Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Planning Commission session today June 23rd 26 at 530 when Roland walks in we will hopefully defer to him first item of business is approval of agenda do I have a motion for the approval of the agenda and do I have a second all in favor say yes yes yes Next I have a declaration of a conflict of interest. If anyone has anything to declare, please do so.

I guess we all have a conflict considering we're voting on Planning Commission code. It's like the Senator is voting on the Senate.

It's not really a conflict. Unfortunately, we're not financially paid for it.

Okay. And so seeing none, we will go to number three. The approval of minutes, May 26th, 2026. Hopefully everyone's read them. And if I have a motion to approve the minutes of May 26th, 2026.

I will make a motion to approve the minutes of May 26th, 2026. Do I have a second?

I'll second it.

All in favor say yes. Yes. Yes. Okay, and on to number four, the public meeting and public hearings. We're going to hear presentations by Jeremy Lance.

Thank you, Madam Vice Chair. So item 4A is the Buchanan Estates Redone. That is application 26.015. The applicant is Tyler Barr. who is in the audience tonight, Madam Chair, Madam Vice Chair, and who is here on behalf of the property owner, Stagg Investments, LLC. The location of the project is approximately at the terminus of North 1650 West. The date of the application is May 15th, 2026, identified by the parcel number and the staff reports of the meeting tonight. The current zoning is a split designation of RM 16, multiple residential zone and the R110 zone, which is a low density or high density single family zone. And then the current general plan designation from the 2023 integrated land use plan future land use map is single family residential for this area. The acreage is 36.29 acres. And the request for tonight, Madam Vice Chair is to request or to amend the existing R110 and RM16 split zone designation on an approximately 36.29 acre parcel by extending the boundary of the northern, or extending the boundary of the approximately 3.57 acre RM16 portion of the property to the parcel's northern boundary, and by amending the remainder of the property from R110 to RM8. Staff has reviewed this request against the land use code adopted by Tremont City and by the future land use map from the aforementioned 2023 general plan. Intersections of both of those documents are found in the staff report. If the commission finds any merit in this reason, then the following findings could be considered. One, that the proposed amendment supports future residential development property. Two, that the proposed amendment is compatible with adjacent residential zoning and development. Three, that the proposed amendment promotes logical and orderly residential growth. And four, that the subject property is suitable for future development and has access to the existing street network. Otherwise, staff will wrap up the presentation and defer to the Planning Commission for any questions you may have. Thank you, Madam Vice Chair.

We had any different discussion about this property? I feel like we've discussed it a couple times. Are there any concerns that we're having right now? What does the RM8 zone allow?

RM8 is 8 units.

It's like how big is that property? 20 36.49 although i meant like per acre like how much how many units well i was trying to think of like my house is on point three how many how many units will this increase in the current zoning wow that's a good question unless you know if i can speak here yeah yeah why don't you come and take a chance

If I don't share, we can defer to the opportunity.

Okay, thank you.

Right, so it's kind of a mixed idea, right?

Oh, I never saw the map.

Tyler, would you like to explain?

Yeah, maybe you can explain better on the map. How much is the R.N. 60 acres? How much on the map is R.N.? Yes.

Is it the next map?

There we go. Yeah, so right now we have a section of R.N. 16. Sorry, Sam.

That frontage row is going to – we're sorry.

That road right there is going to go all the way and connect to 1000 North. We're working with the price group, the landowners to the north that are not ready to get going. So that road is going to go all the way through. So this is going to go all the way through? That RM-16 where it's already has some zoning.

That's how many acres there? 3.5?

3.57 square. RM-16. And then everything to the east of the road, which will be, which right now is our 10, we're asking for our 8. Not sure if you've seen our concept or not, but our main goal here is to make a diverse community, something that's not 300 doors or the exact same thing. So our plan, or at least our desire or whatever, is to have apartments, again, along I-15 on the west side of the road. And then everything on the east is going to be diverse. So there's going to be town homes, there's going to be duplexes, there's going to be single-family homes. The whole idea is to hit a community that can hit multiple different markets. Instead of one price point, it'll be a little bit of everything right now. And how many residents? Right now, I think if you do the total, it's about 500 doors. So it's very rough until we kind of figure out where we can go. it'll be about $500.

The questions about units do tend to come up at the rezone stage, but the better time for that question is when you start looking at preliminary plot, you start getting into the ground, you subtract out for improvements and all of that stuff.

You have a rough general plan for it. $500 is what I do.

I understand no is perfect. Sidewalk, I get all that. And they'll be, as of our rough concept right now, everything on the east side of the road. I mean, we're planning on putting in a park and pickleball courts and all that type of stuff. If the city wants to take care of that, great. If not, it'll have an HOA. And then the apartments that will be on the west side of that road, it'll also have its own It'll have a swimming pool, a park, think of all the courts that HOA will take care of.

For just the apartments?

Yeah, the HOA will take care of its own private deal. We still need to talk to the city if everything on the east side is that wanna be something the city wants to acquire or is it gonna be its own private deal too?

The idea with the applicant, with the applicant, he can accomplish his goals with the strict zoning of these two different types of zones, and then anything that would deviate from the zones, like the HOA or the parks that the city would maintain would come back in the form of a development agreement. So those details would come back. So right now, our applicant is asking to change the zoning so that he can accomplish, have the flexibility to make those improvements on these parcels. Okay.

But I guess, is the development agreement also coming with it, or we're just giving them we're just doing the zoning at this point and then then once it's only once the zoning proposal is made then we will move forward to a development agreement we did not bring that forward which is a feature of the plot processor to come around a preliminary final thought right i understand but the vision here is like like the pud ordinance and like we did with other overlays the vision is you know maybe we want to give them some density but we want to contractually require the parks, the amenities, the things, whatever he's proposing, if we just rezone it with no development agreement, then there's no agreement.

There's nothing to require him, which is... That is on my board in my room right now. And we did not have the development agreement prepared this time for that. And it's not required of the applicant to do for the rezone too.

But are we required to... Approve it. Approve it? No.

then this is up to you but i think one thing that we like is saying is going back to kind of discussing with the puds and that sort of thing is if we change the zoning then we technically don't have any bargaining tools yeah then he's within the rights of that zoning whatever that may be so yeah this is the argument i brought up last time i'm like once we rezone it then he can do whatever he wants i know he's not going to right but if we by law he has no there's no reason he could that like that which is why i wanted them you know something in place beforehand but what did we say though that the pud was also going to be applicable for all applicants who had already applied yeah so that's not the this is just the standard reason so this is technically still falling under the prior rules of the pud correct yeah because yes i know that you guys probably aren't up to date with our concept but i'm pretty sure with

the zoning we're asking for we won't use it and we understand that it's just more of the administrative side of it of like the agreement the agreement if we're approving this is it do we have any leverage coming back on us or are we just approving this and whatever the person who owns the zone does can do yeah yeah well i guess the whole vision was you know we allow density

try to allow multiple uses. The vision was trying to increase the quality of living by getting the parks and the trails and all the things that we were hoping, making the units look nicer, which was the whole vision of the PED originally, that we quantified that in a fair way.

But it's nicer but consistent.

Yeah, it's the only legal way where we can kind of encourage them to do these things that we otherwise can't afford to do as a city, which

discussion today so Jeremy how you gonna get us there through with what your current regulations how we even do how how do we know we're going to get there people all courts and trails and that comes in the neck that comes with the development agreement and it approves that you like we do so we will see that

But at that point, it's too late for us. There's also no guarantee that it has to be that way. That's what we're saying with the rezoning, all the rules that, as long as the rules of the zone are followed, there is no agreement even necessary.

Well, the other question I have before we, I guess, finish that out. So the max units I can come up with on 36 whatever acres, if you had 3.56 than eight max units of 318. So I don't know how you get to a 500 on that amount. I guess is what I'm getting at because, I mean, this is not taking into account any roads or nothing. This is max density.

Like I said, we haven't got that far. And so to me, to have a development agreement at this time, a development agreement has to be pretty dialed in unless we want to just keep on amending it and changing it. so for us to really dial all that stuff in like i got to know what zoning we're tackling first you know assuming you're asking for yeah i know it's zoning i'm asking so you definitely should have time in your back in mind what you're going to get out yeah we do but nothing's set in stone before i start paying engineers all that stuff i got to have my zoning set in stone before i can keep investing to go to the next steps i mean i'm not a professional developer I've done this a few times, but the times I have, the development agreement comes at our next steps, and that's when we can get really dialed in. But obviously you guys can do whatever you want, but.

I think at least my main concern is that we as the planning commission have been blamed for zoning changes that have happened. And so my main concern is making sure that we as a planning commission are not responsible if something were to change, that it wasn't come back on us of, oh, well, the planning commission approved it.

Or recommended it. If you protect yourself with good findings, the question really at hand is, is this a place where RM8 and RM16 should go? I don't really think there should be any other questions considered at this time. So amongst the commission, if you discuss, well, RM6, RM8 should go somewhere else, or I wouldn't storm the applicant into changing their request or anything like that, but that should be the question I have. I'm not asking to change your request, we just want to know what the request is.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you guys will still have the opportunity to give your input and approve my development agreement.

so once we get to that stage you guys can dial it in and be like hey what's where's this well we don't we're not going to prove this or pass unless that's in there but maybe that's what my understanding is then you can fall back and just do what the zoning is then that new zoning just build what the zoning is which is just build the rm we're asking you're asking for rm and the 16 is already there the 16 mirrors the the the pink and then and then the rm8 which is the difference

Well, let's clarify that. You're saying it's already zoned RM16? Or you're just saying it's connecting, we're extending it?

Yes, to the northern back. So we're extending RM16 throughout that entire... Oh, switch that little bit. Just the section where it's red.

That is RM16. No, that's RM16 now. What we're asking for is that RM16 continues... All the way up to the top of that.

So this is not accurate then, because this says that we're just changing all of it to RM8.

That's why I was confused because I thought that would get you to your 500 units if you changed it all to RM16.

So RM16, that's already in what zone?

That's already done right now.

Yeah. What we're asking is that it continues along I-15 all the way to the northern boundary. And then this road is going to continue. all the way through. So this side will be RM 16.

So that's two separate zones, like we're making two separate changes.

So shouldn't it be two separate? It's a split zone. And since the parcel is already split zone, we're just extending the split zone boundary. Okay. That makes sense.

Just to set clear expectations, it wouldn't be a good idea to create split zoning, but since it's already present, they're just amending it. Split zoning is a headache for this exactly.

So how much of the acreage of that 36 acreage will be RM16? Like, I just wanted to be, like, I understand. Like, I get that. Yeah, I'm just saying, like, how much of that acreage will be RM16?

Of the line, you mean? Like, this will be a line right here. All of this would be RM16 right here. Okay.

Jeremy has a second report. That's what I couldn't find.

But that's what we don't know the exact acreage he's talking about.

I have it. It's on the map. I submitted to your portal.

So there's another piece that always seems irrelevant, and that's when property changes ownership. Not to say that that's in the plans, but in the potential scenario that happens where we change the zoning, And then the property is sold. We are no longer talking about the same animal.

Well, it doesn't even matter if we sell it or not. I mean, this was the whole premise of the PUT was to make a fair same line so everyone has the same rules and the same everything but you know like river's edge you know they said hey we want to do more density and the city council and everybody said fine you'll do this and this and put in parks and secondary water and the trails and the boweries and all this stuff and that was i guess the premise of the community but without

that or the overlay zone or some development agreement there's no essential mechanism to require anything beyond the reason i have those accounts for you so it would be a total of 13.159 acres of rm16 and 22.907 acres of rma and what's the total units that you have on there it was roughly 500.

So I guess that's where our concern is is that if we rezone this, right, and it becomes RM16 and then you sold the property or something later deciding not to build on it, then that is now zoned at RM16 and there's no agreement saying that... Well, you would still have to do a development agreement with the next person. But it would already be zoned at RM16, so whoever owns that property down the line, they could build...

however much they want in that RMS.

So then we would be blamed for that, if that makes sense. So that's just what we're trying to understand. I know this so sucks for you to feel like you're in the middle of this, but we just want to make sure that we're covered. I'm so sorry. I'm so sorry.

We just want to make sure that it's solid. I explained kind of my vision, why I'm asking for these things, my opinion. there's a place for apartments along i-15 is a great place for them the rest of the community i think for being in the inner core of tremont i mean you have industrial that's going into the north of the price group golf course to the east i mean i think it's a good place for this type of community off the main street there's going to be freeway entrances directly to the north to the south but to what jeremy said i mean i think the main question is do you see if this is a place for r and 16 and r and pink to go so i mean i'm not too concerned i know you guys are concerned about development agreements but i know we're going to work through that through this whole process and i'll be able to say yes there's two pickleball courts and this and that we can get real specific on every detail but right now before i keep on investing in all those drawings and engineering i gotta have my zoning kind of dialed in i mean i'm gonna do what you guys say but um that's kind of how i see it can i speak to it

With the applicant, as he came in, we discussed the PUD overlay tool with him, and he felt, as an applicant, that he could accomplish his purpose with sticking with the strict zoning, and that was his choice. And he's come to our NPI, he's talked with the residents, and he's done his due diligence to try to make sure that this fits the character of what they want. There are the same concerns you have. We share the same concerns too, so it's up to you guys to decide whether or not to move forward because all of, because the PUD overlay did add a bunch of additional costs to the developer to provide all those concept plans and all those engineered products to bring forth, he decided to go through the strict zoning route instead of the PUD overlay process.

Which, I mean, even if, I don't know, the PUD overlay is great, but I mean, if I use the PUD overlay I mean, I could probably get more to work than what I'm asking for. I mean, Christine has seen my concept. I've walked it through her.

I mean, we repealed it. So it's an irrelevant conversation, but the one I max, I figured your max density would be 393 based on what you just explained.

i don't think you get to the five and that's not with any park space or anything cut out okay that's fine that's irrelevant to me now like i don't care i mean i'm gonna end up putting up whatever's on there with what i get you know what i mean it's not like i'm stuck at 500 or whatever yeah my god for those 13 acres can't the rm-16 how much is that uh 210. i'd like to make a correctional pass too

This is an applicant that has a current application with the city. The PUD overlay is not irrelevant to him. He's still grandfathered in that. So if that is something, a tool he does want to use, he has a current application in.

Did he apply for the PUD?

He applied for his development. And so anybody that's applied, it's a zoning change. It's treated as a zoning change. Okay. So he's grandfathered in it. So he's grandfathered in it, yes. Just wanted to make that clear.

Okay. Yeah, I thought he didn't apply for it.

As long as they apply for a legislative zoning change, if they need to change a mechanism, it's not the applicant's fault if they need to change a mechanism on how they get the legislative approval. So that was something that we tried to communicate, that anybody with an application in for a legislative change would still be grandfathered in.

Well, if that's the case, then you should change it to a PED.

If it was me.

So as the planning commission, are we going to be in trouble isn't the right word, but I've heard from multiple people that they do not want more high-density housing entry line. Are we going to be to blame if we do zone this to RM16?

I don't think you have to worry about it. One, you're right next to the freeway. It's the best use scenario for that if you're not going industrial or retail you know something i would say your high-intensity housing is going to be more digestible right up next to the freeway because nobody wants to are they want a five acre parcel with the house on the first way what are you talking about they're not five acres are we okay with asking for vote and would you like to take over the chair you have public hearing oh public hearing yeah

You can take over as chair.

How about that? So that was the staff presentation and commission discussion. I'd accept a motion to close. Is that what we're doing? We haven't opened it yet. Oh, we haven't opened it yet. Public meeting, open. Oh, okay. So yeah, I would accept a motion to close the public meeting and open. So moved. It's been moved. Is there a second? I second. I seconded. that we have closed the meeting the meeting and open the public hearing or if you can the state's reason parcel 05-173-044 so i have a motion oh and all in favor say yes yes that motion passes okay so the public hearing is now open all those who would like to comment or give their public voice to this topic. You're welcome to. You have three minutes. Please state your name.

My name is Lane Wilding. I don't live in this area, but I do have a question. I talked to a couple of residents that live along that street because we were setting up the MPIs and asked how they felt about having apartments in high density behind their homes. And they did not seem real excited about that. As far as close to the freeway, they didn't have a problem with that at all. So my question is, did you guys send out a letter to these residents, and are they aware of what's going on? Is that not part of the requirements, is that we have to have a- They don't have to answer, it's just- Okay, I'll ask the question, but was the letter sent out to the residents? Did we follow our process? I'll have to, because I hand write them. Okay. Yes, thank you. I just want to be sure that we're following the process because we're kind of blind to it. That's the public and we should be able to ask that question and you should be able to answer yes or no. That we follow the process. Like I said, I want to be sure that the residents had an opportunity to voice their opinion. I talked to two people along that street relative to the MPI and being involved with the MPIs for the Central District and they were not excited about having the IDC behind

comments in the public hearing? Seeing none, I'll accept a motion to close the public hearing and open the consideration and decision.

Council Chair, can I answer the question from the public comment? Sure. Two letters have been sent to the residents within 300 feet of that, and this is the second public hearing we've had on this reason.

We'll make a motion to close the public hearing.

Okay, it's been moved to be closed without a hearing. And I will second that. Consideration and decision, and it's been seconded. Those in favor say yes. Yes. Opposed? Okay, motion passes. Consideration and decision. So knowing what we know about an applicant's opportunity, he was able to use the PUD overlay if he so chose. He chose not to do that. Word. What are the sentiments? What are the thoughts?

Personally, I feel good about where the density is.

I agree. I mean, it's in the plan, the land use plan. That was the vision in the future. If we keep changing the vision in the future, what would we have? We should get a plan and stick with it, in my opinion.

You're saying changing it is in the future plan is what you're saying?

No, I'm saying what is currently is in the future plan. This changes what the plan G is planning. He mentioned that in his comment. I'm just affirming that, yeah, this changes. It goes along with what we have planned. It changes what the city had planned. My name's not on it, Mike's is.

well it was just what they recommended because at that time that's when rivers edge hit and it was anti i get it it's a big plan it's a lot of information i get it but i mean that is our plan right yeah no i agree okay i think i think it's a good location for it but i also think that we're going to put in that kind of density just like the pud vision was is we need help with parks and the amenities that the city can afford to do i mean we haven't even put in a park in 25 years really we've been buying dirt which is good but i just think you know there's it's capable of increasing that level of service you know if we're going to get that much density difference

you know what i mean which i think that's what he's talking about doing anyway i think what we're saying is is that this one is a little bit on hope and hopefully that won't be how it will be in the future it might be for this meeting currently um and i'm once we get a little bit better legislation about what we're doing with beauties and but for this for this event i think we need to treat this as its own event and move forward in my view

Yeah, I say if it doesn't pass, then we should definitely apply it to the PD.

But he would be able to, right?

He would. If this is designed, though.

It doesn't matter, because he still has already put it in his application.

I don't know.

I'm not sure.

In a normal world, it's like normally you apply and you have a specific site plan and you have everything defined and designed.

You're not typically vested at a rezone, at least in my world.

So I don't know, I guess, what they actually applied for and what they're really vested in. Does that make sense?

That's because the question is, does it fit in the character of this zone? I would argue that a general plan or rather a future land use map that doesn't show any growth, any possibility of growth, probably needs to be looked at. So we have funds to, we've received a grant from UDOT to look at a new general plan. So yeah, you would have possible or a couple of possible options for what the community would like to see it go to, and again, this being near the center of the city, or at least near the main street of it, the argument could be made that it's establishing a buffer. And so again, just the question really should be limited in scope. I've said that a few times.

Can I address the chair? Something that could be brought forward in your findings if you want is an approval on condition of a development agreement presented at the same time to the city council to solidify the density that you want. Because that is something that you could couple them together. Micah's question on what is he actually applying for, the application was for a zone change. That's it. That's all the application was for. That's why that's what we brought forth was an application for a zone change to set the entitlements so that we're not wasting a lot of the city's time reviewing engineer plans before entitlements are set. And then also his time, putting into all of the engineering that does, are required when you have all of the concept plans put together. So the application before you is just for a zone change. There's lots of different things you can do. You can actually, you can deny it, And you gave me suggestions on the staff report, but I thought that I did have, but as I've been thinking about this, is what if we did couple the development agreement with it to protect the city from if you wanted buffer or single family houses right up to, because his concept plan does show single family housing buffer as it gets into multi-family housing up closer towards 1,000 more, towards the industrial zone. So that's kind of my comments and thanks for your time. I don't know how to end it.

I think that makes the most sense, which is, I mean, the same thing as what the PUD was, right? We would grant approval at the same time.

I think our vision for it is the same.

Yeah.

I think there was something in the background that they were dealing with with the other PUD that was making it messy, and for both the administration and the public.

It was possibly upfront.

There was a lot of possible. I think going forward, to put in a little note on your notepad, This was the vision that we're talking about. We're not trying to make it more expensive. We're not trying to make it a strong arm thing per se. It's a flexibility tool. And for this particular scenario, if you were to come into the office and you were to say, hey, I would like a zone change, our assumption was if he had applied for the P&D, then he would have done this process already without having to come to us to couple those two things together. Does that make sense? So that's how the visions that we're discussing and I think where we're trying to go with this one are married. So if we can draw something up in the future for that particular mechanism, I think it would be very well served by both the developer and all of us. You don't have a lot of split zoning around the city, Mr.

Chair.

This is a very peculiar request.

But does that make sense?

I think even without the split zoning, though, like...

Anytime they want to rezone. Anytime they come to us with a rezone, regardless of split or not, that is a tool for them to be like, oh. So if I come to the table to them with this idea that they've already laid out, I am 95% positive it's going to happen, which is a high percentage, right? Like, you don't know if you're even going to get it period when you otherwise right before you come to this hearing and meeting you're like I sure hope I get what I need well that's where your plan just that plan should come into into account should yeah but in the past it's also not been the anchor that we wanted it to be but if we can build that into the land use portion it makes it all cohesive in my mind is what what we're trying to accomplish otherwise we're never going to get

things rezoned to a higher density zone.

And you can hang out on the fact that developers look at those plans, the future land use plan, trails plans, master plan, whatever. They're looking at those probably more than staff actually, because they want to see, they want to make their projections. They want to see how many lots they could get. They may be lining trucks up based on those numbers. But again, the bottom line is, does the zoning fit for the area?

yeah yeah and that's that's understood i just i'm keeping that note in the back of my mind that june 9th hearing was the last one that anybody could apply for a pud but you know once people help once applications start showing up after june 9th i'm not even going to hear them until we have something and that was made very clear to the applicant so we made this choice for hard zone okay i'm going to clarify one thing i'm still really confused

so a rezone application is not a land use application it's a legislative decision and so to my knowledge a rezone does not vest one into a PUD ordinance period and and

So is a PUD ordinance a land use? Is that what you're considering a PUD?

Yeah, a PUD is a land use.

The PUD code states it's a legislative action in our PUD ordinance overlay. So the PUD is a legislative.

I understand, but they're totally different applications. Okay. And so... i guess in my mind it's critical to the conversation because he either qualifies or he doesn't i think it fits under the pud but if he didn't apply for the pud he just applied for a reason that technically he's not vested

This is a legislative application before you tonight. He did not choose to use the PUD version of the lease. But the PUD is also a legislative.

So why would they not be under the same grandfather? So they would still be grandfathered under, because the PUD isn't a land use.

To my knowledge it is, but- In our code it's written as- I mean it has to have legislative approval, but it's still a land use application.

It's a hybrid. Because you're changing the density, and the density requirement is a legislative act. So since it's a hybrid, it would still be considered a legislative act.

It is, but what I'm saying is when you make a rezone application, it doesn't vest anything because it's not a land use.

That makes sense.

I mean, for me, and I don't know what you guys feel like, but I think, I mean, I'm fine to rezone. I feel good about the rezone if they can present something, just like the PUD was proposed, something so incredible that we feel like it's worth putting additional density and adding the, because what are we, essentially, we're adding. Oh, no, it's way more than that. Because what were we, 36 point? My laptop went to sleep. 129.

129?

So essentially we're adding 235 units without the PUD, just with the RM16 and the RM18.

Chris, Christine, has this contingent on that road being built goes from the border to the White House?

Yeah, because there's only one egress, and that's already been discussed with the developer.

But the vision that we had planned with the PUD and all the overlays and everything, when somebody is adding 235 units at least in density, that there's some compensating factor for the neighbors the community you know at large to say okay hey yes we we gave them 235 more units and as part of that we put in the pickleball courts or whatever the proposal is but i think we tell them yeah we'll approve it but bring us back the development agreement and we don't need it all designed we just need okay we're going to have 60 units rm16 we're going to have 70 units rm8 we got eight acres of a park with two pickleball corks and a bowery, you know, whatever you're proposing. Just generally, I mean, I think we can get the designs later, but I just don't know what you think. Yeah, just some ideas. How many single units? Which means not engineered plants, no alternative. Yeah, I don't think we need all that at that stage. We just need the pieces of the development agreement that are going to hold him to the design and hold him to whatever the acreage and the density is that we're trading. We really do. Yeah, that we're trading for the extra amenity that will increase all of the advantages for that area.

The only issue is that there's no requirement for any open space in the subdivision ordinance.

There's no requirement for us to rezone.

That could be an issue at hand, and so I can level with that. But yeah, to rezone, you have entitlements, and then an engineer pulls up our code, ideally. And they look at the setbacks, what's allowed, how many units they can have, how much they need to devote to improvements, and then they design accordingly. And that's going to happen, and it's going to yield a development agreement, period.

Sure.

Sure. Heather.

Hi. Why don't you approach? Sorry. Mike, I'm happy to present something exactly like you just described. client so i mean i can it's basically going to be something like i've already presented to christine and jeremy it's not going to be like engineering and all that kind of stuff and yeah we may lose some units here whatever by the time we're done and figure everything out but i'm happy to next time through the process present here's how many apartment doors duplex doors townhouse doors single families space green space i mean we're planning on doing a walking trail that all the way kind of looping around the whole thing that's what we need to see i'm having to present something like that so kind of table with the expectation that we will receive development agreement bring it back next meeting

Really, I think all we need is acreages, just saying, okay, hey, we got 10 acres of RM-16, you know, wherever it is, because I still am fuzzy where exactly it's located. Right.

Like, I'm a little hung on the development agreement, just because the ones I've done in the past are very detailed. I don't think I can do that at this time, but if you want to see something visual and with number of doors and stuff, unless Christine and Jeremy are like,

Can we do a 65 development agreement for the zoning?

It won't be a development agreement. We're just looking for a concept. I think it will be a development agreement. Not in a binding sense. No, I think we are.

We want it to be binding. Otherwise, if he sells the property, somebody else can zone it.

I think we just put some high-level stuff that basically says, okay, we'll give you X zoning if you provide X acres and parks with X inclusions, I don't think that's to be crazy I don't think it has to you know, I think it can still be really flexible and really you can design it however as long as it meets the You know the minimum standard of the design in the development agreement This is my gut I'm gonna have Jeremy pull up my

our very first concept that I shared with these guys. We are gonna work on this a little bit. So, because it's not showing any duplex or anything, but this is the concept that I presented and it actually has the numbers of doors, single families, two homes.

Sorry, I'm just gonna interrupt you. From what I'm understanding from the commission, I do not think they're gonna feel comfortable approving the zone change without a formal agreement. this no matter what your concept plan or whatever is shown to us just so you know for tonight that's what i'm feeling from our commission we cannot require that i i'm just saying that they cannot be required yeah we don't have to require it then we'll just deny it we'll deny it and that that's that's the recommendation of the county and how bad is your finding that's the purpose of this meeting so can we recommend to table it until we come back i wouldn't recommend that why not table means killing

Not necessarily. A table means that you're putting it out to a meeting. And the applicant has submitted an application and paid a fee. He has a right to have a hearing. And so for that to send it into the dark world to never see the light again would be a violation of his rights.

So can we table it until next meeting?

I would continue it until next meeting.

i can get it pulled up right here but it's not an agreement no no it's so i'm just letting you know what we could do is we could we could still review it if we like the design and approve it based off of a development agreement presented to the city council that includes xyz or whatever he's already got the trails the pickleball courts the whatever if we feel good about that design you know

But what they're saying is they're not going to take a development agreement to the city council. They're going to take our recommendation to the city council.

Just the reason.

Just the reason. Just the reason.

Well, I think it's just a waste in my mind.

I think we still can because I think it's way better to do it with the development agreement than to just deny him just because we can't approve it. The code doesn't specify that. It would require something.

Well, this would be voluntary. He's voluntarily entering in a development agreement to make sure that we're feeling good about the additional density.

Otherwise we reject it.

That's just like all the other ones. I'd rather play with you guys and work together than you just reject it. That's exactly what I think. That's what we're saying. Yeah, that's what we're saying. So I'm pretty easy.

Which again, I think highlights our understanding of what a PED used to be. That play was, it was the sandbox. That whole idea was the sandbox.

We don't want you to jump through all these stupid and work it out.

So, council, commission. Well, I'm working on the concept plan.

Yeah, I just was going to ask you guys. Are you comfortable if we see this concept plan and agree with it? Are you comfortable moving forward with the recommendation? I am. Even without any formal agreement?

I think we still put in the thing that says we're only recommending approval with

I think we do that as long as the amenities and the things that they are proposing is worth the trade.

My next question is not this, but what is a formal mechanism to which we can attach these concerns to our recommendation?

It's the PC overlay that's coming. Oh, you're doing an overlay on this as well? No, not on this, sorry. The mechanism that would be the code that would be directed by you and the City Council to develop. And that would be the tool. It would just replace the P of the overlay.

we could but i guess if we do this it's the same thing as long as we have some sort of standardization of whatever we're going to do which was the whole vision of the bt was to standardize the overlays well i i think the development agreement side of it is But if we're saying, hey, we're going to deny it, if you don't, then it's ODM, I guess, if he wants to voluntarily enter into the development agreement to make it work. And I think it's a positive thing. Just like the overlay, just like the PED, it's the same sort of concept. It's like, let's work it out and make sure that it's going to be a good development, not just 500 units that are just backed in.

So I just sent my concept over. It isn't completely dialed in. This is like back in April when we first got it. It's going to show town homes at the top. We're actually going to get rid of a good section of those and we're going to put duplexes in there. So there's not going to be as many town homes. It doesn't show, like it just shows green space, doesn't show the actual pickleball courts and stuff. And it doesn't show like the walking trail, but this one kind of gives you a little bit of the vision. Did it give it to you yet? Yes.

This computer's having major issues tonight, so I'm not getting anything. Thank you for your patience. It goes both ways.

No, it's great. As a point of clarification, the RM-16 that currently exists is being extended as part of this plan.

In order to get there, yeah.

Except the remainder of it goes to RM-8.

in the future i would like to have acreages listed if we could of like how much is going to be in each zone i mean i know split zoning is very random but it just would make more sense to have that listed rather than just to the northern boundary i thought you did sorry it just wasn't on our staff report so this is just the oh this is open yeah

So the courts would go in the green space?

Green space, and then also you see that clubhouse there. There's probably going to be somewhere around there. That clubhouse is more like, if there is apartments, it's something that can be rented out for someone to hold a party or a venue kind of a deal with the community. So like I said, this is very rough. From what Micah was describing, I couldn't come up with something 10 times better than this.

Are those current lots? No. The gray? That's when I was hoping the woods would sell me the third piece, but they won't. It's not developed? Yeah. Okay. Grabbing the connector road and ready. I think that's cool.

And then also this concept was also kind of made when Jeff was here. And Jeff had this idea that this road was going to cut through the golf course and all this stuff. So if you see that 66 at the very top, Jeff, for whatever reason, he thought a road was going to go through the golf course and all the way through. That's not happening, so that's also changing from now working with Jeremy and Christine.

It doesn't make sense to have a golf course in the middle of town. It was in the middle of town. It is now. It works for what it works for. So based on this, I would make a motion to approve or to make a positive recommendation to the city council for getting the state's free zone location number 26.015 with the expectation that a required expectation that a development agreement will be brought to the city council and recommending to the City Council that they would not pass it without some sort of agreement in place. That includes?

That includes the green space and the actual development parts.

Are we detailing the development?

I don't think we can necessarily detail it, but I think we've had some sort of agreement before to actually have a committee.

think that's i think maybe yeah you can make a motion it's a little messy i i guess for me maybe we could even do it in a different way because don't we have to approve of development agreements so so if if we say with the expectation of a development agreement in place when's the last time we saw that all right

we haven't seen a development agreement in years. I don't think we approve the development agreements.

If we do, I would be seriously surprised.

I think the city council.

Yeah, we reviewed the substantial inclusions, but ultimately the finding of the attorneys and the, we've never even reviewed a development agreement in this body that I could think of in 13 years.

I feel like when,

I went, what's his bucket was for visionary. They were going back and forth on the difference between stucco and stone facing and what are these specific setbacks? And it's like, oh my gosh, I don't know.

Yeah, it's detailed, but everybody has had to do them.

Right, so I'm saying, though, we have had those conversations of very specific agreements between us and the developer, which I think, I don't know. What were you gonna say?

I don't think it has to be that detailed. No, I don't either.

I think we're just saying to the city council, we- We need to see a developer agreement attached to this recommendation of approval to get the amenities. But I wonder if we should modify it and say we deny the reason unless you i don't think we can propose and put a development agreement together that is has amenities sufficient for 235 additional because then if he doesn't feel like it's he wants to do it he doesn't feel like it's fair or whatever then you don't have to do it well depends on if he's vested or not

well i don't think he is but we need to that's the other answer i think i can give that answer for you because that's the hard part is that i think tyler mr farr is he's definitely done this for a very long time like he's in this right like he's not going to be selling the property and letting someone else rezone this for the apartments right and i think that's where our um opinion as the planning question i was going to do yes we do want this we want these agreements in place in the future but i also think that it's not fair to tyler to say oh we're gonna we're gonna deny him when he's obviously already done all this stuff he's not going to go anywhere he's not just a massive builder going through and so i think as a planning commission it doesn't make sense for us to deny it unless he has a development agreement i think it makes more sense for us to say we would rather approve it instead of positive recommendation but we would really like these other things in place to show that we are We're expecting this in the future. This is what the PUD would have done. We expect that this is what would happen.

Yeah, but what we would like doesn't sound like it has a lot of teeth. We don't have teeth, my God. We do if we deny it. That's the point. That's the leverage point that we have.

But that sucks for Tyler.

No, it doesn't. It's fine. We can work it out. As long as he's good with the development agreement, then it's the same thing. We say we recommend denial unless a development agreement is brought forth that consummates all of those amenities that we want to see for the trade. Now, capsulate that into our motion.

Copy and paste into that positive recommendation.

No.

Well, I'll make a new motion.

Yeah, I guess you better decide on that one. You have to withdraw. I withdraw my positive recommendation. we forward a negative recommendation to the city council for the buchanan estates rezone application 26.05 not amending the zoning unless that it is coupled and approved with a development agreement that consummates the density the park space the trail the pickleball courts and the clubhouse

It's been moved and seconded that we recommend a motion for negative recommendation to the City Council unless we have described agreement with the amenities.

And if the agreement is provided, then we would submit a positive recommendation for approval.

it's been moved is there a second i said and seconded all those in favor yes say yes no yes so you can say no no okay what did you guys want to see like i i just think we should pass it as it passes you just think we should rezone it without any

This time, yes, not in the future. That's how I feel. Because then if something goes wrong with it and he sells it, then we say, that was why I didn't want to give her the DVD. That's my attitude on it.

I don't think it's going to happen, but I do think we're understanding what our vision was, and that's been my point from the last one. But I think there's other things that you guys were dealing with that we aren't privy to. as far as the PUD as it was, that made it a mess. I think we can fix those. I think you still need to say motion passes. I did. But thank you, because I do need that. I didn't hear you. I do need that. Make sure it's on that record. I hope I'm loud enough for the speaker to grab that. OK.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thanks for coming. Moving to 4B.

Mr. Chair, item 4B, planning staff, is only the office that is bringing this forward to this commission. Mr. Chair, I yield my time to Director McPhee, very present in the audience, to explain the master plan for parks, open space, and trails. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

You guys are up.

I'm Zach Lefevre, the community services director for Tremont City, and I'm accompanied by Sam Taylor. A little history about how this has come about. In 2011, Tremont City created its first trails and open space master plan that was guiding the Parks and Rec for about 10 years. In 2021, I became the Parks and Recreation Director. And during that same time, which was right after COVID. We saw explosive growth within the community for the next two years, through 22 and 23. During that same exact time, 21 through 23, Sam and his group at Landmark Design was creating the integrated land use plan, which had a section in that for parks, trails, and open space to update to that 2011 version of the plan. in in 24 after i've been in my position a while we were reviewing the plan and we noticed that almost immediately after it was adopted it was already out of date because of that explosive growth that we saw during the creation of the plan and so shortly after in the end of 24 to begin on 25 we wanted to break that portion of the integrated land use plan out and create the and update the parks trails and open space master plan to be its own separate plan that can be put into the other plans in the future as the community development department works on developing citywide plans so that's where this came from the original trails and open space master plan was basically working under the guise of or working with trails and adopting plans to build trails within the community and walking space and connectivity within the city. The integrated land use plan focused a little bit more on adding the park section of that. This is updating both of those and bringing them both together so that we have one document to work off of as we move forward with our parks, trails, and open space. I'll turn this time over to Sam to run through the plan a little bit and help them with any city questions that pop up.

Thanks, Tiffany. Thanks, Sarah. First slide. Pleased to be with you tonight, Planning Commission.

And I'm just going to do a quick walkthrough. Hopefully you've had a chance to review this document already that's been shared with you. The plan has six chapters. The first is an introduction, which outlines the purpose of the plan, its organization, sort of a profile of your community. The second chapter is focused on parks, particularly looking at the level of service park needs within the community and standards to follow. The recommendations come out of that for updating the park system. Chapter three is detailed park design concepts. I'll get to those in a minute. Four is on trails. Five on open space. And finally, it concludes with an implementation funding chapter, which serves as the roadmap for implementing the plan. Next slide. Zach's kind of hit on some of the points of why this plan is going to be important. Really, this connects to the city's mission for the goals of connection for its residents. Like all plans, the goal is to get a clear snapshot of where you are today, where you would like to go. So we've looked at this through two lenses. One is an analytical approach, looking at your existing conditions, what's on the ground today and how it stacks up against other communities and national standards. And then the second angle we've looked at is through the community input on what the communities desire within the park system today. The importance, the value that this plan brings to your community is it gives staff a roadmap on what they can work towards. It gives them policies and actions that they can work towards implementing, budgeting for as they're doing their financial planning. Next slide. In community engagement, we had two segments to that. We had a community survey, which was conducted by On Point Insights. Last year, we received over 500 responses for that, and that was a statistically valid survey, which the full detailed results are included in the appendix of the plan. And we also have the public open house, which was held in March of this year, where we presented the various PARCC concepts and key recommendations of the plan for public feedback. Overall, it's very positive that we presented that open house. Here are the top takeaways, what the community shared with us. First, residents use parks frequently, with Jeanne Stevens, Schumann, and North Park being the most visited and highly rated overall. Secondly, overall park quality is positive, though there were desires for improvements at Meadow and Civic Center Park in particular. Top priorities for the community members are better trail connectivity, having additional parks, and improved communication about parks and recreation system. There's a various interest in many programs expressed. I won't read all those up there, but you see that aquatics and dog parks leads the way, which is common. And recreation centers often accompanies the aquatics discussion when communities start talking about that as a priority. That's not something that's explored in great detail in this plan. Recreation center usually requires a feasibility study of its own. So that is a recommendation. So we first look at your, to give you an overview of the existing conditions, we first look at the park system. from a level of service perspective. This is a metric that's defined by the National Recreation and Parks Association. And the national standard is typically 10 acres per 1,000 residents. We seldom ever see that in Utah. And those communities that tell that, I think, are lying.

A lot of those cities might be back east where it is so highly populated that they need those because they have no, they don't have five national parks in the state, right? They don't have open space. So, yeah.

They don't actually have a lot of public land either. Exactly. And that's the key distinction between the west and the east, right?

And so the east tends to meet that metric, the west tends to not. So you can see benchmarking against other Utah communities, where Tremont falls, you know, Lower than some, but not, you know, I've seen some as low as the ones. There's the lowest on that list, yes. But I have seen lower. So this is definitely one metric that sometimes brings alarm. It is evidence that there has not been significant park development. in the community for some time, which has been noted previously in the meeting tonight. And it does make the case for acquiring additional hardgaters. But it is less important typically than park access. This metric has fallen out of favor in some communities for this reason of how do we even achieve this increase, right? It seems like an uphill battle. So on the next slide, oh, sorry. And here's part of why it's an uphill battle. It's all hinged on population, and as you are a growing population community, the level of service continues to decrease with the population that you add, and so it starts to work against you. One key thing that I had some conversation with staff about today is the question of where are we actually going as a future population projection. Most of our population projection data that's available is conservative. um significantly conservative and we are kind of sailing into the unknown as to where you will actually land so we have stuck with the projected increase from the capital facilities sewer plan that's adopted but that even kind of missed the mark in its initial projection so we just sort of translated that figure for this plan to work off of but it could be that the population continues to grow even further so If you want to assume that number over the next 10 years, you need to start acquiring land fast, and that's where the 38.7 acres is up there, to try and bring up your level of service. I don't want everyone to get hung up on that, because park distribution is often the more meaningful way to increase impact, making sure that there are parks within walking distance of every home. And that distribution is influenced by how far people are willing to travel, based on what the amenities are within that park. So if we have a larger park of Jeanne Stephens that has more amenities, people are usually willing to drive to that. Whereas a smaller park that might not be as willing to go to, so that is taken into account. On the next slide, we have a map where we look at the service areas geographically of each of the parks, which are outlined in purple. And you can see the yellow areas are the existing residential parts of the community and there are some significant gaps where folks are not able to walk to a park within close proximity to their home. So the plan outlines some recommendations on the next slide. in its future map of where those gaps could be filled as the community continues to grow. This is based on the full build-out vision, so there's some stuff out into the further annotation areas of where certain park sizes might be considered to be located. These are very general, but give us sort of a laundry list of what might help achieve filling distribution gaps, but also meeting that level of service number that we're trying to target.

So a few things. So our goal is 5.5 acres per 1,000 residents is what council has set as our goal. The last time we were meeting that goal was in 2001 when Genesee Park was built. Since then, we've fallen behind because we haven't had the need. Our sports have typically been the main source of the need for parks. And right now our parks are overused and we have no space to move to allow our parks to recover and recuperate. So they're just getting overused more and more. Also with the map system in there, we do have three current parks that are, one more tip for that. Right there, you have Stokes Park, Harvest Acres Park, and Rivers Edge Park that are shown here, but they're not built. but they are on that map because that's the land we own for those. So even though this looks like the that's, we have even less parts in use than what this map even shows. So just to clarify a few things right now. So when can those count as part of the LOS?

We would typically start counting them when they're developed, when they're open with some level of humidity. And how many acres of those three?

Those are significant. I want to say they had 26 acres though.

It's close to that, yeah. So we have an eight acre park, I believe a five acre park, and an 11 acre park, somewhere in those ballparks. So also with that, these are detention basins. So stormwater detention basins, they are not set out as like Jamie Stevens Park is just a park, right? These are detention basins first, park amenities second. So we're kind of have to work with the public works and the storm drain to get those parks built or the storm water portion built so we can get the parks built on top of that.

So we- Were you saying that those were going to be considered?

Going to be considered?

Like as part of the parks?

When they're built.

When they're built, right? Yeah, so they are storm. And so the three current parks that we have planned our stormwater detention basins that will have park amenities inside of it. So it's not gonna be all open space. There are going to be elevation changes and things within that. So looking forward, that's what Sam has kind of detailed on priorities and recommendations on how to move forward.

Can I make a recommendation just as an overall idea? I used to live next to one of those. And it did storm one day. And you can lose kids underneath there very, very quickly. And there was never any posted sign. And kids don't understand that the drains can get clogged. And so I can see something very bad happening if we get a quick storm and there's kids that are playing over there. I mean, I'm just saying it's a danger that parents need to be aware of because most parents are completely unaware of it when they live next to it. at least the retention basins in our neighborhood they're not too deep even when there is a big storm it's not well we have like maybe ours filled up maybe two to three feet and my kids i went over there to see my kids playing and one of them went under and i could not see them there's there's potential to drown within six to two waters yeah and there are these are big games yeah i have a question yeah do you think

that this 27 million proposed is really the best use or should we be building like an indoor rec center that can be used year round on some of this money? Does that make sense?

Yeah. A rec center is going to, it's going to be able to be used around, there is a need for both. Right now I can't expand my soccer program, my flag football program, my baseball programs. And we have kids that are wanting to play that can't play. and those are sports that can't be played indoors. They can to a certain extent, it could add a field or two, but not to the capacity that we need. So we need both is the answer. We have very limited indoor use facilities, solely owned by the school district and one at the county that we can use. And it all hinges on our relationship with the board or the commissioners at that time on how if we're able to use them right so so truly we do need both in 2008 there was a feasibility study done for a rec center um and it was proposed to build one for 10 million dollars that didn't pass now we're looking at 60 million for kind of a basic rec center but we are looking at um doing some budget engineering to try to get something that meets our needs but not be architecturally cool you know but that's kind of who we are also right we're just practical we need the services and so so that's something that we're working toward um but we got to get funding in place first so you know that's that's always on SAM does make recommendations for an indoor facility, but it's not highly recognized in the parks and open space portion of this plan. It's just something that it is a need that we need to look toward. How do we make it happen?

Do you know what the impact fee is right now for parks per home or unit?

Christine, we... Jamie is our new finance director. She came in and we sat down and done a lot of studies on that. We need to get this plan in place so that we have the plan so we can update that study or our feasibility rates with this plan so we can set new expectations. Right now, I believe it's around 1,400 per unit, but

that's the number that's sitting in my head i don't recall you know the exact number but i think that's what it is yeah but i guess even with the plan you can't really increase you can't increase the level of service until you bring the other parts online right that's why i was wondering in my mind if it makes not it makes sense to not improve genie North Park, Meadow Park, Schumann Park, and actually at least do the bones of the fields you need on Harvest, Stokes, and River's Edge. So then we can include them in the level of service acreage, and then be able to increase that fee accordingly on the impact fees.

And on the staff level, that's our goal, is to get those three built so that we can then, we have to spend the money that we have to reserve down. and build the level of service so that our impact fee is at its highest. So that's our goal is to do that before we start with the improvements of our current parks. And that's kind of how it has to happen so that we have somewhere to move the people at our current parks to play in other areas so we can then improve our current parks. Another thing is our current parks can't be improved with impact fees. Those have to go to new construction. to be able to build. So we'd have to come up with a different funding source, a wrap tax or some other grants or some other funding source bonds or whatever to be able to improve our current parks.

How much do we have in reserve in the parks fund right now?

Including impact fees, I think we're around $2 million. Uh, I'm not sure the breakout between the two, um, on what that is, but as we get later, you'll see that a new park is around 7 million for the biggest part. So we're nowhere near where we need to be, um, to improve those. But with this plan, we can start looking more toward the future on how to get there.

I don't, I don't remember seeing anything in this, but is there, um, an option like meadow park basketball court? couple years ago, like donated, was it donated? Are there grants or something we can look into for things like that?

Yeah, so that was a 50-50 grant, I think, with the Utah Jazz where they paid 50% with our contribution of 50%. So there are a lot of different things. We plan on going for federal grants which have a lot of high dollar money associated to them. There's just a lot of follow up with those as well. And the potential to put this into open space for perpetuity, right? Which I think that is something typically what a community wants to happen. The drawback is, is when it's put into a spot that's not proposed for that, the tennis courts right here in our parking lot was paid for by that water conservation fund. So to demolish those courts or to add parking or something else we have to replace those into another part of the city because of those funds that were used for it. We can't just get rid of them. So that's, there are some drawbacks with that, but typically you don't see a con side of the drawbacks. So what you're saying is if we get a grant, then they can't get rid of it and we have to keep this park forever.

So after we do some of those improvements to meet the park,

Should we not include an indoor rec center in this plan to some degree?

Well, again, this is parks, trails, and open space, so indoor facilities wouldn't necessarily fit within that plan, but it should fit within a plan. Can't it fit in? I mean, wouldn't we consider that part of the parks rec plan for Tremont City? It would for recreation, but when we're talking about open space and leisure time, quality of life, The programs that we have in those spaces are separated from the park itself and the open space and the green space itself.

one of those hybrid ones that has like the wall that opens up with the pool on the outside and the inside well i mean i'm not saying not to include it in the plan i just don't know if this is the correct plan it would be yeah normally a recreation center is conducted with a feasibility study of its own very similarly to the sports complex project that was recently so can you can you increase impact based on that only if you're going to build it in six years yeah yeah

You're gonna build, any of this can be included if you're gonna build it in six years and it's gonna increase level of service.

Yeah, and so that's the part where once we get this plan adopted with the new parks, we can raise our impact fees to include those. Then once those are built, we can do it again as our level of service raises.

Can I go back to a comment you made? You said we couldn't use impact fees for existing parks. My understanding is we can, as long as we can prove it's for the new growth. That's correct. We can't do it for maintenance, but if we're adding another baseball diamond to Keeney-Stevens, I think we can use it in factories, correct?

I don't know the amenities on how that works.

I do know that, let's say, you would have to reasonably increase the size and have proof it's in. development within the area of that park was increasing the impact on the park and necessitating the need for that.

So like meaning where it's a regional park, I mean, that should be pretty arguable. The whole city is the region. You might be able to make that argument, yeah. But I guess it's irrelevant depending on, I guess, what the amount of impact fees is that we have in there.

If we had surplus impact fees, which you shouldn't, I say that's no issue, but I do know that Murray City had a rec center and they used impact fees to build a building within a building. So I know, I think there may be creative ways to make it happen, but you have to have the numbers in the proof to justify it. That's something we'd have to look into.

simultaneously saying okay goal number one is build out these three parks and get the base infrastructure the base park structure you know because I guess in my mind we need to prioritize like you know where the impact fee money is going and make sure that it's going to increase level of service quicker so we can increase those impact fees so we can kind of snowball it to some degree you know what I mean I think you're right on with Sam and his recommendations because

In the back of it, it has the priorities on what we should be going after. One is then purchasing property, so that in the future we have the land to be able to have an open space. And it is early studies.

Well, yeah, if you've got those, let's talk about that. I mean, I guess whatever you have, you gotta go through, I guess, what you think the priority of that would be and how that fits into here, right? Yeah, we can get there.

I believe, I have to go back and look at it, but we have an implementation action to conduct a feasibility study for a recreation center. I believe it's a high priority item in the action plan. If it's not, we can bump it up.

And it was in there, I think, because the Tremont and Sport complex was part of that feasibility study that was being worked on at some point. The feedback that we got was this is a fantastic thing. Everyone loved it. How are we gonna pay for it? That's the issue, right? So we decided we need to revisit this concept in a future date with a more affordable option. But it is in there in the priorities at the end of the document. if that's the the part you're looking for mike is the the two you're talking about impact fees and brexit is that what you mean by the two okay yeah i just do the two studies because in my mind like the sooner we can get a vision of exactly what we want to do and how we can raise the funds and raise the impact fees fairly and efficiently you know that i think we have a better chance of getting there

and especially like you're saying with impact these studies and all the other studies that have to go with this, if it's all defined, designed and ready, then it's more likely we can get there.

Yeah, and that's the hard part with the, with like a rec center design, I guess, you gotta go through this whole feasibility study. There was some portion that was just pushed through for the past one and it kind of ballooned past what the community was able to afford. So we revisit that, revisit the space and everything. So we can't necessarily put a plan for that in here. We can just say, this is a top priority and what we should look at, right? And then we go through another round with an architecture firm like VCBO or take plans to Newport and say, can you budget engineer something similar to this that we can work toward there are some some things that we're trying to work with some um community partners to hopefully uh work something out but again that's happened 10 times in the past 20 years so we try to get there um most we can do right now is just have that as a top priority to continue to put me out as a city staff okay

The other level that we looked at, going into more detail in the parks, is the actual amenities that are within them. We have set some standards for minimum amenity provision, depending on the park type, what size classification it is. That's a carryover from the previous iteration of this plan. And so from there, we evaluate, one, how does the parks stack up against those standards. Two, we established a level of service for each amenity about how many amenities per population and come up with a surplus or efficiency there. And then three, we also have the feedback from the public and what their desire for the parks. So it was indicated in the survey. Those three components basically developed a program for what the parks need to be stocked with. So when we get to the park concepts, um that the program for those part concepts is built off of those needs so it wasn't just we threw in a basketball court because it came up as a need so these part concepts are not by any means a final design they're intended to be a starting point for staff as they begin having conversations about future capital projects and when they want to get design So that design is actually going to evolve as they're implemented, but they helped form a starting point for financial planning. And also helpful in seeking grant funding if you have an idea to illustrate what you're trying to accomplish. Next slide. And so finally, the park section kind of concludes with these recommendations. First is to develop the planned parks that we talked about. Second, to upgrade the existing parks. Third, acquire land and develop additional parks along range. And then there's some additional sort of system-wide recommendations for wake hunting signage and updating codes for dog use within the parks. The trail section was of high public interest. This is definitely a key priority of the plan. You don't really have a significant trail system in place yet today. And this is a major recreational focus statewide, probably countrywide. And so what the plan basically does is establishes a hierarchy of trail types as illustrated on the next slide. Some are serving regional routes that go beyond that borders of the city, others are going local. And then on the next slide, The section also establishes some minimum standards for those to be built to, and this was a carryover and update from the 2011 plan. The open space chapter really addresses open space at more of a high level. There are no level of service standards or prescriptions for open space. And when we talk about open space in this chapter, we're really talking about natural open space as opposed to developed parts. But the chapter does outline an acquisition toolbox of how the city can acquire these areas. And then finally, the implementation funding section summarizes all the plan recommendations, assigns costs, high level planning, level cost estimates to each of them. I think it's really important to not get hung up on this bit. The big number is scary and everyone's like, how do we pay for that? as Zach's already alluded to, there are many ways to pay for these projects, right? And the goal is to identify which projects you'd like to advance forward, work on them a piece of the time, and use various funding mechanisms to try and fund and make them happen. So this is probably where Zach and his staff and other staff are going to be spending most of their time, which is in the action plan. This takes all the implementation items within the plan and gives them a priority timeline and some additional notes so they can start checking them out one by one. There are many, so we don't have plans to go through every single one. Next slide. Okay, we're there, we made it through. That's the whirlwind summary of the plan. We did receive a number of comments today From the planning staff, some additional edits that need to occur with the plan. The majority of them are clerical in nature. We made an adjustment to one number here and didn't quite catch all the iterations of it elsewhere sort of thing. So we have plans to update the plan accordingly to take care of those clerical issues. But the person who made those comments I think speak to us a little bit further in the public here. So we'll reach out. Anyway, questions I can answer for you that you haven't already asked. Do trails count as park space to increase the level of service? They typically do not, yeah. So unless you start providing, there is this sort of weird gray space of linear parks. So if you start to amenitize them along the way with other amenities could theoretically count as a park. Or if they're part of a larger application.

Is there any understanding of how many of the LDS church building properties are probably used as park space in this area?

Yeah. So that frequently comes up when we do these analyses is church properties and school properties, right? They are certainly contributing sites to how the community uses pseudo parkland, but we typically leave them out of the level of service analysis because the city does not own them. And so they have no control as to whether they remain and contribute to that level of service.

Does the church ever sell them to cities?

Sometimes.

Is that something that we would look into? That has actually been occurring in Salt Lake County. right now. West Valley City has purchased three church properties recently, and they have been converting the sites over.

Is that something we would consider as a city?

In our community, I believe there's one property that may come up. The South State Center? What was that?

The South State Center with their baseball field?

No, it's two. We're talking about maybe the one on 200 North of Tremont Street, that may be a consideration to that church.

But that is like potential? Yeah, it's definitely on the table to have those conversations and I think it just depends on what position the owner is in.

Another question about population. Obviously in the last six years we've had a large population growth, but as we all know today, we are not planning for as much opposition growth in the future. Is it safe to say that we keep this based on the sewage usage and plan for that, or is this safer to estimate how?

That is a decision that I think the city needs to make.

So we'll, there's no way to forecast people.

Yeah.

But if we're forecasting how much we're letting developments come in.

Well, that's because you know how many people that those developments can service. So you're like, this number is how much we can absorb instead of saying we expect so many to be there.

But really, the vision in my mind is not necessarily the number of people. It's increasing the level of service. So when whoever comes, we can charge them. see the actual increased level that we're actually at because right now 2.5 we can only require that of any new person new development new person coming in we can only charge them 2.5 you know what i mean so if we increase the level of service then as additional people come in that will fill the coffers with the impact fees that will allow us to make the improvements necessary yeah mike is right on because if our goal is 5.5 um

It may be that this current level is low on the estimate, but we already know how far behind the APHA we are, right? So we know what we need to do. And based on funds and the property that we currently own, which is very minimal, this is going to send us in the right direction. So when we get to that future, we'll be able to update this again with proper numbers within the next five, 10 years again, right? say, okay, where are we at? Do we need to increase land acquisition or what do we do from there? So this is the starting off point for the future. And even if it is a little low right now, it's getting us to where we need to be within 10 years and then reevaluate.

but really we're not that far off if we connected the dots because we may be able to even get a little creative with like the development that was here earlier or some of these other developments to say hey we'll allow you to do your thing but you've got to pay you know two thousand dollars per unit into the parks and we're going to make those improvements genie stevens or harvest or whatever you know because if we add What I calculated, I guess, was 24 acres to the 31. We're almost to the five level of service just by improving the parks we already own.

And that's today. If we were able to do it today, we'd be right on. But this is also projected for the future, which we don't have the plans for. That's what Christine and I have worked together on. As future developments come in, how do we work with them on having that opportunity and space? Again, not every development also is going to make sense to put a park in. So getting the fees in lieu to develop, like I said, to develop somewhere else in our current park system is going to help also.

What's your opinion on the PUD that we had as far as encouraging them to essentially put in the parks and the trails from a private standpoint voluntarily as part of a large project? talking specifically against to the one we just talked about? Not that one. I'm just saying a PUD comes in like the one on the hill, it's 700 units and it's got a 12 acre park and trails and all that. Would you rather see that? Because I mean, in my mind, like we're going to be able to get all, we can get to all of this so much faster with that PUD or some mechanism like that than trying to make 14 or even if we increase it. Because I just figured out we'd have to add 20,000 homes in order to get $1,400 impact fee to pay $27 million. And by the time we get that done, it'll be $100 million to improve $27 today.

That wouldn't count towards the level of service, right?

It will if it's dedicated to the city, absolutely.

And this is where the impact fees are often, you're just not able to cover it. And many communities do rely on development agreements. set asides for open space to accomplish a lot of their goals with park acquisition. The main issue that comes up with that strategy is it often accumulates a lot of small parks, but doesn't necessarily accumulate larger parks, which serves you with large field space or other regional type amenities. And so you kind of have to use a lot of different tools to get everything. There isn't one, it's all strategy.

yeah but with maybe christine could answer it with the few puds that are proposed or working on projects i mean we're talking significant acreage aren't we um there's two that have two out of the three and the other one has a lot of small like that that the hd was talking about there but how many acres were in those couple just nine acres in one and i don't know the exact acreage in the other one

but anyway i guess in my mind those are so up to the 10 about 10 acres like jenny stevens park is considered a city-wide park we'd like to have a regional park even bigger 25 acres or so somewhere on the south west east west side of town as that grows up in the future which has it in this plan right so so the bigger the park the more they're we're able to build community the small pocket parts typically don't get used and it just becomes a maintenance burden on the on city staff and the resources and budget that we do have so we'd like to go to those bigger parts that we're able to use more effectively and still have the development service needed to to accommodate for the city and the rest so is the recommendation

considered in the planning stages? I guess what we're asking is to accept this master plan.

That is the potential recommendation.

As Sam mentioned, there are some clerical updates on some numbers that... the overview and the concept and the whole plan in general were recommended to move forward as a recommendation to the city council.

Okay. So are we asked to continue this to another week for the clerical errors or are we asking to approve now?

Yeah, I'd like to give us another minute to view it. Just my preliminary review, I guess I'm not really clear on all of these items that it has down here, the 60 whatever items. I guess in my mind, it would be ideal to have like, okay, we have $2 million in the account. What are we gonna do first and what's next? And you know what I mean, to increase the level of service, like specifically, you know what I mean, where we're saying, okay, the next impact visa come in, they're going here,

actually a real plan like rubber meets the road not like right and that's these high level things yeah and that's where the difference between a parks master plan and the capital facilities plan typically diverge so one is setting your policy and the goals you're working towards the other is actually budgeting out what we're going to work on and when we're going to work on it so sam can i ask a question yeah can our general plan address the capital facility that you mentioned too that is typically not done

but can't we in this plan direct the capital facilities in the way of this is priority one we want we want to improve this you know what i mean just so that they already know what we need to do to increase the level of service you know what i mean right are you how are you getting your financial yeah i feel that that's a hard discussion to have with the city council and their priorities on what they want to fund

capital projects first right there's only a certain amount of dollars within that we have to get their priority on is parks a priority to them right so so this is the overview of where does parks trails and open space fit those priorities with the rest of the the needs of the city how can this meet those needs if they're if they cross Um, and then it gives us direction of city staff on how to move to with us and finance director on how to improve things going forward and setting those, those clients that you're talking about. And that's based on the priorities that are set within this. Um, and then we recommend those capital improvements to the council thing. This is the plan for the parks, trails, and open space. Based on the priorities listed within that, we recommend we move forward with Stokes Park per se. It's gonna cost this much. We get the approval to move forward to try to raise the funds to do that. So I believe it would be more of a case by case basis and project by project as we move forward rather than specifically putting it in this project. not to not to say anything in the past but it's been 25 years since we right right so so but that who who we we can't say that anyone's to blame right but the needs have been met up until the past uh four or five years now we're to the point where we have to have them but the the priority with the rest of the city how do we how do we put that this into the to the council is this is something you have

yeah that's my peer moving forward with that what the finger what what you recommended well my concern is that the city council doesn't have the whole wide view necessarily they're looking at all these budgets and monies you know and my concern is like what's happened i mean if you look in the last 25 years we haven't increased the level of service at all but yet we bought we spent millions of dollars buying trails that don't increase the level of service we spent and it didn't increase the level of service. You know what I mean? In my mind, they need direction to say, hey, yeah, we should probably buy all this land, bank, dirt, but you're going to be way better served to get the level of service up sooner so we can get more money from the newcomers to support that higher level of service. Does that make sense? Yeah. And so I'm worried that the priorities that are going to bring in more income are not being Reviewed correctly from an expenditure standpoint, right?

Yes, I do and within the last two years We've had a lot of turnover within the city staff also that we have also gotten a lot more additional staff that gives us the skills and ability to Tell that story those in a way so I do believe that city itself and the council are headed on a board upward trajectory right how do you make it happen that we haven't had in the past either until this past year because ultimately we're the legislative just like approving this plan but it's administrative that's deciding on the budget I know and I know they are what my worry is this plan is so massive

encumbered and like beautiful and expansive and has all these things but like i think we need like a one page like this is the vision this is where we should spend the money first in order to get more revenue and then we should go down here and down here because the way you look at it the way i read it it's like okay well priority is increased you know spend three million bucks at schumann park that's not a priority in my mind at all like that should be really close to the bottom because it doesn't increase level service and we can't use impact fees or at least for part of it right so the vision you know what i mean like i would love to see like here's the whole detailed plan but we have a one pager that this is really the when the rubber meets the road this is what we recommend to you city council to do you know what i mean with these funds as they come in you know i mean they still have to decide but i think the whole vision of the plan in my mind for this plan should be this is based on everything this is where you should spend the first million the second million third million you know what i mean so that they know and then if they want to make adjustments they totally can yeah and i've mentioned that there's the priorities in there but we can make a quick um you're talking about the priorities at the end the action plans you mean yeah is it yeah it might be though because i read all these action plans and i mean there are a lot of great things but none of them say like improve harvest acres parks so we can increase the level of service i mean they are all like really fancy really high level you know establish an annual budget that accurately and fairly accounts for maintenance and park upgrades well that's fantastic but it doesn't increase the you know like all the way down i mean none of them actually is where the rubber is going to meet the road and that's because this is

intended to be a long-range additional plan and that gives me as the staff that's over that because if we build a park without a plan to maintain it just puts us in a maintenance deficit in the beginning so sure so the priorities have to be there for us to do that so i think like you're saying a one-page quick sheet on a little bit lower levels these are going to give you the most bang for your buck uh right up front and things to focus on maybe a great

addition in the appendix or something or something that we can add into that yeah with the action plan we tried to score things somewhat objectively we had a scoring system that we were using to establish where those things fell um but i mean sometimes subjective systems don't work fully and so i think if it's desired you know zach and i can sit down and we can reorganize some of those you know that's easy yeah i think these are all great

i think the benefit of having that be administrative is that those are the the administrative people are the experts that look at the money and look at all about how the data exists maybe not necessarily even within our city but other experts and things that as a planning commission like we could say what we want right and what we think would be the best thing but it's our job is to just do the policy right and then the administrative part

they can figure out the rest of it yeah i agree yeah i don't think it'd be hard to add a um a priority summary of just like what you're talking about that had these things or focus on these things yeah well that's my that's the thing for my like essentially we as a city have acquired 24 acres we spent millions but we've increased level of service zero

They should have bought one park and improved it, and it would have brought in way more money to buy more parks. You know what I mean?

Again, Micah, you've got to realize that all three of those parks are detention basins, so they have to be used for detention basins. The park portion is kind of the afterthought on let's do something nice for the residents. So we're trying to avoid that. We're trying to get into the future of let's do the quality of life stuff aside from the have-tos or just because of things.

That was a great presentation and discussion. Well done. I'll accept a motion to end the meeting and open the public hearing. Seconded. Seconded. Then we close the staff presentation and meeting and open the public hearing. All in favor say yes.

Yes.

Opposed? Motion passes. Okay. Public hearing is open. All who would like to comment on the adoption of the Parks, Trails, and Open Space Master Plan. Thank you.

playing well um first question i have is have you guys read this entire document it's taken me three days to get through it and i've come up with a lot of comments that i've given to the staff we saw a couple concerns that i have that i'd like to let me speak to the first one is the projected growth of the community if we use the numbers that they put up there which would be chart number four The growth as I see it is less than projected. There's less than 3% Based off of what I believe I think we're going to be closer to the 5% in 50 when we get out to 2050 and we'll probably see close to 50,000 residents in the city and so We need to probably you say revisit this plan in 10 years I would propose and suggest that then we visited in five years or less and especially given the explosive growth that i expect that we're going to see if you go down to chart number 11 they talk about a rap tax based off of what i see in the plan it sounds like there were a lot of residents who were in favor of rap tax i don't know what it takes to get that inactive and started but that would certainly be a source of revenue and income that would help for this process in addition to that as i recall the last meeting we rezoned a piece of property on the west side of the freeway that i believe was going to parks and recreation i do not know how much that property will sell for but i understand that property also proceeds are supposed to go to the parks and recreation department that might be able to facilitate expansion or quickly getting the parks that we've talked about going and up so that you can increase that uh whatever it's called level of service okay as a suggestion Let's go down to page 34. These are some recommendations for the parks. Acquire land early. Again, I'm not sure how you're going to do that, given the amount of revenue that the city has and where you want to spend the revenue. But highlighted there, no, early acquire that. And then they also talk about update the codes for open space requirements. a code update and my real question is so do we have somebody who's watching for property come on sale that potentially we may want to buy it as a city or a park so just i don't know who's doing that let's go pay 64. This has to do with trails. There were several things in the trail section that I think probably should be added. Primarily one is the width of the trail. This is just the paved portion. It doesn't talk anything about the size of the easements on either side of the trail. It doesn't talk about landscaping. It doesn't talk about, you know, water, the way to put lights along the trail for safety reasons. I have about three minutes left. Hurry. I guess I'm done. but there are several other things um good points but i think we need to take time to re-look at it and look at it closely if you want to look at the document please take time to read it and try to understand it um i would like to see answers to a lot of the things i've put in here at least have a discussion and having three days or a week to review it is not much time for 230 pages for whatever it is document so thank you

I think it's great that we have a plan. We do need a plan, and that's going to have to change as time goes on and as the city grows. We have a catch-22 situation, and I think Micah put his finger on it. We need to work on a way to get more impact fees going so that we can have those funds to put towards the parks for recreation. Fifty years ago when I left Spanish Fork, We had about the same population as we do here now. And they're just barely putting in a 35,000 square foot rec center with six pools and a whole bunch of other stuff. Their population has doubled in the last 20 years up to 50,000 right now. So I think until we get a vision of growth, we can sustain growth and be able to have the funds coming in it's going to be challenging to have the parks and recreation that we want to have so we have to be open-minded to growth in order to have those funds coming in too so I would just advocate you know that as a Planning Commission we we keep that in mind that some of these amenities will only come because of growth and we so we've got to have growth if we want that that other part of it

Further comments? Seeing none, we'll accept a motion to end the public hearing and open the consideration and decision.

I make a motion to end the public hearing and open the consideration and decision.

It's been moved. I second that. Seconded, then we close the public hearing and open the consideration and decision. All those in favor say yes. Yes. Opposed? Motion passes.

I make a motion to table the rest of it, but we can review it in more detail, review his comments, and come back with updates and modifications. I'd love to see that one-page summary of what we really, where the rubber meets the road. Can we still table until a certain date?

Because you have to bring up

with the closed end date yeah we would have to re-notice for a subsequent public hearing if you're at your table and we have to re-notice which so we're just continuing would that be a bad thing well it's the same thing okay two meetings out whatever you prefer like we have to know to notify the public right which i would say we just do a continuous

to the next available meeting. But if nothing is on that agenda, go to the following meeting.

Don't make a separate meeting.

Until the end of July. July 14th. I second that motion.

Okay, it's been moved and seconded that we continue this meeting.

How do you say it? Continue the adoption of Parks and Trails and Open Space Master Plan. until a continuance had been moved.

I don't know how you state that. So which date? July 7th? No, 14th. July 14th. And moved and seconded. Those in favor say yes. Yes. Motion passes. Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

And your input.

It is valuable. And Sam, you don't have to come next time.

I'm really happy to be here with you all in person.

We appreciate it. We appreciate it.

Just don't feel like you have to come. I would like to. No, you do have to come. We want you to come. That's a one drive, okay? Okay, we have a one drive, one mile.

I would like to suggest that we potentially table the rest of the items in the meeting until the end of time. Is that a motion?

That's a motion, yes, that we continue the rest of the items in the meeting. Is that possible or not possible? I think we're shorter in nature.

Okay. Multiple of us have to turn in our ballots at the fairgrounds before 8 o'clock.

So just throw that out there.

So unless we can get these done really quickly, which I don't have. Well, whoever has to go, we can ring Jack up to fill in if we need.

Is that doable? Alternate?

I could go right away. OK. All right. Item 4C is Residential Law Regulations Code Text Amendment. It's trying to help our applicants follow varied guidelines for the subdivision process using the entitlements that they have from the zoning basin granted. We saw a few inconsistencies in and between chapters and have an opportunity presented to feature a new addition to our code. First, the International Building Code does not regulate structures that are 200 square feet or less of their gross square footage, I believe. where those smaller structures, and in my mind, I think of tub sheds, chicken coops, different types of structures, they have to follow the accessory structure setbacks for the zone, which is across the board five feet. So those structures cannot get closer than five feet to the property boundaries currently under our code. Staff suggests the inclusion of a new definition and new regulations to our code to allow for small accessory structures. I will read the definition to you so that staff is drafted. Building or structure accessory small, a detached structure 200 square feet or less in gross floor area. Permitted structures included but not limited to prefabricated storage sheds, chicken coops, and similar incidental accessory structures. Small accessory structures shall not be connected to permanent electrical, water, sewer, or other utility service. And the standards and the code would have them get, unfortunately there's an error in how it's presented in the staff report in one area, but it's correct in another. Instead of reading for the different zones, R1 up to, or down to RM16, 10 feet, three feet, and five feet, instead we're proposing three feet for R1 through R112, two feet for R110 through R18, and then one foot for RM8 and RM16, as close as those structures could get to the property boundaries. So that is the first change that the staff is proposing tonight. The second change the staff is proposing is that there is contradictory language in the code where it talks about the height regulations for All buildings and districts regulated by this chapter shall be 36 feet, and then just a few lines down, it says accessory structures are kept at, I can't remember, 20 feet, something like that. So we just proposed the addition of one simple word, the maximum height for all main buildings, meaning homes and other main structures. Therefore, you have the difference between main structures and accessory structures, and no conflict between the two. The third proposal, Mr. Chair, is related to the purpose statements of the multiple residential zones. I'll read the one for RMA. To provide areas for higher residential density with the opportunity for varied housing styles and character for single family occupancy. Maximum density, eight units per acre for attached housing. That's from section 1.07.005G, reflects the same thing, but for RM16. And so what you have is a purpose statement, but then down in the land use table, which is what staff uses when we receive an application, we look up the zone, we look up what their standards are. The way it's depicted currently is that single family dwellings have a dash on the RM16 and RM8 zones, which means not permitted in our code. So we thought that was kind of contradictory where you have a purpose. But it's not permitted in the table. The actual kind of rollout of the application. So we're proposing instead of a dash for not permitted, that we add note 10 in series, it goes one through nine, that are present in the code. So note 10 would be a new note that says, detached single family dwellings are permitted within RM8 and RM16 developments. Single family lots shall comply with the regulations of the R1-8 zone. So that is a simple way to achieve varied housing styles, because if we're talking about multiple family residential, then you have a new inclusion into the code for detached accessory dwelling units, meaning you could have multiple families on one lot today in the single family area, where you could have a home and one internal accessory dwelling and or a detached accessory dwelling unit. So that could be three families on one lot today. It's just prohibited in this contradictory language can we suggest a draft and have prepared a draft to edit the code?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I didn't get the staff report. Did you guys?

The email didn't include the staff report for any of that. We never saw any of that. I tried to find it, but I couldn't.

So I haven't seen any of that. That was just a clerical error on the staff's part. That would have been my fault.

I don't have it either. I want it included.

But I can show you where to find it and we can just go through.

So, sorry about that. That was an important one. That's why I thought this would be fast.

Swing down the residential law and regulations TA. Go to the .

I can't find it either. If you've got to go, just go and let Jack fill in. This is the error right here where it says in the red text 10, 3, and 5.

I can show you what it actually looks like.

three three two ah close um is there any uh fire hazard for if it says no permanent electricity we talked when we talked to the fire chief on that and he said that that was fine if there wasn't because it's it's not designed to have them living in it yeah and so if there was a structure fire that got fired they would let it burn as long as they could They don't have to get around it the same way they would with their dwelling. So we did run that by our fire chief.

The fire department is concerned about getting around accessory structures and there's minimum fire separation for that. That's not a concern for tough sheds where if a neighbor's house burns, then the fence burns, then the prefab shed burns. Maybe we just call that a wash, right? Makes sense.

What if it's like you know, the wind picks up and picks your pergola up and throws it in the neighbor's yard.

Yeah.

It's not much about that.

It doesn't have to be. Does it still have to be 10 feet from the neighboring shaft or neighboring building?

That's part of Puerto Rico itself. Because my understanding was it was always like this.

That's the way Steve always interpreted it historically. is basically three feet if it's not a if it didn't have a window is the way he used to interpret it because that's because i don't want uh but it uh but they required if there was another shed closer to 10 then you had to be you had to be at least 10 feet from a neighboring that's kind of what i think because i that was my understanding was that it was closer the 10 feet to a neighboring structure that had to be fire rated.

That's interesting. That's a good note.

But yeah, I like that. I mean, I'm totally for that. And maybe we just add another component. Yeah, so I like that one.

That's fine. My chicken run is closer. What's the use table? Is this the use table you were talking about?

Yes.

And that's for the accessory units. The next one is the height.

Oh, it also contains the main building context there, the red text.

And then if you go up... You're not talking about changing the heights.

You're just clarifying. Were you going to take main or is it primary better?

I think either get the point across. That's all of the changes together, not in context.

So change number one is the small accessory structures. It's not a change, it's just not reflected well. Yeah. I could change that before the City Council. And then two is the high requirements. Where's that one?

At the bottom.

Yep. And then what about the legal funding? That's right there in the middle.

Okay.

I make a motion to add to the staff presentation of the public hearing.

Okay. I second that motion. Moved and seconded that we end the staff presentation and open the public hearing. All those in favor?

Yes.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Motion passes. Any comments on the public hearing? Okay. Seeing none, I'll accept the motion to close the public hearing.

I'll make a motion to close the public hearing and open the consideration of decisions.

Moved and seconded that we close the public hearing and open the consideration of decisions. All those in favor say yes.

Yes. Yes. I'll second that. Okay. I heard it. I don't need much.

I'm waiting. Those mayors say yes. Yes.

Motion passes. I make a motion to send a positive recommendation to event chapter 1.0305, 1.07010, and 1.07.015. to the City Council as provided.

I'll second.

So moved and seconded that we send a positive recommendation to the City Council amending chapter 1.03.005, 1.07.010, and 1.07.015 as presented. Those in favor say yes. Yes. Motion passes.

mr chair 4d is the planning commission code code amendments um there is no language in the current code that defines when term limits for planning commission members expire staff has prepared a draft to define that rather than to lead to any ambiguity uh included language that that makes it hopefully clear and uh mr cheryl i'll read that to you 1.04.020 I'm going to put my finger up when it's new text. The terms of the appointed members of the Planning Commission shall be two years and shall expire in January of the second year following appointments and until their respective successors have been appointed, provided that term shall be assigned and adjusted as necessary to maintain staggered appointments so that the terms of two members expire each year. Alternate members shall serve under the same term provisions and may serve in place of absent or disqualified members. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Really quick question or comment. I believe that the three-year term actually makes more sense because the city council is a two and a four-year term. So by having a three-year term, you are ensuring there's a check and balance, that you're not just getting a new person, new people put in with the new city councillors. So that would be my recommendation on that one. And also, I wonder and don't know what the expectation would be going forward if we were to do this because all of us would be at this time and obviously it's only supposed to have two members expiring each term i'm not at that time yet i'm at one in january you would be at two right so something is the opportunity to reapply yeah but that's what i'm saying like so i i just think that that's something to bring up

three to four just because it's so hard to understand what's even going on. And even in two years, by the time you get here and go through a few meetings, it's really difficult to have some continuity of understanding if you're only here for two years. We swap new people all the time. It's hard enough at three, or eight for that matter, to understand and have a basic understanding. I mean, you know what it was like. How many were you on before? Four times. Yeah. So you have a lot more understanding. If you had only been here for two years, by the time you get here, you have a basis. It's time for you to go, and then it's like... Was it the city council that recommended the two?

Yes. It was directed from the city council. This particular thing was right. And you said with the option to reapply. Yes.

Basically, you could go into perpetuity if you just It's not likely to kick you out and go, sorry, you can't do this anymore. We check it every two years. Do you want to do it? Please apply. Don't want to do it? We need to find a replacement. And then if you're actually finding people more quickly, but it doesn't, like you said, you're just.

Or we have people in waiting, especially, I mean, I think the alternate thing was a helpful thing. I do like that, actually. And the thing, because then you're training people, and then the two-year term makes more sense. if the trainings of the alternates kind of helps them get ready to handle the two-year.

Was there a question on the alternate section?

We didn't get it directed to do the alternate section. So we haven't touched that. I feel like there was... Is there something you'd like us to look at?

I don't know. I just remember there... other confusion a little bit and how they were you know how they participate yes it was it wasn't they can't it wasn't they can't be voting or they can't discuss they can't that was part but i was going to talk to christy about this they can't discuss what we're discussing the only comments that they can be a part of is the public comment section or public hearing and i was like Part of me thinks that that should be included as a perk to being an alternate. So people step up and say, I want to be an alternate to have my voice heard. Yeah, they're not a voting member in that meeting, but they have the ability to speak to any motion.

Especially since they're going to be part of conversations, most likely. Yes, and it gets and it gives the feedback of what's going on with the alternates when they do step in to handle when those of us are absent. I think that's good to do.

Oh, and I think it should be also defined that the alternates should be the first opportunity to fill a vacancy. That's a good point. You know, in the event. The first will. Yeah, because the whole purpose of this, lowering the years and not having that, it just gives council more opportunity to remove commissioners that don't think or vote in the way that they want them to vote and it just has us not voting our minds instead of our yeah we just start the city council could potentially come in and just say okay hey we're gonna we're just gonna you know your two years is up you know so we don't like what you're voting so we're gonna go ahead and change that you know what i mean it just sets you up for more problems you know where you could potentially adjust it but I think it would be smart to have the folks that have been here and spend the time and they know they're going to be way better to put in a vacancy position than somebody coming from off the grid you know well now that we've created the regional yeah yeah MPI I think that they should also be potentially added to the list of alternates as they move up the line because they're already

They are starting to understand the process and they're starting to understand the people.

Level of commitment, the time.

Can I speak, Mr. Chair? Yeah. Something to take into consideration too is code is your basic outline, but something that any commission could have that we've never had before is a policy guide. And that can be created by you guys and kind of bylaws, that's what I meant, bylaws. And so that you have your own set of bylaws that you guys can follow that don't necessarily need to be in code, but they're the way that you want to run the Planning Commission. So that's the difficulty. Yeah, you can adopt your own set of bylaws.

As far as this is a concern, the City Council would have to.

Yeah, but just moving forward as you're thinking of the Planning Commission, that's in the right direction.

So I motion to not recommend with word because I think we'll need to fix this a little bit before already. Oh, sorry. I recommend that we close the presentation and commission discussion and open the public hearing.

It's been moved. Is there a second? And seconded that we close the staff presentation and open the public hearing. Those in favor say yes.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Motion passes. Public hearing. Any comments on the...

Okay.

Okay.

Seeing none, I approve. I accept the motion. I will motion to close the public hearing and open the consideration and decision

section of the board of deliberation and motion and vote i moved is there a second second and second did we close the public hearing and open the consideration and decision section those in favor say yes yes yes motion passes consideration and decision i had an ai look it up just like all the other cities what they're doing it says many utah cities use four-year staggering terms for planning commissioners

for a city like Tremont which deals with ongoing growth reasons subdivision development planning there is generally a stronger argument for three years or longer staggered terms because land use decisions will often span multiple years and benefit from continuity I would agree with that I think I don't I don't know what because I mean if I correct me if I'm wrong but the city council can remove any of us at any time really probably for any or no reason So I don't understand why they would want to go through that whole interview process sooner rather than... I mean, if you can remove somebody, remove them. You know what I mean?

It's a pretty hard thing to do, though. My son was on a commission in Hoover, and it was a struggle. I mean, the fire finally got rid of him, but it was a political battle. I don't think it's that big a deal with Garland. They had an issue. They removed their whole council when I was dealing with this project over there. So in discussion, are we asking for it to be three years or are we

You make a motion based on whatever your inclinations are, and then we either adopt or we reject.

Or you could go in between approval with the changes or corrections that you want. You can amend. Or deny all of them.

Yeah. And technically, I think we're supposed to actually bring it for a vote and then discuss it.

So should we do as is first? What do you mean?

like how it's written right now i motion to vote to i move i move to vote whether we want to recommend this as is worded to the city council you're moving to approve as yes i'm moving too yes i'm wondering what the vote will be on that okay so it's been moved that we send a positive recommendation to the city council on the amended code as presented is there a second also that has been moved and seconded those in favor of sending a positive recommendation to the city council of the code amendments as presented say yes yes recommending the two-year term this one is yeah recommending the two years that's right so two yeses so i'm still not sure all the names so two and then all opposed no like i yeah i don't want to recommend this no and and three notes so the motion fails so now the motion is open you can move anything right because so how do we want to work it going forward what we would recommend yeah you can you can say the same thing with an amended version if you if you wanted to before that you could have said i moved that we amend the someone could have moved to amend that one then we deal with the amendment then we do with motion passing our family if you don't like any of the denials probably the yeah i don't know how to reword it right now personally number of years and and or do we want to put in the alternate we can get a directive to add those things later too if you want to do that for the ultimate things and you can just deal with it for years yeah okay yeah okay because i thought we'd have to do the ultimate because i think my recommendation is part of this but we could if you wanted you could add to the the in another subsequent paragraph alternate and we add a section and just say this is what we want this code to say we want it to remain the three years and we want to add the section about alternates which we would need to have pretty funny just that they would get them they would be considered first

they're going to be interviewed when they're when they're set up as an alternate so we've already gone through the interview process the only reason why you bypass a so you're just saying the alternatives would be ahead of any citizen they would be the files because they are are trained they're already spent the time and they already know what they're doing i'm just trying to understand what your yeah priority yeah the only reason why you wouldn't do that

didn't want to approve in the beginning or you were trying to put someone specifically that would vote a certain way that maybe the alternates didn't and i don't like that in my opinion it should be if they're if they're voted as alternates they should be they're commissioned members they should have already been vetted through the process but once again what if the citizen has been on the commission before like me for five years and comes back wants to happens yeah because then you're because right now you don't know anything Jack's been here for a year or whatever you just brand new coming in if you were an alternate you would have been you know then you kind of just have more continuity and more basis and that's not saying you don't know so yeah I guess my recommendation would be that we'd recommend three So you move and I can go back to the mortgage on that. I think the staggering appointments are fine. I think I thought that's what it always was.

I don't think it's clear at all.

I think it's fine that it says it expires in January. I think that's fine. But we just want to keep the three years. In your motion, did you want to adjust the alternates?

I would like to add that the alternates are considered first for the positions.

You could actually add a section 1. What's the next section number? 1.040421.

Down below.

That's a recommended motion. Sorry. I was looking. I thought this was up. Sorry. Would we have to do like A or 1.04021?

It's either a subsequent amendment or it could be addressed in the creation of bylaws. Oh, so that's what he's talking about. The bylaws will take care of that. That we can decide that instead of the code.

However, if it were codified, it would be a lot more set in stone so that if we have

a change in city council yeah who had a desire to do something different they would have to follow the code you know yeah so you can you can say we'll we'll edit this to the three years keeping the rest of the added amendment there and then insert section 1.04.021

dash alternate code alternate alternate so direct stuff to draft code regarding alternate alternate numbers yeah so what are there what's your name because the official name is alternate but that's what i'm saying would you let us figure out the numbering and where to put it in code yeah yeah oh for sure yeah yeah yeah so in other words we wrote this down for today and

no you you you already go to the down yeah so we'll you want the three-year i like the three is what i'm hearing so then we say you know we want to uh we make a motion to send a positive recommendation to the city council for the shall be three years and shall expire in january the second year following the appointment All the rest is added.

And then just add one line that says alternates shall be considered for vacancies first. Yeah.

So that middle one probably captures what you're trying to do.

Okay, you want me to say it? She kind of already said it, didn't she? My brain is so shot right now. Good practice.

8 p.m.

This is good.

I move we recommend approval to the City Council of Planning Commission Code text amendment amending section 1.04.020 term of office to clarify the end of the term limits for Planning Commission members based on findings listed in the memorandum dated June 23, 2026 with the following additional corrections. Three-year terms. instead of two. It's been moved. And alternates will be.

And direct staff. And directs.

Alternates in the code. What am I saying? That's what we want. Okay.

It's been moved.

Is there a second? Did she say it? Yes. Alternates will direct staff. I'll clarify.

Thank you.

It's been moved and seconded that we approve or i reckon that we recommend an approval of the city council the planning should code a text amendment amending section 1.0 4.020 term of office to clarify the the end of term limits for planning commission members based on the findings listed in the random data june 23rd 2026 with the following additional corrections that we do three year terms instead of two and include direct stuff direct staff to include a section regarding alternate dealings they be considered first that they be considered first all in favor say yes yes all opposed the motion passes right here okay point five public comments who's second

We're good, keep going.

Excellent, seeing none. I think she's been here this long, she has to. You're obligated. This one I'm listening, I don't have a lot of comments. I'm just kidding.

Okay, six, business. Staff questions?

We have one item, we have a few items, but we're going to condense it to one. Staff is prepared to bring forth first draft and outline of the PC over its own overlay that will replace the PUD, but we need to know how you want us to present that in a discussion. The way the format is with our agenda, we can bring it and we can discuss it. We obviously don't want to come and bring it to you for a vote. We would like a discussion and a draft form. Or if you want us to do like a workshop kind of before and we could do like at 5.30 do the workshop and it's, or how do you want us to put it in your

A workshop being the unofficial and more down-to-earth time to really go through text before you're in a public meeting setting. That could be, like Christine was suggesting, either before whatever time you agree on to start the public meeting, where everyone can come, of course, or choose perhaps a different day. We just want to

And we can even start planning commission like 545 or six and then we do or do you want in the former public public eating setting?

Workshops are recorded not televised.

No, no, they are recorded.

No and televised.

Keep them in the meeting.

But in a more informal way.

i think it'd be ideal if you sent us a draft version that we could at least review for sure and i think i think it's fine to have it do it an hour before the meeting started at five and we start the meeting at six or something like that i think that's a great idea that's what everybody else seems to do the county does that yeah okay sounds good legal changes come though i don't need to know that's fantastic

I move to adjourn the meeting.

I don't know.

I guess hold on.

He was just questioning whether it had to stay.

It does because it's already been posted.

So then let's just do it at 432.

A whole hour? I don't think we need a whole hour.

Okay, so whatever amount of time we need, let's do it before that. You hope we don't. You hope we all show up on time. Let's just do, if we only need a half, then just do five.

If it's informal, I'll send you out the text amendments, and then can you guys tell me how much time you guys think we want to discuss it? Yeah.

We may be able to just review it and say let's start at the regular time, because I think if we get it in advance,

that gives us plenty of time i mean the weekend before or something like you've been doing i'll try to get to you at least email it to you but not miss it i don't know what happened on that sorry so yeah no we'll get it to you before what is pcb why community don't plan community it's yeah yeah it's like a master plan community

underlying zoning with an overlay it's a zone it's a reason but it brings a lot of the elements of the pv overlay so yeah you'll see a lot of i think you'll i think you'll like it just a reframing and it's entirely legislative anyway we'll get to that pitch it to you in another day that's the elevator pitch okay okay motion to adjourn it's been moved to adjourn okay they're safe thanks all in favor

Yes. I just wanted to do it for a journey.