Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I don't think he is. Just because we finished our review like a couple days ago, just put it on the agenda and said, hey, we're just going to take it.

It is 7 o'clock. We welcome you all to the Planning Commission on this June 11, 2026. We will open with a Pledge of Allegiance by Commissioner Trickler.

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.

Thank you. Do I have a motion to approve tonight's agenda? With the changing of the order of item number one will be heard second, item number two will be heard first.

I'll motion to approve the agenda with the changes to item number one.

I'll second.

Okay, I have a motion by Commissioner Trickler and a second by Commissioner Butler. Are those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? No, they're okay. Are there any declarations or conflicts, abstentions from commission members? Seeing none, we will continue. Would entertain a motion to approve tonight's staff reports.

I make a motion to approve tonight's staff reports. I'll second it.

We have a motion from Commissioner Redding and a second from Commissioner Patton for the staff reports. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That passes. On item number two, which we'll be hearing first, it is a public meeting to consider the request of Bruce Black for a three-lot preliminary residential subdivision named Black Estate, Platte B, located approximately at 1592 West, 1800 North, on approximately 5.57 acres in the rural residential zone. We'll turn it over to Mr. Hawkins. All righty.

Good evening, Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission. I'm Jacob Hawkins from the Planning Department. All right, so this item that we're hearing tonight is just a residential subdivision for Bruce Black called Black Estate Platte B. This is where that project is located at, right here at the very edge of Pleasant Grove boundaries. If I go over here, this is the property in question. So if you guys remember, about a year ago, in fact almost exactly a year ago, they came in and they did a residential subdivision for black estate plat a which was a two lot subdivision plat in addition to their subdivision plat they also did a vicinity plan amendment which would allow 1930 north right here to dead end into in in a cul-de-sac over here uh instead of coming through their property and connecting back down to 1800 north So they went through all of that process and everything and this is what was approved originally. So you can see that this is just a two lot subdivision, one with the existing house on it and one for the house that Mr. Black wanted to build. Since then he has applied for the building permit for his house and now he is wanting to do another subdivision where he is creating a new lot just here at the south end of that original larger lot. And that's all that's really changing for this subdivision. Lot number five down here is the smallest lot in the subdivision and it meets all of the rural residential requirements. And so because of that, staff recommends approval of the proposed subdivision and I can take any questions.

Are there any questions for Jacob? Seeing none, thank you. Awesome, thank you. Mr. Hawkins, this is a public meeting. We'll open it up to the public for any comment. Not seeing anybody coming up to the pulpit, we'll close the public hearing of this session and bring it back up to the commissioners for discussion and or motion.

I move the Planning Commission approve the request of Bruce Black for a three lot preliminary residential subdivision plat called Black Estate Plat B located at approximately 1592 West, 1800 North on property zoned rural residential subject to the following. They don't have any other conditions. All final planning, engineering, and fire department requirements are met.

Second I have a motion for Commissioner Nielsen a second for Commissioner Butler all those in favor say aye opposed That motion passes We will now bring up item number one, if you will hear second. It is a public hearing to consider the request of Pleasant Grove City to amend city code section 10-15-28 to create a new section for water efficiency standards and amend the landscape requirements included in chapters six, nine, 10, 11, 12, and 14. The city is proposing new landscape requirements with the intent to conserve the public's water resources by establishing new water conservation standards and grass turf. Turn the time over to Director Cardenas.

Thank you, Chair. Are we online? Yeah, we're perfect. Okay, thank you. Commissioner, it's a pleasure being here. Pleasant Grove City is part of the Central Utah Water Conservancy District. They're an organization by the state, and they offer different programs, incentive programs, for efficiency, water efficiency, if we can call it that way. So the district has three programs that they have for landscaping, three landscape incentive programs they offer. Some of those programs, I'm pretty sure, They're very self-explanatory, but the names of them are for lawn replacement. That's the name of one. It used to be previously known as flip the strip or something like that. Then we have something called switch to drip or a treevate. That's a pretty cool name, a treevate, like a rebate with a tree, a treevate. Anyway, they put some thought into this. And the purpose of these programs, incentive programs, that Central Utah Water Conservancy District have is for the residents of a jurisdiction to go apply. There's a website. They go and they apply. And they receive a... rebate or a refund of the amount for the resources that they use, whether they buy materials to do the work or if they hire somebody, whatever, they get some money back. However, Central Utah Water Conservancy District, in order for the residents of a jurisdiction to be eligible to apply for these programs, the jurisdiction where the resident resides or where the resident lives or where the property is, the jurisdiction needs to approve or to adopt in their policy, whether it's in their city code or any document that the city governs themselves with, in this case it will be your city code for Placid Grove City, we need to adopt certain water efficiency standards. Now, at this point, Placid Grove residents are eligible to apply for this program. But let me show you a little PowerPoint that I created, because even though our residents are eligible right now, they're not fully eligible for the entire amount. So anyway, at this point, let's say any resident of Placent Grove City goes to watersavers.com, which is the website of the Central Utah Water Conservancy District. And they apply, because they want to replace the grass that they have on their park strip, and they want to put some rocks in there or some or whatever they would like to do, and they go and apply. Right now, Blassingrove City is jurisdiction eligible on those amounts that I have on that slide. In other words, if they want to do the long replacement of their park strip, they'll be compensated with $1.50 per square foot. If they want to switch to drip, meaning that they want to use the drip system to water the planting beds, they will be compensated with $0.50 per square foot. And for the tree baits, they will get up to $50 per tree, up to 10 trees per project. without adopting anything. The way we are, one of our residents can go apply and those will be the amounts or up to the amounts that will be eligible to receive. If the proposed landscape, the water efficiency standards are adopted, then those incentives double up. So instead of getting 150, 50 cents, and $50 per tree, then they can get $3, $1, and the tree base stays the same. So again, if the jurisdiction adopts certain landscape efficiency standards, then residents can be compensated or receive up to $3 per square foot when they decide to switch the grass on their park strip, or when they want to switch their system to water their flowers in their planting beds, they can be compensated up to $1, and the tree stays the same. Now, okay? Placent Grove City already reviewed some of these water efficiency standards. We took a look at them in the past, probably two years ago. But in 2026, the Central Utah Water Conservancy District, they decided to take a look at those efficiency standards and they make some changes. So we got new standards now. Those are the ones that we're trying to incorporate into our code. Now, I'm gonna show you the actual full document that I received from them, okay? And it's like this, okay? So there's some landscape requirements. There's four of them. ABC, five of them. ABCDNE. So those are the requirements. Those need to be adopted. We cannot play around with those. Those need to be adopted as they are. And then they have also some landscaping recommendations. Whether we adopt those or not doesn't make any impact of the amount of money that our residents can... be able to receive. It doesn't make any impact on the qualifications of any of our residents. That's why we have decided to focus only on their requirements. These are their requirements. A, lawn shall not be less than eight feet wide at its narrowest point. That one didn't change. It used to be like that in the past. B, lawn shall not be installed in park strips. That one did not change either. That was exactly the same as it was two years ago. The other one changed because it used to be launch should not be installed on park strips and the way that it's written right there in the ordinance, but that one changed. Now it's launch should not be installed on the slopes greater than 25% or four to one grade. The reason why it changed, because sometimes you don't have those slopes only on park strips. Actually, to achieve that 25% in a park strip is almost impossible. It's kind of like a wall, pretty much, right there. However, there's still some front yards in areas like that where the slope is tremendously, there's a lot of inclination. So now everything is included. No slopes over 25%, okay? The lawn should not exceed, this is, the one product that has the biggest impact, okay? Lawn shall not exceed 50% of the total landscape area in the front and side yards of new residential construction. So, anybody who builds a new home in Placent Grove City or we have new subdivisions that they're gonna install their new homes, they cannot cover in more than 50% just with grass. That's what this says. But it's only for new residential homes. Doesn't mean that we're gonna go back to any of the homes that already have the landscape and tell them, hey, you know what? You have to make some changes right here. It's for all new homes, okay? And for small residential lots which have no backyards, which we have some in Placent Grove City, in which the total landscape area is less than 250 square feet and which the front yard dimensions cannot accommodate the minimum eight feet wide lawn area requirement, those are exempt from the eight feet minimum width lawn and a maximum of 55% lawn requirement. Meaning if the lot is way too small, then don't worry about it, then those don't apply to it. And that changed a lot because in the past it used to be a maximum of 35%. And finally, in commercial, industrial, institutional, and multifamily developments in their common area, the lawn area shall not exceed 20% of the total landscape area outside of active recreation areas. An active recreation area can be 100% of lawn or grass. But outside of that, it cannot be bigger than 20%, okay? Now, commissioners. based on what I read right there, the one that have the biggest impact is letter D, okay, the 50%. That was the one that caused the most concern. So what I did, I did something, I went to see some of the new homes that we're building in Placent Grove, okay, the new lots that are being built, and I found a subdivision that is kinda new, and just for kicks and giggles, I decided to go on the subdivision north of that, Are you guys aware of this one right here? This subdivision that is just above the park? Above Discovery? So we can see right here, it's a new subdivision. And let's take a look at these two lots. I love planning commissions because I feel like during city council, I kind of move from the podium, but at planning commissions, I feel like I have that opportunity. Sometimes it's hard for me to see So let's actually take a look at this right there.

All right.

Well, if I move away, then the microphone won't be there, right? Let me grab a laser that works. Ooh, who all got that green one? Is that you? Commissioner Martinez, that was a powerful one. Let's take a look at these two new homes. All right. These two new homes. Remember, the requirements are only for a new home. So this is a new home. This is a home that was built in the last year. And the requirement is for the front and the side yards. This is the home. This is the structure. The side yard goes from here to right here. and from here to right here. That's the side yard. Everything right here is my front yard, and this area is my backyard. Since we don't require a landscape to be put on the backyard, then we only gonna focus on the front and the side yards. That's why the lines end up right there, okay? All right, so I look into this one. This right here has a concrete for a park strip. You guys can take a look at it. The concrete goes right here. This one is, they have some grass right there, they have some grass right here as well, and some grass right here as well, okay? Right now, this is allowed to be installed. Now, this is less than eight feet wide. And you guys remember when we had that, when we brought someone from the water conservancy district and he was right here, that person, and probably I'll bring it to the next planning commission, he explained to us why less than eight feet wide is super difficult to water and most of the water is wasted. There's not the mechanism, espresso, I don't know how you guys call them exactly, but there's no mechanism that is very efficient, that efficiently water less than eight feet. So, for example, in this case, they have one right there, I'm pretty sure this concrete gets a lot of water right there, and it's not used correctly. So that's why the explanation of why less than eight feet is not appropriate to have grass in there, or a lot of water is wasted in their studies that they did, okay? But what I did right here is I map the areas where they have only grass, and these are these areas that are covered in green. If we take a look at that brand new home that looks, and I should have taken a picture from here, standing from here. I took a picture, I didn't bring it with me, but this is a good, at least aerial view of the property. This one, including these side yards that will not be allowed anymore, this area, yes, but these narrow parts, no. That one is already at 55%, meaning that if we remove these ones right here and we remove from here to here, probably goes low to 45%. So they won't be super restrictive of what they're doing, okay?

Yes. On the original proposal that came out before, it said driveways were not included in that percentage because it's hard. So that's one thing we need to make sure of if the driveway can or cannot be included.

Well, right now, what I show you is how it is right now. So that driveway situation is not even included right there. This is what will be counted. Now, they're pretty close to it, pretty close, okay? Again, even if we just remove this part strip, they'll be right at 50% or lower than 50%, meaning that the residents will still be able to put some grass. 50% is not super restrictive. That's what I'm trying to show you with these images. Let me show you the home up north. That one is perfectly at 51, 50% is right there, because you guys can see that this is... concrete, so they have concrete all the way right here. This one actually was, it wasn't grass, it was mulch. So they don't have grass right there. They do have a square right here and all this area is also grass. So this is brand new homes and they're about right there. meaning that this ordinance won't restrict them more, or we're not choking our residents, telling them, you cannot pull grass anymore. Without the existence of this ordinance, with just their own designs, they're almost meeting the qualifications right there, okay? Now, I have some homes up north that I took a look at this, and look at the home, these are already existing homes in there. This is a great example of what our residents have been doing. This is not grass either. They have their driveway, their access to the driveway. Then they did some... landscape features on their front yard. They have a little water feature. They have some rocks. They have some stuff like that. So this doesn't qualify. I mean, that doesn't count toward the amount of lawn on the front yard. And we just count this area right here. This is the grass that they have. This is not grass either. And they are at 32%. Those guys meet the requirement perfectly, okay? Here's another one. I don't know. But that one is existing. The reason why I showed that one is because it's way lower than 50%. Even if we eliminate that, it will be lower than that. This one is also a great home with a lot of landscape features in the front yard. Again, these homes are existing. These guys are at 27%. You guys can clearly see right here the rock. The grass comes right here. All this is Seriscape. They still have some trees, some plants right there, but it's not grass. The grass areas are right here. And that's it. That one qualifies. That one's under 27% without us making any requirements. So I'm just trying to show you that this is not going to be restrictive on the neighbors. That one is a typical home that you will see, and there are 44%. Again, we can see a lot of big driveways or large driveways. That helps a lot. They still have a large amount of grass, but even with that, with the exception of this uh... kidney bean shape situation there are forty four percent so they still qualify I have another one right here this one is above but you can see the reason why you can see the reason why it's above they have the grass all the way right here now let's say that this home didn't exist and they want to come and install it well then they will be uh... will require them to We'll count this and we'll say it's 59%. You need to reduce it by 10% or 9%, okay? So they can do something else. For example, they can do rocks along this line right here or along right here, and then they'll be right there on the 50%. So the reason why I created this is because I... I know sometimes we have two different views, right? Are we being too restrictive on our residents? But at the same time, are we in the need to take some measurements for some water conservation standards? And well, this is what the state is proposing. and I think it will be kosher if we go that way, okay? Any questions about the new language of what we need to incorporate into our code? No, okay. So commissioners, what we did, and there is that you guys have right there, And Commissioner Trickler, you actually caught me, that was a good example of why I needed to review this, because that part is not in the new language anymore. So we'll eliminate the new language. So as I was looking at the ordinance that I'm proposing, I eliminate these yellow ones. That area that is highlighted is the elimination of that language. So it will be more like, Let me go to, it will be more like just this. And I think it helps to eliminate that because it will be more concise. Launch shall not be installed on slopes greater than 25% or 4 to 1 grade period. That's it, okay? So I will eliminate the area that is in yellow. I'll still work on it, and I'll eliminate it, and I'll present it to you guys. Now, commissioners, the reason why, remember, there's five... water efficiency standards or five water efficiency regulations they're asking us to do, but those five don't apply to every zone. That's why not every zone has the five of them. That's something I want you guys to take into consideration. For example, in the rural residential, well, we don't allow the rural residential doesn't allow commercial, industrial, institutional, or multifamily. That's why that letter E is not right there, okay? There's some zones, for example, that are part of these ordinance, the CN. The CN does not allow for single family lots. That's why that requirement of single family lots, this one right there, yeah, this one right there, is not included in that part of the code, okay? So what I recommend, commissioners, we can talk about any, let's open it to the public and let's open the conversation. If you guys have any recommendations Let's let's discuss that and let's continue the item so I can make those changes see the Attorneys reviewing this can make some changes and hopefully I have a perfect ordinance bring brought to you guys at the next the next Planning Commission. Okay any any comments before I sit down? Any questions for Daniel at this time? I'm even willing commissioners if you guys want to take a I I I Let me be clear on this a little bit. And I didn't mention this, but I'm gonna bring it to the presentation as well. The Planning Commission reviewed something similar two years ago. It was a different language, it was different requirements. We received a recommendation of approval the city council decided not to adopt it, and now the city council recommendation is like, actually, let's revisit it, and that's what we're trying to do. We're trying to do, we're trying to propose something back to them, see if they think it's in the best interest of the city again, okay?

All right. Thank you, commissioners.

I'll be here in the podium if you guys want to discuss any further, you guys have any questions, please, let me know.

Okay, thank you. This is a public hearing. We'd like to open up to the public if anyone would like to come forward. Not seeing a rush to the podium, we'll close the public hearing, bring it back up to the commissioners for discussions, debates, and on this item, we will continue it until the wording can be revisited. So it'll be a continuation when the motion is made. To a certain date. To the, yeah, that'll happen in the commission, be the June 25th. Yes. Are there any discussions or concerns about wording at this point?

It's pretty straightforward. Eight feet wide. So with developers and stuff, Daniel, do you feel that they're... How easy is it to make sure that they're in compliance?

Not very easy. It's going to... add a new layer, it's easy, but it's gonna require some extra work from the staff, right? Because at this point, we don't review the, we don't have specific regulations in regard to a landscape, right? Now we're gonna have to add an extra layer for a review where we're gonna have to check that the 50% is met, we have to make sure that there's not a slope, something like that, but Is that going to be part of your final inspection for occupancy? Yes. Well, it's going to be part of the planned review at the building permit process. So when someone submits for a building permit, then we'll add it right there. We'll add something in on requirements that says they need to meet that, and that's something that we'll review for sure. Yes. That'll be part of an inspection as well.

And how does it affect projects that are in progress?

No, they won't affect them at all. So from the day we adopt, if we adopt this ordinance, from that day on, we'll start doing it. Sure. Yeah.

Hey, Daniel. So they have two years to put their landscaping in, two growing season, is that what it said?

Yes.

So if they show you one plan at the beginning... and then in two years when they're starting to do it, it's changed, are you gonna go back and revisit that? Okay.

We'll have to, yeah.

Okay, that's a lot of work.

Yeah, I mean, Commissioner Martino, you've done a lot of construction, you know that many times they, a lot of the, The builders, they do install the front yard. What they don't install is the backyard. But there's small builders, and for those, they have two years. But usually, most of them install it pretty quickly, the front yard and the side yard. The backyard, that one, they leave it out there for the applicant, for the property owner to decide what they're going to do with it.

A lot of cities require that as a final inspection, that the front yard has to be at least... Some are 50%, some it's 100% for occupancy, depends on the city.

So not that you will probably know the answer to this, but there are residents that are interested in doing the flipping and xeriscaping, et cetera, and so forth. Will the city be doing any type of... Upon approval, so if this does pass and everything like that, will the city notify the residents that they do qualify for the full amount?

100%. I had a conversation with the city manager last week when we discussed this situation. Right now, residents can go and apply, and they will get 50% of the total amount. I don't think they're fully aware of it either. I think the residents don't know they can't apply. So we're looking for the best way where we can notify this. But it's part of the discussion, yes. If we adopted it, then we can announce it and hopefully the residents take advantage of it. Because at the end of the day, that's what we're trying to do, that they can take advantage of this.

Two years ago, we attempted to do that and they told us the money was not available because we had not passed it the first time.

Yeah, yeah. Unfortunately, like I say, the Planning Commission And the City Council at the end they make the decision that it wasn't in the best interest of the city but they they seem to be Interested reconsidering that decision.

Well in the big change from 30 to 50 percent.

That's a big change That's a huge change because even in the the the homes that I show you right there Many of them wouldn't be in compliance right now with the change pretty much all of them will be in compliance with except of the a foot park strip them and Are you, commissioners, are you interested in having someone from the Water Conservancy District be here for the next meetings? Is that something that you guys would like to, or you guys are okay with what we have? I mean, I don't want to make the meeting bigger than it should be. You guys know that they're very passionate about it. But if you guys have questions, you guys can email me to it. And then I can send those questions to them and be ready with the answers for you guys if there's any questions for that for the next meeting. I mean, they already came here. They came to City Council as well a couple times. But if you guys feel...

Are inclined to do something like that and we're willing to be it may be intriguing to have them come in only primarily because there's been changes obviously to the water situation that we have compared to two years ago after coming off of Record water record snow in 2023 and we were trying to adopt it in 2024 right things are drastically different and then also there have been some people who have put in xeriscape or minimal, you know lawn uses and stuff like that and There there is different data. I'm sure that has come in as like what kind of plants and what kind of procedures should be taken versus artificial turf and rocks Right. So I'd be personally, if no one else wants to, that's fine. It's not.

I'll send them an email. I'll send them an email. I think they close their offices around 435. That's why I'll send them an email tomorrow and see if they're available to come to our next planning commission. How about that? Just for questions. I'm pretty sure they'll be glad to be here.

Yeah. And they don't need to do a presentation. Just basic questions. Just in case for questions. Be on hand to make it shorter than it probably would be.

Totally. I'll let him know that. All right, commissioners, thank you so much. You guys decide what motion to do, and I recommend we continue this item to a certain date. Thank you.

I would entertain a motion on item number one.

I'll make a motion. I move the Planning Commission continue the request of Pleasant Grove City staff for the proposed amendments to City Code 10-15-9 Water Efficiency Standards and amend sections of the code regarding landscaping until June 25th based on the following findings. It's just the attorney needs to review.

Commissioner Redding, this will be not for Section 9. This will be Section 10-15-28. 49. 28. Oh. So it's wrong in here? Forgive me.

10-15-28. Second.

Okay, I have a motion by Commissioner Redding, a second by Commissioner Trickler. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Now motion passes. Okay, we are moving right along. I would entertain a motion to review and approve the minutes of the May 14th, 2026 meeting.

I'll make a motion that we approve the minutes for May 14th, 2026. I'll second.

I have a motion by Commissioner Patten, a second by Commissioner Redding. All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? That motion also passes. I move to adjourn. So done.