Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Nice to know, man.

Zero.

yeah.

I'd like to call the Planning Commission meeting to order. It's Thursday, May 28th, 2026. I've asked Member Wilson to offer a word of prayer, and then if you all rise and join us in the Pledge of Allegiance after. I know, it's on, the light's on.

Our Father in heaven, we rise before you once again as we meet as members of the Planning Commission. We're grateful to be here in that capacity, grateful to be members of the community. We would invite your spirit to be here with us tonight, that we may be able to help make decisions that are in the best interests of the interested parties. And we say these things in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

I pledge allegiance 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. OK, I have one request. For the approval of the agenda, I'd like to see if Planning Commission's willing to move the Geohazard Tax Amendment to the top of our agenda, since we have our county engineer and our county geologist here. So moved. I have a motion by Member Maloney and a second by Member Wilson. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay, motion carries. Any declarations of conflict of interest? Okay, seeing none, we'll move on to the public comment time. Tonight we have one administrative item which will not have a public hearing. So if you wish to speak regarding the Silverstone subdivision, now will be your time. We have two legislative items that will have their own separate public hearing. So if you wish to comment on those, Request that you wait until that time. Or you can make any comment or suggestions to the Planning Commission that you would like. So now is your time. If you'd come up and state your name for the record. Okay, seeing none, we'll move on. So we will move to number seven, the Geohazard Text Amendment.

Thank you, commissioners.

The Morgan County Planning staff has put together a memorandum for the Geo Hazards Code text amendment, along with the proposed changes. Originally, this came forward last July 2025. At that time, we were proposing some major changes to the text where we were removing the 25% slope requirement in order to reduce liability. We have since reeled that back and are using a lot of the existing language in our code. We're making very minor changes. But in so doing, we're still reducing and limiting the liability the county would have by providing some additional flexibility to property owners. So the 25% slope prohibition is still something we're recommending. To be in the code. We're just changing some language to make sure that every section of our code is consistent So it's 25% or less in some sections of our code it talks about greater than 25% Others it talks about less than 25%. And so I've gone through every section of our code and I've modified it so it's 25% or less. That's the prohibition. Our code already talks about average slope. In the buildable area, when you look at the code text, anything that's not bolded, except for the buildable area, that definition already exists. Anything not bolded already exists in our code. So if you read buildable areas as a portion of a lot and then I'm adding parcel because there are some parcels that are developable that have existed prior to any codes. So I wanted to make sure we captured that. Which in its natural state has an average slope. So the average is already in our code. We're just We're taking the average slope, we're defining how to calculate the slope, and then we're applying it only to the buildable area of a lot or parcel. We're not looking at the entire lot or parcel. Other sections of our code already kind of look at that already. And this is just providing clarifying language. This is why I think it's a minor text amendment. The only major things that we're adding in that are new are a definition for applicant. which was written by Mark Miller. And then the slope average, the average slope, that also is new. And that was added in by our engineer. At the last planning commission meeting in March, there was some discussion from Mr. Taylor and other commissioners relating to making sure it clearly defined that we're looking at the buildable area and not the whole lot. So I've added a few sentences in there in different locations to do that to provide for that clarifying, to provide for that clarity. In my discussions with Debbie, there are a couple things that are confusing that we might want to delete out. In the buildable area, one sentence where it says areas over the average 25% slope shall not be included within the buildable area or building envelope. It's a little bit confusing. We can just strike that completely. It doesn't really add anything or take anything away. But the other major confusion that Debbie had in our conversation was with the conditional uses. Our conditional use section of the code already includes provisions to go over 30%. It's really weirdly written. I've tried to make it consistent. The only thing I added into our code was the statement average slope, and then I tried to make G1 consistent with F. If the commission feels that the conditional use permit should not be a method to go above the 25% prohibition, then this would be the time to make a recommendation to the County Commission to delete it completely. I'm not opposed to that. It might actually help the code to provide some clarity. But other than that, everything, all the other changes in there are to make it so it says greater than or 25% or less, depending on where it's written. for clarity to make sure every section of our code is consistent. With that, if you have any questions, I can answer them, or I will turn it over to Mark and Bill.

I think I have two questions for clarification, just because I know we've had a lot of revisions on this. So before it was buildable area, it was not the whole parcel or lot.

So previous to this, we have...

Even before July, yeah.

Yeah. even before we've looked at the entire lot. Even though when you actually delve into the language, it kind of implies that we should only be looking at the buildable area anyway. And case in point is 155.426 lots. The only thing I'm proposing to change in that section is the slope consistency. but it already talks about how the site plan should include the driveway location, driveway grade, existing proposed contour lines, location of an engineering design for all retaining walls in excess of four feet, a grading and drainage plan, including slope stability analysis for all cut and fill areas in the finished floor area of the home. Slope stability analysis shall demonstrate, and then kind of talks about that a little bit. But in that section, it talks about the building envelope. So it's already kind of implying that we should have been doing this all along. We're just clarifying and making sure everything is crystal clear going forward.

So it talked about it in a different part of the code, but not in that part, essentially, is what you're saying, like in the actual 25%.

Correct. So if you look at the building envelope, the buildable area already included average slope in the language. We're finding slope now that wasn't done before. If you look at the lot section, it already talked about the things that should be included along with building envelope and what shouldn't be included. And so we're just taking all that information that's already in our code and we're providing additional sentences as part of the slope, as part of the slope definition. We've added a couple sentences there. And we've also added a sentence at the end of the buildable area, which says buildable area includes the building pad and also the ingress, egress, access, and driveway. You said you had a second question?

Yes, I did. Where did it go? Sorry, I wrote it down. We can move on. I'll remember. Oh, okay. We can come back.

Anybody else have?

I have a question about if you have a development and you have areas where you have to cross a steep slope with a road with utilities, something like that, is there a prohibition in here against that? Or what's the guidance there?

No, actually there isn't a prohibition. If you look at that 155.426, which I included, which is already in our code, it does state that you would have to provide the engineered drawings for all the retaining walls required to get that driveway up to the building envelope.

What if it's not, what if this is just an overall development? So you're doing, you've got a development, you've got a piece of ground, there's some steep slope areas, there's some benches, whatever. You can get some lots in flatter areas, but you have to cross some steeper slopes with pipes or road or whatever.

If the streets and the access and the driveways and the egress to the building envelopes are all average slope 25% or less, then it would be allowed. so if you had a 40 slope that you had to side slope with the road that would be acceptable as long as the calculation bears out that however you define that area if the average slope the average slope of the ingress the roads the driveway and the building envelopes are 25 or less then those lots would you would be able to create lots in those areas But given 40% slopes or whatever, that's going to skew it one way. And so you might lose lots overall if you have a piece of property that is dividable.

So you could cross any slope as long as the average overall, you can cross a 40, 50, whatever percent slope.

If the, yes, if the average slope of your street, driveways, ingress, egress, and building envelopes are 25% or less, this means that it would be allowed. You would have to provide engineered construction drawings for retaining walls and things like that because that's already in our code in 155426.

What is the county's exposure legally? I guess if you just said, hey, we're out of this game. We're not going to try to second guess. We're not going to try to micromanage this. You guys come up with your own thing. Hire an engineer. Do your thing. What happens? What is the county's actual exposure? I know in the Highlands, somehow the county gets sucked into paying for something. Why?

I can turn that over to the county attorney, because it's legal analysis.

Yeah, the instance you're talking about was about 15 years ago.

but we had a home up in the highlands slide and i had been here maybe six months and um The county actually demolished that home, and the reasoning the county commission chair used at the time was because it was a public nuisance. I didn't agree with it because I felt like we shouldn't be meddling in a civil matter like that, and that we were taking on some exposure. So generally speaking, I don't think we should be getting involved in that, but he was pretty opinionated about that at the time, and they kind of did demo that at home. But it was what he called a public nuisance, and I guess you could use that reasoning, but generally speaking, I don't think we should be meddling in that.

It seems like code enforcement or something would be able to take care of that. I don't know. That seems crazy to me. I guess I guess I'm wondering, you know, the draper slide, you know, somehow the city gets sucked into that. I just I guess I don't understand. It seems like it seems like the people coming and crying to the city council or the county commission. they just hear a sob story and they let themselves get sucked into that when it's really none of their business is what it seemed like to me.

I think that was a little bit different kind of situation.

Yeah, edge homes. Falling off the edge.

thorough review and the code is very restricted so but you know and when he reads the report and reviews it he's inserting a lot of interpretation of the comments and so what happens is then when you start doing that then he becomes sort of the driving force for their investigations and then someone comes back and says well why didn't you guys look at this and look at that and how come you did that well then he's partly responsible for that

Maybe 10, 12, 15 years ago, the county used to have a geologist review board. And when I got here and what was happening is a private developer would submit their geologic report and then it would just these four or five people would I called it the spin cycle. And it would end up costing 10 times more than what their geologist paid. And I convinced the county commission to just trust the stamp of that geologist. We did put in there that he needed a minimum of five years experience to do geology work here in this type of area, and that he needed $2 million of liability insurance. Now all we do, in order to avoid what Bill was just talking about and assume liability, now the only thing we do is, Bill, we have a geoscoping meeting. Bill just says, yeah, it looks like you followed our geohazards code. And then they go do their thing. Something happens. It's all on that geologist and whoever he recruits as a geotechnical engineer. The county's out of that business now, and it's been so much better than it used to be.

A question for you, Mark. Do you, just because I know we've had a lot of changes in this, I'm curious, looking at the code the way it is today, would you say it's

similar what it was just definitions is it going to open up more buildability in the county like what's your opinion of july march now previous yeah i think um what happened in july so it's funny i i feel a little bit bad we were getting hit uh in in there with well what's the definition of 25 and internally i'm like mr tatler i was a consulting engineer for a long time and i knew i calculated average slopes all the time and so i felt like we needed that so that we could be indemnified and that we had a firm legal position to say look you calculate it you tell us and i'll check it Or people could have made really good arguments for this is less than 25 just because we had some 25 on it. And so my sole purpose was just to get a formula in there or an equation so that we wouldn't be as exposed and that everybody could calculate the exact same thing and it wasn't up for interpretation. I was, but generally speaking the question you just asked, there were numerous comments by former Commissioner Tina Kelly and some other people about concerns for like hillside protection type stuff. And that's a whole different issue. Like Bountiful and Layton, they have, Layton has what's called the census of the lands ordinance and Bountiful has a hillside protection ordinance. Those are, and in fact, it addresses that 40% issue, you know, if you're cutting a crossroad. That's all in that type of ordinance. This is very different in that the whole purpose behind this was just to limit our liability and define the 25%. I wasn't aware of the 30 or the conditional use permit. And I'm not sure how crazy I am about it. So I'm not a geologist. I'm a civil engineer, structural engineer. But I wasn't aware of the 30% conditional use. Just exceptions always sort of bother me. That, yes, that's something that I didn't expect, but that was already in your ordinance. So, yeah.

Just somewhere else?

Yeah.

So the area, so just to confirm, 50% can be included. could it be included before as long as the average was below 25? Like when you were looking at applications, I guess what was, that's what I'm trying to understand compared to what it was, how are you seeing calculations now? Like what are the practical changes?

Yeah, first of all, that's a theoretical that we're probably not going to see. I've never seen it in all the years I've been here. We have a geoscoping meeting here at this table, and they have to show a 12% road. And that road has to conform every bit as much, or the access, I should say, as the buildable lot. or the buildable area. So they actually have to do test pits and boreholes and everything else to prove to us that the road or access is just as stable as the actual building foundation. To date, I've seen some that might be crossing 25% or so, and that would be at the Wasatch Peaks. Again, this this is where you dance that fine line where a hillside protection ordinance will say no cuts greater than X On our hillsides, but that's different than this. That's a whole different thing and that that forces Design engineers we have to get creative on how the heck do we get that road up there without scarring the mountain too badly and so that's That isn't addressed in here. So far, in all the meetings we've had, Bill, I've never really seen a road cutting across anything more than 20, 25, even that, and that's very rare. But if you picture a scenario, and I think you laid it out really well, where all the buildable areas up on top of a hill, and people come in and just start, and this is all over St. George and Washington County, You see that and it just makes you sick. But again, that's kind of outside of what we intended here. Here we're just looking for geologic stability and geotechnic design to support that stability. There's one other major change that was brought about, and I think everyone needs to know this, When we did the geo hazards ordinance we we made the developer responsible to create the buildable mods before they could sell lots with no grading no mitigation of slope and. the people were coming in, and I dealt with someone, this poor housewife was sobbing because she had to spend $168,000 10 years ago just to start her footings. And so the county commission firmly agreed, and it wasn't my recommendation that this is what they wanted, I recommend it for it, but to make sure that the developer is responsible to mitigate the problems with slope between 15 and 25%. We did clarify that in this. And that basically is where applicant, and there's a couple other places where we just said, the person that has to comply with this 15 to 25% is the person that's going to build this subdivision, not the poor homeowners or lot owners that bought the lots. So that is a pretty significant change in here. It's in your geo-hazards ordinance anyway, but I wanted to clarify it, so I put it in here also.

Speaking of hillside protection, does that normally come, Josh, in an ordinance like this? Because I know you know that's my baby.

no normally not and there's a lot of legalities with a view shed or a hillside ordinance it's really hard not to create a class of non-conforming properties right off the bat that have been developed they're they're existing and all of a sudden they're now non-conforming because we passed a law and so I don't know how you would legally create one of those and not create a whole host of non-conforming issues. I don't. I haven't seen them done successfully very often. You might want to ask Mark Miller about his experience. Where was it? Ivan's.

I feel like other, I think Park City has one, whether they call them sensitive lands, they have different names, and this I'm passionate about. But also, if you make that code, just like if we make this code, and you just had a parcel that was created before we had this code, they're grandfathered in. So you'd argue that even though they're non-conforming, they don't have to pull their roads off the side of the hill.

So they're non-conforming.

Yeah.

but our code says that you can't expand or enlarge a nonconformity. So in that instance, you're basically relegating them to keeping their property exactly the way it is because they can't expand or enlarge the nonconformity. So yeah, the existing situation might be grandfathered in, but then they can't do any changes.

What if they had a lot that wasn't built on yet? and they couldn't because it would violate whatever hillside view shed protection ordinance, would they be able to actually build a house on there?

Well, that's the legality that I'm talking about. So it's a legal develop of a lot. The developer's gone in, put in everything, created the building pad, building envelope, there's no house on there yet. If we say, no, you can't build, we're in a lawsuit at that point that we're not gonna win. So I... I would like Mark to give his example of Ivan's, if you don't mind, because it's pretty informative. Do you mind? Or do you want me to sum it?

Sure.

It had to be two years. That's how long it took. And I would just fly down twice a month. But it took two years and probably eight public hearings that were pretty brutal. Because naturally, it's very difficult for developers. And the way I got... roped into it is a planner that was doing their work he came to me and said hey the developers in Ivan's are saying that you can't build according to this ordinance therefore you're taking their land I reviewed it as a design engineer and said they're right you can't this this is too restrictive you can't build a code according to this. And so they made revisions to it so that you could build. It was still very restrictive, but at least their ordinance made it possible to build. It took, like I said, two years to get it approved. But it worked. It was a challenge, but it worked.

But you do see, because you mentioned a couple other counties or municipalities that do have sensitive land, whatever we're calling it, code that works well.

Yeah, I mean, Mr. Taylor and I are very used to working with sensitive areas or hillside protection when we're doing designs. It's just, yeah, a lot of probably on that side of the mountain, things are so different because I have clients over there. And that is something that most of the people along the mountain, the Wasatch Mountains have is either sensitive area or hillside protective. It is, like I said, it's a very large task. It's something that you'd want a lot of buy-in on and you'd need to set a budget for it and everything else because you'd want to bring in some consultants and that sort of thing. It's very planning-oriented, and then my input is always just whether it's too restrictive And you've also got some other expertise here that could help with that as well. But that's very different from what we're talking about tonight. But the answer is yes, other people do have it.

I have a question for you. Yeah. So these numbers, 15%, 30%, 40%, Are these based on some type of an engineering best practice? Is there a national standard? Where do those come from?

I didn't know the answer to that question before July. But Bill said that the geologists in the state came to realize that all the failures were 15% and greater. And then the major problems were coming in over 25, 30. And some communities have 30. We have Norwood Tufts. So I'm glad ours is 25 because those communities don't have Norwood Tufts or the volcanic ash, which is that slippery clay. And so yeah, the 15 came from the geologists saying, hey, below 15, we don't have problems. And then it seems like most of our problems are above 25. So that's where that came from.

So that's sort of an accepted statewide kind of a concept?

Yeah, I do think that's, because that question was asked in July and Bill answered it and I was like, oh, I didn't know that.

And I have a question for Josh. In your remarks earlier, you kind of touched on, we're talking lots, but you mentioned parcels that, parcels pre-development or pre-this that were developable but haven't started development?

Yeah, there's parcels that are developable right now that don't have to go through a subdivision if they want to put a house on there.

How will they be affected?

This will be in force or not?

Yeah, this clarifies that they're included. Okay, all right. That was my question. Yeah.

I didn't want to see grandfathered parcels all over the place that ignore this.

No, this is to provide it very clear that it applies to them as well. And that way I don't get sick. Thank you.

I was reading, Josh, 155.223. It says geologic hazard studies areas are defined as, but not necessarily be limited to. this has a b and c and it doesn't say and or but on c if i break this down it says that sentence that i just read geologic hazard studies areas are defined as but not necessarily limited to the b doesn't make any sense and then if you go down to c after or you you could read that with the sentence i just read and then finish that sentence that a geologic hazard study area is any buildable area with an average slope of 25% or less.

Yeah, if you wanted to make it more clear, you could take out or less and just put a 15% up to 25%.

Yeah, because this is, if you have 0% slope, then you are a geologic hazard study area.

Correct, but it's defined elsewhere that you're only required to do a slope stability between 15 and 25. But to clarify there, I mean, I can reword that to say between 15 and 25. It's not a big deal. I like that cleverly.

I must think like an engineer. I had the same concern when I read that.

Yeah, I actually have it marked here.

Yeah, it could be at 1%.

And in fact, if you go down to 155.293, slope and soil regulations, when it's talking about recreational dwellings, I could clarify it there as well and say between 15% and 25% because it's worded a little bit weird too.

Because I had concern with taking the maximum slope. but if you put the 25%.

I have a question for Bill. So knowing that we have failures, let's say 15 safe, 15-25 sketch, above 25 a super sketch, Does it concern you that we're taking the average if part of that slope is 35, part of it's 12, and it averages? What's your opinion on average versus a prohibition over 25, I guess?

I think the average works really good. Here's the problem that we ran into over the last few years, especially now that we have the web map up, is people look at their property and they might have a little red dot on there. So the way the code's currently written, that little red dot's not buildable. unless you look at something average. But usually what that represents, it might be a ditch bank. It might be something that's like only this high, and that's not really a hazard. It's just a little steep, steep little slope. So using the average is really useful to sort of wipe those kind of things out so that everybody can calculate it, everybody knows, and then there's no question about those kind of things. And it's a formula that's been around for, 40, 50 years, I don't know, maybe even more than that. I remember calculating it in the 80s when I was at the survey, just by hand. We didn't have any computers or anything, so.

I've used this formula too, and my argument for this formula is if you shrink it to stupidity, which I've seen in, I've argued this with some cities, is okay, well, this is 20% or whatever your limit is, but it doesn't have an area specified. But that little pebble there that I have to drive over is technically higher than 20%. It's just, so this is a better approach.

I think so too, yeah. Now the conditional use thing, like Mark said, I wasn't aware of that. I think it has some issues. I think if we're gonna have a 25% restriction, we ought to have a 25% restriction and not let people go above that.

And that's because we have uniformly bad soils everywhere, or there are areas where this might be applicable. My concern with the conditional use is just the fact that it's a guaranteed yes. As long as we identify problems and they mitigate the problems, we have no choice but to say yes to it. Right. So I don't. I don't know the comfort level behind that conditional use language there. But I wouldn't want to slam the door on something that may make sense somewhere. So I'm not sure the best way to handle that. And maybe it does handle it in the conditional use. I don't know. But the fact that that's a default yes, if we lay out, I guess, VALID CONCERNS AND THEY'RE ADDRESSED, THEN IT'S A YES.

It's a conditional use. I think they still have to do studies at 15% rate. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, that's going to catch problems.

So they would still have to do studies. Conditional use permits, there is a way for them to be denied. And that's if you can clearly articulate a detrimental impact or effect.

I get the words.

Detrimental impact. And there's no way to mitigate it. So if you could identify that that slope and the mitigation factors or whatever that are proposed in whatever report, you know, this is too dangerous or whatever, then that would be up to you to deny it. But it just says that you have to clearly articulate the detrimental effect or impact and then provide the stipulations that would mitigate that.

We have to specify those things?

Yes. That's why conditional uses are hard. Because they're really hard to deny. You as the commission. Have to come up with a list. It's hard.

A list of concerns.

Detrimental. No, detrimental.

So when you get a conditional use permit in front of you, it is your responsibility to clearly articulate reasonable, the detrimental effects, and reasonable ways to mitigate it. If the effects are major, and you can articulate why with findings of fact, and you can find no way to reasonably mitigate it, it can be denied.

We also need a standard in the code.

Yes, and sometimes we don't have those standards articulated in the code for that. So I think that puts us legally in kind of an icky spot.

Do you think it would be fair to just remove that conditional use permit?

At this time, if you want to remove it and revisit going above at a later date, that would be a way to do it.

Let me just restate this, make sure I'm clear. If somebody comes in and they say, I want to do something on 35% slope, then it's up to us to say, hey, we're not comfortable with that. We're concerned about this and this and this. And as a non-geologist, here's my expert geologist opinion that says, here are the ways you should do this. You should go do this fix and this fix and this fix. That seems crazy.

Partially correct. The county does have a geologist who can give an expert opinion to the commission if there's issues.

But detrimental is a big word.

It is a big word.

And it has to be reasonably anticipated. Which how do you anticipate? You don't always know. It can't be, oh, that might happen.

So I guess, Mr. Geologist, where do you feel comfortable with that lion being? I don't know. I don't know the answer.

identify detrimental impacts, are we the ones that are going to end up having to do a study to tell them that it's detrimental?

And what if we miss one of the detrimental impacts?

Yeah. Are we liable? Back to the whole liability thing.

If we do the study, then we become liable for it, right?

Or if we impose conditions that aren't reasonable, we're in trouble.

So can we remove that? Well, I guess we'll wait until we make motions. It feels sticky.

Yeah, right.

Well, let's back this up to they got to this meeting for a conditional use permit. What happened prior? Was that reviewed? Or how would we stop it at this point and say, we're going to send you back to the geologist and have another look at it?

So the code has lists of uses, and those uses are classified as either permitted or conditional use permit required. So if they have a piece of property with a specific zoning, and you go down that list of uses, and the closest identifiable use to what they're proposing requires a conditional use permit, then they make an application for a conditional use permit, and it comes before either me, you, or the commission, because we have three levels of them.

But you didn't put this in the code, right? It was just somewhere else.

I didn't put it in the code.

So I guess my question is, do you think it's unreasonable to remove this at this stage and revisit it later?

No, I don't think that's unreasonable at all. In fact, it's really confusing when you read it. I added an average slope, and I just changed G1 to try to be consistent with F. But even that change may have been incorrect. It reads so squirrelly, I personally would pull it out or recommend pulling it out. That's my recommendation. I think that's what Mark and Bill Bull said. And then if you want to add something in where in extreme circumstances you could go above that, then.

We'll do that with the hillside protection.

Well, listening to the way this has just turned, I'm leaning Why aren't we saying, this is the no, this is the stop, this is the upper limit, that's it. That's it. I don't want this conversation in front of this commission where we're reviewing a conditional use permit and we're involved in this same discussion among ourselves and we're putting the county at risk.

I would recommend then that you make a recommendation to delete D3. Is that right? Yes.

of the conditional use permit section and then there would be one other in the definitions the 155.221 in the last line it refers to the conditional use permit You should see within the billable area are considered unbillable, period.

Yeah, so I can delete that sentence as well. I put that sentence in because our conditional use permit section already existed. So we could delete that out as well because that language is proposed language based on what's already in our code.

Are you aware of any development that is, I guess, being contemplated under their contemplating development in an area where this would impact them?

I only know of three lots that are existing that have pre-existed. They're in the highlands where they would have to cut in and the average slope would help them. And if we restrict and say, no, you're not developing, we'll get sued because they are legal developable lots.

Besides those three going forward, just looking at our county, because we have a lot of slope, over 25%, what do you think this will open up? And it's probably hard to know without looking at a map. Percentage-wise with this new, because it sounds like before if there was a ditch you were done for or something.

Yeah, in fact, we had a meeting with an engineer, and he's like, well, I've already kind of built a buildable area for a home. And we're like, wait, what? You've cut the slope without the study? Oh, yeah, I am.

I think I know where these lots are.

I think you do, yeah.

And there is living track code there.

Yeah, so yeah, we've had a lot of conversations with different individuals. I don't think it's going to open up to widespread development everywhere. I think it'll provide some limited flexibility to property owners to reduce our liability as a county to allow them to build a home. If they want to divide it, they're going to go through the study and they're going to have to prove that they have the buildable areas for all the lots that they want and they have to have the zoning for it.

And the geotech, geohazards.

Yep.

That's almost the worst case scenario for developers around here. They're all complying with our code right now. They haven't asked for exceptions. One property owner did, and we said no, but it's difficult for certain people to hear that. But maybe a PR has complied with the 25%, and so I don't think it's onerous. The fact that they've been able to do it as well as they have shows that it's not unreasonable. Totally.

Would this open up more of WPR? I was just a curious question.

They're actually platting their lots based on the less than 25% areas. Most of WPR is self-interest motivated. They're trying to preserve every tree, every shrub, everything they can, so they can't stand it when people cut into, and they're what they call a BAE, Building Area Envelope. um is much more restricted than what we would probably require so they there's very even though the people buy a lot they only get to touch a certain they can't even have to build a fence around the bae before they start construction they can't damage anything outside that too bad everyone doesn't do that yeah yeah okay any more questions before we go into public hearing oh yeah let's do that

Thank you.

OK. Motion to go into public hearing? So moved. Motion by Member Maloney?

Second.

Second by Member Watt. All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Motion carries. Now's your time. If you could please limit your comments to three minutes.

Tina Kelly, Mountain Green. I'll try on the three minutes. I wasn't even sure I was gonna speak because I wasn't sure you wanted to hear anything. I stand by what I said in previous meetings. I believe that the geologic ordinance is a good ordinance and I know that from past experience working on the council with the landslide issues. I think that it's evolved over time to be a better ordinance than it was and I had some issues with the new writing and the 30%, but then I understood from staff that the 30% was part of the conditional use and it was already there. So I think if it's 25%, an average of 25%. I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that. But if the engineer is comfortable with that, and the geologist is comfortable with that, then that's acceptable. But the 30%, I couldn't see where that came from. And I'm glad to hear you talking about maybe revisiting that in the future. Thank you. Thank you.

Seeing no other comments, do I have a motion to go out? Motion by member Wilson.

Second.

And a second by member Taylor. All in favor?

Aye.

OK, we are now out of public hearing. Do we want to review the changes we have suggested? Or we'll work with Josh on that.

Do you want me to go through where I've marked up?

Yeah, what you have that we have said. Sure.

What I have marked is in the definition of buildable area, I delete the sentence areas over the average 25% slope shall not be included within the buildable area or building envelope. Underneath the definitions of 155.221 under slope, I delete that last sentence where it talks about the conditional use permit and just leave it at 25% period. Underneath 155.223 geologic hazard study areas, I change its slope of 15% up to 25% and delete or less. And then in the very next section, 155.293, I say between 15% up to 25%, just like the previous one, to be consistent. And then put in a condition to delete out 155.366 D3, which is the conditional use permit. Those are the changes that I have listed.

Did I capture them? Yep, I'm good with those. I think that's what we had suggested. You got it covered. Okay. And I know originally we had planned on a work session. So it's up to the Planning Commission to decide if they are happy with how this handled without a work session or if they think they need more time to consider it or if they're ready to make a recommendation i i'm ready to make a recommendation i appreciate you guys being here and clarifying that i mean that was the purpose in my mind behind having the work session we had an abbreviated work session yeah in my discussion with mike newton he didn't feel that this warranted a work session because of the minor change being minor nature of the changes i think we can do this right now Okay, so there's no other comment. I'm ready for a motion.

I'll make a motion. I move we recommend to the county commission, recommend approval to the county commission of the geo hazards code text amendment based on the findings listed in the memorandum dated May 28th, 2026 with the condition, with the additional conditions that Josh just read off.

Okay, we have a motion by Member Taylor. Is there a second? Second. A second by Member Watt. Any more discussion? All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion carried. I have to vote. There's only four of us here. I don't think... Oh, you're on now?

Yeah, sorry, I'm on. I was just muted driving. I'm in favor. Okay.

Sorry, for the delay.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

I will make those changes before the county commission meeting so that they're ready to go.

Okay, thank you. We will now go back up to agenda item number six, Silverstone subdivision, plat six, no, phase six, plat amendment.

The Planning Commission considered this item in their April 9th meeting and they approved a motion to continue discussion of this item until tonight's meeting. And they also directed staff to do a text amendment to allow for flag lots to extend off of cul-de-sacs. After the meeting on April 9th, the zoning administrator decided for the item to the County Commission on May 5th to avoid unnecessary delays. And on May 5th, the County Commission decided to not do a text amendment to allow for flag lots to extend off of a cul-de-sac and to send this amendment back to the Planning Commission to correct any errors and make any clarifications. Some clarifications or questions about the plat that I went over with the surveyor. and also with the county recorder's office. That was mainly the naming of the plat, to name it Silverstone Subdivision amended plat number two, with the subheading of an amendment to lot eight A, Silverstone Subdivision amended plat number one and additional land. And then we made the clarification on the plat for the cross access easement, and that was a little bit confusing. And it now reads, both lots are subject to and benefit therefrom across access easement to be used jointly for ingress, egress, parking, snow removal, maintenance, and public utilities. And then the County Recorder's Office suggested the numbering of the lots where the existing lot be numbered 31 and the new lot be numbered 32. I'll be glad to address any questions you might have at this time and I'm glad that Josh is here and Chris Tremay is here who presented this item before you in the last Planning Commission meeting.

So, me taking it forward to the County Commission with a recommendation for denial from this body was not meant as a slight. In my discussion with Mike Newton about Mr. Babcock, he would not have been able to attend this meeting because he was going to be in Alaska, and I was directed to ask Mr. Babcock if he would like to try to attend this meeting virtually, and we know that there's problems with that, or bring it forward with a recommendation for denial at a meeting that he could attend. The county commission generally at that meeting recommended it come back to you, but it was not meant as a slight. It was to try to get the applicant an answer before he left. So I just want to clarify that. It's not meant as an insult or anything like that. I apologize if it came across that way. As far as the applicability, there are so many nonconformities on this property. By approving this, we reduce those nonconformities to a point where staff can then work on the building permit side of things with him to try to get the house in conformity as well. So right now, the parcel that was created through the divisions around him, which the previous planning commissions and county commissions approved, because there's multiple phases of Silverstone, they allowed the creation of that remainder parcel. I don't know how, I haven't looked into it, but somehow they allowed for the creation of that back in 2005, 2006, some year. I mean, it's 20 plus years old. Mr. Babcock, I don't know. He owns a portion of that right now, even though it's not reflected on our address maps.

Nothing is changing with how this property is being used.

He accesses it through the driveway. He lives in the house behind. Everything is remaining the same. So I had advised him that in order to address the nonconformities and get to the point where we can get to the building nonconformities, let's try to let's try to get you a legal lot that's already existing and developed so my understanding is back in 2005 he was given a building permit to build an office he built the office and then in 2017 he decided to convert it into a home and but he didn't get the building permit for the home. So the home has no CFO, it's had no inspections, it's completely nonconforming. So he's gonna have to go through, file a building permit, he's gonna have to work on that, but creating the legal lot, I thought, was the first step in addressing all of the nonconformities. So hopefully you can make a recommendation for approval tonight. If not, I understand because there is a section of the code that does restrict flag lots at the bulb. That is definitely in our code. I don't necessarily want to take that out. I think it's in there for emergency services purposes. I think there's a reason for it and I'd rather not delete that just for this one situation.

um but that's kind of the situation that's how he we're here at this time so josh if we approve this you're then going to because of that approval be able to bring him into compliance

He will have to work with the building official at that time. He'll have to submit a building permit for the home. And then he'll have to prove to the building official in whatever capacity the building official states that it was constructed to the current IBC standards. Otherwise he won't get a CBO.

That seems like an end around.

Well.

I mean technically it's not a legal lot.

What we're making, we're recommending, that's what we're asked tonight is to recommend making this a legal lot.

By ignoring code. No.

We have a non-conforming section of the code. Have you read through that? Yes. Yes. So there are some things that the zoning administrator can do. There are some things that you can approve that are non-conforming which lessen a non-conformity. We're not allowed to expand or enlarge a non-conformity.

Not lessen. It doesn't say anything about lessening. It talks about expanding.

Correct. It is implied that we can approve something that reduces a nonconformity to get something closer to a nonconformity.

I don't see that.

Well, I think that also just makes good sense as far as people living in a house or occupying a house that has not been inspected. I understand. Yeah, I think. I think it is implied in it. If we're bringing it closer to conformity.

Is there a downside to this approval?

The one question I would ask you is what's going to change whether you approve it or not?

Well, that's partly my question. Okay, we grant this, but he doesn't do anything.

What are you going to do? We can't force him to do anything anyway. The only thing I can do is record a notice of noncompliance on the property stating that the house does not have a C of O. Courts will not make him tear it down. It's been there for nearly 10 years. Right? Right.

And we don't want him to tear it down.

He's been accessing the property since 2005 when the office was built. I mean, he's already accessing it through that driveway. He's living in the home. Nothing is changing. It'll be exactly the way it was tomorrow as it is today. But he has expressed a desire to bring his property more into conformance to get it to the point where he is as close as he can to the law.

These are steps that legal has looked at.

Yes. We have talked extensively.

Yes. We've also considered there's another avenue.

There is another avenue.

I had a couple questions for you. The driveway is a concern for me. You say you don't know what's going to happen down the road. What happens if he sells it and someone wants to create another lot or a separate lot from the driveway? How does that work then?

That's part of why I want it approved as a lot because then it solidifies the driveway. It makes it so we can't divide it any further. And on top of that, it would formalize a cross-access easement with lot 31.

And I don't understand that. What is a cross-access easement?

So lot 31 has frontage on the cul-de-sac, but it doesn't access the house from that frontage. It accesses it through the driveway. So it's a shared driveway? It's a shared driveway. The cross-access easement would be a document that's recorded so that that property owner doesn't lose access.

Okay.

That they can continue to cross it and leave their property the same way they have for however long they can.

Okay, I see.

And it would formalize that.

But does our code on flag lots allow to share the pole?

There's nothing in the flag lot section that says you can't have a cross-access easement. The whole goal is to reduce the number of driveways on roads anyway. So yeah, we wouldn't want to restrict that.

If this goes through, and we recommend it, or don't recommend it, either one. Yeah, either way. And the county commission says yes, and then he records his plot, the 32s.

created is there is he restricted from selling lot 32 in any way before he rectifies the situation with the the house with no building permit you could sell it right now the only recourse that we have currently is i could record the notice of non-compliance on the property stating that no cfo was issued but that doesn't stop somebody from saying i'm gonna buy it anyway They might not be able to get a bank loan, but it doesn't stop somebody from buying it. I would love to try to get properties that are so far out of compliance, some way to get them closer to compliance.

And there's my concern. We have a lot of non-conforming properties. Deep Creek Estates is one. Are you going to tackle that? If they come forward and say, hey, you took care of this person's non-conforming, what about us? Why are we treated the same way?

I think there should be a pathway forward. But number one, I didn't seek this out. I didn't. He came to me. And I gave him my best professional opinion of how to move forward to get it done. to be most in compliance.

Take them one at a time.

Yeah, I'm not out there looking. I'm not going to see. I got it.

But if they come to you, I mean, there's major.

If they come to me, I have an obligation to try to provide some direction of what they can do. I can't just say, go to hell, right? I think part of the issue.

No, I didn't expect you to do that.

Part of the issue is just the thought that somebody comes in and, you know, lot of people are trying to do this right and this I don't know whether this was contrived or not or just just happened that way you know that there's a there's a gap created remnant parcel whatever I don't know how the remnant parcel came about I do know that he was issued a stop work order back in 2017 or 2018 by Dave Webster but my office did not follow up on that and that predates my time yeah I think there's a concern though that you know you hold everybody to a standard they go develop and and everybody else is complying and there's a guy out there just kind of skirting the issues but the fact is is this was older and we probably have a lot more non-conforming stuff that's even older than that and so i i think i agree that i mean it's a different world today and the regulations are different today and the The oversight is different today than it was 20 years ago, 30 years ago, 50 years ago. And I guess I can appreciate wanting to clean that up and just recognizing that the world was a different place and giving them a path forward to rectify that. Some of the people may have been the unsuspecting buyer that just comes in and buys and then finds out later on. Or it could have been two or three sales, you know, subsequent sales.

and as we begin to deal with more non-conforming this is a process and a step that actually strengthens what he's going to have to do on the way forward yeah maybe we do adopt something in the non-conforming section that allows for it i i don't know i just know in this instance the number of non-conformities that go away is more than than what it is right now

It just seems like that non-conforming should have a time thing. That if it's four months old and you've managed to pull a fast one on it, it's not the same as fixing a 20-year-old problem. That's right.

You're right. You're right. That's right. Our code enforcer has a comment.

When I first started in this position 15 months ago, we had already addressed so many issues that would currently be in a non-conforming state if we wouldn't stop them, if we wouldn't have stopped them. That is the oversight. So we have to push the stop button somewhere. We pushed it 15 months ago. When we see something going in illegally, we stop it. if they continue, we enforce it. And we enforce it if we have to stand at the property and say, you can't build anymore, we're stopping all inspections, whatever we have to do. But at that point, we do have enforcement powers, whether it be through citation or literally using the officers right we're not just going to simply put it in a non-conforming state worry about it 10 years from now we're going to stop it right now and that that's the advantage of of where we've been and what we've seen in the last year and a half so thank you and i think to piggyback on that i think a lot of this is shame on you county i mean and granted the county didn't have the funds or the enforcement at the time

but we've got to take the blame that we didn't enforce it back then and i think cleaning it up and fixing it for subsequent owners and everything is way more important safety wise and as a county policy that's way more important than being too strict any other comments

I still have a question on the flag lots, Josh, with the driveways. If he sold that and someone wanted to create that lot under the flag lot ordinance, they have the right to share that driveway in perpetuity?

Yeah, so in the discussion where we were creating the flag lot, one of the reasons we picked 26 feet as the flagpole width is because that is the width you need for a private lane or a shared driveway. so they can put 20 feet of improved surface in there and they can meet that shared driveway standard.

But they can't come change it or ask to change it.

You mean from its existing? Yeah. So as it's currently existing, future owner, if you were to sell it and somebody were to buy it, they could come forward and say, what do we need to do to kind of make it conform? Is there room to make it conforming there? What they're proposing meets all setbacks for front, side, rear, the way that they've cut it.

I'm saying a subsequent owner wanted to create another driveway as their room.

If the property owner from lot 31 wanted to create another driveway that exits their frontage, they can definitely do that. They can do that today. Sorry, I wasn't understanding the question. Got the answer I wanted.

My preference would have been to tweak the code to say that you can't have flag lots off the bulb of a cul-de-sac, accept approval of the fire district, public works, and the county commission, something like that.

Well, the planning commission still directed me to do that, and I can bring something back. I just didn't want to delete that out.

Well, that was a starting point. We hadn't gotten to the point of what we were recommending.

Well, let me find a place to put something. I'll put some language together, and I'll bring it forward.

Are you saying you don't want to do a list tonight?

No, no. No, I said that in a perfect world, I would have preferred that.

We don't want to leave out the first part. We want to make sure we deal with that.

Right. Right.

Agreed.

But also in a perfect world, then we'd have exceptions on almost anything.

Yeah. OK. So if there's no more discussion, I'm ready for a motion

Madam Chair, I move we recommend approval to the County Commission of Silverstone Subdivision PH6, Phase 6, plat amendment application number 25.059 to allow the creation of a new lot and adjust the boundaries of an existing lot based on the findings and with the conditions listed in the staff report dated May 28th, 2026.

Okay, I have a motion by Member Watt. Is there a second? Okay, a second by Member Wilson. Any more discussion? All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Aye. Okay, motion carries. Okay, our next item, we're moving back to the legislative items. This is a PC zoning code text amendment.

Commission, the applicant, Skyler Gardner, is requesting amendment two. the single family residential development requirements for the PC zone. He states that the current code makes it challenging to develop planned communities when the project is under 50 acres in size. As the primary zoning tool for planned residential projects, the current 50 acre minimum makes it difficult for smaller, higher quality projects to happen. Our proposal is to lower the minimum size to 10 acres This will allow landowners more flexibility to develop planned communities that preserve open space on smaller parcels of land. This change makes sure that the PC zone stays viable and readily to reach choice for a variety of housing projects. It also keeps the commission's power to allow further drops to seven acres when site-specific conditions call for it. So as the current The language of the code reads single family residential developments. Each PC zone overlay that incorporates residential developments shall contain a minimum of 50 acres unless otherwise approved by the county commission. However, any such reduction shall not be less than 15 acres. He's proposing that 50 acres be changed to 10 acres and the 15 acres be changed to five acres. And the applicants here, if you have any questions, I'd be glad to address those or I'm sure the applicant could address them as well.

Any questions for staff?

What's the long range impact of this? What are you thinking here?

Originally, when I drafted the PC zoning district text, I thought five acres, we should have five acres for residential. I still think it should be five acres. My recommendation would just be to go to five acres and not have it be able to be reduced anymore. Five acres is plenty of size for PC zoning district, especially if they're proposing like starter homes, 5,000 square foot lots. with some town homes or whatever, and then it's all clustered anyway. So you can have 50% open space, 50% development. There's a lot of open space requirements in the PC zoning district that the planning commission and... County Commission worked through. We had quite a few work sessions to do that. I think reducing it is a good idea. We haven't seen any PC zoning district applications yet, and I think the size probably has some of that to do with it.

How did it jump to 50?

Planning Commission, County Commission, I worked it up. I don't remember the exact conversations that got it up there, but that was the end result.

I thought, yeah, 50 was a little big. There's not many 50-acre parcels in this county for residential.

Yeah, just to me it says we don't want anybody developing the PC zone.

And the PC zone has amenity requirements too. It's not just open space, so it's supposed to make a nice development.

Yeah, there's a mixture of public and private amenities, and there's percentages that each type of development has to meet.

So I'm assuming

there's some density piece to this thing is this um well the density piece is handled after you carve out the open space the remaining portion is developable it allows you to cluster it but then you also have the infrastructure piece but if you're clustering it your infrastructure percentage goes down okay so um i don't know if you want the applicant to speak

Thank you. My name is Skylar Gardner for Cottonwood Meadows Village, I believe. Well, I guess this is actually a text amendment, but we have a project that will follow behind this if we're able to amend the text. I have a quick handout here, if that's okay.

Short on numbers.

Just to build upon what has already been stated here, we have acquired some property and when we looked at an overlay that allowed for clustering and then open space areas, the limitations of the PC zone were going to be so restrictive that we weren't going to be able to make that happen. So my idea was to match, there's already a reduction possibility in the text for multifamily commercial or industrial developments. They can be reduced down to 10 acres. meeting some of the conditions found within the zone. So our proposal would be to match the single family residential portion of that down to 10 acres as well. If the code, and you've already touched on this a little bit, if we are able to modify the code, one advantage to the PC zone is it allows for better aesthetic relief, which is basically, we can formulate covenants, conditions, and restrictions the way that the homes look in the development agreement. PC advantage number two, you can cluster, and that will protect sensitive lands and creates open space. Conservation's kind of the same thing with steep slopes, wetlands, and the proposed area that we have actually has Cottonwood Creek that runs through it, which is a major player in why we need some clustering ability. I'll let you look at that, but the main point is if I don't have the instrument of the PC, and I don't know if it's technically an overlay, It's a zone. It is a zone. I probably incorrectly identified that as an overlay. But if I don't have the PC zone, then I would default to a R18 or an R12. or something where open space actually isn't required. And within that open space, trails or public access isn't something that's required under those zones. And those subdivisions tend to be developed in a way that's just the standard grid pattern with regular lots. Sorry, not regular lots, but maybe like quarter acre lots, depending on the zone that you'd apply for. So if you turn, and I'm sorry that that printed instead of turning on the long edge, it did on the short edge. But we have acquired some properties. So the case study that you could think of as we're proposing this text amendment is we have some parcels here that are just over 10 acres. Conway Creek runs through a good portion of the property. And so what we would like to do is cluster all of the residences on the north side of the creek and protect that Cottonwood Creek and the area around it as open space and include a trail that starts, I probably should have oriented you towards the bottom right hand corner down here. just off the photo there is where the fire station is for Mountain Green. We're hoping that in working with the adjoining landowners, we can actually take a trail that starts there at Old Highway, goes through this potential project, connects to other projects, which leads to the commercial heart of the Mountain Green area. If I don't have something that allows clustering, maybe if you picture these lots here they're all going to have to get bigger because i'll have to meet the setback requirements whereas with the pc zone i can write some setback requirements but those lots would basically extend all the way maybe to the banks or into the middle of cottonwood creek reducing the amount of open space in a project like this i know there's I'm pretty focused on what we need the text amendment for. I tried to pull the number of parcels in Morgan County. According to the recorder's website, there's about 8,500 parcels in Morgan County. And I believe only three, no, 6% of the parcels are 50 acres or larger. So there's actually quite a few parcels. Now that doesn't account for people that own multiple parcels and they're all the same owner. They could obviously combine those in one application. But that 50 acre number is quite restrictive and if the county would like to see additional projects put forward with planning that includes clustering and open space and public access, I think that a text amendment reducing the acreage requirement would be appropriate. So did you have any questions for me?

Okay, thank you. Thank you, Skyler. Any more questions to staff? Now he proposed that maybe dropping it just to 5% without, I mean five acres, excuse me.

Are we comfortable with B? I mean, we're just addressing what the applicant asked to be addressed. But B in multifamily, I'm just looking at the code itself. Multifamily commercial industrial development, where that's a minimum of 10. The reduction can be down to five acres, not less than five acres. Is this something that's worth looking at more than that? I'm generally in favor of clustering. I think it's great.

Yeah, clustering allows for open space, recreational amenities. It reduces total infrastructure costs. So yeah, it's definitely a better design than just straight zoning. I didn't provide anything more than just this. And so if we want to revisit other things, we'd have to bring that back. You can correct me if I'm wrong. But when I noticed it, I only noticed it for this section. So if you want me to bring something else back.

Well, if you're in favor of five, why are we doing 10?

because this was an applicant just the application okay the application came in from a resident or developer however you want or both uh and what he's proposing that but when i went back to the original draft that i presented the planning commission county commission i had originally recommended five my recommendation is go to five don't allow it to be reduced anymore and uh

So if we deal with this one tonight, you could come back to us through the recommendation.

If I'm directed by planning commission or county commission, I can bring some of this back.

I don't think the planning commission requests for things makes it very high on the list.

So maybe the county commission needs to do it. What I've been told is that when the planning commission makes a recommendation for a text amendment, I need to ask the county commission if they have any appetite.

I actually think that's a good idea. It is a good idea. Why go chasing that if they're just going to say no?

If they're going to say no. Right. Yeah.

We set a flag a lot. and it didn't make it.

Well, they never saw.

Well, it's not that I can't bring that forward. It's just I didn't want to modify that section that way. To me, I'm like, I put it in there for emergency service reasons. I'd rather not delete that. There could be another way to handle it. And I can bring something else forward that addresses that. It's not necessarily the flag lot deletion. to provide for that exception. But when it was proposed and I got back from a vacation, I'm like, but I put it in there for a reason. I don't want to take it out.

If this were to continue, we'd be dealing with this every time somebody wants to do it. I'd rather we deal with it.

I would like a recommendation on the application since it's not staff or a county initiated. It's a private applicant. But then if you do want me to make additional changes to the PC district, Maybe we do need to look at that. Because we have yet to receive a PC zoning district application. And it's been adopted now two and a half years? Two years?

Even though it allows for a reduction to 15 acres, you're saying nobody's even asked for that at all? So no discussion has been had about how do I get there? What do you want to get to the 15? What are you looking for?

The only discussions I've had, and not with Rue and Skylar, but other individuals, developers, is that the acreage height is too restrictive, and they'll just go for a horizontal property.

Even the 15? Because there is a threshold at 15 here.

There is a threshold of 15, but that has to be approved by the County Commission.

Nobody's even asked for that. The 15 seems to, I guess what I'm getting at in arguing for the five acres, the 15 has been here. It's in the code. People know it's available. They know there's a hurdle to overcome. They got to go present something to argue their case. But even at 15, it hasn't piqued anybody's interest.

And I'll tell you why. Because the cost investment... to put in to design a PC zoning district exceeds even the town center. There are so many similar requirements that they have to provide that are going to be adopted as part of the ordinance to make it easier for me to track. And because of those, they don't want to spend the money up front to go before the county commission for the county commission to say no. Right? If there were...

So they're simply doing risk analysis

If they knew that they could do a five acre, right, and they had 14 acres or whatever, if they knew they could do five acres at least, then at least they could put in the effort and design and get everything ready and then come before Planning Commission and County Commission. I think that the lower threshold, there will be more applications.

That would be my guess. The downside to that?

Downside to this zone honestly, I would prefer everything in the county PC zoning district and I'll tell you why Because the applicant has to bring to you and the County Commission their zoning ordinance for that property They have to propose to you setbacks architectural standards open space amenities Everything for what they're proposing to do And at the end of the day, it has to be so good that you're going to say, this is something that we could not get with our regular zone. Right? To make it look so good and so appealing because it's better than anything we could get with the regular zones. I mean, that's... That's the proof, right? That's what they have to prove to you and to the county commission. And there's going to be some effort put into that. And yeah, there might be work sessions, like there is with the town center development agreements. But the PC zone, that is a legislative decision right up front. So you have the right to deny it.

I think if the If the Planning Commission is inclined, they can make the recommendation that the County Commission reduce it down to the five.

And remove the reduction language.

Is it possible for me to amend my application because of the public notice and everything? Would you need to do the five acre?

Yeah. Would we need to or can we just make that recommendation?

I don't know that he can amend it, because we've noticed it up as it is. However, I still think you guys can approve it as is, but make the recommendation to the county commission. They always have the right.

So two acts, deal with his, and then make a recommendation.

Okay. You guys approve it as is, but would recommend to the county commission that they go even further and strip it down to five.

Maybe we'll go into a public hearing now, to hear from the public. Ready for a motion for that?

Motion.

Motion by member Watt. Public hearing second by?

Second.

Member Taylor, all in favor?

Aye.

OK, we're now in public hearing.

Tina Kelly, Mountain Green. This is very reminiscent of the PRUDs that we had that some of you live in currently that exist throughout the county and there's been multiple changes to those PRUDs over the years despite the fact that people said oh what this agreement is in perpetuity and open space will be guaranteed in perpetuity and this that and the other will be guaranteed and you'll get amenities and Things have slipped through and not been, so we did away with the PRUD. And I think that's why the discussions were of higher acreage. And I don't know if 50 acres is where I would have landed, but I know that 10 acres isn't where I would land either, or five acres, which you're discussing, which was not noticed for the public hearing, so. I'm confused because this has just the wording that the applicant has put in. So the three lines or four lines, it's not in context with the whole code. So I don't know that y'all had the code before you as you read this and could interpret it through the code. I didn't have it before me when I read it and I wasn't gonna go search for it because that was tedious going through that process. But I think it would have helped to have had the whole code there. Also, I heard you say 50%, since I don't have the 50% open space, since I don't have the code before me, I don't know. And looking at Mr. Gardner's handout that he gave tonight, it says exceed the 20% open space requirements. I'm not sure where that is. is coming from, not having had a chance to peruse it before it was handed out. I do know that this gives you the opportunity to cluster, and that was what the PRUD did. But out of that clustering, we got some road conditions that weren't ideal. And I'm not sure if there's a guarantee through the development agreement or through the zoning ordinance that comes through after the PC is passed. that will say that the roads have to be to county standards, that they can't be narrower, that there will be snow removal provided for, all of those things. I didn't see any kind of argument that says this is better because of this. So I'm just asking those questions. I know I'm tedious. I am the only person who generally attends for the public, so I feel like if I have questions, I have to ask them. Thank you.

Seeing no more comments, I'm ready for a motion out of public hearing. Motion by member Wilson and second by member Watt. All in favor?

Aye.

We are now out of public hearing. The 50% is for residential. Open space for other developments. Single family, less than one acre, multifamily, and all non-residential development has a 20%.

um so that was my mistake i apologize the open space within rural subdivisions is to be 50 open space within all other developments single family uh less than one acre multi-family and all non-residential and that one acre is for the size of the lot so anything less than one acre in size um is uh 20 open space so i apologize i had forgotten that we had separated those out right need to

And then passive and active amenities, it's 50% active and 50% passive for landscape areas.

Right, so of the 20% in this case, it would be 50% of that has to be active and 50% has to be passive.

In this case?

No, in open space, she'll be divided into passive and active landscape areas and amenities. So that applies to all landscape open space areas. So if you have a rural subdivision, you're required 50% open space period. Of that open space, 50% has to be active, 50% passive. Yeah.

Can you talk about how that open space is required to be clustered or broken up? So if you have a five acre parcel and you're doing a single family smaller than one acre, you're 20%. There's going to be one acre of open space minimum in that development.

uh for a five acre yeah one acre of open space yeah but it has to be and half of that has to be usable so you can't really you're gonna have to design it such that you have your passive and then you have actual active usable open space it's not this um

I don't know, a little piece here and a little piece there.

I don't think that's usable.

Is it contiguous? So here's what it says. It says the 50% active area has two main options. It shall be required to be all accessible to the public or 50-50 split between private and public. The other half may be set aside for private use for the residents of the development. Public use is subject to the reasonable rules and regulations imposed upon the use of the property by the development. Ownership of these open space areas shall be owned and maintained by the development, i.e. a homeowner's association. Active open space and amenities shall be defined as trails, clubhouses, pools, courts, parks, tot lots, ramadas, and other similar items. The passive open space shall be all the other areas that have native or landscape material that are part of the total required open space.

Meaning not part of their lot, not part of their yard. Correct. It has to be HOA owned or available half to the public, half to the... well either so it can all be available to the public or you can split it up to fifty percent being restricted to each of the people who live there correct

And again, they're writing their zoning ordinance for you. So they're gonna come in, they're gonna say, these are the lot sizes that we want. These are the building heights that we want. These are the setbacks that we want, the landscaping that we want. These are the architectural standards. In fact, these are the type of elevations that our homes or our buildings will mimic. or be close to, all of those are submittal requirements. In fact, if you go to the PC zoning district above this, PC zoning districts are divided into two tiers. Tier one is 50 acres or less. And their submittal requirements are a narrative document, preliminary development plan, listing types of uses, proposed uses defined, proposed development standards including lot area, lot coverage, max building height, proposed setbacks, design guidelines, architectural design, elevation styles, parking standards, landscaping and open space, photos taken from each side and corner of the development to provide you context when you're reviewing the plan to show you what kind of land you're looking at. And then the required maps and attachments include a vicinity map, conceptual development plan, conceptual landscape plan, and conceptual circulation plan. Those are the submittal requirements for a type one, a tier one. There's even more with tier two. Tier twos, which are greater than 50 acres, you're looking at preliminary grading and drainage plans, preliminary geohazard reports, preliminary infrastructure and utility plans, and traffic impact analysis.

where this is a zone overlay legislative decision it can't be arbitrary but it can be we don't think this is in the best interest of the public that's a valid just that that simple statement is a valid reason for denial yeah it's legislative you can deny for pretty much anything but i would suggest that maybe the planning commission the county commission

would rather work with the developer to come to a mutually beneficial agreement or plan so that the county can get more than just what we would get with a hard zone. It's kind of the best option. It's better than town center.

Anything is better than town center. I'm just gonna say that.

Yeah, you can say that.

Any more questions or discussion? And is the preference still to make the recommendation to the County Commission of dropping it to five acres?

I mean, we have the two separate. Yeah, my recommendation would be make your recommendation based on what was noticed, but then add another recommendation that the County Commission could then act on if they so choose. And that's another motion?

And then that will be noticed up along with this application to the County Commission?

We'll provide notification of that as well. Perfect.

To remove the reduction language, a dropping minimum to five acres and remove reduction language.

Thank you. So if I understand, maybe I can start this off with the first one. Madam Chair, I make a recommendation. I move we recommend approval to the county commission of the PC zone overlay code text amendment based on the findings listed in the memorandum dated May 28, 2026.

We have a motion by Member Watt. second and a second by member taylor any discussion on that all in favor aye any opposed motion carries want the other motion yep ready for the other motion i move that we recommend uh a modification of

the proposed text in the previous motion to the County Commission for the PC zone overlay code that reduces, that reads as follows, single family residential development, each PC zone overlay that incorporates residential development shall contain a minimum of five acres, period.

Okay, I have a motion by Member Taylor. Second. Second by member Wilson. Any discussion? All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. OK. Moving on. This is to business and staff questions. I just have a couple things I'm finally remembering to bring forward. I would personally like written copies of updates to the staff report, updates that are made that we don't have, rather than to stand there and say, these are the changes. It'd be nice to have it written so we, when we formulate our motion, I mean, if you, is that, am I making sense? staff will come here and say there's, you know, we have some updates or we'd like to add this condition or whatever, it'd be nice to have that written out in front of us just to,

what we can do if it helps if there are stipulations that we think of after or changes to the staff report we will how about we email it to you that would be fine just so we have have it written in front of us okay and then here's another question this site plan okay the the day was

application we had, this private resort conditional use, all the oversight we have for a commercial use there is the site plan. We can't yay or nay that that's appropriate commercial use.

It's kind of weird.

Very weird. I don't know if we need to tweak that. I mean, this is just, I'm just thinking, but when that came before us, I thought, you know, wow, it's, even a reception center's not even a permitted use in the county. I mean, you have a banquet hall, I mean, you could probably fit it in, but, so can they come up with anything?

If it falls in line with something that could conceivably be considered a resort, private resort, public resort, and it falls in line with that, that section of our code says that it's allowed associated dwelling units and commercial.

Right. And I agree. But there's no oversight. I mean, all we did is approve a site plan. I mean, we could.

You approved a conditional use permit a year ago.

For the resort.

Correct.

But we didn't know what the resort was going to be.

well he had a list in his narrative of what he wanted to be a part of that and that was required for the conditional use permit we required that for every private resort we brought forward to you there's a narrative statement that listen that's why we're having warrior risen come back and amend their conditional use permit because they want to add more uses

But they weren't a private resort to begin with.

No, they were originally a dude ranch. Right. That was doing private resort type activities that they didn't have approval for. And we were receiving complaints. So I had them amend their conditional use permit back in, I think it was 2023. They came in, they amended it and made it a private resort.

Right. Is the narrative legally binding, or is it just saying this is what we think?

If we attach it as part of the conditional use permit, then that is legally binding.

That would be legal just to?

Because those are the list of uses that you as the commission have approved for that property.

So they do get attached. It's a lot of the narratives. We'll let Janet.

Yes, it needs to be attached and incorporated into the permit.

Yeah. The other thing, I mean, it's just been recent things. The church. I know churches are different, but I felt there should have been a traffic study. I know the Planning Commission can request a traffic study like we're dealing with subdivisions.

I haven't seen that in our code. Yeah, we can. If you can find it and email it to me, I'd appreciate that.

I sure will, but we can, but on a site plan.

The only thing I've seen related to traffic studies is if the engineer feels that the engineer needs one.

But the engineer or the planning commission, it says in the code.

Yeah, send that to me, because I don't remember that.

That was the other thing. But site plan is just.

The church code, we're going to have to update anyway. We just have to be really careful. We're not requiring a traffic study just because it's a church. We would have to require the traffic study for any kind of similar.

Well, I understand. But looking at that, you already have an existing church that holds 600, the new one's gonna hold 900. That'll be at the same time. You won't have that full all the time, but the possibility is there.

Well, yeah, I mean, you don't calculate total parking that way, though.

Parking is calculated per the code. No, no, but the traffic report, that you're gonna have all those. People coming out sometime to make left from this driveway and right from that driveway.

But as part of the site plan, they are required to provide a parking calculation.

Well, the parking, I understand. Mine's more traffic.

You're thinking 1,200 people leaving church at the same time. But they'll all be in good moods because they are spiritually and there'll be patience and goodwill.

All I know is the engineer reviews it, and if the engineer tells me we need a traffic study, then... Yeah, I will, it's in there, so I... Yeah, email it.

That was my question with the church. Of course, the church representative got up and said it meets all the...

Exactly, yes.

So we do. We look at it, but I'm concerned about the amount of traffic, particularly at specific times, getting into and out of that parking area. I'm not worried about the parking.

yeah i i've looked through our code and the only thing i can see that i've seen is that the engineer can request it but the but i mean if you can find where it says planning commission and you want to email that to me okay next week or i can i can look at that hey how many hours of training are we supposed to have and can we just do that on our own You're required to have four hours of training per year. That training includes any time staff or the attorneys provide you training. Last year we had Craig call, what was that, I'm sorry. Yep, that counts.

Are you keeping track of that?

I will, yeah.

I was at a Planning Commission work session in Harriman a couple of weeks ago. And the items got done. It was an hour-long training or work session. And they just turned down the lights. And they threw up the Land Use Academy of Utah and said, here's where we left off last time.

started the video um if you want to count that submit to me an email stating i attended x uh it was this long and we'll count that as part of your trade uh if there's a conference you want to go to obviously i have limited budget for that but the county will pay for you to attend a conference can i count just going to other planning commission council and county commission meetings i don't think so okay but we're okay to if we

for the 15 minutes of the four hours yeah are you okay I mean it's all it's like a to Z topics there's a zillion of these if you want to send me a link and we can look at starting to do that here as well this was the one that I watched was Craig call there's an APA conference this fall in September at the Davis

community center or conference center, so it's right close.

This video that I watched, it was Craig. It was like a three-hour video. Yeah, Craig calls amazing. Of him at some conference with a planner and a planner attorney. And they were just talking about, you know.

Yeah, no, Craig is amazing.

And I think we're going to try and bring Craig back. We are. We have seen a lot of him lately. Josh and I have spent quite a bit of time with Craig. Yeah. And other lawyers. Yeah. Craig's better than the other lawyers. Yes. And I think we're doing really well. Right, Josh? I think we're winning.

Well, anytime I can sit and learn from that guy.

Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah, he's amazing.

You got the book, right? Yeah. Did you get it?

I didn't get it, but I read it years ago when we first wrote it.

You can get them free.

Yeah, you can get them free on the website, that Land Use Institute website. You can order one for free.

It's readable. Okay, and then

It kind of got dropped. We were gonna have a training with Matt and Mike. Is that gonna go back on eventually? July. July?

In my talking with Mike, I think he's got a lot of out of town. Okay. And I need to coordinate with him. So to best coordinate it with Mike, I think pushing it back till July, one of the meetings in July would give me the best opportunity.

Okay, that's all I had, is there? Okay, then we'll move on to approval of the minutes. Need a motion?

Motion.

I have a motion by Member Watt to approve the minutes and a second by Member Wilson. All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Aye. Okay, and motion to adjourn?

COME ON. SO MOVED.

A MOTION BY MEMBER TAYLOR AND A SECOND BY... ONE, MADDIE. COME ON, MADDIE. ME. YEAH, SECOND.