work session with Mark Miller and see what we're really trying to do here.

So, under 155.426 426 lots. It talks about building envelopes and then it says building envelope shall take into account minimum setback requirements, utility and access easements, physical constraints such as steep or unbuildable slopes, waterways, blah blah blah blah blah. Does that help with this read in conjunction? Uh it does include access in the definition for that. So excess easements. Yeah. I if if you want a work session with uh Mark Miller, John Beerard, Bill Bill Black, we can definitely set that up. Um I think

and just put this all in one section. I know that we have this in certain like in lots and definitions, but it's it's very I feel and I know you didn't write the code. I think you've inherited a really messy code. But it'd be nice, I think, to Travis's point, too, to really define what are we trying to say and let's be clear about it and be really intentional with this because, you know, it's not a small part of our code and I think it does affect a lot of the land in the county. Um, and just, you know, all put our heads together on it because I know the county commission asked for it, too. So, just that's that's my opinion.

People can agree or disagree, but I would love a work session. I'm more than willing to set up a work session. Um, if you want to continue this, I can set up a work session within the next month and then if you want to continue it for two months, we can come back maybe in May. Could you I guess when you do that, I I I I think that'd be great. When you do that, is there a recommendation that you would come with that says, "Hey, if we combine these certain areas, just talking about the structure of the code like Mattie was talking about." Uh maybe a recommendation there where we kind of clean it all up at once.

Uh it is it is pretty messy. Um typically you put all definitions in the definition section, then the substantive parts of the other parts are put in their individual sections. Um this one is uh it is modifying the definition section in 0008 for buildable area but then we are adding a definition to the geohhazard and maybe we can um I mean we can change that and pull that out and put it in the definition section. Um that's not a big deal. Uh we can definitely talk about uh things like that and and how you want it organized at the work session along with additional changes that you want us to add. I I've noticed it kind of contradicts that last sentence in that the first paragraph buildable area. It says areas over 25% slope shall not be included in any buildable area or in it doesn't talk about average slope. It said if it's over 25 it can't be included.

Yeah, you're right. I missed that. That should have been crossed out. I think a work session would be great and sure, you know, hash it out session. Yeah. understand that two months. I'm I'm good with that. Uh that'll give me time to work with Mark and Bill as well and get another draft addressing some of the comments tonight and then we can come with that new draft. Uh give you some time to review it and then work through it.

And another quick comment under slope and soil regulations, it says all recreational dwellings. And it says there the maximum slope for any recreational dwelling shall be 25% is crossed out. So in recreational dwellings they can build on any slope. Um I'd have to I I guess I missed that portion of it. Well it yeah it's that 155.293 slope and soil regulations that before that it it says it'll be on 15%. But then it says that no, you need to submit a geohhazard.

I I actually think that's language from last July that we did not remove. Uh because it's not bolded. Um I don't think that was cross out that last sentence. Yeah. Well, I mean it does say 15% or greater, and this is why I think it was from last July. It says 15% or greater shall be required to submit a geohhazard. That was when we were thinking of taking out the 25% prohibition. Um, so that that section I understand that part. It's just that last sentence. Yeah, there's no maximum. Yeah, that'll have to change. Uh, if we go to average slope. Yeah. So, the motion would be to continue this

uh continue to the let's go second meeting in May. Um, I won't be here for the first meeting in May. No public hearing necessary. We're going to have a public hearing. We need a public hearing. Public hearing. Yeah. First, because we advertise as a public hearing. I move we go into public hearing. Second. I I

I Tina Kelly, Mountain Green. I appreciate the discussion. Um, I'm going to be probably the minority. I don't like you messing with the slopes. I appreciate that you're going to have a work session and that you're going to continue this to till that work session is completed because it's really hard as the public, even though it's always me, to follow these changes. I was here and had comments to the changes that were being made in July and I talked to the county attorney to get some clarifications and talk to staff to get some clarifications and then it was held over for a while and now it's come back with some different things in it. So trying to understand what changes they've made and then read through those struck out sentences and read through the new bolded sentences that makes it difficult. So, I do appreciate taking your time to work through it, but I hope that you continue the public hearing as well because those changes will make a difference to what the public thinks. Thank you.

I move we go a public hearing. Second f I Josh, do you prefer a continuence or postponement or it doesn't matter? What's the best as far as advertising? Um, I would continue it to a date certain. That way I don't have to readvertise. You can get expensive. I'll give give a motion a motion to continue this item, the geohazards code text amendment to the second meeting in May. I don't know exactly what date that is. 28th. May 28th. Second. Favor. I

I I Thank you. Thank you. All right. Snacks business and stuff.

Is that for us? off. We were going to have some training tonight, but given the number of items that were on our agenda and the fact that it's almost 9:00, I asked um the commissioners to come on April 9th as opposed. So, we'll have training on April 9th. Um there's fewer items that night and then uh I think it's the election of officers uh tonight. Next in agenda next.

I have a question for you. Do do you have a list of the outstanding planning commission requests or and could we just keep track of that have some trackomatic thing? I have a very long list of outstanding requests from both the county commission and the planning commission. Could we see those at our next meeting and maybe we could if if if there's a priority for those for us? Yeah, the county commission already met on that and they prioritize it already. Okay. Is there a way then that we can just see it? See it? Uh yeah, like on a regular basis and see how they're along.

Yeah, some of them don't move very quickly. Some of the ones I'm working on right now, they take a lot of uh research. Yeah. And like from tonight's meeting, maybe we need to clarify about dedicating the rightway. Uh yeah, for a subdivision, make it clear in our code as a requirement. I I agree. So that's is that a motion? Yeah, I move that we Yeah. Okay. Oh, I'll add it. Everyone has say I vote. Hi.

Hi. Hi. Okay. So, let's move on to the election for the planning commission officers. Um I've never done this so I'm open to but I know we have to nominate a name for the chairman. We have some Yeah. So, there needs to be a nomination. I nominate Debbie. Yeah, that was quick. There needs to be I nominate to be done.

Yeah. So the nomination for the chair needs to take place first and then after the new chair is voted in then the new chair would ask for a nomination of the vice chair. second ask for just I'm I am willing to do but if anyone else would like to I am more than willing to support them they would like to be chair

so Randy seconded it needs to be a motion anyone want to nominate anyone Nope. Are we all in favor that Debbie's the new chairman? Yes. Yes. Yes. I I Okay, cool. Sounds like you get a pick of vice chair. No, I think you still conduct. So, you we take nominations for vice chair. Go ahead, Josh. I could be wrong. The attorney can correct me if I'm wrong, but after the new chair is uh appointed, the new chair takes over the meeting and requests nominations for the vice

or that makes sense to me. I was just checking out the bylaws in the old bylaws. So, okay, it's open for nominations for vice chair. I nominate Chance. He's not here. Second. Hey, we have a nomination. Want it kitchen for it, Steve? I'm not. Does Chance have to be willing accept it?

I think that's what happens when you don't show up. Honestly, I think you do a great job. I do, too. Yeah. So really, it's not because he's not here, it's because he'd do a great job. Okay. I have a motion in a second to nominate Chance McMillan for vice chair. All in favor? I I. Any opposed? I Okay, Chance is Was that a delay or was that a Yeah, that's another delay. Go Chance. That'll be a surprise when he reads through it. Don't tell them. Let them read the minutes. Yeah.

Okay. Any more staff questions to staff? Okay. Next is the approval of the minutes. Motion approval of the minutes. Second of February 26, 2026. Okay. We have a motion and a second to approve the February 26 minutes. All in favor? I I. Any opposed? Motion to adjourn.