Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. Is that on? Wonderful. Good evening. Welcome to the uh Tula County uh commission meeting held at uh where are we in the council chambers of the Tula County uh where are we? Two county building. Um I was looking for the address on my paper but it's not here. So either way, whatever the address is, um our first order of business will be the pledge of allegiance, and we'll have Councilman Kendall Thomas lead us in the pledge, please. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Appreciate that. So, we will have a roll call and I believe Commissioner Dao is online. Commissioner Da, are you there? Well, we'll let him come in. Commissioner Becker here. Commissioner Sts here. Mr. Scott here. Commissioner Bartholomew and Commissioner Aar. Sorry, I got the A right. My apologies. Alder and Commissioner Hope is here. Thank you. Thank you very much for being here and sacrificing your time and resources. It's absolutely amazing. Um it's all about the paycheck. Um, so, uh, well, that's what Sorry, I memorized. Um, so the next order of business is the minutes of the last regular stated meeting of April 23rd, 2025. Uh, is there any additions, corrections, amendments to those minutes?

Mr. Chandler, I make a motion we approve the minutes from April 23rd, 2025 as written. I'll second. Wonderful. All those in favor say I. I. I. And do that. Wonderful. Besides me, I wasn't there. It passes unanimously. Thank you. The second order of business is uh under subdivisions. Uh SUV 2025-26. Um I'm not sure who she is, but she's dressed really nice. Um but we're going to ask Trish to uh Are you okay? Yeah, we're good. We're gonna ask Trish to uh to handle that piece of business. Perfect. Um yes, so Trish Dakota planning staff presenting SUB 2025-026. Um this is uh a subdivision in Stanbury Park. Uh so it's by Skyler Tolbert, which is Ivory. Um they're requesting it's technically a 26 lot um subdivision, but it's only 25 residential lots. So they'll have one alpha lot for open space. Um and like I previously mentioned in the last one is that their open space um areas have already been met. So for them to keep offering these is just a benefit to Stanbury service agency. So um they have yeah so all of the um reviewing agencies have approved this preliminary plat. And so just quick little um thing for the development agreement. So in the development agreement it says that it'll allow any lot size um and it should allow for up to 1,50 lots when it was all at buildout. So and I think they've only got maybe uh two more phases left. Um so and so including currently and

including this plat um they'll have 963 single family lots and so yeah just recommend that you uh approve the preliminary plat for Sagewood Village 14. Um I Yeah. So I'll uh I'll move to open the public hearing. Okay. Yes, that's right. It's open. That's nice. Is there anyone like to come and speak to this piece of business? Anybody online? Well, seeing none, then I'll close public hearing. So that said, uh, commissioners, is there any questions? And I think the, uh, applicant is online, correct? Uh, I don't think they are. Okay, no worries. Is there any questions, concerns? I do have a question. Um, apparently it's part of an overall development. It's just the last few lots. But my concern when I went to see it was that I would have thought that they couldn't start developing this particular set of last eight or 10 lots, whatever it is, until they got approval from us. I can see that they have begun development that there's a number of holes dug. Is that okay? Um, are you sure it was that area and not that one next to it? Because that phase next right next to it would be like by what is that road? Yeah, 13. Phase 13. It's already I think that's 11. Is there 11 there? I have 13 based on the number. So yeah, like the Mard Drive and Perag that's the phase before. So it

could be that that you're seeing and those have been all approved. However, it's not coming through. Mr. Timothy and you would like. Sure. As long as it meets protocol with it not being public hearing anymore, I'm fine with his hand. Copy that. Cool. I've been trying to figure out the mic. Open it again, I guess. Let's see. So, Mr. Timothy, can you hear us? And can you speak? We cannot hear you. We can't hear me. We don't have audio. So, it's not my assistant. No. You got to love it. He's okay. I'm sorry, Mr. Timothy. I know you've rais rose risen raised your hand. Um, but we cannot hear you. Does that allow them to type again? I think she's trying to type a message here now. Michael's trying to speak now, too. Yeah. Interesting. So, if you'll let them know to just type in the chat any comments they may have. Okay. So, Mr. Timothy and Commissioner Dao, if you have any questions, would you please type it in the chat message so we may address it accordingly? Thank you. Mr. Wonderful. If you if you could tell me on the map where you think I missed saw what I was seeing in person. Um, yeah. So just to the north and to the east that that's one other phase right right there and they are currently building those out. Um so it might be those that you could be seeing because they're just with your arrow with your little which which from that yellow spot where you

think I was seeing just that road right above it paragrin drive and then the it comes down the side of it. So that's pretty sure I look for the yellow. Yeah. So this is and this is 26 lots correct. Yeah. I could have been wrong. Okay. All right. It's probably the other one around it. It's just so close. They're they're like cuz they're little tiny lots too. So they're all right. It could be a I could have been deceived by my perception. That's fine. Yeah. Great. Uh so any further questions or comments? Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve. Sorry, go back to the top. Um sub 2025026 a subdivision. I'm sorry. um with the 26 lots uh according to the staff recommendations that the um to approve the preliminary plat. Okay. So, it's been motioned by Commissioner Scott to approve SUB 202526 with the recommended staff uh recommendations for approval. Is there a second? Second. There's a second by Commissioner Beckram. Um, we'll do a roll call vote. Shoot, I can't do Commissioner Dao. Um, well, actually, Commissioner Dao, if you can hear me, put a okay in the chat or raise your hand. Or raise your hand, something. Wonderful. I He's in. Commissioner Beckram, yes. Commissioner Stz, yes. Commissioner Scott, yes. Commissioner Bartholomew, yes. Commissioner Alder, yes. And

Commissioner Hope says yes. So, that passes unanimously. Thank you. All right. The next order of business is a conditional use permit, excuse me, COP 2023-116. And I believe Trish will introduce that as well. Yeah. So, this is a conditional use permit for a gravel pit operation from Ster and Parsons. And we do have applicant online so they can type in any comments that they feel necessary and we'll get to those. But um so this is located um in the Bower area. So they're calling it the North Bower Pit um which is just fairly close to our landfill and the gra other gravel operations in that area. Um it's a 100 acre property and so they plan to do a five uh a fivephase project with that. Um they are going to build half of third road adjacent to that property. So that is just a requirement that we have for those developments in that area. Um and all the reviewing agencies have approved it. Um and so the staff just recommends just for clarity sake um that we put these conditions in place is just so number one before operations of each phase the correct bonding is in place for that phase. Two that renewals of the state department permitting is u submitted to staff upon expiration of that permit. um because I think they have like a sixmonth long period of time and I think they can extend it. So just make sure that we get those in before that it's ex like upon that expiration. And then number three is ensure that the five-year plan is updated and sent to staff before that five-year plan expiration date. Awesome. Sorry. Oh, you're good. I have a question though.

Um and maybe it's for the applicant. We've talked before about switching the Bower Road where it comes out on 36 from the existing location, moving it north, so it ties in where the jail is. Is this going to happen at this phase? No. No, not with this one. They don't touch that north road. Okay. So, um when the county is prepared to put put that in, we'll have that road that comes up through. Um but there is a section um of B road that's vacated I don't Yeah. So where our proposed road is that borders Teds um it'll go straight across the South Mountain Road, right? And then there's a section of the Bower Road that's been vacated. So there's actually no access to there quite yet because that little section has been vacated. So they just come into that normal bower road the same as you get to the landfill and then they turn up. That's their access right there. Okay. I have also got a question. Um do we do that now or do we do public hearing first? However you want. Is it how is Okay. Okay. Go ahead. Okay. My question is regarding the question that came up last night in the the county council meeting. um class D roads. So, is is that a concern we have that that they come come in on a on a gravel road and that could be an issue as far as who uses the road and who can't use the road. Is that something we're concerned about as a county at all? No, this isn't it's not. Yeah. How is it different? This one is maintained. Not all gravel roads are okay. That's the answer. Okay. All right. how they're maintained. Okay. Okay. That's the question, right? But it'll be

like the property. So that's not protocol or not. My my main concern is turning lanes on and off, especially getting on. There isn't one. I travel this road dozen times a day. that exact area and it's a pain in the ass to get kill worse trucks out of our way and they have a term lane. Mhm. There's no turning in here. They're packing trucks out of there. That's not only safety, but it's congestion. It's going to be horrible. Absolutely horrible. Yeah. So, definitely that's probably a condition you can put in place. They did provide a traffic study which did not call out turn lanes in that area. So, I don't know how which is hard to believe because they made it. Maybe because they're not planning on a big huge operation. They're going to be kind of a smaller scale stuff. It's But it's bigger than Well, their phases are going to be. So, they're not going to run as many trucks as the ones around them at a time. So, yeah, they didn't show big numbers. Yeah. So you you can see all that in the in the traffic studies um area, but it's Yeah, that's what the traffic engineer they didn't call those out for I like that. Yeah. I Yeah. Yeah. That just bothers me because Kiligore they started out extremely small, much smaller than this and they made them do it and they won't even be as large at full capacity. So, I'm really bothered by that study. Yeah, we can um request that Jake look into it. I can tell you the difference. Yeah, Kilgore because they have direct access on SR36 was required to get a permit from U DOT. I I totally agree, but that doesn't mean the truck's not there. And UD do is the one that that required the

XL diesel lanes because this one is accessing off of an approved road. There has not been input from UD do that intersection one condition that you place. Yeah. that they get some type of approval approval from UD do to add this increased traffic to that intersection. But the traffic study itself does not require it. It would have to be UD do to require. Does that help answer your question? No, it does. It does. I'm just and I'm not trying to be difficult. It just sucks as it is with with Kilgore and already the other pit the pit that state parks owns right there. Uh yeah. No, on the same side, but Um just a little further south. Anyways, um we can open a public hearing before we get out. So, I'll open the public hearing. Anybody online? It's just the applicants that are online. Okay. Wonderful. Thank you. Well, seeing none, then I'll move to close public hearing. Second. Um, commissioners thoughts, concerns, share the same concern, whatever the process is that they can um, yeah, something like have them reach out to you do and see if you do can give us a written decision on whether they feel like those are necessary or not. Well, can't we require it? Uh, no. It's Oh, I mean because you got Staker, you got this one, and you've got the one on the other side, the east side of the road, too. That's just a kitty corner. So, and that and that really B. So, there's a Okay, there's a confliction, sorry, of a conundrum because there's no turn in or

or t acceleration from there and they're right off the road. So, what makes me believe UD do's going to listen? We need No. True. Obviously. Right. Right. Right. I mean, just looking at the traffic study and the and the number of vehicles and stuff, it's hard to believe it's not going to be that many. Yeah, the the numbers I saw on the graph did bother me. It's pretty small numbers. Well, but that's that's how they all start out, especially on page one. And we're talking and that's the problem is we have to think with vision, right? Or planning. I mean that's and no offense to anyone but that's kind of how they get away with stuff is they start off small numbers you know 24 this area is industrial right and it's going to start bringing in a lot more further and we've already you're making my point further then I mean I mean that's a problem it's just that yeah we have to go off of what the traffic engineer right I mean prime example that and again we approved it so it's no fault but our own but the lot just west of sacred in the landfield was supposed to be a few trailers. Holy crap. Yeah. Yeah. So, I think they're selling over there. I mean, just saying with these negative impacts in the area, you guys can put in um mitigation measures to make that. And so, if it just starts as a conversation with UD do, we move from there. And if UD do says, "Yeah, we want XLD cell lanes," then we approve it with make

sure you're putting those in before you start phase one. Like, that could be our condition of stuff. Right. Right. And again, this is obviously have a benefit. I'm just This is a pure safety conventional definitely. I mean, because that's hairy. I mean, there's not even an accident at Kilgore and the Maker because you got two blind as a heel. You got blind on both sides. It's brutal. Yeah. Well, actually, this this graph suggests just morning peak hours. So, if you times it by three, that's triples numbers. That does change things a little. And now and now times out by 100 acres, right? take into consideration all that area down there. I don't believe it does. This is just one company's impact on that road. That's not and one phase, right? One phase at a time. It's five phase to equal 100 acres. Yeah. So, as Richard says, it's 20 acres. Well, I just I compare it to Kilgore's site right there and then you compare it to Sakers right there. Doesn't matter a lot higher. And then I don't know the name of the other one. The east it changes aims. So that's four in less than a quarter mile. It's not like you have people hanging out there, but still there's vehicles. Tons of vehicles. Yeah. You're not expecting any any passengers by there, but a lot of vehicles. Okay. Um, sorry. Trying to get back to my trying not to. Um

I'm prepared but well one thing we went well as okay I am not prepared to grant preliminary appro or approval for this. I would like to make the motion that we That's not it. That's not it. No, I wasn't. No, no, no, no, no, no, no. Does Michael, did you already type in one? I would like to um kind of move I make the motion we move this to the planning or the county council for further investigation of UD do traffic study concerning accelerate. No, this is a conditional use. Council has no jurisdiction over this. This is planning commission's decision. Well, but right, but she can make a you can table it for more study table it for have council. Yeah, you can go ask council to to commission a traffic study, but the council if only there was one in the room. He can't commit for them. Mr. Chairman, I move we table this item agenda until our August business meeting so that we can look in further into the possibility of the county council um getting with you do and doing a traffic study concerning acceleration and deceleration lines with the with I love that. Can you would you mind adding with the full scale

operations with full scale operations for all future growth in this area, not just the one business? Do you see the applicant's comment? I can't see. Are you on his map? There's not. There's like a turn. Yeah, that's not really. No. Is that further down? Just a turn. He's got the pictures included in his packet. They're not there. Right. That's my motion. So, it's been moved by Commissioner Scott to table this um cup at least until the August meeting so that the county council has time to defer and communicate with uh UDOT. Now, stop. Point of clarification. You use verbiage and or have the county do their own track study. So, I'd like that verbage added. However, the applicant to get permission from access at this location and you want the county council, right, to do their own correct? You want me to restate on that? Mr. Chairman, I move that we table cup [Music] 2023-116 until the August business meeting. During that time, we will confer with county council about the possibility of having UD do get with the applicant.

You don't want council yet. Oh, you want the applicant to go to you do. We want the applicant to get with you do regarding access at this location. regarding acceleration and deceleration lanes at this location access lanes at this location. We would like the county council to hiring their own traffic. And we would like the county council to look at hiring their own traffic study that encompasses all future growth in this area, not the one company. Okay. One phase. All right. And D has second. So, Commissioner Dao, would you re would you be willing to rese amended motion? Second. So, Have been motioned by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Dao. We will take a roll call vote. Commissioner Dao. I. Commissioner, thank you. Commissioner Beckum, yes. Commissioner Sts, yes. Commissioner Scott, yes. Commissioner Bartholomew, yes. Commissioner Alder, yes. And Commissioner Hope is a yes. So, that is unanimous. Thank you. Um, takes a bullet. The next What's the one you're trying to The next Yeah, we're not uh there. Uh the next item is reszones. So it's an RZ 2024-159 and Trish will have that as well. Um yeah, so this one it's got a couple of numbers. So just to clarify because it's already a council and they changed their numbers. So on our planning commission end it's 2024-059. council will know it as ordinance number 2025-02. Um so we've heard this one a couple of

times. Uh the reszone request um the applicant did provide some more information on the water study and um he provided a complete change order application. Um so he has sufficient water rights in that area. The health department um deems the area feasible. He will just have to um get the soil, septic and water at the subdivision phases. U health department cannot process those right at this current time. Um so let's see what else there was anything new. Um so your first vote um it was four voted in favor of conditions that the lot sizes uh are minimum of 3 acres and that there's documentation from the state water board which they don't really have but he did provide um that information from the state water uh department um that there it's feasible in that area. So um and then two voted unfavorable uh because it should conform to the general plan or remain 5acre minimum um and concerns with water and wells in that area. So council had um added that onto yours and just said that he needs to do a general plan amendment that the county needs to do a g general plan amendment and it has been changed and it is effective already. Um so it is uh changed to what your recommendation was the medium residential density right medium density residential. So and that's been changed um and so the applicant would just request because um he wants to do the minimum of two acres uh which on on our end with all the

information he's provided is feasible. Um, so it's just um what you guys feel is necessary in that area. Um, just keep in mind that the city does have it could be considered high residential, high density residential right next door. Um, I know know there's some active agricultural properties right adjacent to those. Um, so oneacre lots larger I feel like is a is a decent buffer for for planning, right? We want to kind of buffer those out. So I don't know what what other questions do you guys have with this one. So to clarify, um, I was trying to get my stupid phone number again. Um, the original proposed lot size was what? And then we changed it, right? Yeah. So, the original request was just the RR1, which is a 1acre minimum. Um, and then some back and forth. You guys decided that a 3acre minimum was fair at that point. Um, and I think a lot of that had to deal with water and septic and the location of those. um as well as just the agricultural areas there. I know D had strong feelings about that area there. Um so yeah, it's it's really up to you guys. He he could technically go down to 1acre lots with the state information he's provided and the water rights he has there. Um and like I said, the health department deemed it feasible. It's just the the septics and the the studies for that will have to be later on during subdivision phases which is something we already put in place anyways that study. Yeah. Mhm. I think Mr. Harris is here. Yes.

Do you have questions for Trish? We bring the applicant up. You can ask go after you please. Jason Harris. I just I just wanted to clarify the original application was for one and a half and three acre lot sizes in the subdivision was our initial uh desire which after the uh process we've gone to and where we're at now. We would like to change that to the two acre lot sizes and just be across the board twoacre lots. We feel like it being next to the high density that's a fair buffer amount, but I want that's all I was looking to call. No, thank you. I like that. Thank you. Is it still a plan to share wells? I remember well for two lots. No more than one well in five acres. Yes, that's correct. And how does that work with the shared well? How does it expenses and repairs and all that? There's a there's a shared well user agreement that the uh both you know property owners it it resides with the deed and so both property owners have that that spells out responsibility for you know anything future that would be necessary to the well casing itself. Uh each home has their own pump that goes in that casing and their own piping and power that comes out to each property separately. So they're just sharing the hole in the ground to pull water out of us all. And when the well goes dry, they both pump together. They cover the C. There's actually several um subdivisions in Pine Canyon with well we haven't had it come before us. So just just a curio just a curiosity question just only because you didn't mention it. The casing itself. So what happens if that goes bad? If the casing were to go bad, then both in the shared well user agreement, they are

both responsible for half of a future cost there. I I thought so, but I wasn't sure. So, yeah. The the two subdivisions we've done previously with shared wells and and other developers have done shared wells. I've never heard of a surprise an issue with with the shared wells, you know, having having trouble. So is the drawing we have here that shows 99 lots. Those 99 lots is So I wanted to clarify that that is part of the traffic impact study only. That is all. And so when we did the traffic impact study, we did it on potentially uh looking at having it annexed into Tula City and doing a high density subdivision there. And so we didn't have that traffic impact study amended for this application because we felt like it one it didn't require any additional changes to any of the roadways and it accommodated that that large or those quantity of lots. We've uh submitted for a much less quantity of lots in this application. So it was a conservative uh traffic impact study. So that that number is not accurate. 99. No, we're looking for I believe it's 18 or essentially 18 lots in the subdivision. So, there is a new plat that was added to the packet that you all received. I think it's the last page in your document. So, it's different amount and a lot different. And each of these are two acres and we're talking well for every two. No, it's very reasonable and it's actually the same area as this. Better than 17. Okay. Yeah, it just Okay, that's much easier to have. I know it. It's better than I like that. So, these would have been like like 18 out. Yeah. And this is the fifth subdivision one that he's done in the Pike Canyon area. The fifth one that has sh

Yeah. They've gone back 20 something years. Is it Well, that's why I think two acres is good. We haven't we've uh we're on Mike Zimmerman's schedule. We we have not drilled any test wells yet. We have uh been placed on a on a schedule with Mike Zimmerman pinning the outcome of of this and the county council tell you for depth. Pardon me. He's on the schedule. They haven't done it yet. Oh yeah, we haven't drilled those yet. But it's kind of funny because I asked Mike about my place and he told me how deep I was going to have to drill. That's my question. I I can tell you Mike's speculation to me for what we anticipate drilling there would be based on his experience in in the area and that that uh will probably be somewhere close to 700 feet. Yeah, that's what I thought. Yeah. in the Heritage Estate subdivision we did in Pine Canyon. Uh we're about 650 on those and they're all working great. Yeah. So you're going to drill eight and a half. Eight and a half. Okay. It'll be nine. Six for one. Septics. Each had one septic for each property with the uh And that's already been signed off by Oh, that's fine. Yeah. Yeah. So the alternative septic systems which are much better for the groundwater than uh you know than a traditional or even agricultural use that it's currently being used for. Awesome. Any other questions, concerns for the applicant or Trish? Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate it. Mr. has a question for staff on the appropriate.

Uh the the time is appropriate. Please ask. Cannot see. So tell me contacts are wig. Why would we consider any less when a neighboring municipality has expressed concerns about their well being negatively affected by nitrates and phosphates gravitating downream? Well, that would be with the septic system, right? And I believe that the septic system is the newer one where it mitigates that it's at a higher cost but the performance is better. He's addressing the letter that city gave to all of you the first public hearing. Mr. I I I so I do recall that now. And then I also find it interesting how Tula City can offer such a letter but yet allow such larger density development next to the same property they referred us to. So that's quite interesting. I understand that. But still, it's right next to their well. That was their problem. But we they already have it. They already have that on Ericson Road down below. So where they bought the property with the septic system and put the well over the septic system. So there's that. Are we having a public hearing? Uh, not according to this. We are not. Oh, we had it last time. Yes. Correct. Thanks for keeping me on. So, no, I am I remember that now because I was chair because you were gone. Yes. Yes. Yes. Um,

I'm glad you're here. Great. Any further questions or concerns? If not, I would be prepared to hear a motion. I do have a question for Trish on the recommendation. It's planning staff suggest the commission and consider zoning conditions. I thought that we had already changed that with the general plan change. Is that not correct? No. Nope. So, this will be attached to the reszone. uh you don't attach those into the general plan, but um do consider um uses such as uh dwelling unit density, uh building square footage, height of the structures, and I just wanted to clarify ADUs because that'll double your septics. So, yeah, and the minimum loss. So, two things. One, the the house square footage is already set forth currently, correct? So we just adapt that based on the acreage, the house square footage. Is that what you're saying? Oh yeah. So you can do the building square foot per lot. Like you can only make them so big, right? But that's that's already set. Well, yeah, but with two acre lots, they can still put a 6,000 foot home in there and like, you know what I mean? It's still a big lot. They put a 6,000 foot home and an acre lot. I mean, yeah. So you guys can No, I get I just want to cause more conundrums of what we try to figure out. Those rules are already in place is my point. We don't need to a point. Yeah, Curtis, we don't need to hash that out any further. Um the second thing is concerning ADUs. Um that would be a big concern. Well, the problem is is as a point of order, the state has and is going to uh make it so it's not our concern and allow it to

happen. So I'm we currently as what state code is saying we currently have to allow internal ones. They haven't come forward with detached ones yet. But we could probably see that happening in the next few years. They just haven't yet. So we put those conditions in now and if the state changes it, right, then we change it. But if they don't, then we're covered either way. Like Got it. Wouldn't those conditions on the ADU already be set by the septic in the water. No. No. Yes. Like I mean if if one of someone buys property builds a house and they come back in three years and they want to build an ADU, they have to have septic and water for the ADU, right? So do they do they have enough with what's going to be placed in there? Um, will they have to upgrade or like they could always those have things have to be addressed when they come in? They more water if they needed to. I didn't calculate what he changed. There was two of them that he changed. I don't know. Maybe Jason can explain that. But, um, there there might be able he might be able to have a few in the area. I don't think he'd have he'd be able to have enough water for every lot to do it, but you can always bring more water in if he has more somewhere else, right? So, the main concern in that area is the septic and how much how much do you want to put into the ground in that area? You know, what's some of your concerns already were that? So, I'm just saying just consider those as part of and I I mean, I think this has come up before with ADUs on septics. is 20 people can live in the house and shared wells the shared wells and stuff remember we had

um who was it that came we had um down the road yeah um he had to go through a whole big thing with the state to make sure he had enough water in his stuff too so it's a possibility there's just a lot more that they're going to have to do so I mean if you want to allow the ADUs it's up to you guys just I was just putting it out there detach That's those are that's the type of uses that you guys can restrict or put conditions on. I had another comment on uh page 60. It says county council's decision unanimously requested planning commission to look into changing the general plan first. We already did, didn't we? Yeah, that's been done. Okay. What was the wording on that change? Just let it medium density residential. So when they say that, that's just the plan for this subdivision. That's not the county plan. No, they only changed that 40acre piece. That makes sense. When I thought we were voting and the concern was that we work so hard for it. It's just a plan for this, but it's a for this a living. It's a living document. So we're going to be doing this. And so, Commissioner Alder, for the benefit of you and anyone else that's listening for that matter, the the general plan for the county is a guideline. It's not code, it's not law, it's nothing. It just gives us a starting point to one, logistically have growth, but two, set us up for any funding we may get in the future and vice versa, right? But it can be changed. But the cool thing about it is it gives us variables to the plus to the minus of the zoning that's currently closed which I think a lot of people forget because that is the options people have right and so if you take I hate saying this but if you take a motion out of that and look at the

logistics being put before us and if it's according to the guidelines that we approved in the general plan how can you say no I'm not saying right or wrong with it that's that's the position where put it right idea you want people to follow right exactly and and people do, but then we want to fight through ourselves that the plan be approved. That's what I'm trying to say. And that's what we that's what we wanted. We didn't we didn't change the general plan. No, we amended that, right? Just amended it for that 40acre piece. Correct. Which is what the general plan gives us. Exactus, [Music] right? And that's everyone's right. That's why you position reszoning. That's why you position how these things. So, was that is that kind of what we thought we were changing? Yes. Yes. Yeah. And I get hung up. I take it personal. It's emotional because we work so hard on it. But then you remind me that it is how it should be. Like it or not, the emotions differently. I'll take that. Okay, cool. Um, that said, I am still prepared to hear a motion. I'm prepared to make one. Imagine that. Um, I move that we approve re do we do we recommend a positive or do we recommend it to the county council? What does the bottom say? Right there. recommend that the um we give a favorable recommendation to the county council on this reszone

2024-159 with the CP with the condition there is no um detached adus. Oh, two years. Oh. Oh, I thought that was part of it. Twoacre minimum. Sorry. I thought that was part of the applications. I I believe it is, but it's good to say. Okay. We don't have like a twoacre minimum. That's correct. So, you just have to clarify. Awesome. Okay. So, it's been motioned by Commissioner Scott to um recommend favorably favorably to the county council approval for REZ 20224-159 with the uh attached staff recommendations to include uh lot size minimum 2 acres and no uh ADUs. Uh no detached or no sorry no detached ads. Thank you. Uh is there a second? I'll second it. Been seconded by Commissioner Beckrom. Uh, and we'll do a roll call vote. Commissioner Dao, he says no. Okay. Commissioner Beckram, yes. Commissioner St. Yes. Commissioner Scott, yes. Commissioner Bartholomew ADU thing. Oh, that's my on the ADU.

Um, I'll be a yes. Mr. Aler, yes. and commissioner hope is a yes uh he said for the reasons mirroring to the city's neighbors concern regarding I came out regarding subject traveling downstream wonderful well stated so it passes 7 to one uh thank you commissioners or sorry six to one I can't add either that's all right um look at That uh the next item of business is adjournment. Move to adjourn. So moved. I thought I heard something too. No, you're good. I just need to write down. Oh, okay. So, we're good. I thought you were yelling at us. Have a good night everybody. And thanks again for for showing up. She needs you. I need to get that motion. We'll see. Hope so.