Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay, we will go ahead and call this Twilla City Planning Commission meeting to order this Wednesday, March 25th, 2026 at the hour 700 p.m. Uh, first item on our agenda is the Pledge of Allegiance. If you'll all please rise. 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. applicants, the public for everybody involved. Uh there is a significant increase in fraudulent fishing request using information from the public notices that are issued concerning the applicants being heard during our planning commission meetings. Uh Twilla City collects fees only at the time of application submittal. Uh Twilla City will never ask for funds to be sent over wire transfers. Legitimate Twilla City emails always end with twillis.gov. If you receive a request requiring you to pay additional fees for an application in an email, that does not end in twillity.gov. After your application has been submitted, this is fraud. Uh if you receive such a request, please contact Twilla City Community Development Department immediately. Do not pay that money and please protect yourself and your assets. Moves us on to number two on our agenda is our roll call. Commissioner Hammer

here. Commissioner Faircloth here. Commissioner Proctor here. Commissioner Cordova here. Commissioner Jensen here. Commissioner Anderson here.

Let's please excuse Commissioners Sloan and Lynford. I recognize council members Hansen, Council Member Gossip. Staff member, we got Paul Hansen, Miss England, Miss Agard, and Mr. Johnson joining us here tonight. Our minutes taker is not here tonight. So, commission members, if you'll please state your name before you speak, so it'll make it easier for her to take the minutes. Uh, she will be doing it by recording and our YouTube recording. So, uh, let's make it easy for her as possible. Uh number three on our agenda tonight is a public hearing and recommendation on a proposed text amendment to Twilla City Code 7-26-3. This is types of water rights acceptable uh for conveyance regarding water rights exactions. Mr. Hansen,

thank you commission members. It's an honor to be before you. I'm usually in the back and listening, but I don't get to present very often. In 1998, Tilla City adopted title 7 chapter 26 which required the conveyance of water rights for all new development in the city. So come up on 28 years since that ordinance was first put in place. I just want to emphasize that this is nothing new. This is just a modification. What we know with water rights is that the state has issued more paper water rights than there's actually sustainable yield for it. It's not uncommon for them to do that around the state. But as we continue to develop water resources for the city, we want to try to make sure that the water rights that the city accepts for development have a little bit more substantial backing and and support. So we don't just accept paper that won't be developable. So, what we're proposing to you tonight with the administration's support is a modification to title 7, chapter 26:3. And Andrew is going to put on the screen how that paragraph reads. The only things we're asking to amend is to add the yellow highlighted sections which indicates that the city shall evaluate the rights proposed for conveyance and in its discretion may refuse to accept following the information. And it also allows the city to look at water rights that are not associated or developed or identified developable developable water source, water source efficiency and water quality. Again, we want to recognize the value of water rights. We want to give people the full beneficial use of them, but we feel that this is an appropriate balance to help help protect the city and make sure that what we do receive is appropriate. Uh this has been presented to the city

council in discussion format be but because it is in title 7 it falls to you to make a re recommendation either in favor of or against u back to the council. So with that I'll turn it to you with any questions you may have for me. Okay let's bring this back to the commission for any questions or comments. Just a comment I watched the presentation and the twillis council and it's really straightforward so and protects the city. Thank you.

Perfect. Thank you, Commissioner Proctor. Anybody else for questions or comments? Okay, looks like this one also does require a public hearing. So, I will go ahead and open the public hearing now for our large audience. Those watching on YouTube, you are welcome to join us in chambers. We'd love to have you. Seeing no in approach, I'll go ahead and close the this public hearing and bring it back to the comm uh commission for further action.

Chair, I'd like to make a motion. Go ahead, Commissioner Proctor. I'd like to propose that we make a positive recommendation for the lint proposed language as presented to the city council. Okay, you got a positive recommendation uh from Commissioner Proctor. Do I have a second? I'll second it. And a second from Commissioner Anderson. Any discussion before we take this to a vote? Commissioner Hammer, how do you vote? I. Commissioner Faircloth. I. Commissioner Proctor. I. Commissioner Cordova. I. Commissioner Jensen. I. Commissioner Anderson. I. I am. Chairman Hamilton. I also vote I. That one passes with the positive recommendation 7 to zero. Thank you, Commissioners.

Thank you, Mr. Hansen. Moves us on to number four on our agenda. It's also a public hearing and a recommendation on a proposed text amendment to Twilla City Code 7-4-7. This is parking location regarding the parking of operable motorized vehicles in the front and side yards of residential properties in single family residential zoning districts. Mr. Agard.

Thank you, commissioners. This is an ordinance amendment that we've been working on for quite a while. I have taken it to uh I think three city council work sessions and and received their their input concerning this item. Uh this ordinance amendment did originate with direction from the city council. Uh there are some issues in Tula City involving residential property owners turning their front yards into literal parking lots and some of those areas are are it's not a pleasant situation what's happening. So the council asked me to bring to them some proposals in regards to how the city can better uh monitor and possibly enforce these situations. They also asked me to do some research and see what other cities in the area have done in regards to this and I did do that research and uh I discovered or I found at least six cities that do regulate parking in the front yard. Well, almost all of those cities prohibited it, but some of them did so to varying degrees, but every city that I mentioned in your staff report did prohibit parking in the front yard. So this request is not unique to cities in the Wasatch front area. The problem we're encountering is Tula city codes really don't regulate this currently. We do have some ordinances in our in Tula city codes that do regulate some parking of vehicles in residential zone but but not operable vehicles. uh in Tula city code title 8 chapter 4-3 there's there's some language there regarding uh inoperable or wrecked vehicles so we have a mechanism to enforce the situation where there are inoperable vehicles uh we also have an ordinance to city

code 7-4-4 section 4 that restricts where RVs boats trailers and motor homes can be parked and then we also have an ordinance that requires a certain number of parking spaces per unit. And then we also have to city code 7-4-4 access requirements which regulates drive approaches, driveway locations, and so forth. We do not have any language in our ordinance that regulates where you can park an operable vehicle in a residential property. So, as it stands right now, you could literally convert your entire yard to a parking lot as long as the cars are registered and operable, and the city has no enforcement recourse against any of that type of situation. So, we are proposing some ordinance amendments to try and provide the city with a mechanism of enforcement for situations that have gone to the extreme and are turning their yards into literal parking lots. We're proposing the addition of section five or paragraph no section five to Tula city code 7-4-7 parking locations. And paragraph A reads the established driveway. So, it says, "Parking a vehicle shall be limited to the following: the established driveway into the sideyard adjacent to the driveway, garage, or carport, as well as to the rear yard." And it says, "Vehicle parking may be permitted in the sideyard opposite to the driveway if the parking complies with the following criteria. Number one, there is a there is direct access to a detached accessory garage behind the home on the same side of the lot. Number two, the parking spot and access lane are paved as per this code section. Number three, drive approach meets the requirements of tool city code 7-4-8-1

access requirements. That's the o that's the code that regulates the number and the width of drive approaches. And then number four, the parking does not otherwise violate any other laws or regulations. Uh, paragraph B, where a where a garage or carport is not present, parking shall be permitted only on the same side yard as the driveway. Section or paragraph C, circular drives are exempt from front yard parking restrictions as long as the circular drive complies with the access requirements. D, all parking areas in front yards, sideyards, and rear yards shall be paved with concrete, asphalt, gravel, pavers, or other similar paving method. and e parking a vehicle shall be prohibited in the front yard area between the inside edge of the driveway and the front corner of the residential structure. I would also like to include in the ordinance this graphic or this figure which clearly demonstrates the area in gray as available for parking and then the front yard area in white which is identified as parking not permitted. I believe that having a graphic in the ordinance would better assist that. So, how does this ordinance play out in regards to benefits and cons or detriments? Uh, staff always tries to anticipate potential benefits with any code amendment as well as potential death detriments. However, we can't we don't have a crystal ball, so we can't project everything that may happen because of an ordinance amendment. We do anticipate that this ordinance will provide us with a mechanism of enforcement for extreme situations. Uh it may help serve to maintain property values and sale and purchase prices of adjacent residential properties, though I have no report that indicates that, but that's a possibility. The ordinance will help protect the

city's precious groundwater supply as the city relies on wells that tap into the deep aquifers to maintain its water system. We would like to try and get more of these parking areas paved. And then the ordinance maintains at least 80% of the lot, not counting the building footprints to be utilized as vehicular parking for residents, including the entire rear yard. Anticipated detriments may create some non-conforming situations. There a lot of people that and I'll show some pictures that'll that'll kind of demonstrate what I'm saying, but there's a lot of people that currently have some interesting parking arrangements and um they may claim that they're legally non-conforming because they existed that way before the ordinance. Not really a problem for the commission to worry about, but that's something that enforcement has to deal with. uh enforcement of this ordinance will result in more work for an already busy code enforcement officer and uh mitigation of the property if the property owner refuses to come into compliance is always an issue who removes the vehicles. Uh we'll have to involve this attorney's office to get warrants and so forth and then this could be construed as a greater intrusion on the private property rights of Tula city residents resulting in resentment of city government. So, how would this ordinance apply in the in the real world, I guess you could say? I've got a collection of pictures here. These are all pictures from Google Earth Street View. So, some of these pictures are three years three years old. Uh they do not represent current situations, but I want to I thought that the pictures would represent pretty accurately what this ordinance will do in regards to this property. You can see that there is parking of vehicles on both sideyards and a trailer in the front yard. The parked vehicles on the far side, they

are on non-paved area. So, there'd be a compliance issue here in regards to not having paving for the the cars on the side and then the cars the vehicles in front of the house could not be parked there. This one has approximately seven cars parked in its front yard. Uh this is the kind of situation that we need this ordinance to give the city some enforcement mechanism to to address. There's just a lot of cars there. They've got cars parked in the park strip um in the sideyard in the front yard and pretty much any place you could park a car there. There is a patch of grass there that's maintained. But this one could be considered a a a slight uh variation from this proposed ordinance. There's a Jeep that's parked uh on landscaped area, if you will. Uh this would not be in compliance with this proposed code. This one, ignore the RV. That's a different code that we're not addressing today. Um focus on the car, the red car, and the other car. They they are parked on the driveway. Uh the only compliance issue here would be there's no paving where the red car is parked. So half the car is is on the on the the bare dirt. Otherwise, where they're parked would be in compliance with the code

about this one. This property has ample sideyard, paving, and gravel as well. Uh their car, however, is parked on the front, so that would not be in compliance with this proposed amendment. I like this picture because this is really kind of what we're looking for in regards to parking in residential zones. You'll note that the RV is behind the front plane of the home in the sideyard exactly where the ordinance requires it. Uh their their sideyard there is is paved with gravel and uh all the vehicles are nicely parked away where they should be. So this is this is a good example of what our code is intended to do. This is what we this is what we want to achieve. This is an interesting one. They have expanded their driveway into their front yard. The vehicle is parked on impermeable surface and is connected to the driveway. So technically, I believe this one would be in compliance. This one would not be in compliance. Their RV is parked in the park strip. There are is a trailer and a motor vehicle in their front yard. And then on the sideyard where they could park their vehicles, uh there is no paving. So they have ample room on the side to park those vehicles, but they would have to they would have to do some sort of paving. This is an interesting one. You can see this one. They have parking on both sides of the house. They also have two drive approaches. Uh this really doesn't appear to be problematic. the the yard is wellmaintained and both areas for parking have paving or gravel. Um, this is another one that we believe the ordinance is trying to encourage. Uh, they're keeping their yard open and it looks it

looks well and the parking on both sides of the house isn't creating any any aesthetic or visibility problems. This is an aerial photo showing a property on a corner and you can see the driveway on the north side and they have a van and a trailer parked in the back behind the house. Uh, this would be compliant under this code. This is another one where they have parked vehicles on both side of the house. There is a trailer, a camper trailer that's located behind the front plane of the home that is in compliance and they did lay down some gravel for that truck to be parked on and they're maintaining their front yard. So, this one would be considered in compliance. Uh landscaping could use a little work, but you know, otherwise they are they are they would be in compliance with the proposed amendments. Uh this one they they paved the entire sideyard. Uh technically that would be in compliance. They could utilize that entire sideyard for parking. Uh this one is another one where they've paved the entire sideyard and are utilizing it for parking. The property is wellmaintained. Looks nice. That trailer needs to be behind the front plane of the house, but otherwise um this would be in compliance with the city's code amendments. Uh this one is not in compliance. And I I actually drove by this property just this last weekend and it is considerably worse than what you see in this picture. Uh there's an RV in the front yard as well as a large trailer. You can't even see the house from the street. Uh very very significant issues related to this property as well. So that's what they're proposing for this ordinance amendment. It is a complicated issue. Uh, we did receive a comment from an Andrea Cahoun that expressed concern about vehicles parked in the rear yard and some other concerns. I believe I forwarded that to the planning commission for your

reference. I have not received any other comments concerning this item. Uh, this does require a public hearing and this is an item for recommendation. So, the city council is the ultimate authority. So, the planning commission can recommend approval, you can recommend changes or you can recommend denial if you don't believe this ordinance is appropriate. Uh feel free to make recommendations as you see fit. Uh that's my presentation on this. If you have any questions for me, I can try and answer those for you. All right. I anticipate lots of questions and discussion on this one because this is an eyesore. So let's bring it back to the commission. Any questions, comments for staff, commissioner,

actually I do have a comment surprise. I just saw that look on your face. Um, actually there there's the the way we're using the wording paved and then throwing in gravel as a as an option. I I just don't like the way we're using that word paved. Although technically correct, um I think most people would think that um it's either pavers or concrete or asphalt when they think of paving rather than having the additional gravel

and that reflects back to a different part in the code, doesn't it? As it said in your presentation, in regards to the ground cover for parking. Mhm. The only place where we require paving for parking areas is for commercial zones and that requires asphalt and concrete. Mhm. Um that's the only place where paving's required for for parking. So as far as this goes, we don't have any other language in the ordinance regarding that. So this is pretty much for operable vehicles. Inoperable vehicles should not be parked. Yeah, we and we have an ordinance that clearly gives us enforcement mechanisms there. So this would be for operable vehicles.

And I guess that's the challenge you're going to find is what is operable and what is not. Can be a challenge. Yep. Okay. It was running yesterday. Uh, I did see in in the comments something about fencing, too. Is that something we've looked into requiring some sight obscure fencing to be put around behind the house for this kind of stuff? like if they're parking in the backyard.

We do have a fencing ordinance which restricts the height or governs the height of fences and and prohibits certain materials for fencing. But there isn't any requirement in our residential codes that require fencing for screening. So this is normally something like HOAs and CCNRs take care of, but that's what I was going to say. That's in my neighborhood. Yeah. You know, we we're we're old enough city that a lot of areas don't have this kind of stuff. So,

and when in our work sessions, I believe it was Councilman McCall who stated, you know, the city the city is not an HOA. It's not our job to ensure that properties are pretty and well-maintained. That's not the city's responsibility. No, but we are dealing with situations here that do need to be addressed. And so the council's trying in the council work sessions, we we tried to put together a code that is at least restrictive on property rights, but gives us a mechanism to deal with situations like this. So

that's kind of what I was seeing with the the paved, the gravel, lime fines, things like that will be okay as long as they're a place to park instead of right on top of your grass or dirt or whatever may have you. Great. Commissioner Hammer,

chairman. Um, so on in let's see in the blue in the presentation of number five. Well, let's see. And then 53. So, it says, oh, it's different on my Oh, yeah. What am I trying to find? Oh, no. It's number two. the parking spot and the access lane are paved as per um this code section. So, what does that say about paving? Because I am concerned about I know we're not an HOA and we're not um here to govern that kind of thing, but I am worried about the groundwater. Yeah.

And so, um is there I'm just thinking out loud. Is there any way that anywhere like even in your backyard? I think if you're parking cars and things and we're worried about leakage, shouldn't all cars that are parked anywhere have to be have some kind of a ground cover type thing, whether it's paving or gravel? And I don't know what good gravel is. That was one of the questions that was posed. But

that's that's the intent of this ordinance. Uh number two refers you to as per this this code section. Yeah, if you go to section D, it then requires that all parking area shall be paved with concrete, asphalt, gravel, pavers or other similar paving methods. That is the intent of that is that if you're going to park a car or multiple cars, you need to do some kind of paving. Now, the gravel was included in there because the city is sensitive to the fact that concrete and asphalt are very expensive and so some property owners may not be able to do that. Gravel is a less expensive alteration. And then is there any are we going to say you just have to sprinkle out some gravel or does it have to be um a certain depth or

There's no language in there regarding construction of the gravel sites. Um are we concerned about that? like or you know cuz it is expensive to um not just concrete things but to use gravel but a a sprinkling of gravel isn't really going to do the job. I don't know just I'm just thinking out loud. No, I get what you're saying too. Yeah, it's almost a concern, but I don't I don't think there's anything that we can require at that particular point. Huh.

It comes down to the ability to be able to enforce that. Um, I know I I use that as an excuse quite a bit. Um, enforcing the ordinance as we have is fairly simple. Um, having my code enforcement officer go into a backyard and measure the depth of gravel, it gets problematic. So, I I think at this point what we're trying to do is we're trying to get maximum compliance as much as possible. So, great question though. One more question. on your list of cons. Who who does Can you go back to that slide? Sure.

Who is going to haul away these cars and under what circumstances? Like those were the questions that were posed. today. So, we had a meeting yesterday, I believe, with the attorney's office, and if it came down to a point where we had to mitigate that, uh, we would need to obtain a warrant, and the the attorney's office would handle that for us, and then we would have a toll company that the city contracts with to come remove the vehicles. U, we would have to have, of course, police service. Uh we have found however in many situations that when we show up with a tow truck to remove a car, the people immediately comply.

But that's how the situation would be enforced if it ever got to that point. Just more firepower for Chief Day's tow truck, right? Yeah. Yeah. And in the past, we have done something similar with inoperable vehicles under the nuisance ordinance. This would just switch it to not switch it but give also the ability in this situation for operable for operable vehicles. That's good to know too. This has actually been used for inoperable.

And if I could just offer a little little information as to how the code enforcement department works. Um when you look at some of these pictures like take this Jeep for example, it's really not a big problem what this Jeep's doing. it wouldn't be in compliance, but we're not going to drive by and see that Jeep and jump out of the drop out of jump out of the truck and go cite them for this. Um, we're really looking for situations like this or where property owners adjacent to it have registered a complaint and then we respond and this gives us the ability to respond where right now we just have to tell them sorry can't help you.

Mhm. So yes, there are a lot of people. And then the other thing, another concern that was brought to my mind brought to my attention by a member of the city staff is what about during snowstorms? If someone parks in the front yard during a snowstorm, code enforcement is a slow process. So somebody has a family gathering or there's a snowstorm and they park a couple cars on their front yard and they're gone the next morning. Before we even get to action on that, those cars are going to be gone. So, this really applies to more long-term situations, not to, you know, junior's home from college for the weekend. He wants to park his car on the front lawn, although not in compliance. By the time we get around to enforcing it, he's going to have the car gone anyway. So, just little information as to how code enforcement really works. It's It's a fairly slow process.

Mainly complaint driven as well, too. Huh. It is. Once that process gets started, what is that time frame? Typically,

it depends on the code enforcement officer and how he is dealing with the with the uh I guess you say the violator or the property that's not in compliance. He tries to work with people to and and give them ample time to come into compliance before he issues a fine. We don't we're not in it to get the money. We're in it to get compliance. And so he'll work with each individual on a case- by case basis. Typically, he gives two weeks between warnings for compliance, but if he needs to extend that or shorten that, he he can do that. The ordinance actually doesn't specify a time frame. Okay. So, thank you.

He's easy to work with, too. Just having a conversation with him. He's so easy to work with. Yeah, Farley is really good at what he does. Yeah, he is. Great questions, great comments. Anybody have any other ones? I'll make a comment, Mr. Chair. Mr. appreciate the work you guys put into this. It's a lot of work and then the city council with your work sessions and stuff. It's really it has to be really hard to balance the public good with property rights and everything and that's that's really tough. And I think for what it is, it's I'm more for property rights myself, but I think for what it is, it's about as good as we could come up with. I think

and I will just tag on to that. I think that I've been to all the the city council work meetings and and that type of and the work meetings and the business meetings where this has been presented and there has been a lot of work on it and a lot of back and forth and I've seen how it's been revised and I think now it is actually at a point where it is a fine balance between property rights and city rights and we're not here to make the city pretty. We're here to make it a livable city and I think that just balances that. Love to have ultimate funds to make it pretty though, right?

If if I wanted to do that, I would live in an HOA. Very, very true. Great questions, great comments. Anything else from the commission? All right. While you're thinking about it, we will go ahead and open the public hearing now. If you'd like to approach the podium, speak about this item, you are welcome to. Seeing no one approach, I'll go ahead and close the pet this public hearing and bring it back to the commission for any other further discussion, questions, comments. Mr. Chair, I'll make a motion.

Yes, Commissioner Jansen. Go ahead. I move before a positive recommendation to the city council for the parking and residential zone text amendment requested by Twilla City for the purpose of amending the Twilla City code regarding the parking of motor vehicles in front and side yards of residential properties as found in Twilla City Code 7-4-7 and to include figure 7-4-7 in the ordinance. I have a positive recommendation from Commissioner Jensen. Do I have a second? I'll second and a second from Commissioner Proctor. Any other discussion before we take this to a vote? Commissioner Hammer, how do you vote? I. Commissioner Faircloth, I. Commissioner Proctor, I. Commissioner Cordova,

I. Commissioner Jensen, I. Commissioner Anderson, hi.

I am. Chairman Hamilton, I also vote I. That one is a seven to zero positive recommendation headed up to the city council for further discussion. All right. Moves us on to number five on our agenda tonight is a public hearing and a decision on a conditional use permit request by Trevor Jensen representing Bitten Spur Riding Club and Rodeo to authorize the continued use of an open air theaters and meeting places located approximately 240 west 500 north with the open space OS zoning district and encompasses approximately 15 acres. Miss England. Um yes, this is this is just for the existing rodeo grounds that we have here in Tilla. Um they've been in operation since 1945. Um they did request to build a shed on um the property so that they could store their tractors. However, since we could not find a conditional use permit approval on the property, it's going to be considered a non-conforming property. So, we just wanted to do the conditional use so they could put the shed on there so it's no longer a non-conforming issue. So, that's the reason for it. there's not going to be any other kind of changes in the way that it's operated or any um anything else but that. So, um this is just a um the site plan that they submitted and then just showing what kind of shed they're putting in. Um the so city staff does recommend approval. This is pretty much some basic housekeeping to kind of develop.

Yeah, just to clean things up and to make sure that this doesn't come up again. If they ever want to make any kind of changes to the site, they don't have to um jump through any more hoops or, you know, have any more complications or problems with it. So, perfect. I was kind of hoping they'd be having some heavy metal bands playing there on that northeast corner there. I'm sure all the neighbors would love that.

Lyn's over there. He's not even listening to me at this point, but All right, let's bring this back to the commission. Any questions or comments about this item tonight? I have a question kind of about the this might not be gerine but to the topic but how long has the city been doing conditional use permits and how does it uh I I don't understand why they have to do it now if they've been doing it since the 1940s because I get bring it up to compliance but if they're already there like I

so in our ordinance the non-conforming section of the ordinance says that um the use can continue as long as you don't make any changes to the site. Um but since they're putting in the shed that's going to be making a change to the site so we just want to have the conditional use in place cuz I mean in the future they could want to do bigger changes and you know this just gets them set up so that they can without having to do this again. Sure. So is the building are we doing a conditional use permit for the building or for the property? Just for the property. The use in general. It's just going to be for the use. The shed itself just needs to get a billing permit.

So So then that goes right back to his question. Why are we doing this? Because because it sounds like the building is what's causing the conditional use permit and not the property. Well, the the reason why is because the use itself does not have a condition a no use approval on it. So, it's considered nonconforming. And so, with us doing the approval, uh the conditional use approval, it makes the whole property conforming so that they can do stuff like that without having to go back to doing any kind of conditional use. So, so we're cleaning house.

Cleaning house. Yes. Um, we're retroactive. So, moving So, moving forward, how is the city keeping track of conditional use permits? We approved 15 daycare centers last year or in that neighborhood.

We have much better filing systems now. So, um, all all of our everything is kept electronically. It's very easy for us to find things now. 1945, we're it's kind of hard to even find the first zoning ordinance we have. So, um, we are going to try and get things a little bit better organized, but in the, uh, for the time right now, for the time being, this is a much efficient, easier way for us to allow them to get the shed without wasting a lot of their time. So,

it's pretty similar to owning a historic building in our downtown. If we want to do a lot of major work, we have to bring it up to code. And so that's why you don't see a whole lot of work going on because it's sometimes very difficult to do that and very expensive. So yep. No, I get it. Hopefully that answers your question though, Commissioner Anderson. Yeah. Any other questions from the commission? Perfect. Looks like this one also does require a public hearing. So I'll go ahead and open the public hearing now. Seeing no one in one approach, I'll go ahead and close the public hearing, bring this back to the commission for any further questions, comments, or I'll entertain a motion.

Mr. Chair, I will make a motion. Yes, Commissioner Proctor. I move we approve the conditional use permit requested by Trevor and Christina Jensen to authorize the use of open air theaters and meeting places to be conducted on property located at 240 West 500 North application number 2026018 based on the findings listed in the staff report dated March 20th 2026. I have a motion to approve from Commissioner Proctor. Do I have a second? I'll second. And a second from Commissioner Hammer. Any other discussion before we take it to a vote? Commissioner Hammer, how do you vote? I. Commissioner Faircloth. I. Commissioner Proctor. I. Commissioner Cordova. Hi. Commissioner Jensen. Hi. Commissioner Anderson.

Hi. I am Chairman Hamilton. I also vote I. Uh, that one passes seven to zero. Moves us on to number six on our agenda is our city council reports. Mr. Dosset, we love to see you all dressed up for us. You thought that uh you thought I dressed up for you. It was a funeral today. No. Well, but uh

um we appreciate you guys and everything you do and showing up for these meetings and uh I'm assuming you're not in it for the money, but uh this is it's it's appreciated what you do. Um a lot of the things that you guys have talked about are the things that we've talked about, the things that we've heard and that were presented tonight. So, there's not a lot of new stuff to bring up. So, anybody have any questions for Councilman Hansen? Yeah. Nothing. When's the chief going to get his tow truck? Yeah. Yeah. Chief Day needs tow truck. We're pushing for him. We need it. Hey, we've used his tow truck a couple of times for me, so that's a that's a good thing. So, not because I was inoperable, but uh

it's cuz your yard's all messy. I was temporarily inoperable. So, well, if you don't have any questions for us, we appreciate all you do and we appreciate the staff. So, thank you guys. Thank you, Councilman Goss. Thank you, Mr. Hansen. We appreciate you, too. All right. Moves us on to number seven tonight. It's a review and decision. These are the March 11, 2026 planning commission meeting minutes. Are there any additions or corrections to those minutes? I'll entertain a motion. I move to approve the minutes from March 11th, 2026.

Motion to approve from Commissioner Hammer and a second from Commissioner Anderson. Any discussion before we take it to a vote? I mainly say that so I can finish writing. Commissioner Hammer, how do you vote? I. Commissioner Fairclaw. I. Commissioner Proctor, I. Commissioner Cordova, hi. Commissioner Jensen, hi. Commissioner Anderson, I I am Chairman Hamilton. I vote I. Those pass seven to zero. moves us on to number eight on our agenda. I'll entertain a motion to adjurnn. So moved. We are adjourned at 7:41 p.m. Thank you. Thank you.