Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Right. Can you make Try not to ever hell. She has her iPad right there.

Good evening. I'd like to call 2026. I will offer the invocation and and then with you all rise with us as we say the pledge of allegiance. Heaven, we're so grateful for all our many blessings and for the opportunity we have to serve on the planning commission. We're grateful for the freedoms that we enjoy in this land. We ask that we will be receive more moisture that we will have sufficient for our needs this season. We're grateful for the peace and safety this season. Our minds might be clear that we may understand the responsibilities that we have tonight as we process these applications. We say these things and named by member Maloney.

Second by member King. All in favor? I I motion

the Durant Slate Plumbing Building. And so I think it would be a benefit to everybody if that road extended up north a little further. That's all I have to say. Thank you so much for for listening to me. Anybody else? Last call. Seeing none, we will move on to our agenda item number six. This is a Deos Mountain Estate in Mountain Green for a reception center commission. The county staff has reviewed this application and recommends approval of this site plan based on findings and conditions listed in the staff report. I'd like to add one of the findings to be complies with the approved conditional use permit for a private recreational resort that was granted in June of last year and that uh a condition that like their clear signage must be provided and directed um to direct guests and appropriate parking areas and that will be looked at during the building permit application because that was a condition of the conditional use permit that was granted last year. So, this request is approval of a new recreation center. The proposed recreation center contains approximately 5,416 square ft located on 1.58 acres with 103 parking stalls. The application provides elevations, landscaping, and parking and grading according to Morgan County Code.

The application has a conditional access permit from UD do access off of and onto Trappers Road. An encroachment permit will be received from the UD do region one permit office prior to commencing any needed work within the rideway. And UD do reserves the right to require installation of a raised median or restrict access to a ride in or write out at any time. The site plan displays more than 15% requirement for landscaping. It's contains about 34.6% is in landscaping. The application submits a phototric calculations that meet the intent of the Morgan County dark sky ordinance and it was reviewed by our county engineer and the site plan is compatible with the commercial design standards found in the Morgan County code. I'd be glad to address any questions you might have at this time.

Any questions for staff? Would you could you state those two added conditions again so we can

Sure. An added finding would be complies with approved CUP for private recreation resort granted June of last year of 2025 and add a condition that the clear signage must be provided and to direct guests and appropriate parking areas in compliance with our signed ordinance. But that would be looked at also at the our building permit. So, it's somewhat redundant, but that was a condition that was listed in the conditional use permit from from last year.

We've also added a couple other uh stipulations. I have them on your screens right now. Um, per federal ADA regulations, they need to stripe um two additional spaces um as ADA. Thank you. Hey Josh, do they have to add any additional van accessible for that?

Um, one of those would have to be van accessible. Um, but the but because of the total number of parking spaces of 103, they need five and they're only showing three. So just one of those five has to be van accessible out of seven. And what that means is the um just for everybody the van accessible the side that has the stripes is wider instead of three 3 ft or something it's like 6 feet wide. Hey, can you go over the sequence of events for like the well and the septic system versus bringing it here and notice that it's currently underway? The design and approval are currently underway. Is that typically what we do? They come here and they get approval and then they get approval for the septic system. And also on the well, it said the well's been tested, but it didn't really talk about the capacity of the well, the requirement for that. Does that mean that the well was drilled with this in mind at the beginning?

No, the well is existing. Um the home has been in existence for uh quite a while. uh Weber working health department would be going up there uh anytime there's an expansion whether there's a detached accessory dwelling unit or uh in this case a private resort with a a reception center they would go back and they would test the expansion to make sure the existing septic and well were sufficient. Um I believe we received a letter uh if I remember correctly stating that we health department has given conditional approval. Um if there's changes that they have to make then uh we Morgan Health Department would be the one to determine that since it's well and septic. We don't we don't really determine that. We would just check and verify when we get a building permit that they have it

on on the sighting. Um, we have to we have to approve that. Do we have to make note of that or is that just we just approve the application? It's got zinc panels, wood aesthetic, extruded aluminum.

Um, this isn't strictly a commercial site plan. So, the the standards for commercial design are not the same. And so what they're proposing for a private resort in an A20 zone, it meets our code. Uh, a question on the photometric. I didn't read the ordinance for the dark sky and I know it's a struggle with the cut off lights. There's a lot of zeros in the parking lot and 0.1 ones. Is that

the zeros and the 0.1 ones are what you want. Um, it shows light bleed. So, the higher the number, the brighter the light. Um, you want it bright around the building in certain areas in the parking lot, but the further out you go, it's got to zero out at the property line. Yeah, I was just looking at the zeros in the parking lot, the 0.1's in the parking lot. Um, if if they want to add additional lights, um, they'd have to submit a new phototric plan. We we don't have a minimum requirement.

No. So the technically the phototric plan is not strictly required. There's nothing in our code that says they have to submit a phototric plan, but I don't know of any other way to prove that you're meeting our dark sky ordinance without submitting one. So anytime a commercial, multif family, resort or whatever submits, it's on the burden is on them to prove that they meet our dark sky ordinance. And so I tell them one of the best ways to do that is to submit cut sheets and or a phototric. Did that answer your question?

Uh yeah. Basically there's no minimum in the code. No, we have a dark sky ordinance that talks about total amount of lumens. It doesn't mention foot candles, but the only way to prove that the amount of lumens at the property line is through a photometric. No, no. I mean in the within the site. I get it. The b the edges you have to protect has to show zero in the parking lot itself on walkways or anything like that. We don't we don't say there's a load.

No. And in fact, I look at it, but I don't do the review. I hand it to the engineer and let the engineer tell me that it meets our code. So these exterior materials, I guess I'm a little confused because in here you give us the standard for commercial design standards and then you talk about the materials that are going to be used and then we have exterior elevations. What are we supposed to be doing with that?

The elevations are to show that they submitted it and the the design. The the issue that I have is our code talks about commercial design and this is on agriculture land. It's not technically commercial. It's a private resort which can be found in A20 F1 or ME160. So while we try to get them to hold to the commercial standards, it's not clearly defined. So, in my opinion, they meet the standards even though they don't have to.

Technically, yes. Any other questions for staff? Any applicant? No. Oh. Oh. Perfect. The applicant would like to come up.

Thank you, chair, commissioners. My name is Craig Day. I'm representing Josh Hughes. He's really remissed not being here. He's put a lot of time and effort into this. I think it's kind of a special project, Ariel's heart. Um, my address is 3445 Analopee Drive, Syracuse, Utah. And I'd have happy to entertain any questions. Yeah. Whatever I can answer for you. Questions for the applicant.

Thank you so much for your time and consideration tonight. I really appreciate it. Any discussion? Just whoever's making the motion, there was the added finding that it would apply with the conditional use permit for a private resort, I believe. And then the added condition that there's clear signage to direct guest to parking that complies with our signing ordinance. I think that was it. And then the two that Josh had, right?

He he read them off. I think they're on on the report. That motion should cover it. No more discussion. Ready for a motion. So in the motion, we have to be specific that they need three more handicap. Two more handicap. Two more. You could actually for that one since I included in the staff report, you could just say and the stipulations or conditions in the staff report. You don't have to um worry about that.

You got all that written down, Tracy? Sure, I can do it. I move I move we recommend approval of the county commission for the DEYWS mountain estate site plan application numbers 25.042 042 allowing for the proposed reception center located at 7533 North Trappers Loop Road in unincorporated Morgan County based on the findings and with the conditions listed in the staff report dated May 14, 2026 with the following conditions that it complies with the CUP requirements for a private resort in the code and also that they provide clear directional signs that direct parking that complies with the county code.

Okay. I have a motion by member Taylor. Is there a second? Second. Give it to member Watt, second by member Watt. Any discussion? All in favor? I. Any oppose? Motion carries. Unanimous. Okay. Next item. Number seven, Rose Hill LDS Chapel site plan.

There's also a site plan. It's in the Mountain Green area to allow the construction of a new LDS chapel with its accompanying parking lot. Staff has reviewed the application and recommends approval of the requested site plan based on the findings and conditions in the staff report. you have any questions, I'll be glad to address those at this time. Um, I can just mention that the the chapel has 285 parking stalls and 100, excuse me, 1,800 square ft pavilion with a 236 ft storage building. So it more than meets our requirements for site plan for parking and for landscaping and for it's not necessarily commercial but it meets our commercial design standards as well. It complies with our dark sky ordinance. Can you talk about that the road that they have alongside there with the gate at the end and it's

the intent is there and the driveway it's about 700 plus feet in length from Cottonwood Canyon Road to the end. It's intended just to provide access to this LDS chapel site. There will be some cross access through the parking lots between the proposed church and the existing church. And the gate is just for future access to the property behind there for whatever use that may be. So it's also not a road.

It was designed as a circulation uh driveway. It it's not designed to our street standards. So it's just it it's like a commercial access Yeah. driveway. It's not a road. They're kind of closing the door on being able to do anything other than uh church owned uses behind them that well they own that property behind them, right? And I'm not sure we can legally exact that they extended circulation drive all the way to the end of their

I I don't think so either. But by doing what they've done, I I guess it doesn't completely close the door on them being able to sell that off, develop it, whatever. And I guess they could it could just be a private second access and the public is welcome to contact the the owner of the property uh and ask about extending. I mean there's no harm in asking. But as far as our ability to compel, I don't I don't think we have that.

Yeah, that would be my suggestion too that whoever is interested in doing that reach out to the church directly and for sure and request it. I could just add in the first finding, we probably recommend distriking that and just adding the finding that it exceeds the Morgan County code site plan requirements. And as far as the conditions, the third condition could be strike two because that uh isn't necessarily apply to or shouldn't apply to the site plan. Lost conditions you have. We just have three right now and just recommend the third condition be follow the law.

Oh, and the entire park strip be spaced with Yeah, they've complied with that, but it's not necessarily a requirement that we can enforce I've been told. So, yeah, they submitted uh updated landscape drawings which showed the trees 30 feet on center. So, that that stipulation has already been met.

They submitted that after the staff report was um sent out. Uh the other two I think uh we need to keep in because when inspections are going on they're going to acrue additional fees and we need to make sure that those fees are paid and the that all other local state and federal laws are adhered to is a catchall in case we've missed something uh and somebody comes back. It it helps protect the county. And in the the staff report under project description proposal details the last sentence it says a few landscaping and vicinity map changes need to be made.

Yeah that's been updated. So since the staff report was made the the applicant has supplied you know landscaping plans that more than meet our requirements and the city map is meets our requirements as well. Can I ask a couple questions? Can I I'm just curious. I mean, I think they have a valid point with the roads. I'm curious in exacting things from people who come in and propose things. What how do you determine that? What What are the criteria? Because I know the county can exact things from people.

We Oh, I'm sorry. We are allowed to require exactions like roads, streets, curbs, gutter, sidewalk, extension of utilities. Um, but it's the level of exaction and really it comes down to court of law. Any exaction that we require has to have a rational nexus. And there's a Supreme Court um Nolan the uh state of Oregon versus uh Dolan and then state of California vers Nolan both talked about this rational nexus requirement uh when any exaction is uh required by uh a jurisdiction. So the the the proof is is there a rational nexus for requiring them to extend

uh beyond what's being developed across property that isn't being developed yet.

I I get that okay I appreciate what you're saying Josh. I was just curious what the levels of exaction are. I I know the county can exact things from people. I'm just curious as to what triggers it equal value. What are you saying? Uh, what I'm saying is that cities and counties can exact basically whatever they want, but the more you exact, the greater chance you have being sued and taken to court and not just being taken to court, but losing because you've exceeded the rational nexus. So our goal is to make sure that what we exact seems reasonable and doesn't go beyond because the last thing we want is to get sued and and lose. So we have to think of what is necessary to access this proposed site and a driveway be sufficient. So there are formulas they use for designing you know parking lots and stuff that amount of traffic and and that roadway and this this flood of things and these buildings get used for multiple kinds of events. Your your belief is that there is sufficient ingress and egress for this to go forward. My knowledge is we haven't required a traffic study.

The the co our code says that we can require a traffic study if the county engineer requests it and he did not request it for this project. Um we have done the parking calculations based on the size of the building and our parking code and the number of spaces that they're proposing meets our code. Good. Thank you. One last thing, the fire department has uh signed off um in civic review as approved. So they they've reviewed it as well. They have some conditions that the church will need to meet. So they've stated those very clearly.

Yeah. And we'll we'll make sure they meet those stipulations during uh construction. Any more? I don't believe the applicant is here. A repres Oh, there is the applicant would like to come up. Guess I was expecting a suit and tie. Sorry about that. No, no, this is good. Chad Spencer, EA Architecture. I'm happy to answer any questions you have. Any questions for the architect?

What What was your thinking on that, Earl? Do you have any comment on that or thoughts on it? Just out of curiosity. The church isn't concerned about the amount of traffic on there. It there's no difference there. Rather, that drive comes out onto Cottonwood because we've provided the second egress through the existing church parking lot. So, if there's an emergency or other things, as far as the church is concerned, there's alternative exits out of that area. Thank you. There's no other discussion. Ready for a motion.

Madam Chair, I make a motion for a positive recommendation of approval. I move we recommend approval to the county commission for the Rose Hill LDS Chapel site plan application number 25.053 053 allowing for the proposed chapel and parking area located at 4210 West Cottonwood Canyon Road in unincorporated Morgan County based on the findings and with the conditions listed in the staff report dated May 14, 2026. I have a motion by member Watt second and a second by member King. Any discussion? All in favor?

Wait, do we need to amend that to remove condition three or is it fine as is? It's fine as is because they've already complied with it, but if you want to remove it, uh, you could remove it as well. And then the approval letter we send out, we would delete it out of the the approval letter. Yeah, it's fine. Okay. All in favor? I I.

Any opposed? Motion carries. Unanimous. Okay. Next item is the planning commission bylaws. Turn the time over to the attorney, Christopherson. Okay. So, the first thing you're seeing on the screen, that's just a summary of rules for um our meetings to be posted for the public. And it's based on an appendix at the bottom um attached to the bottom of the planning commission bylaws. So, this sums it up and just puts it on one page. This is nice.

Yeah, it's clean. Are we going to post this then? Like Yes. Okay. Everything. Yes. And then um someone had a great idea. I can't remember who, but like even putting it up on the screen as people are filtering in. Love it. It's a great idea.

And I don't know if you if you guys got a chance to go through all of it. I know that Deb did. Chair Sessions did and you did. Okay. And so I'm here to answer any questions about any of it. It just was something I threw together kind of based on things people have said throughout the last couple years sitting in here. like being able to just adjourn without a vote and allowing the chair to vote, which has never made sense to me that the chair hasn't been able to.

I think we need to update that cuz under the chair duties, it says that the chair only votes if there's four or less members like under the responsibilities of chair. Let me go to which page it is. Uh while she's looking that up, the county commission did ask for that to be changed so that the chair can vote. That's that's what she's saying. She changed it in one spot, I think, but not the other. Do you get what I'm saying? And also the approval of the agenda. The chair is also supposed to do. I didn't see that, but I might have missed it if it's in there. The county commission, I think, asked for that last summer. To approve the agenda before the meeting. Before the meeting prior. Yes.

Um, duties of the chair. It's going to be page two of 10. Um, so I don't know if that would want to go in there, the approval of the agenda prior to the meeting. And then it says the J says the chair shall vote only if four planning commission members are present.

Do you see that? Where's 10? The top of the page says organization and then it's under duties of the chair and it's item J. J. Oh, different. Wait, yours is different than mine. Are you on the old bylaws? No, I'm on our packet. Okay, it kind of numbered. I did the packet include the old bylaws. I kind at the bottom. Yeah. Oh, maybe I'm on the wrong ones. Okay, disregard. Okay.

Sorry. Well, I because I saw it right in one place and then I was like because we do that often where you have it in multiple places and then Yeah. And so it's contradictory. Sorry, my bad. No way. Okay, that's I'm glad.

I have questions about the conflict of interest. It's it's it's listed in several several places there. I think the conflict of interest has conflicts of interest between them. Um, so I don't know that I'm comfortable with this, but like tonight, um, just informally, you know, here's the church that comes in for a matter, but you say if you have a personal interest, any personal interest, any personal interest, then you have to declare a conflict or a potential conflict. But in another section, it says if you declare a potential conflict, you're out. You can't discuss it. You have to you have to abstain from the voting. So there's not a chance for a discussion like hey I I I I talked to this guy. Uh I had exparte communication but according to the document here I just said hey you know what this is going to be up for public hearing. You need to direct your attention back to the staff. You need to go through the proper process. We meet on this day and this day. That's fine. But should you declare that? Because now this document is saying don't declare that because if you declare that then you're out when you shouldn't be out. So this is I did I I don't know. I just there was a lot of bouncing around in this and it was contained in so many sections that I thought really this should be condensed down into one place. And there were kind, you know, the documents kind of written like that where it's there's a lot of things uh mentioned the same thing should be condensed down into one spot like a definition spot or and you have this ethics section in here where I thought that was a good place to address it. But

I just didn't like that. It wasn't very clear and I would like some clarity there. Okay. Yeah. Under the ethics, this is page five under conflicts of interest and disclosure. Second sentence says required disclosure shall be made in writing. Oh yeah. So as provided by law and verbally. And verbally.

Yeah. The very next sentence. planning commissioner me planning commission member who has a personal interest or financial or financial I mean yeah financial is a given the personal I don't know you know he's a friend of mine I know him I got you know seen him at the grocery store we work together what I don't know what level small community yeah good know a lot of the applicants yeah so um maybe make it with state law. How does just insert the state code?

And that's what I was wondering. I was wondering if sometimes a conflict of interest is a lot more to the point than some of what we think, right? So maybe it'd be good to have that that piece in this a definition of a conflict of interest in accordance with state law.

There's times I I've stated I don't have a conflict, but I want it on public record that that my water right goes through this development so that the public knows. But yet I don't consider that a conflict of interest. I've done the same thing cuz I want people to know that I Yes. But part of this makes me wonder if I open my mouth. Yeah. Am I out? I Well, and and that's like um chair sessions like the when I mentioned your conflict with the water rate running through.

Yes. is that's that was the language I was reading was the old bylaws definition of conflict and what occurs um and some of this I created new sections I tried to follow somewhat the old format but then that didn't work so there probably is some conflicting and repetitive stuff that needs to come out so whatever what is like what the county commission have don't they have some wording conflict conflict and have it match. Maybe make it match. It's a great idea. Yeah, it's cleaner.

We're all held to the same standard. The section numbering and lettering is kind of funky.

I did like the don't be a pansy. Just because it's a hot topic doesn't mean you can abstain. Yeah, that was me because there's no easy out. Yeah. I don't It's a tough Yeah. Especially in the small town. Yeah. Um I think on page 16 it says, "An applicant may at the applicant's discretion respond to questions or concern raised by the public after the public hearing has closed." And then on page 27, you have a a little walk you through the path thing. So it ought to be added in that. Okay.

I I do like that. And this says the chair can make a motion. And I didn't see maybe I missed. The chair can vote in this one. Yeah. But I don't know about making a motion. It says it. It does say that in here. I have that marked, too. Is that is there an issue with that? I mean, what's the issue with the chair making a motion or voting or I I don't understand what the I don't understand what the issue is either why the chair couldn't make a motion. I've never known a chair to make a motion. That's why voting voting. Yeah.

But in Robert's rules, I don't think the chair can. But we don't. We're going away from Robert. I know they're very loose loosey goosey loosey gooy. I So would you like to do you guys want the chair to be able to make a motion? I mean, I can see that it depends on I don't know. I I guess I can see I can see a point of separating it so the chair can't just run over everybody at the Yeah, just but could vote. No, I agree. I agree. Talking specifically. I know. I No, I agree. I agree. Part of the concept is that a chair is an arbiter of of discussion and and disagreement.

So no motion. In fact, I I have mixed feelings about voting except in certain cases, but that's the way it is. That's the way it is. What about those times when the chair asks for a motion and it's complete silence? That's what I was thinking about. I I think there's got to be a way to break that deadlock at least to get the discussion moving, which is the only reason why I would say give the chair limited ability to do a motion when there's absolutely no movement to make a motion to get to allow the meeting to proceed. That that would be the only What happens in that case? Nobody's making a motion. What the chair? What happens to that item? It dies. It dies. That's normally it dies.

Um technically, what does that mean? It dies. So it just goes to it go it would it would be referred back up to the county commission. At that point staff would view it as a recommendation for denial and we would take it forward to the county commission uh for them to make a decision

whether we were the land use authority or the recommending body. Either one it would be appealed if it were if we were the land use authority and it died. So, if it died for lack of emotion, it's it's a soft denial. It's pardon my language because I've seen it happen in in my almost 30 years. I've seen it happen once where it just died and it was a chicken [ __ ] move. And I don't care if that's on the minutes because it was by the commission at that time. They refused to make a decision. and um it it negatively affected the applicant um financially. Uh so I think in those cases it does need to be viewed um as a recommendation for denial to the county commission whether the planning commission is the land use authority or not.

So how long do you just sit there with your motion until like what is it 9:00 8:30? Yeah, you have to make a motion to continue the meeting after it's either 9 or 10. There's something in Yeah, I can't remember. But we just walk out. That That's a specific tactic. That's just not a happen stance where we're just quiet because we don't want to jump over somebody else. No one wants to make the motion. Who wants to be on record to make a motion? All right. But we we make motions eventually. Some of them. Some of it does. I think half the time we're just looking for our emotions when there's silence. I don't think it's like intentionally stalling. I think sometimes we're like, "What was the one motion?"

But I can imagine for a really hot How many conditions were there? Did I get them all written down? But for a really hot item where you just It's almost like the pansy move of just abstaining or whatever, right? It would be it would be kind of like that. Like I just don't want to This group is my friends. This group is my friends. They are at odds. I don't want to make them mad and I don't want to make them mad. I'm just going to sit here in silent.

Yeah, like I said, it it is rare, but to help the meeting move forward, there probably could be something put in the bylaws to allow for something to let the meeting move forward because pausing, trying to think about stipulations, things like that. Yeah, there's nothing wrong with that. But when every single person is just sitting there and not saying anything. Yeah, I get the concern. But you know, I can also see no second. We just keep quiet and we don't second it. It's still dead. Same thing. Same thing. So yeah, but that would probably break the log jam maybe.

That's also a lot of pressure on the chair. If no one's making a motion and then finally after like 30 minutes, they're like, I guess it's my turn. You paid the big bucks. You're the fail stage. I don't know for a once in 30 year thing. Maybe we could just let the clock run out and come back. But if it's maybe we're just making something out of nothing. I feel like we've had contentious items even in the last couple months. We've made motions. We've gotten through them. Mhm. Really well with full houses. Really well. Yeah. It's not like they have all been chip shots like today.

All right. Well, I have another question. Sure. Can you explain recision of action? Page numberage. That's page 18. Uh item number 10. Can you just walk me through that or not read it to me but like a an instance if this would happen and what what is this? So this is if you guys have voted and approved something but later come back and later decide said we probably should after the meeting after the meeting's done.

Yeah. Then you can come back. Is there a state is there a state cure period for that? like after 30 days the planning commission cannot come back or it seems like I've run into this something like this before where your your approval isn't really official until this some clock has run out run out

for reasonzonings there is a cure period in Utah I think it's 15 days um you're a recommendation body for that. So, uh, and the appeal on both sides, I'm not sure it can be appealed by the applicant if it's legislative, but the the public definitely can through a referendum. Um, the applications that um you would be the land use authority for would be small subdivisions and conditional use permits. Uh, and I can see with maybe a conditional use permit, there might be a negative impact that was not enumerated or um, and after the fact you might think that there might be something that you wanted to add as a stipulation, I can see you bringing it back for that. Uh, but to resend something, there's always an appeal process um for those administrative items. So, I I I don't know. And in this case, I I can't think of anything. I can think of stuff that the county commission might want to like uh re reversing the land sale for that for the uh open space.

I can see that too. And and this is based off of Robert's rules. That's where it pulls out of. And and I left it in there. Um, but but to Josh's point, it says except as limited by law. So if we have 15 days, we don't have a meeting and there's nothing we can really change.

It might be just extraordinary circumstance where we would need to come back for a recision. The reconsideration we can do during that meeting if we've done something, let's say item number six here, and we're at this stage and someone says, "Oh, wait a minute. I thought of something." We can go back and we can reconsider at that meeting at the same meeting. You can reconsider the motion that you made earlier in the meeting. Sure. Because wouldn't if somebody were to bring up something we've done in the past at a different meeting. Wouldn't we have to make it an agenda item? Wouldn't we have to get

everything lined back up the same for recision? Yes. Notice. Yeah. It's okay. It's in there. I don't see us need to use it. So, would conditional use permits be something that maybe that we would be I'm just thinking out loud of like items that would even be impacted? Um, conditional use permits are probably the only action that you are a land use authority to that might come up. small subdivision, but that's Yeah, small subdivision. If you were to deny it Yeah.

and and because of certain conditions, you denied it, but after the meeting, some of those things weren't correct. Yeah. And you needed to approve it instead of making them wait two years. I could see that, too. Yeah. So, I I mean, it's going to be limited in scope. I I don't But it might not be bad to have I could see cups something coming up, right? because they're conditional and then you find out after like, oh, we didn't know this. We got this information. That's where I see the only thing cuz they're conditional and maybe the conditions change. Yeah. Uh the for conditional use permits also, if they're violating their CUP, Yeah. the zoning administrator has the right to temporarily revoke it.

Okay. and then I have to bring it back to the land use authority and you have the option to just delete it completely or modify it at that time too. So there's there's other options that the code gives us but to have this in there I think it would be a good idea. It doesn't hurt. Yeah.

I have Okay, back up on page eight. It's about the election. It has at the first reg regular meeting in March. The county code allows the county commissioner till the end of March to make their after they've been elected. So it might have to be April 1st.

They have till till then to do what? that they have until the end of March to make their selection of their planning commission appointee. So come but January 1, if there's a new commissioner, they can appoint their assigned person person and they have until the end of March to do that according to the code. So, do you want to move your um chair and vice chair elections to April to April 1 or whatever? For first week, first the first meeting in April or second

first or second, but we can do it the first because they they'd have to be they have just till the end of March. We can definitely change that. Um because it has been March before the county changed their code.

It was Let's see on page 12 I think it talks about cancellation. Yes. Can So I tried to add but should the chair be brought in on the cancellation? I mean there should be between the staff and the chair or just the staff. It does say the chair

does say the chair there or in the chair's absence the vice chair in consultation with planning and development may cancel the meeting just so we could make it easier because I know when we've had weather issues or concerned about a quorum

Josh and I are running around calling Garrett and pulling code and everything. So, it's just nice to have it in our policy so that boom, we're not stressing about it every time we encounter that. So, that staff just can't the the staff would have to consult with the chair. Chair or vice chair? Yep. And then this is what on page 14, Maddie brought it up on the agenda for the meetings have in there that the chair approved the agenda in advance. Okay.

So it was explain that again to me the what on 14 on page 14 under it says agenda for meetings. And what do you want changed? Sorry. I think the county commission asked when they wanted the chair to vote that the chair reviews the agenda prior to the meeting. I think just as a second set of eyes, I guess prior to posting. Yeah. chair. Who brought that up?

He do you remember who did it that I can't remember what it was at that same meeting that they asked that the chair vote? I can go back and look. I know it was last summer. Yeah, cuz I I was at that meeting and I don't I don't remember that. I remember they wanted the chair to vote, but I I don't remember that. I I would say I wouldn't want that to stretch out the time that you have to the applicant has to get their oh no packet and everything in if the chair is going to take a week or two or whatever that's just super annoying. So it should be a same day. I mean here's the agenda.

I agree. But I just I just see planning commission I I see other jurisdictions where the the deadline for submitt is so far in advance of the meeting because they have to jump through a bunch of hoops it's I hate it. So do you give it just a deadline say 24 hours for approval and if not approved then then it moves forward.

Okay. And on that same page with the public hearings, we have a clock or Okay. Who's going to run the timer? Is that the chair's responsibility to it? It's It's hard to try to run the timer and listen and are you talking about the three minutes? The three minutes. Love this discussion. No, not this discussion. No, I love it. I think we do need something in here about that. How we track that. Yeah. Who who tracks it?

The beep at the end. That would be great. A little button that resets it or Yeah. So maybe Jeremy can you just get a timer? Yeah, I can also egg timer. Yeah, that's what Travis did one day when I was chair. He just took his microphone to his phone and he went like this. He just put it right there as it went off and it off. Yeah, that was actually kind of smart. You just your mic if it needs to state who's going to be respon. Yeah, it's loud. Yeah. Who shall it?

I mean, there have been people where we've let them go 10, 12 minutes, right? And Yeah. And right now that's okay. Well, because our old bylaws say they get five minutes. Yeah. So, and I don't mind running it either. I guess I could do it on my phone set to three minutes and do it. And I don't know that we need to name who does it, but I do think it'd be nice to put it in the bylaws that we're gonna run the three minutes and there's going to be an alarm and then Okay. Yeah. And it shouldn't be staff that enforces it. That should be up here.

Yeah. Yes. Oh, yes. And they're done. Um,

I want to go on a field trip. I know, right? When I saw that in there, I'm like, we have not We've been on field trips before. Then we went up when uh Snow Basin got their approval for their resort. Oh, that's cool. In Wasatch Peaks, we did a field trip. Sounds like a strong use of time. Yeah. Right over there,

next to the other one. Well, on on page 19 on the debate voting. Um, the planning commission member shall not interrupt or question another member debate without first being recognized by the chair. So, that gets really cumbersome. I I we can do it. I don't know the feelings of the commission on that. It it does get cumbersome. We haven't I don't think had problems with people really interrupting or not letting someone finish their comment, but I know Robert rules require that too that the chair recognizes before you speak. And we could take that out because I think the second sentence I mean allows the chair to kind of regulate it all.

Okay. Yeah. You have issues. So we could take out the first sentence. Okay. It's kind of redundant a little bit. Yeah.

I think the second sentence does say it better anyway. Yep. I agree.

I agree. That's all I had. Okay. How about at the bottom of page 19? So, I highlighted

Yes. I mean, this is what was in there. Um, what are your guys's thoughts about it? No new agenda items shall be taken up after 10 p.m. Unless you vote to to extend what your know the county council has run up against that as the planning commission. Yeah, we used to goo, right? And we've had some packed Mhm.

And it's we're going to have more of those days. They're not going to be like night. Yeah. So, I don't I think this is fine. I mean, it allows it allows the chair on timesensitive matters to do it. So, yeah, like that one went till a little after 9 or something. Yeah, it was late. Yay. Beauty. Well, they've had a lot of meetings, so hopefully the people have gotten there like that. It's not on my watch.

So, if we we go to a certain time and we don't vote to extend the time for that meeting, do items not addressed automatically go to the next meeting? We're gonna have to um do a motion stating Yeah. Um to move to the next to the next meeting. Yeah. So there's no automatic roll over. If there could be some flexibility that would be helpful cuz we have uh the agendas pretty much planned. I mean, they're not created, but we technically know three meetings in advance how many items we're going to have.

Sure. And when things keep getting pushed off, it just builds up. And then I either have to make the decision to have a really large meeting with a lot of items or push applicants that are technically ready further back, which as um Commissioner Taylor said, it kind of upsets the uh the applicants. Oh, I did find one other thing on page 11 under conflicts of interest. It talks about advocacy prohibited. And I I understand we we can't be representing an applicant, but can we represent ourselves?

We ourselves. We should be able to represent ourselves, but just not somebody else. So in that instance, we would say this is my item. I have a conflict of interest. We walk over there and we take care of it ourselves. Yep. any other

I I guess I don't understand though. I was in a meeting in North Ogden where can't remember if it was a planning commission or a city council where one of the guys said, "Oh, this is my item." Got down off the stand, went sat in the audience and helped represent the item was either to the planning commissioner or city council. I can't remember which one. And then when that item was done and he was done on that side and he came back up, came right back up and sat through the other item. It's probably their constitutional right to represent them to do that. I mean, they can't be denied.

I guess I'm I'm not sure why why do that. Is this is this a state thing or is this our thing? So, are you saying it's more just the look of it and like the optics of it rather than the Well, it didn't bother me that night to watch him do what he did. It didn't bother me at all. And and if I choose to develop something in this county and want to come, I'm usually right there in every meeting for every project that I do everywhere. So I would hate to think that I've got to drop this in order to do that.

Well, you have to leave the room too when your items heard, which I think versus being allowed to say, "Hey, as a person, I'm just represent being in the room for the discussion." Leave the room for the discussion. Doesn't it say that? No, that that's if a conflict of interest. Okay. No. Okay. But under this conflict of interest advocacy prohibited, that's when you're advocating for someone else. Someone else, right? Not yourself. Okay. Yeah. I mean, and you don't want that. You don't want your planning commission to go. No. I like You wouldn't want Travis to go down and say, "Oh, by the way, yeah, these are my guys that represent Stan. Pay better." Yeah. It probably does pay better. Yeah.

So, I got a quick question kind of going back. If we happen to rep have to represent ourselves for our own item and the quorum, we only have four then can't do it. We just have to move it to the next. Kind of go back to what we were talking about. You wouldn't have a quorum. Four would actually work. If there's four left, that's what I'm saying. There would only be three left. If there was four, then it can't be heard. It'd have to be pushed. Yeah. Fair. Thanks for doing this, Janet. Yes, this is wonderful. I know it was a lot of work.

Um, and I am so sorry. I should have went back and looked at everything, but I drafted this months ago. Months. And so, it's not fresh in my brain. And Josh and I spent the morning in depositions. Not far. It's been a long day. Well, I think they're good. We're just being nitpicky. They're actually really good. I think I want you to be nitpicky. Absolutely. Yeah, they're way better than they were. Even though I confused a section. Sorry. 2019.

And Josh was a rock star at the deposition. He got to brag that it was his first deposition ever. 27 years of planning and the attorney about fell over. And then Josh, what was your response? Yep. Awesome. That's good. Or you just haven't been in Morgan that long, I think. Okay. So, you'll just take this to the county commission.

Yeah. Um, I'll go through it again and double check for redundancies and maybe try and consolidate some of the stuff. And then I've listed out everything you guys want me to fix. I'll do that first and ship it to you guys to see. And yeah, and that's what we'll take to the county commission. No motion needed on this. Correct. I don't think so. No, I don't think so. We're not You don't The county commission is the one that approves it. I think we're okay. They could have written them if they wanted. I would sure they'd love to do that. Yeah.

Okay. Do you have any more questions or anything for staff? Still looking for the list, Josh.

I'm actually taking the list. Mike Newton uh recommended that I bring the list before the county commission and let the county commission uh determine which ones they're in favor of even going forward or not. Uh and then it was mentioned to me that at the last county commission meeting, the county commission said that any uh text amendment that's uh directed by the planning commission to staff needs to be treated as a recommendation and it should be taken to the county commission to be validated. So that list is going to change. I'd rather not bring it forward until I have the the list. Well, and it also sounded to me like they're going to hire someone.

Oh, yeah. Uh, that's the other thing. So, the county commission, Kate's been, excuse me, county commission has been in discussion with Kate about possibly hiring a consultant to handle some of the larger ones. Okay. Any other questions, comments? Okay. Ready for a motion on the minutes. So moved. Motion by member King. Second. And a second by member Maloney. All in favor? I I opposed. Okay.

Motion to adjurnn. I can't do it yet. They haven't been approved. Motion to adjurnn. By member Watt. Second. Second. Second by member Maloney. on.