Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Commissioner Faircloth, would you like to join us up here?

Thank you. Okay, we'll go ahead and get this Tilla City Planning Commission meeting to order this Wednesday, February 25th, uh, 2026. It is 700 p.m. here in council chambers. Uh, first item on our agenda tonight is our pledge of allegiance. If you'll please rise, remove your hats. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Always thank you for that. Number two on our agenda tonight is our roll call. Roll call. Commissioner Hammer here. Commissioner Sloan here. Commissioner Proctor here. Commissioner Faircloth here. Commissioner Jensen here. Commissioner Anderson here.

Please recognize staff members, Miss Young. Uh, Chief Day is here joining us tonight. Miss England and Mr. Johnson, council members, Mr. Hansen and Mr. Agard's here as well. So, number three on our agenda tonight, and I am Tyson Hamilton, chairman, I am here. Thank you, Chris. Number three is a recommendation on a proposed text amendment to Twilla City Code 7-9-2, recreational vehicles and recreational vehicle parks, regarding the accommodation of recreational vehicles and parking lots of nonprofit 501c3 organization whose purpose is to assist persons who are unhoused. This was tabled from our February 11th, 2026 planning commission meeting. Uh Mr. Agard.

Thank you, Chairman Hamilton. Uh before I jump into my presentation, if I could just um do an introduction to the city's new city planner. Um Anna England has joined our team. She's been with the city now for 3 weeks. I've had her just reading the code, which is really boring, but she's uh she's going to start uh launching into a lot of the planning responsibilities. Anna brings us more than 20 years of planning experience. I believe she had 14 years at Salt Lake City, four years at Moab City, and then a year and a half up at Wasetch County. So, she brings with us quite a bit of experience. Happy to have her on our team, ready to start unloading all the planning duties on her so I can focus on directing the department. So, this item, as the chair mentioned, uh was tabled last week after the planning commission raised a few questions that city staff was not able to answer at that time. I believe also the public hearing was also opened and closed during that meeting as well. The amendment as mentioned proposes to permit the use of recreational vehicles on a temporary basis for facilities. Uh and the proposed code mentions 50C3 facilities that have the purpose of assisting in those who do not have housing. Planning commission raised a number of questions during that meeting and I just wanted to bring these to a reminder of the planning commission. Uh they had questions concerning garbage and trash removal from those uh RV units. They had questions about accessible access to potable water. Uh questions about electricity, proper HVAC, especially during the winter. Um they were concerned about accessory outdoor storage such as somebody putting on a canopy and putting some tents up by the

by the unit. Uh there are some questions about rodent control, uh licensing of the of the RV unit, questions about insuranceancing of the RVs, uh federal HUD funding that some kind of a federal HUD funding was brought up during the meeting. Um and then a formal registration system, is that going to be required to keep track of these? and then who enforces the sixmonth time limit as the code currently reads. The ordinance has been um adjusted according to some of the comments that the planning commission had at the previous meeting. Uh Chief Day made the efforts to update the code as it was proposed. This was sent to you after the packets went out. However, it was forwarded to you individually. Uh some of the changes involved, if I just go ahead and read through the code, it says, "Recreational vehicles may be accommodated for up to four weeks in the parking lot of a homeless shelter facility that has paved parking available while services are being rendered. In addition, the homeless shelter a must provide a meal a day to those staying in the recreational vehicle, must provide access to showers and bathrooms for those staying in the recreational vehicle, may only allow three recreational vehicles at any given time, and must not allow the accumulation of garbage, refues, or unsightly or delletterious objects. If this does occur, the homeless shelter is in violation of code 84-4 and will be subject to the city code violations. And it says, "A homeless shelter is a facility that provides temporary shelter for individuals exper experiencing homelessness operating 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. A homeless shelter is not an overflow shelter, micro shelter, community, correctional facility, behavioral health, transition facility, psychi psychiatric, psychiatric or medical

facility. And then the city attorney also has some comments in regards to this ordinance. His comments are listed in blue. Uh this was al also forwarded to you uh the day it was received from the city attorney. I do know that Chief Day is here and he uh is prepared to address the planning commission's comments. Uh that's all that I have to present at this point in time. So I'll turn it back over to the planning commission. Okay, let's bring this back to the commission for further discussion. Questions? I would like to know hear what Chief Day does have to say.

Absolutely. Bring Chief Day up to the podium. Thank you, commissioners. Uh, for clarification, this came from this was a ask from the Twilla County Housing Authority, and that's what brought it to my attention. And uh, and I I did like the idea. We have a influx of RVs with homeless ever since the homeless shelter opened. And a lot of times we are sighting them over and over and over as they move place to place to place. I have one we cighted nine times before he uh he left the city. It is hard to get them towed. Um, one I had a completely destroyed tent trailer from a homeless camp clear to the west of the city in the in the retention pond out there. And I actually applied for a dismantle permit with the DMV as as the city and we were able to get rid of it. Tow companies do not like to pick up these RVs because they don't make money on them. They have to dismantle them and get rid of them. So, it is it is a challenge to tow them. So, we end up sighting and sighting. A lot of them are trying to repair them. I saw this as an opportunity. They could get service services from the homeless shelter while fixing an RV and uh get on their way. And I'm sure I've missed something and happy to answer any questions.

Perfect. Let's bring it back to the commission. Commission, we got any questions for Chief Dick? Just one off the top of my head. Chief, um mentioned that the housing authority reached out to you to to start this process. They own the property that we're talking about. Is there a reason why they can't police it themselves? for lack of a better term. Police. Well, can they not govern what takes place on their property? Yes. Yes. But it is against city code on private property to be living in a RV as well. Are they asking they

I guess that's what I'm asking is why are they coming to you or to us to create an ordinance when when they in fact own the property question. That's a good question. It's uh they see the homeless shelter as a as a means to help this. Where where do we get services? Somebody who's looking for the services to move on. Where do they get them from? Well, they're going to get them from this uh their renter, right? switch point. Thank you.

So, it's best if they're right there in the fac in the area getting these services right there. Could it create a problem? Yeah. Um, what I've seen is it's happened. Uh we have had RVs there and Switch Point has so far been very good about moving them on, getting them services and keeping things clean. Could that change? Absolutely. And we would have to uh go after switch point for code violations. Great question. Any other questions for Chief Day? Commissioner Hammer.

Um, four week four weeks, which is way better than six months. So, I love it. But, um,

is that a total of four weeks per RV in a lifetime or how does that could they just drive away and fill up with gas and come back and restart their four weeks? Like, how will that work? I would uh make it and maybe we could word it better in here, make it specific to the RV. Um maybe we make it specific to the uh person who's util utilizing this service. Maybe 4 weeks is too long. Why can't they uh make preparations on repairing it in three weeks and two weeks? Um, I'm up to any suggestions. I don't feel strongly I didn't feel strongly either way. I see it as a way to uh My biggest concern on towing these is the use of force it creates with my officers forcing them out of the out of the RV. What we do is sight sight sight. We wait till we get a warrant. We hook them up on the warrant. and we can take care of the RV without having to use force getting somebody out of where they're living. It never looks good. I'm using it I'm seeing it as a way to to assist police as well, but I I I could see further problems coming that from this that I'm trying to mitigate. One thought that might address Commissioner Hammer Hammer's concern is, and we'd have to think through how to word it, but maybe like four weeks in a three-month period or four months in a

in a year, certain period or a year. Four weeks per person for a person per RV or per RV. Per RV. Yeah, it'd be Yeah, RV would be better because all they would do is stick unless it's this person's RV instead. Yeah. Good point. Four weeks in a six month time frame or

the way I read it and Mr. Johnson, correct me if I'm wrong. Um, and I like I love the word Smith because I'm kind of a nerd. Um, maybe adding the the word a before recreational vehicles. Recreational vehicles is kind of generic. That's like saying that switch point can can store them there for for 4 weeks but not after that. But if we put in a recreational vehicle that drills it down if that makes sense. The the second one completely flew out of my mind and I'll be right back to it.

Well, I I think that makes sense. And on the same point, um, just reading through, maybe just clarify that that it's not for storage that for the purposes of of of shelter, something along those lines. I know you you added notwithstanding to the to the foregoing and foregoing deals with some other definitions and it talks about uh uh in 7.3 I thought it was um now I can't find it but it does talk about storage oh stored but not used for permanent living quarters um 7.9.2 to um which is obviously before these changes, but uh do we need to to play with that? Is that is that narrow enough? Um the word permanent concerns me that goes back to to Commissioner Hammers. Can I step out and go to Walmart and come back and have I restarted the clock? And and I understand we may be way over getting into the weeds with this. Um, but everything that has been communicated to me by just about everybody interested in this is we want to we want to make this as narrowly focused as we can. Maybe that's just my opinion that's not necessarily shared, but um, loopholes can be found in a lot of stuff. So, you deal with that all the time. So, bring up Walmart. Uh, I was there personally where they had one who was stealing from the store and living in an RV in the parking lot. It took us four different tow companies till we finally got one that could come out. Walmart has secured their own towing company that they pay to come and tow from their yard. Uh, maybe including that in the wording. It's a switch points responsibility. You brought that up. I was just going to ask

it, we talked about that last time. We've we've talked about them being cited. Um, do we need to add some verbiage in there to put them on the hook, pardon the expression, um, for those those tophes so that uh um, look, I'm not trying to pile on the folks that are there because they have to be there. It's not about that. Um, but we do have a responsibility to protect the property owner, the surrounding neighborhoods, and if and if and and your officers, not the least of which is your officers. I don't ever want to put them in harm's way over something like this either, and I don't know that anybody does, but if we can put it back on the property owner, operator so they've got some skin in that game, uh, again, then maybe they will take care of some of the stuff that your officers are having to do now. And it is it is our responsibility. It's just a little easier to use that force after we've had some options given them time. And we can solve this towing issue if we could just get the city to buy a tow truck and we do it ourselves.

Headed over to the high school and let the shop pass this.

Awesome. Good discussion there. I've got it the we want to narrow down limiting it to one vehicle for one person. Um not for storage purposes of course it is in 7.9.2 or two as as Commissioner Sloan discussed but then enforcing the towing to switch point they will be responsible for that. Um the four weeks in a 6 or 12 month time frame as well is kind of something to consider. Um instead of like you said running to Walmart restarting the clock and then you get another four weeks and that's not how this works. We're here to help you, but you know, you still got to help yourself, too. So, I like that.

Mr. Chairman, is there anything we're missing in the last paragraph um regarding what a homeless shelter is not? Um that seems pretty comprehensive that that Mr. Johnson's put together. Is there anything we're missing? Um, not in that paragraph, but we still don't have anything regarding shielding. Um, and where on the property is it going to be? I think the code clearly defines that it can't be within 25 ft of a street, right? But

well, I don't know if it depends on which one you read because if you read the last one from Mr. Johnson where it says, and I had to look this up because I wasn't sure what it meant, not notwithstanding and foregoing, that means everything else in that code doesn't pertain to this. Is that correct? That's true. I may need to to look at that and and and carve it out for those. The rest of that doesn't matter. Oh, that might have been I thought it was a great choice. That might be a poor choice of words actually.

I liked it because it because when we first this first came or read through it, I'm reading through the rest of the code. I'm like, well, it says they have to have utility hookups and you know, like how are they going to do that? And so it cleared up a lot of those questions for me, you know, and I think it's narrowed down pretty well, but the way it's written this way, none of that matters anymore. Yeah. So it all has to be in this section with those with that wording, right? No or no.

If if if we leave in the notwithstanding language, anything that we still want to apply from the other sections, we'll we'll need to include in in this section. Yeah. Yeah, that's a good point. So if we said instead of foregoing notwithstanding other sections of this code, would that take the stuff ahead of it and the stuff behind it? It well is there is there a better word than that? Um that might take some thought.

I I I think either that's probably a better way to instead of notwithstanding the foregoing just Yeah. just to just to nail it down and be sure we're keeping what we want to keep from some of the other sections. Yeah.

I have a kind of a thought about it. What if we put in there and I don't know if it would work just cuz the way conditional use permits work, but if they wanted to have these three parking spots on a homeless shelter, we did a condition they had to apply for a conditional use permit to be able to do that. But I don't I don't know how that would work because they have like a six month. I know there's time frames of when they have to have it in and you know, but that would give us a chance sight specific where we could mitigate potential issues. I So I I don't know if that's the CU would run with the land, not necessarily with the vehicle. Is that where or the vehicle or I guess the business if it has to be tied with the the land and not

Yeah. because if switch point or whoever any homeless shelter sold the property and they opened a grocery store, they could still use a use it for that. I don't I don't know. Just a thought of a way to maybe mitigate some stuff in the future, but I'm not sure how that would work. Kind of see where they're going to place it as well. We kind of want to see that too. Yeah.

Then we could try to mitigate things, but I know there's other issues and other rules that go along with the cup. I feel I feel if so it's actually Tilla County Housing Authority property. So if Switch Point leaves, they're the only ones I see in the city who fit homeless shelter. If they leave, I think that's gone. There's no more meal being provided there. There's no access to showers and bathrooms. Yeah,

I would think it leaves with it, but but uh I don't know. This uh definition was taken from state code on what not a homeless shelter is.

Perfect. Great discussion. Any other questions? Um, Kelly's question about screening. Are we going where? Like I when I drove around Switch Point, I don't know where these will be. This says it has to be in the parking lot, but is that right up front on the street or is that in the back? Like how will Street is uh not there, so that wouldn't count. But you're right, they could be right up front. Uh, do we need wording in there that it's towards the back. It's been a while since I've been back to the northwest. If you had some

in the very west, can you still drive by if they park back there? Yeah. I don't know. That's a good question. I don't know. That'd be kind of out of sight, out of mind in a sense. That's out of the sight of the public. Mhm. Yeah, it's a good point. What if we were to add something that it's got to be in the rear lot or behind a building or otherwise shaded screen shielded screen? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. To handle your concern street view. Mhm.

Wondering how happy that's going to make the back neighbors. Oh, no. Do you the back neighbors or front neighbors? Like do you want to is it where Well, I'm wondering specific to that piece of property. I'm trying to go back to where the pavement is on it. We could actually if memory serves, we could actually have them within 50 ft of the building on the back side of the building. That keeps them couple hundred feet away from the neighbors. It still should be screened. No, no question. Not that's not my argument. But whether we them putting a screen across the front, they run a foul of the fencing ordinances anyway. So we've just opened up another problem.

Great discussion. Clear as much. I think Matt's got a lot of it down. I think he's got a pretty good direction. You got a full where we are. I've got some notes written down anyway. We can we can go through them and see what we get. Perfect. All right. Any other discussion from the commission? Any questions? Any more comments? So, where does this go? Where? These were just recommendations. So, we'll just send it as as is like Well, I think we can do this in two ways. We can table this again or else we can make a a recommendation with the concerns we have. But I would rather see the verbiage back at us again. Thank you. And then we can a motion to that effect.

Hammered it down again. Yep. I think so. I think that's our best direction to go in my opinion. I tabled it last time. I'll make the motion to table it this time and I'll second it again. Do we need to put a date or or um item? Certainly once we have the answers to our questions that have been pre presented in tonight's meeting to address our concerns. Okay. I've got a motion to table this from Commissioner Proctor until our questions and concerns are addressed within the in the code and a second from Commissioner Anderson. Any other discussion before we take this to a vote? Thank you. Thank you, Chair. All right. Commissioner Hammer, how do you vote? I. Commissioner Sloan, I. Commissioner Proctor, I. Commissioner Faircloth,

I. Commissioner Jensen, hi. Commissioner Anderson, hi. I'm Chairman Hamilton, I also vote I. This one is tabled until a further meeting. Moves us on to number two or number four on our agenda tonight. a public hearing and a decision on a conditional use permit request by Dave Staple on behalf of PH Utah Holdings LLC property owner for approximately 2.81 acres located in the light industrial LII zoning district to authorize the use of a warehouse that may consist of office and industrial warehouse uses located at approximately 1121 West Utah Avenue. Mr. Agar,

thank you. Commissioners, you're probably familiar with this property. We had a similar request come to the planning commission a couple of years ago requesting essentially the same conditional use permit for a flex space a project. They did not take any action on that cup and that original conditional use permit has expired. Uh the new applicant is requesting essentially the same thing and it affects the property highlighted in red on your aerial photograph. We have Utah Avenue uh to the north, 1100 West to the east, and then the the Union Pacific Railroad to the west. Uh all property located to the south is vacant ground. There is an existing home located to the southeast of the property and then an existing non-conforming mobile home park to the north. Property is zoned LI Light Industrial. We have RR1 to the south, RR1 to the north, and then some light industrial to the northwest, and then also to the southeast. And this is a site plan that the applicant has provided, a conceptual site plan. I do want to emphasize that conditional use permits do not approve site plans, but they are to approve the use. The use that's being proposed is warehouse. Now, the reason staff suggested that we do the warehouse is because these facilities are often used for storage for contractors and so forth. And so, there's a warehousing component, but there's also office uses and things that can occur there. The ordinance does not specifically mention flex spaces. So in order to approve this type of project, uh warehousing would get them the the use for the storage aspect of the project and then office and so forth is already permitted in the zone. So they

are asking for a a cup to authorize warehousing on the property and staff is recommending approval of the conditional use permit with the basic housekeeping conditions list in your staff report. Uh this item was noticed. We sent out notices to property owners within 200 ft. I have not received any comments in regards to this application. Uh but that's what's being requested. If you have any questions, be happy to answer them for you. The applicant is also here who may be able to address your questions as well.

All right, perfect. Let's bring this back to the commission for questions or comments for staff. Seeing none, uh, are you the applicant? There you are. We'll have you come up after the public hearing and I'll give you some time. You don't have to if you don't want to, but you're welcome to. We'll just give you all the time you need. Uh, with that being said, I'll go ahead and open the public hearing. If you'd like to speak to this particular item on our agenda tonight, please approach the podium. Uh, write your name for the record, state your name for the record. Seeing no one approach, I will go ahead and close the public hearing and invite the applicant enough. If you'd like to address us, you're welcome to. My name is Dave Staple. I don't have much to say other than uh we appreciate the opportunity to put this in front of you guys. Uh we have properties like this around the state and they bring great value to communities. They allow people to get their businesses and stuff out of their garages and it gives them an ability to grow a business. Keeps people inside of your cities that would otherwise possibly leave because they can't find this size of a space. Uh we have strict requirements of cleanliness and stuff on the units that we already have. as a real estate owner, that's what we do is uh we want to keep them nice and not have a mess. I did notice on the application it said three buildings. We you can see on there there's actually four. The far one to the west falls right now inside of a uh flood zone. So, it would probably be down the road. uh if we can get rid of the the map's been redrawn that gets rid

of that flood zone, but who knows when FEMA will take care of it. And then uh we're understanding and willing to work with the city on uh any construction code, any other stuff that uh might come up to make the project a viable option for the city. Thank you. Perfect. Does commission have any questions for the applicant? Pretty straightforward and easy, huh? Okay, I'll entertain a motion on this one.

Um, actually, I do have a question. I don't for the applicant or for staff. The I know this isn't a site plan review, Andrew, but I know that one of our our issues, uh, we need to worry a little bit about safety or a lot about safety. Um, that intersection 1100 West and 200 North. I know two Utah is not a state highway anymore, but um I'm a little worried about do we need to maybe when you get to the site plan stuff start thinking about the ingress egress uh in relation to that corner and the railroad tracks because you're kind of bookended there. Um that's a 1100 west is a rolling stop now. Um they people literally don't stop. They they keep going at the 30 miles an hour they're at. Um, I like the project. I'm in support of the project, but I think we need to be aware. Uh, and frankly, someday there's going to have to be a light there, but at the moment there isn't. Um, and that's gotten to be kind of a nasty U. So, I I see from the concept plan that that the two two uh entrances shown tend towards the they tend to be up towards the 1100 West uh area. And I'm not sure I know this is not necessarily for accuracy or for scale, but but that we need to think about that when we are determining access because that's that really has become a speedway as people come out of the schools and and the businesses that are down there. It's uh uh some of them aren't even slowing down. So,

so just just to try and address that, um the city does control both of those roads and the there are specific uh distance requirements between drive aisles and intersections. Uh those would be reviewed and enforced by the city engineer during the site plan process. You can also require a traffic study as part of the site plan application or as a condition of this conditional use permit whereby a professional traffic engineer could review those and make sure safety is is paramount on that. But typically Paul usually requires those for site plan applications, but um we can we can roll that into the cup if you'd like.

I can address this really quick. Wonderful. Thank you.

Uh that intersection is actually in the city's long-term plan uh within like 5 to 10 years. We have agreed with Paul and have already hired hail traffic engineering. So the site or the traffic engineering is uh underway right now which includes uh getting with the state on the railroad. The they're going to require us to have the far west entrance uh egress at a safe distance from the railroad. that'll come from the engineer. Um along with that, we're going to put the improvements in at our expense for that intersection to be brought to the table like right now. Awesome. So, we've kind of like addressed having a safety issue there already and we've hired the engineer at our cost and it's rocking and rolling. So hopefully it'll become a safer place than it is now. So

awesome. Sounds like you're on top of it. Much appreciated with that for sure. Uh good comments, Commissioner Sloan. Excellent idea. I'm done. You're not done yet. Yeah, I'm not done. Any other comments or questions from the commission? Okay, I'll entertain a motion on this one. Mr. Chair, I'll make a motion. Commissioner Jansen,

I move I move that we approve the conditional use permit request by Dave Staple to authorize the use of warehouse to occur at the subject property located at 1121 Utah Avenue. Application number 2026 010 based on the findings and subject to the conditions lifted in the staff report dated February 19th, 2026. I got a motion to approve from Commissioner Jensen. Do I have a second? Second. and a second from Commissioner Sloan. Any discussion before we vote? Commissioner Hammer, how do you vote? I. Commissioner Sloan, I. Commissioner Proctor, I. Commissioner Faircloth, I. Commissioner Jensen, I. Commissioner Anderson,

I am. Chairman Hamilton, I also vote I. That one passes seven to zero. Uh, thank you for your diligence on that, Mr. Staple. Much appreciated. Looking forward to seeing. Appreciate it. Yep. All right. Moves us on to number five on our agenda tonight. This is also a public hearing and decision on a considerment of a conditional use permit request by Tim Fry on behalf of Twilla 1000 LLC uh for approximately 1.04 acres located in the general commercial GC zoning district to authorize the operation of an accessory drive-thru facility located at approximately 975 North Main Street. Mr. Miss Aley.

Hi. So, um this is going to be for a drive-thru facility. It's a conditional use. They are required for the general commercial zone. Um it is on a 1.04 acre lot and it's vacant right now. Um the uh address is 975 North Main Street. Um it is surrounded by all commercial uh uses and zones. Um and then there are some developed and undeveloped areas uh around it surrounding it. Um if you look at the street view, there is there are existing trees and it does look like there's been some grading and that type of thing done already to the site. Um but uh we do want to verify and make sure that any of the existing trees that can be saved will be saved um on that. And then this is the overall site plan. They are proposing to use an access easement off of a thousand north. Um and then uh that is also going to be shared by um future uh commercial uses as well. Uh so one of the things we want to make sure is that that easement and that driveway does have some type of maintenance agreement on there. Um this is the um details of the drive-thru facility. It is going to be two-lane and they are proposing an escape lane with that as well. Um and then an in and out uh driveway through there. Um we are

requiring uh the basic the house maintenance type of con um conditional uses. And then two additional ones would be that if they do remove any trees from um the any existing trees that they do let the city know about it and give us reasons for that. And then the other one is that they do need to show some type of maintenance agreement for the shared access driveway. Um, another thing that uh we have to consider is the the design that they have right now does have uh the cars approaching towards Main Street. So possibly at night there could be some issues with headlights and that type of thing. So we are also asking that um if needed that uh staff can require like additional landscaping and things like that to mitigate um mitigate that. So that is um that's my presentation. If there's any any anything you guys need for me, let me know.

All right, let's bring this back to the commission for questions for staff. And just remember this is a conditional use permit. It's not the site plan review. So we are just voting on that tonight. I'm not going to say anything else. But I love I love the information and and I love you giving us all that that you've given us. Appreciate that. I do like that they did add in there that if it comes to it, the staff will request the landscaping to mitigate light of the cars.

Awesome. No questions from the commission for staff. I appreciate that. This one does require a public hearing. So, I'll go ahead and open the public hearing for this particular item. If you'd like to speak about this drive-thru conditional use permit, please approach the podium. State your name for the record. Write your name for the record.

Hi, I'm Colani Masher. you know. Um, so I know on the last one we talked about a traffic study. Is that also part of this? Cuz that intersection scares me to death. I believe when I was in my accident on 36 that I did ask the paramedics what what intersection was this worst and they said 1,00 North. So, it makes me nervous that we're just adding even more, which this is where that woman just lost her life a couple weeks ago. And so, the safety concerns, I'm not sure that perennial grasses are going to fix the headlights and all the everything else. I don't It seems like that intersection is already so busy even with the extra stuff that you do has done. Thank you. No, thank you. Much appreciated. Okay, seeing no one else approach, I'll go ahead and close the public hearing. Miss England, did you have something else you wanted to address with us?

I try to pay attention. I just wanted to um address her concern. There is going to be a traffic study and um our um city engineer will be reviewing these plans as well and verifying the safety factors. So, thank you for that input. Much appreciated. Mr. Chairman, if I could also add more to that, when when Kimbles developed this entire site, a traffic study was also conducted for the entire development.

And so many of the improvements that you've already seen to 10,00 North and Main Street have already occurred according to that original traffic study. So, it's it's it's being done and it will continue to be done. We're doing the best we can to keep that as safe as possible. Sure. Makes it extremely difficult when that intersection belongs to you do, right? and not us. So, yep. All right. Any other questions, comments from commission? Okay. I'll entertain a motion. The applicant is here, too. No, that's right. Did the applicant want to address us tonight? If I may, please. Yes, absolutely. Thank you for catching that. Appreciate that.

Thank you. My name's Tim Fest. represent Encore Restaurant Enterprises and uh we are the uh we leased this property from Kimble and um to address uh the lady's comments in regards to traffic uh we did include some traffic uh analysis with our CUP application and uh I do want to point out that Seven Brew Coffee is not necessarily um a destination uh restaurant. It is a secondary um uh or an ancillary uh location to go through. Typically, uh as an example, you're taking your your kids to school. Um you're already on the road, you're you're going to school, and you see seven Bruce, so you're going to stop by. So, u you know, from the standpoint, uh we would love it if we would just add all kinds of traffic uh you know, to the uh to the intersection. But uh to to the lady's point um I I I don't think that in a traffic study will probably uh verify this as well, but uh we are not necessarily adding traffic to the intersection at that point. Uh it it's typically um our our mission is is to gather people that are on their way to the Hobby Lobby and and to have them stop by, you know, our location for our our drinks and things of that nature. So, um I I just, you know, and and I'm not trying to be naive here. I mean, obviously any type of business is going to add traffic to the area, but you know, to the to the point that we're uh a main destination point, um I I I don't believe that would be the case, you know, and I believe the traffic study will will probably show that as well. So that that was and and and we welcome the concern as well and u uh we just appreciate uh all the commissioners consideration on this and we look forward to to uh being a part of this uh

this city group. So and thank you for your time. Thank you Mr. F. I apologize for butchering your last name there. If I may. Um it turned about as fair play. I'm sure I've mispronounced the city so no offense. Okay. No worries. We're used to that too. Any other comments or questions from the commission on this particular item tonight? All right. I will entertain a motion. I'll make a motion. Chairman, Commissioner Proctor,

move we approve the conditional use permit request by Justin Kimble to authorize an accessory drive-thru facility for the commercial development located at 973 North Main Street. application 20260009 based on the findings is subject to the conditions listed in a staff report dated February 20th, 2026. I got a motion to approve from Commissioner Proctor. Do I have a second? I'll second. And a second from Commissioner Hammer. Any discussion before we take this to a vote? Commissioner Hammer. How do you vote? I. Commissioner Sloan. Hi. Commissioner Proctor. I. Commissioner Faircloth. Hi. Commissioner Jensen. Hi. Commissioner Anderson. Hi.

I am Chairman Hamilton. I also vote I. This one passes 7 to zero. Uh, moves us on to number six on our agenda tonight is our city council reports. Mr. Hansen, I don't have anything specifically, but other than I really appreciate all you guys' discussion, your thoughts about the things on the agenda. Lots of great thoughts. I really appreciate that because it makes me think of a lot of things that I might miss and you guys are bringing really really great ideas to things that are important to these businesses and things that are happening in the city. So, thank you. And any questions for me? Anybody got any questions for Councilman Hansen? Get Chief Day's tow truck. What's that?

Get Chief Day's tow truck. Oh, we can do that. You can probably build him one right now. I can probably do that. Yeah, that's going to start putting that together for us. Yeah, let's do it. We got to get a lot though, too. You guys got to find him one. So, yeah. I appreciate that. Thank you, Councilman. All right. Moves us on to number seven on our agenda tonight is our review and decision. This is our February 11th, 2026 planning commission meeting minutes. Are there any additions or corrections to those minutes? Corrections already been made. Corrections have been made. Okay. I'll entertain a motion. I move that we approve the minutes from the February 11th meeting. Motion to approve from Commissioner Anderson. Do have a second.

I'll second. And a second from Commissioner Hammer. Any discussion before we vote? I will say that she did an amazing job in getting all those thoughts and things together. Well done. Yeah. I know anybody that can read our minds and put it together like that, they they deserve a raise. All right, we'll take this to the roll call vote. Commissioner Hammer, I. Commissioner Sloan, hi. Commissioner Proctor, hi. Commissioner Fairclaw, hi. Commissioner Jensen, hi. Commissioner Anderson, I. I am Chairman Hamilton. I also vote I. Those pass seven to zero. Moves us to number eight. I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. Oh, we are adjourned. Thank you, Commissioner Sloan.