Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

like to have access to your information. I'm at I'd like, excuse me, I'd like to call the meeting of the Morgan County Planning Commission to order. It's Thursday, April 9th, 2026. And to begin our meeting, I've asked member Watt to offer a word of prayer. And afterwards, if you could all rise and join us in the pledge of allegiance. Our father in heaven, we're grateful for the opportunity to be here do the county's business. So grateful for the opportunity to be here as a citizen in this wonderful country, in this land of liberty and freedom. We ask father for an abundance of goodwill towards one another's respect and dignity and we might conduct our business civily and with great respect to one another. Father we ask for abundance of thy spirit and inspiration at this time and we do so in the name of thy beloved son Jesus Christ. Amen. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Okay. The next item on the agenda is the approval of the agenda. Do I have a motion? Motion by member Wilson. Second. And a second by member King. All in favor? I I I.

Okay. Motion carries. Declaration of conflicts of interest. Any member have a conflict of interest with any item on the agenda? None. Okay. Seeing none, we'll move on to public comment time. Now's the time for the public to make comment. On our agenda, we have two administrative items. They do not have a separate public hearing. So, if you wish to comment on either one of those items or any other business you want to present to the county to the planning commission, now will be your time. We do have a legislative uh code text amendment and it has its own public hearing and if you would reserve your comments for that at that time of the public hearing. So, now we open up for public comment. Okay, seeing none, we'll move on to our agenda item number six. This is a Canyon View Commons phase 1 condominium plat amendment.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and good evening to the planning commission. Item number six on the agenda is the Canyon View Commons phase 1 condominium plat amendment. That's application 25.024. The applicant is Kelvin Jud, who is on his way. Um, the project location is 5788 West Canyon View Circle and is identified by the parcel number and serial number in your packet tonight. The current zoning is Highway commercial or CH with the acreage at 1.98 acres. And the request for tonight, Madam Chair, is is for approval of an amendment to lot seven of the Canyon View Commercial West Subdivision to allow for condominiumization. Madame Chair, the the buildings themselves were approved by a site plan application from last year. The shells of the buildings are under construction um and maybe nearing completion on on some of the units. the the condominium uh the standards for condominiumization do come directly from state code madam chair that's um Utah code subsection 57-8-13 that in addition to some normal requirements you might see on a preliminary plot asks for additional information namely elevations that are submitted as part of a preliminary plot and again with the with the buildings under construction this would allow allow for 14 individual units within those buildings spread across those buildings I should say. So the review madame chair having been conducted the reviewing staff being the county engineer at this point having minor comments left to address with the applicant. the county surveyor providing conditional approval. planning staff

having minor comments um to to address before recordation and the county recorder having u comments although although being minor in nature uh uh a longer list uh are currently being addressed with a new set of plat drawings with the reviewing staff having um or or with my presentation so far providing the the update on the review uh planning staff is recommending approval of this item. Uh and and again, your your your discussion tonight will yield a recommendation either for approval or denial to the county commission. That said, um staff consisting of Kent and I are happy to answer any questions you may have. And I heard the door open and the applicant is available for questions of the audience. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Any questions for staff? I have the one. You say there's going to be another platform for instead of No, instead of uh uh multiple sets of drawings, it's the state that requires elevations as an additional sheet to a preliminary plat set of drawings. And so again, they've already gone through site plan review. They're building the buildings, but it's the the condominiumization or the the standards for condominiumizing from state code that require more information than the county code does for preliminary plot. Different information, I should say.

But there was also some concerns with recorder. Oh, just um uh just with the state of the review as it is right now, the the the comments are minor in nature, but there's a few of them. The applicant in a um subsequent set of drawings will show that they're addressing all of these comments that that are outstanding at this time. Um staff deemed that again the the comments were minor in nature and enough to bring towards the planning commission tonight for a recommendation. Okay. I would, it just my preference. I would prefer that those changes be made before they come to us.

Understandable. Um, again, minor minor in nature. Just okay. Minor things left to address.

So, what triggers then those being finalized and everything? So, this applicant has his um I mean, do you remember when you submitted? It's been a minute. It's been a while. So after that long of review, it being drawn out for again getting the the elevation sheet to to comply with state standards and then having done a review. I think we're on the second or maybe third cycle of the review, it trickles down where reviewers are looking for the the final comments to be addressed. And we don't like to hold applicants up when there's instead of 100% of comments being addressed through, we look at substantive comments being addressed and trickling down to the most minor of comments be before we make a decision to notice for a public meeting. I personally like that approach perfection before you come to this meeting. If it's a small list and it's in, you know, they're little things, then I don't have a problem. The finding um now the condition built into the stack report reads as follows. That all county surveyor and engineer review comments be addressed um should say recorder as well but that all comments from the review are addressed prior to recordation and that the document that is recorded is 100%. But after the recommendation from the planning commission and subsequent approval by the county commission,

um there's time afterwards to just make sure we have a a good document. It just would be nice to see the comments, but I agree with member Taylor that yes, move forward, but it' been nice to see the comments what the concerns were. But

the applicant could speak to that if you wish, Madam Chair. Oh, no. I I I'm fine. I I think that unless someone Anybody else want to hear? No. I I think Janet, can I answer my question? Before recording those comments will be reconciled. So my question at what point it's nuance. It's highly nuanced, right? Because again the the zoning administrator, my superior would be the one to determine that there that comments trickled down in the review are substantive or not. That's a little bit of moving goalpost maybe, but after a year and a half probably time to get and it goes to the county commission too.

They pass it still. just kind of interesting that it's taken a year and a half and we're still at this point which I'm sure he's frustrated with as well. Um just to make clear under the staff recommendation I think we need to add county recorder. Okay. under number one. And that change would be made going to the county commission.

Any more comments or questions? I've got a quick question. Um kind of the survey and me coming out. What's the discussion on the obliteration of that monument in unit two and three? There's a section monument that's going to be destroyed by that building. It probably already is. I couldn't answer that question.

Right through the middle of the building. That's uh it's going to be rough when people are trying to recreate property boundaries in the future if they're tied to that monument. Um, my idea would be to research that question, follow up with the email if you prefer. Is that monument gone already? Okay.

Is that one of the county recorder? Well, it's not so much about triangulation and there's thousands others in the state, but when you lose a monument like that, it makes it so that previous iterations of surveys are hard to tie back if they're created on that monument. So, really, that's what I'm talking about. That's unfortunate. Hey, the applicant can come forward. Yes,

thanks for that that comment. We I I'm not aware of any property that's encumbered by an easement for a monument. Maybe I don't know your expertise, but that would be new to me to not be able to build where a monument is. It shouldn't stop anything. It should just be either offset, recreated, or whatever somehow.

That's what I'm talking. And it's not setting an easement. I mean, easements could be written off of it, but it's it's previous boundaries and plats and things like that that may be tied to that monument. I guarantee there's hundreds of them. So, if we have something created that we can tie back to that location, that that's really all I would like to see, which would be a new one, an offset in Canyon View Place and an offset in Canyon View Circle that you could right recreate it from. Yep.

Along the the section line. Jeremy, do you know what our code says about monuments and recreating monuments and offsetting monuments? I mean, it really doesn't have anything to do with this plat because the buildings are already there, but

and perhaps that is one of the recorders concerns. That would be my thought because he has drafted a monument ordinance regarding just this type of situation and I've been reviewing it. It's going to take a while but that's going to be coming forward as well. So have fun with that. Any more questions for the applicant? Are we are we considering putting this conditionally in the approval? Is there that much concern?

I I don't think we can. The building's already there. I would just add what the attorney said about adding the recorder name to condition number one. Whoever makes a motion can sure that the county recorder is listed. Are you ready for a motion? I'm ready for motion. Yes.

I move we recommend approval to the county commission of Canyon View Commons phase 1 condominium plat amendment application number 25.024 to allow the condominiumization of the on-site buildings for the creation of individual units. based on the findings and with the conditions listed in the staff report dated April 9, 2026 with the additional condition of addressing any recorders comments as well. Okay, I have a motion by member Taylor. Do I have a second? Second. Second by member Watt. Any more discussion on this item? All in favor? I I

I Any opposed? Motion carries unanimous. Thank you. Next is agenda item number seven. Silverstone subdivision plat phase six plat amendment.

Chair and planning commission. Uh this is a plat amendment for Silverstone subdivision phase six. is a request for approval of an amendment to the Silverstoneone subdivision number one amended plat number one for the creation of a new lot. Staff recommends approval of this amendment with the following conditions. One, that all the county surveyor and engineer review comments be addressed. Two, that all outsourced consultant fees are paid prior to recordation of the plat. the three that all other local, state, and federal laws are adhered to. This request is a amendment to lot 8 of the Silverstone subdivision to combine a smaller parcel lacking frontage on a public rideway with an adjacent flag parcel and to incorporate the combined area as a new lot within the subdivision. The proposal also includes a lot line adjustment to the existing lot, lot 8A, resulting in two separate lots, one existing lot and one newly created lot, each capable of development in conformance with county standards. The reconfiguration will alleviate a non-conforming situation where the existing home currently encroaches into property line setbacks. No new structures are proposed at this time and the existing home will remain on the combined parcel. If you have any questions at this time, staff be glad to try to address those. And the applicant is also here.

Any questions? I've got a few. Is there a frontage requirement on the culdeac at the 30 foot setback? Yeah, the proposed new lot meets the requirements for the flag lot. The the width I believe it's 26 ft. I think he's talking about the existing lot or are you talking about the flat?

Well, I guess both. Yeah, both of the lots meet current county standards for the frontage and the width requirements. Okay, on this plat it says lot 8B, but there's a note on well, we go to an access easement. Access easements aren't allowed in halfacre zone. I think we've got some semantics that I don't know what access easement means. Access easements are in A20 bigger.

Okay. So that I don't know what Madam Chair, staff has issued that comment in the review and and and we'll see a new set of plat drawings that we're going to be looking for that specifically also for lot 31. We'd rather see a lot 8A. Well, that's that was my other question. So 8A is is going to be the the flag lot and 8B the current remaining. Yes. The access easement was in favor of 8A and I didn't know there was no 8A on the plat.

Correct. And utility easements. I maybe we need to change our code or get these surveyors and engineers to put the utility easements in. I maybe we're the only one of the few entities that require them, but they're always they're always missing. But and then wait, are you talking about an existing No, the flag the existing lot has them. Exactly. Yeah. Flag lot doesn't have any.

No. Um, in our code it says a flag, pole or panhandle may not extend from a culde-sac bulb. Does this extend from the culde-sac bulb?

I suppose it does. Unless the code has changed, but I I don't remember. I remember when we wrote this code. I didn't really care. I didn't think it was a problem, but it was in the code. Janet wants to look it up or I can get the reference. I don't know how if we need to. It's 1 155 426 426 C9.

That's what it says. Code also says that lots need to have frontage on a county rightway. that what lots need to have frontage on a county rightway and this is completely landlocked and so staff is looking at decreasing the nonconformity in several ways this being again a peculiar situation is that something that would be required to go to a variance for the board of adjustment or

for the change code again I don't have a problem with flag lots coming off the bulb of a culde-sac. I don't know what was that code reference. It's one Okay. 155 426 426 then C 9 9 4 Look to 426. seems pretty clear

not opposed to this but I don't think our code is but the code reads as the code reads and how do you overstep that set the precedence in any way unless you change code as it sits today What it take? It'll take a minute, but have to be written through a through county commission as well, right? We don't have that authority to do so. Therefore, all we can do is go straight off what codes written as of today, right? And we would have to advertise that for a code change. Code code change. It's going to take a minute. Like I said, it so suggestions.

It's a pretty easy amendment. Well, it is. It's strike. You just strike it out. line it out. Is this something that a board of adjustment or how does that We don't do variances. I don't think a variance would work on this. I think it's a text amendment, but we can look into it because there has to be something unique about the parcel why it can't follow the code. I don't know with variances. It has to be something. neat though cuz it's the end of a culde-sac. Yeah. But

I really think the easier route would be to change code if we think it's okay to have flag lots at the end of a culde-sac. That would be inexpensive for the applicant as well. It would be what? Inexpensive for the applicant to do it as well. A code change. Well, we could direct staff. Yeah, we could direct staff then it wouldn't be any cost to the applicant. jump. That one's easy.

Does the applicant like to give us any direction or I'm sure the applicant's not happy. I know the applicant. Well, you've brought up a couple of questions. One of them was about uh frontage. Uh there is legal frontage for the flag lot and the existing

the existing lot. Um this this application is also over a year old and uh this is the first time I've heard about uh I my understanding is is that their flag lot ordinance was done away with uh for some time. It's a fairly new ordinance. Yeah. I don't think we ever had a flag lot ordinance. Correct. Yes. We did way back. I've created several flag lots in this county. In PRUDs, they were allowed. Yes. But not in a standard subdivision. Yes.

And uh how old is your current flag lot ordinance? So it says it was passed March 19th of 2024. Yeah, that sounds about right. So it's quite couple years old.

Apparently the staff and myself was not or aware that there was a uh written into the flag lot ordinance that it couldn't come off of the cold sack. Does uh anyone on the planning commission have any other questions about this uh lot or this amendment to the plat? It's one of those things that once you see it, you can't unsee it. So now we got to deal with it. The only question I would have is kind of going back to the numbering system. Previous amendment had the primary lot as lot 8A. Now we're changing it to 8B. If we give the other lot lot 31 8A, we're kind of swapping them, aren't we? I don't know if it really matters, but for continuation,

right? Maybe staff can address that. It was originally lot 8A. Mhm. In the subdivision. Sure.

In talking with our zoning administrator, it's labeled 8B because it's the second amendment of that lot. The Ares represents as the first amendment be sec represents as the second amendment and for the suggestion of having it labeled lot 31 is because it's it's kind of it hasn't been a a lot in the past we're making a lot so it's more ties into the the subdivision of Silverstone subdivision number one I call it for lot 31 cuz there's a lot 30, you know, just to the to the east of this lot 31. So that was the rationale for the the numbering.

I think the first amendment created where the existing home is. So that should be 8A and the flag lot should be 8B. That's the way I've typically seen it. a close second.

I don't know that it matters. It can be, but it's fairly confusing because it was 8A. The existing home was 8A in the first amendment and now we're changing it to 8B and moving 8A to the flag. So, it's just or lot 31, which who knows why it's 31 cuz this is an amendment to a plat. And yes, there's another lot that's 30 or whatever it is, but that's technically another plat since this is an amendment. This is weird. Yeah, it was another doesn't jive in my mind, but

different. Yeah, I think 31 refers to other lots that were in a phase two of Silverstone, not this phase one. But like I say, the numbering that's easy to fix, but yeah, overcoming codes the difficult one. Could you explain to me the uh process in changing the code to allow a flag lot of a colic? There's what different ways our planning or county commission directs staff to make it then we can go ahead and do it

and then it'll come before the planning commission and then final approve approval will be with the county commission. So would we table this reject it? What would you do? I would continue it. Yeah. and give us a couple months and because this will take like tomorrow I can have it amended. So not send it to the planning commission or the county council. Yep. Push it a month or two. Relook at it real quick. See if we can do the text amendment in that. You need the 10 days notice before it can come to us. Correct.

Well, unless we put a date on our continuation. And I think you need to do the date on the continuation. Maybe a month and a half. just to get through the cycle of getting it on the next planning commission agenda and then to the county commission the second meeting in May 28. I think that's reasonable. I'm kind of curious where this where the flag lot is so recent where to where to derive to not allow flag lots off of it. I'm surprised being so recent that we don't have a where that came from.

Well, I remember the discussion with Josh and he felt it extended the length of the culde-sac. So, he didn't want to put it there and I said I don't have the concern with it extending the culde-sac which is interesting. It's in there. Maybe the fire code on a dead end. You have to keep pulling through and not have a hammerhead up there. That would be the I don't He just said it to make it the culde-sac longer, but I I don't I don't know if it does. I don't agree with that. I think the culde-sac ends where it ends and then that's a driveway and then your driveway the fire code treats that different.

I don't disagree one way or the other. I'm just I'm curious to where that derived for a why was it put in there? Seems like it was something specific for a reason. It seems maybe silly if we direct staff to write a new uh tax amendment for it or we overwriting the original reason why it was put in. Yeah. I don't answer is yes, but whether we agree with that original reason or not. I don't know that I agree with that originally. I'd just be curious to hear why it was put in. I'm sure we'll hear it. If it comes back as a text amendment, we'll hear it. And it's possibly this code was taken from somebody else's code and it copy and paste.

Copy paste. I had no hand in drafting this one. Yeah, you No, I I pleading ignorance here. So code the only safe option is to continue this deal with the text. Sorry, but a month and a half from now we clear this up. Yes. Okay. So is that two motions in this item?

Yes, we need a motion to continue this to date certain and then we need staff to direct us to look into amending it and double-checking the reasons. Motion to continue. Second to May 14th. May 28th. May 28. Oh, May 14th would give us one month. That's probably not enough time. It's just trying to get the notice. That's a 10 day. 10 days. It's been a year. That's another two weeks. Okay. Well, I know.

Okay. I'd like to get this done before I die of old. It doesn't really matter to me. I've been living in the house for eight years and that's not going to change. We could do it to the first one in May and see if we get there. And if not then continue continue again. That's if you want to do that to May 14th. So if we don't make this change is not going to happen. And at the same time though if we continue it then it comes. So if we do the 28th he knows the date it comes on too. Cognizant of his time. So if you continue this when you have the meeting where it continues. Am I required to be here?

Although I guess it's got to go to the county commission too. Yeah, that would that would really be pushing it. So maybe the the 28th then we could do it but and it could probably be done but it probably be safer to do it to the 28th.

So is that your motion to continue it? Motion to continue to May 28th. Second. I have a motion by member Watt and a second by member King. All in favor? I I Any opposed? Motion carries unanimous. Now, a motion to direct staff. So, want to do that now. Is that okay to do it now? I think it's a good idea to do it now. Okay. So, we don't forget. Okay. So, move. We have a motion by member King to direct staff. Second. The text amendment and a second by member Taylor. All in favor? I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries unanimous. We will see.

My my question wasn't answered. I'm not required to be here when this meeting continues. Okay. Thank you. No, thank you.

Okay. Our next item is the legislative item agenda 8. This is the town center zone code text amendment. And chair, I'm going to be presenting this because I'm the one who drafted it. Um, this text amendment was um drafted under the direction of the county commission. This is in regards to two different developers owning town center zoned um properties adjacent to each other and kind of a ways away from some other commercial property. Um one of the things that the county commission wanted was for the two property owners, developers to work together to kind of coordinate where they're putting commercial um access issues, how things are going to flow. And so there's two steps in this. One is the joint conceptual development plan for requiring the two property owners to work together to coordinate those things. The second um amendment focuses on a reduction an exception to the strict 35% commercial requirement in the town center zone. So basically, if they if the developers are looking to um deviate from the strict requirements of town center um and it makes sense to make them coordinate their two properties together, the county commission can require them to enter into that joint um development plan. Now, I've had some kind of push back on whether we can require or not, and I think I can change it and make it still work without saying

the commission requires. Um, so I we need to note that and any recommendation is that we amend that. Um the commercial reduction, uh one of the things I kept hearing from the county commission is they want to make sure like, okay, if we're going to reduce the commercial, we're going to get some sort of benefit back. And so there's criteria for that as well as you know, it has to be incorporated into the development agreement. We need to have phasing so that we are getting those benefits and the benefit has to be above what would normally um be required in town center. So town center zone um it's multifamily housing. No single h family housing is required. Um so that's one of the requirements that the county commission has been kind of talking about on one of these properties. Um there's public dedications, um enhanced infrastructure, um parks, those kind of things, trails. So, it's really in a situation where are we going to have isolated commercial that doesn't make a lot of sense? Um and what could we get? What benefit could the county get in exchange for reducing the commercial? Any questions for the train? I I did have a concern. I have confused. They're required. I I had heartburn.

Yeah. As far as property rights to require someone to have to get along with with someone neighbor next door. Yes. And coordinate. I I like it when it's voluntary. if if the two property owners come in and say, "Hey, we can't quite make this work, but we've been talking and we think we can make this work together. Maybe we could move stuff around and put more of this on yours and less of this on mine." I think that's fantastic. Yep. But and I can change the required

the the reduction. It just seems like they're walking into a let's make a deal situation like it's wide open. Any criteria that you put there is you try to make it sound objective but it's really subjective. Um so in the drafting language I made it like really clear that this is sight specific. uh you have no entitlement to this like and just because some properties might get that reduction others might not there has to be findings by the commission

but their alternative is they could just say no I don't want to do that I just want to comply with the ordinance as it currently states yep and then we can end up with commercial that doesn't make sense but I guess that's the problem I have with the force part of is if you don't have the force part of it, they bought the piece of property knowing that it's under this ordinance. They can either choose to comply with it as is or they can enter the let's make a deal phase. I really get I really get a little bit leerary of when we start forcing property owners to do things. Yeah, we'll take that out. We'll take out the required I promise. Promise. That's why I brought it up is that I want to be a little more

that was going to be a little push back. I think to your point, but there's still there's a still a force in the 35% required one way or the other. There's I mean there's zoning requirements one way or the other and this is trying to keep things good in a good planning sense. So without some teeth in it, it becomes a free-for-all, right? or say let's make a deal on it.

It's well the reduction that's completely up to the county period. I mean you don't have to grant it. I mean even if they check all the boxes why they should be granted a reduction. County doesn't have to. I I like the fact that that we're contemplating a reduction because in some places it's hard to it's hard to predict exactly where everything should go. And so if they walk in with a piece where it it just really doesn't make sense. I I guess I like the wishy-washiness of the language there a little bit because you could reduce it from the 35 without some giant offsetting thing where it just doesn't make sense. But maybe it does make sense to and then to divide more. I I don't I don't have a problem with that. I like some flexibility.

It went through numerous drafts. True. So I I think I have enough county protections in the commercial reduction part. Do you do you see this as being absolutely necessary? Are there things in our existing codes that why

every time I'm tasked with spot zoning or spot amending for certain situations, it gets really difficult to try and figure out how this is going to affect other properties down the line. And so I really kept that in mind when I did this. Trying to think ahead, but you never know. I really like nice clear lines. I get worried about a great deal of subjectivity situationally because every time it comes up, it'll be a new situation and a new set of of desires for change. Yeah. One

Yeah, I I agree with that. But part of the problem is Some of these developers have reszoned, okay, to town center and other development has occurred around them in between before they've begun any of their like a development agreement or anything like that. And so then it I don't know if you end up having commercial completely cut off and residential all around it. I I don't know that you really want a big chunk of commercial in the middle of this residential. um when you're thinking about, you know, traffic and flow and circulation as well as I mean, is it just going to be dead space?

Okay. In D2A, you were kind of talking about this, but this zone was plopped down in the middle of the residential, not the other way around. It's almost to me this parcel should never been have received that designation. The planning commission did not recommend this for that reason that it was too far removed from the town center, but it got reszoned. So now we're trying to fix that problem of a parcel being re receiving a zone. It should never have received in my opinion. But I So this is targeted to a specific parcel.

Well, that's why we're doing it. It's Yes. Well, two parcels. However, I do I do appreciate the ability to re reduce if it brings in those two parcels of uh commercial together. Combine. Yeah. So, I I do think you've written in a way that allow somebody to think through the the planning of it better than just require me this. I'll throw it over here in this corner to get out of my hair. because my subdivision flows better this way. And that was the intent, too. So,

so if we're going to pay everybody, I think it it works. Did the county commission want this ability to force them in? I don't know that they necessarily said force, but I do know that I can draft it that if they if they um I'm just wondering how they got there. They told them to work together. They did

and applications have been delayed because they've been told to work together and to come up with this joint conceptual plan. So, this text change is following what the county commission has sit. So they kind of still want to force them to do it is what I think

I think I'm strongly encouraging them to and I think they're willing. I think they're willing. I think I can take out the required because they're already working on the joint conceptual plan that they can request that they work together. Yes. Did they come in with something absolutely repulsive? I think it's where the town center ended up and it's honestly they work together to do it. Put lipstick on a pig a little bit. The we've only seen like exactly really the concept plan for one and and they're in the audience tonight and their initial one fits town center. It does like their initial one checks it fits our code. They had the commercial.

They had the commercial. They had everything but commercial doesn't fit in that location and county commission didn't really like it and plus they wanted single family housing right and so in order to try and address everybody this is what I came up with. It's pretty impressive. Thank you. Yes. A lot of a lot of work. Really pretty impressive. Okay. Maybe we ought to get comment from the public at least before the applicant so the applicant can address. Well, there is no applicant because this was I should say they can they can make some public comments. That's what I mean.

I think that would be a great idea. So, let's have a a motion to go into the public hearing. Motion second. Motion by member Watt and a second by member Taylor. All in favor? I I Okay, now's the time to come forward. Please state your name for the record. Yeah, Tina's gonna beat you. She does.

Tina Kelly, Mountain Green. I know the application that you're talking about and I know that it was it was one it was one person who owned the property that got the town centers zone and then sold the property. So, that's part of the situation. Um, Janet, I'll take a stance. You said commercial. That doesn't make sense. And my thought was then the county commission shouldn't have reszoned a property to town center that didn't fit the town center concept with the commercial. It was pointed out to them. It was rejected by the planning commission. So, they were very well aware. And there was in that in that discussion with the county commission they did mention single family and there was some thought that there was going to be single family to blend into the residential system. I did. That was my comment. But I did read the text and I do have some keep I'm trying to be quick but I've been down. Okay. On page four of 13 um number two under D exception to commercial allocation requirement. This is the one my other thought. Um the coun the commission really wanted commercial property and there are very few areas in the county that you can have that commercial property. So reducing any I think is not a wise idea unless they can come up with something different down the road on this. It says substantial evidence in the record and I think Janet kind of alluded to it and member Taylor alluded to this substantial. What is substantial evidence? That's very subjective language and it has come up in the past with the county council in the PRUD.

And number three, eligible public benefits. Public benefits shall be evaluated in relation to the scale, location, and impact of the proposed development and must provide a material material and demonstrable public advantage beyond what would reasonably be achieved through strict compliance with this chapter. And goes on to talk about what those qualifying benefits might be. And I understand why the county wants those. I I really do. But then it says may include improvements, land uses or dedications. This is on the next page under F may include improvements, land uses or dedications located outside the subject property where such benefits demonstrabably serve the town center area or implement adopted county planning objectives. I don't know how they can extend to a property that's not within the town center zone. That seems a little bit odd to me. Number five, joint conceptual development plan where a joint conceptual development plan has been approved pursuant to 155266B4. The required commercial allocation may be evaluated across the combined development area identified in the approved plan and I wasn't sure what that meant. I I know you can't answer that. So, I'm just reading these as I highlighted. Number six, no entitlement. The last little bit, approval or denial of a reduction for one property shall not establish precedent or entitlement for any other property. I liked that language because I know every applicant who has a town center zone is going to want. Then my final on page seven of 13, this was section one, amendment and adoption title 15 of the Morgan County hereby amended and adopted to clean up and clarify the geohazards section of the

Morgan County code and other sections mentioning slopes as more specifically described in exhibit A attached here too incorporated. I think that was from another ordinance change and must have got somehow stuck into this that didn't seem like it belonged here and that's that was my concerns and questions. Thank you. Jeremy is did we did somehow the geohazards thrown into the packet?

So that could be attached to this. I think that could be changed pretty easily. Okay.

Good evening, planning commission. It's uh I appreciate the time to be in front of me. My name is Brandon Green. I'm with Flagship Homes. appreciate the work that you do. Um, and I appreciate having the chance to work with staff. They've been fantastic. Um, as was mentioned, we have a plan already that meets the town center zone. Um, but it's not widely popular through the town. So, we have been working to try and create something that is more in line with what the what the community is is looking or hoping to to accomplish. Um, and that is more single family, less town homes. Um, and then, uh, the commercial has been a little bit challenging because for commercial to be successful, there has to be some rooftops. And right now you've got approximately 80 acres of already approved commercial zone in the area with what what is already approved. So adding another 20 to 25 acres between the two parcels is really kind of hard to understand especially with what's there right now and and the difficulty that there is in getting that commercial to be successful. of we're happy to submit our original plan, but we really would appreciate the opportunity to work together with the county on creating something that works for everybody. Um, we have been working really well with with the other parties to this. Um, and I think we've made a lot of progress. Um, I have personally met with residents um and individuals one on- one to make sure that that what we're doing is meeting the expectations of the community because we want to be a good neighbor. We aren't we aren't

trying to force anybody to do anything. So again, appreciate your consideration and I appreciate Janet's time in trying to draft something that will um take into consideration the challenges we have under the current TC. I'm happy to answer any questions if you have any questions. We have any question landowner? I have a general question for you, Brandon. Yes. In your opinion, why is 35% unreasonable?

Um, well, I think I think if the commercial that was there that is there currently that's been approved was was thriving and well and and there was good connectivity, then maybe that 35% would be reasonable. But it is removed from the current town center zone. it's it's coming through the town through residential back into town mixed use so to speak. So, um if if it were located in a different location, maybe it would make more sense, but the location that it's currently in, it's it's it's removed from the town. This is just a general question. Do you find 35%? You don't you think that's unreason?

I think it's I think it's high. Yes, I I really do. I think it's high. Thank you. I've got a question then with the ability perhaps with some reduction and some cooperative work with the adjacent land on perhaps clustering that commercial with a reduction for the ask of the county to to give in in some of these public type is that something reasonable as a text read as a developer that you would come to the table and say okay with a reduction we'd be willing to cluster that commercial together and provide some other benefits to the county.

We we see that as being very successful clustering that commercial together. Now, let me just let me just say that yes, um one of the one of the concessions that we are considering or are willing to do is provide additional land at the fire department for expansion. That has been expressed to us. Absolutely. A team player on that. Another another one has been open space and trails and trail corridors. you have an amazing benefit of that cottonwood creek that runs through that entire town center zone. Now, if it were like if it were like San Antonio, Texas, and you could float tubes down it year round, that would be incredible, but you know, water runs through it on occasion, I guess, right now, but it's still a beautiful corridor that needs to be preserved and protected and green space, and we're willing to do that. And that was kind of my question. As it's written with the ability to reduce, do you see it feasible or something as a developer you come to the table with something being okay with some reduction, some clustering of that? We'd like to give some of the public benefit whether it be trails or whatever. This is this is a good trade-off for us and we feel benefited on both sides.

We've got that built into the current concept plan that we've been working together on with the developers. So yes, we we are showing some view corridors and some trail and open space and yeah because it have you write a text amendment that then everyone's like well that's great to have but doesn't seem reasonable to us if we're going to put it in place it should be something that's going to work.

Yeah. And I think um Brandon, if I'm wrong, they're providing better access to the two properties as well as um single family housing which they wouldn't have to put in. So, a lot of what they've been addressing were things that initially after it was reszoned, there was a referendum, talk of a referendum and a sort of kind of contract with the previous owner that wasn't a contract. And I think they've addressed all those concerns that the people considering the referendum were asking for.

And I personally met with a few of those people on that referendum and and and showed them what we're proposing and they seem to be pleased. So in the end, the text amendment as it's written works. It works. Correct. Yeah. That was kind of my question. Is it goes into place? It seems to be the the intent of it is coming through. It's going to work.

Okay. So, you're a developer. You you do this in this case. This is going to work out well. You're going to be able to accomplish. Now, let's go down the road a bit. Is this a net benefit for the future doing it this way or do you see potentially more negative um results than positive? I to the best that I can, um, UD do's going to be redoing the the, uh, interchange right there, right?

Which I see as being a net benefit. That's going to bring people into your town center because that's where your town centers located. um with people coming in and with homes being developed next to a town center or a town core that adds to the vitality of of that commercial area. Um, the only one that I can kind of compare to and and I'm not comparing you to Farmington City at all, so please don't take it that way, but Farmington Station is successful because of the amount of homes that support that and its access off of the freeway. So, you have frontage, you have access, and we're trying to help you provide a successful community with homes. So, do I see that? Yes, I absolutely see this being successful and and people wanting to to develop and build business in the town center, but it needs to stay kind of centrally located. It can't be sprawled out across the properties.

Did I answer your question? Kind of. Yeah, I'm satisfied. We're good.

Planner King, any questions? I'm good.

Any other? Okay. Thank you. Any more questions for attorney? Yes. Close public hearing. Motion. Motion. Second. Motion by member Taylor. Second King. All in favor? I opposed. Thank you.

My only recommendation is if um the planning commission is considering approval make you make the recommendation that under sub4 B that it be amended to the county may request coordinated planning. And then we would take out upon written findings and I can make it sound pretty. I do have okay question under that D2B. The last sentence says a reduction shall not be approved where the primary purpose who decides what the primary purpose of residential yield what's what's considered primary and then you have solely for additional residential kind of like weasel words. So okay this was this was my paranoia kicking in. Um get down to it. solely was under F

mostly because I didn't want town center developers coming in saying, "Well, commercial isn't going to be successful here, so we just need tons of condos and multif family housing, period, because that's going to generate more income and give us greater density." So, that's what I was trying to hit at. And maybe I got a little too aggressive with that. I know every attorney that's looked at it that keeps crossing it out, but I think it still works. I just don't want the sole reason that I'm coming here to reduce the 35% is I just want to build more town homes.

Eliminates the need for the town center designation at that point. Exactly. You're just giving guidance here. Yes. I think that there is going to be some situations where somebody could come in and say commercial isn't viable right now and I think they'd be right. Absolutely.

So then it's it's a matter of is it is now the time or is now not the time. So under the strict 35% I think a lot of that commercial just sits and waits and and that may be the right thing and may not be the right thing. But this ordinance I believe allows um each grouping to be looked at and gives them an opportunity to to present their case. It gives us an opportunity to listen to it and the county commission to rule on it. And I struggled with that is that okay, right now commercial might not make any sense,

but in 10 years it might be a gold mine. So that's why it's kind of sight specific too as well. You know, I I like the sentence and I think I think there's enough room throughout this through the process to have that discussion and make decisions. So the 35% can go down to zero commercial if the if the county you guys want the the benefit. Yes.

So okay it talked about offsite amenities or whatever. So we can probably remove that. Again, this was considering a particular property in mind. So with Flagship, they own um property adjacent to their town center that zones something else, but that's where the county commission wants them to put the single family housing. Now, I think going forward, what we've kind of thought of as a plan, if this all works, is we'll just reszone it town center and include it in with this. So, we could probably remove that out of there. Um,

where where are we talking about? Because wherever I was reading it said outside of town center, which you brought that up, it says outside of the subject property. It's under that was under F. It's under three. The last paragraph, eligible public benefits. Then if you go down, public benefits may include improvement land uses or dedications located outside the subject property. Yeah. So, and I guess if someone owned outside of the subject property,

I was just thinking maybe it's something that the county owns. wanted to go in with something. I I don't know. I don't think it hurts being in there, but I don't think it hurts either. Yeah.

I think it gives more flexibility. I think this is the these are all just oneoffs. Any other concerns? questions. Do you want to move it forward or do you want to see changes made before you move it forward or you

I'm fine with moving it forward. I think in a motion I would just have Janet restate the sections that she's inventing and then then close the motion. So, ready for a motion then? Anyone?

I'll make the motion. I move we recommend approval to the county commission of the town center code text amendment based on the findings listed in the memorandum dated April 9, 2026 with the following additional conditions. that under subsection 4, joint conceptual development plan, um subsection B, that it be amended to the county may request coordinated planning among the affected properties and the requirement for written findings be removed.

Second. Okay, I have a motion by member Taylor and a second by member Watt. Any discussion? Vote. Okay. All in favor? I I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Unanimous. Okay. on business staff questions. We need Do we want to postpone to a date certain or just not necessary? Just we we'll bring it back. So, just ignore it. Yes, that's on the agenda. Okay. Mike's he was planning on doing that, right? He's still traveling.

Um I think they were kind of planning on it and it was a last minute decision to not do the training tonight. Okay. So, any questions for staff? You guys were going to bring a list, the list, the magical list or send it out a directive every week, every meeting. It's getting long. So, yeah. Well, I mean, again, that'll be up to Josh, but yeah, there it's it's piling up. We're still trying to get the title 17 stuff all updated in every portion of our code. Yeah. Yeah. We were just looking for a list of the the tasks

that that list of tasks that that we've requested changes made. Checks next to that can and we can post it. That could be emailed, I guess. You know, it doesn't have to be in this meeting. I'll let Josh know that. That might be a good idea. Be sure to add the one that we added tonight. Isn't it done already? Yes. Download it. It's easy. I downloaded the word version. It started and then I had that present. Doesn't surprise me. No other questions than motion to approve the minutes. Motion.

You have a motion by member King. Second. Second by member McMillan. All in favor? I. Motion carries. Motion to adjurnn. So move Taylor. Second by