Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

September 8, 2026. First item of business is consideration and decision of the new planning commission chairperson. Would we like to make some?

I would like to make a nomination. Yes. I would like to nominate Karen Ellsworth as the chairperson for our planning commission. I'll second that. Thank you. I accept.

Is there any other nominations? Okay. Here we go. Okay. All in favor, please say yes.

Yes.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Any opposed? Seeing as how no one is opposed, I will move my things.

Did we want to do a vice chair?

I'm going to switch over there.

Okay, sounds great.

I'd like to be a thorn between two roses. Okay, item number two is the approval of the agenda. I'll make a motion to approve the agenda.

I'll second that.

um motion to approve the agenda everyone say yes yes in favor in favor of putting the agenda sorry yeah it's going to be a minute okay can i make a motion would you like to motion i'd like to make a motion that on 7a right after 7a i just before the public hearing we had a time for the mpis to make comments okay

um hold on one second though let's talk about that um would mpis be considered public we were going to pose that to you as a question as part of asking the board until allowing a report so meaning it would go over time well code allows them a three minute report so the question is do they get the three minutes to report and then also can comment as an individual i would say yes because one very important is

other just their individual comments as long as they hold their mpi comments to the to that yeah do we need to change the agenda because of that yes okay so let's amend the agenda to after i we have the mpi look at the report and now We are going to approve the new agenda with the amendment. All those who are in favor, please say yes. Yes. What exactly are we adding? We're adding the MPI person to allow them to speak as an individual and as an MPI committee person. Just before the public comments. Before the public comments. A comment for their group.

Just three minutes.

Three minutes. So it really will be no different, but he will be able to Maybe representing his MPI. If he needs to say anything as an individual, he'll have the option. Okay. Agenda item number three, declaration of conflict of interest. Do we have anyone who would like to present a conflict of interest? Seeing as how there is none, we will move to number four, approval of minutes July 14th, 2026 and July 28th, 2026. Those in favor of approving the minutes. What? A motion to approve the minutes.

Make a motion to approve the minutes for July 14th and July 28th, 2026.

Is there a second? I'll second it. Okay. Those who approve the approval of minutes for July 14th, 2026 and July 28th, 2026, please say yes. Yes. Yes. it's okay okay number five public comments during this time residents may address other topics not discussed on their agenda on this agenda today please limit your comments to three minutes or less and please tell us your name is there somebody who would like to so comments are open to the public

Public comments that are not on the agenda today.

Random public comments. Number six.

consideration and decision or deliberation motion and vote on a continuation of a mixed code. Do you want me to read that out or would you like to?

I can take this one if you want.

Christine, can we just take just a second?

I just got a message that your microphones need to be closer to you because you cannot hear what you're saying. They can hear you.

They can hear me. I'm usually pretty loud.

That just said, please move the mics closer so they can hear you. OK, sorry. Go ahead. Go on.

Thanks. The last Planning Commission meeting, we had presented a mixed-use update. And there was some good discussion and deliberation on that. And staff has taken it back. And we're requesting that the item actually use the tabling tool. and with no specific date to be determined so that we can have extended noticing and with a draft to bring to the Planning Commission at a later date. So that is the consideration for today. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me.

Thank you, Mrs. Chair. So do we have a motion to allow the continuation of the mixed-use code?

The tabling of it.

The tabling of it. So that we don't have to continue. So that we do not have to, we don't have a set date that we are going to talk about.

But it will be brought up when it's ready.

But when it's ready, we will discuss it. I'll make that motion once you second it. Okay.

I'll second it.

Okay.

Those in favor of continuation of the mixed use code with no date and returning when it is ready. I think we're not tabling it, right? We are tabling it. Okay, I'm gonna get this one.

Sorry, I'm just clarifying to make sure it doesn't sound like we're continuing it, because that was the whole purpose, right, is we're paying the table to not continue.

Yes, yes.

So that should be fine.

I actually really appreciate your help. So thank you. Okay, so we are tabling the mixed use code to a later date to be determined. If there is someone who would like, or let's vote. We have a motion and a second. Motion and a second. All in favor say yes. Yes. Any opposed?

Motion carries.

Motion carries, thank you. It's almost like you've done this before. Okay, number seven, public meeting and public hearings. We will have presentations by Jeremy Lance about the Valley Vista's PUD overlay.

Madam Chair, I'll take just a moment to introduce our intern, Abigail Mattinson, joining us to help out with the important work of the

degree business communications I've heard of it thank you for helping us okay so we are discussing the valley vistas PUD overlay the application number is 26.014 the applicant is Brock Burns ICP West Division owner is ICP West Division LLC the project location is one two six 2650 West, Hollow Drive, Tremont, Utah. Date of application was August 4th, 2026. The current zoning is residential at R112. The general plan designation is single family residential, low to medium density. The acreage is 58.72 acres. And I do want to add that a representative of this application is present tonight. So the request is for the adoption of the Valley Vista's planned unit development or PUD overlay. So there was an NPI meeting scheduled, and I have a summary of that meeting. So I want to start with that the tone was generally very civil. Residents surrounding the proposed Valley Vistas subdivision attended this meeting to ask questions and receive clarity from the city planning and zoning offices of the city. Though they did not attend, Valley Vistas was informed of the meeting and given the opportunity to discuss with residents directly. Several concerns and opinions were voiced by the residents about unclear details of the proposal. Specifics include increased traffic, lack of access to proposed amenities, and water access being pumped uphill. Residents were informed of the next steps of the application process and where to access official information about the proceedings. No other discussion was made.

And with the staff reports prepared by staff, just wanted to call out a few details from the report, Madam Chair. The surrounding land uses, so you have R112 present in both parcels. North of the subject property is an unincorporated box of the county land, so it's at the borders of the cities there, of Tremont City there. And then also on the east of the subdivision is a county minor subdivision, an agricultural and nature type of subdivision. To the south and west, you have R120 and R110 zoning. Actually, those two zoning types are to the south mainly. You have a third acre to the west type zoning. So for the proposed development, there's approximately 186 detached single-family dwellings across a variety of lot sizes. There's approximately 120 townhomes attached units, equaling a total of approximately 306 units. requested for the PUD overlay. Park space equals approximately 11.15 to 11.44 acres, calculated to approximately 19% of the property. It was highlighted in an email to staff that there's kind of some internal inconsistency in the staff report. So it was noted previously that the general plan designated a single family residential Single family residential low to medium density. The colors between low to medium and medium to high are like the same. My eyes couldn't tell the difference. So the report was written in a way talk about how it's consistent with the the land use plan it's kind of re-engineered throughout rewriting to say that it's not matching the r112 zoning like the city was hoping for in the land use plan so some of those uh uh translations yeah yeah some of those weren't caught and so it's generally considered that this doesn't meet the the zoning report before the future land use map um uh designation put forth by the city's adopted integrated land use plan. So just wanted to make that clear. Hopefully that clears up the tone of the report as submitted. Otherwise I'll turn my time over to Christine.

I'm here to answer questions. We're here to answer questions. I was going to go over some of the things that were brought up. in the value business. If you look at, well first, back to the staff report, the very back, there's a chart that goes through all of the goals of the land use plan, and one is to promote and implement, the promotion and implement of the land use concepts contained within, and it just goes through all of the charts, and I hope you guys have had a chance to read through the chart in the packet. So, because with every development that comes forward, our staff, our standard is to go off of what are the goals of our integrated land use plan and how do they match up. And so this is the chart of how it matches up and what it does.

Attachment L. Yes.

It's attachment L. Attachment L. I'm not going to go through and read all of them, but I wanted to highlight that that is what we will be bringing forward with every development. We will be doing this for you to see how they match up with the goals of the land use plan. And then as you discuss and deliberate, if you have questions, the master development agreement was put in there. We're working really hard on getting the development agreement put together. We do not have a complete development agreement. Our attorney's been in Hawaii for a week and a half or so, and so he is going to be reviewing that. And so we have a good working draft right now of the development agreement, and I'm willing to answer any questions that you might have on the development agreement. But the Valley Vistas report was in your packet, and it should show you a configuration with what they're proposing, kind of a snapshot of what they're proposing is what do they currently have and what are they asking for? And then it's your decision and your deliberation to see if what they're asking for justifies the change in the zoning laws that we have there currently in place. Are the amenities, are those things, because all of the bonus entity is granted based off of the amenities that the developer provides via the PUD overlay code. And so that's the, as we look forward and look at the amenities, if you have questions about the amenities, we would love to answer. I don't know where to start until you guys have some questions on those. But pretty much right now, the base density is R1-12. When you take into consideration of how much is actual developable, there's theoretical, theoretically R1-12, you could develop around 200 lots. But you have to take about on hillside development, about 35% of it will go to undeveloped land or roads and streets. So that brings the total of developable lots around 139 lots roughly. And these are estimates because all of that is set more so solidly in the preliminary plot process. This is giving the entitlements to a certain maximum amount of units. And then it moves forward to the preliminary plot process where The DRC will say, is it really developable? Can they really put this many lots? But they are entitled, if they can, to develop this amount of lots that is being proposed. And so they're proposing 306 lots. And that is with the streets filled out. So that has taken into consideration the streets in there. So any other questions? I wanted to make sure all the questions the NPI were answered, and I think that they've been touched on how culinary water will be pumped up. That will be done through the DRC process, and they will make sure that they will be required to pump up the required amount of water for the development. So, and more information can be, I can get more detailed information from our engineer if needed, but that usually happens at the preliminary plot phase when they go through that, so.

You mentioned a discrepancy between the number of units.

Yes.

Could you expand on that?

That's something we're still trying to work out with the development agreement. And in the past, well, there's one way the PUD outlines that we can get bonus density, and that is through improvements via amenities. It has been proposed, but there's no way. And I've talked to the mayor and I've talked to the attorney. to try to see that the developer was wanting to come and ask for additional density via moving a water tower and the infrastructure agreement. Those things are going to be kept separate. There's a partial land that the property, that the city owns that is up on the northern air, and we would be doing a land swap, meaning we would be taking that land from where the there's a water tower there now, and they would be relocating it. It's actually not a functional water tower, but we would be giving them there that land, and then relocating it down in different spots. So it's just moving, it'll make it easier for the developer to develop, because we won't have two, there's two areas in the development where the city has property. So they own water towers up in the northern western area, and then in the southern middle area, they also own some water towers. And so for that work, the developer's gonna propose, well, That's how we want to get our extra density. But after reviewing that with the attorney and reading through the PUD overlay, trying to see if the validity of that, there isn't a validity in being able to combine the transactions, like double-dipping. You're not going to get bonus density with infrastructure improvement and amenities. I can't quantify that. I can't enforce that as its own administrator. There's no way I can do that. So the infrastructure, not necessarily improvements, but relocation, and if there's improvements will be handled with a real property agreement with the city. And then if there's any, like let's say if there's any upsizing or anything that he needs to do or he does in addition to what's required of his development, the city would reimburse him for that just in cash, just to keep those separate transactions because there's no code to quantify that. Does that answer your question?

So in the DRC process, you will make that determination

density no on density we would we would do a land swap so we'd calculate the value of the land and say okay this land is value these are very hypothetical numbers not even close to what they will be but say the land is worth ten thousand dollars okay then but moving the water tower costing twelve thousand dollars then the city would compensate him for the two thousand dollars okay so that's just a separate agreement that could be an administrative agreement well it would still have to go through a legislative process because the city is giving up real land And so, but that is a separate decision based on the bonus density. And so there are other ways for the developer to receive bonus density, two of them that I brought up. We're kind of caught in a situation where we're trying, the applicant would like us to move the application forward, but yet there's still a few details that haven't been worked out that still need to be worked out. So we really appreciate your patience. It's not that we haven't worked to have this done before we brought it to you. We've worked really hard to get it here, but there are still a few moving parts. So currently with this calculation, The maximum amount of density he can have is 293 units, but he's proposing 306. Well, there are other ways for him to receive that bonus density, but it would have to be in fee and lose or off-site. There are different needs, and we just haven't worked that out with the developer.

And the difference is just the 13 units?

It depends. I did hear back from Parks and Rec today. They're calculating, and I haven't done the math to see if it makes a difference or not. There's two things, there's a public restroom that they're not, that they said that they aren't providing, and that gave them five extra identity points. And then there's also the detention or retention pond was being counted as open space, but the code allows for, it has to be approved by the city that can count for open space. And as a matter of policy, the Parks and Rec Department has thought back to me and anytime a developer uses a retention or detention pond and doubles it as park space, it has to be a minimum of three acres because that's usable park space for, and that's the size of our community parks is three acres. so unfortunately that it's 0.5 acres that lot that those parks are and that will not be able to be used as part of the calculation but but i still he's still probably as long as he qualifies for the 15 minimum amount of open space he can still move forward but we still have that discrepancy to work out on how he's going to get those extra bonus entities and that's something for you to discuss we love your input and then it's our job to try to translate what your input is on

One final question. I may have missed it in the documentation, but you mentioned the water tower and the pumping was mentioned. Will there be a water facility there on site additional for that hillside in this development?

Not to my, I'd have to consult with our engineer and say that the water towers are already currently being used by the city and they're, I'm not educated.

So it's the capacity of the water towers that are currently there.

tax uh maxed out or i mean because we do have residents on the in that area who have concerns about their water pressure yes and so i thought the water tower that wasn't being used right now there's one there's there's three water towers here on that area one of them is not being used except from the northern parcel and then the other the one there's two that are being used and they're proposing to add a third there um but that would like i said that would be handled in a separate transaction

What is part of the proposal?

I'm working it in. I've got to talk to the attorney because I don't know if it has to be a separate proposal because they're exchanging land.

It just makes it complicated, but we are working in that direction.

Yes. But the proposal does need to be clear that that proposal doesn't have to do with the added density. So that will be worked out and it will be hashed out before it goes to the council.

because it is a major concern with the water pressure the water pressure and I haven't even had time to talk to the engineer to see if that will increase their water pressure I don't I don't have an answer for that okay um with those City properties that you have marked on page 13. um those City properties will they are part of the new like plan that the developer has put in.

The one at the top, the north one, the very top, that one will be incorporated and it will be built in and houses will be put right there. Or whatever the developer, I think there could be a park up there too. The parcels down in the bottom, those will be still remain with the city as far as I know. We would not have to get surveyors out there and involved to survey all this out, but that's where the relocation of the new water towers will be, and that will not be counted as open space because you can't. The water towers, they have to be, I talked to Public Works today, because I wanted to know, can they build over those water towers and count for their open space? Can we put parks over it? And he said, no, it'll have to be fenced off because they have to be able to use on top of them. If you've seen them, they're not completely underground. They kind of come up and they kind of – and so they're not – I know. Gosh dang it, let's make it a cute Tremont City one. It's not going to be all the way underground. Let's go. It's not. It's underground. And so that property is not part of the open space nor is it part of the development, but it will be brought into development if they are making the upgrades with the water tower.

And the yellow lines are simply showing property under the ownership of the applicant.

Yeah, that's what I'm saying. So there should be another yellow line outlining that little tiny square at the top because that's currently owned by the city.

At risk of co-opting the conversation here, I also had a concern about the road in and out of that area. There appears to only still be one road and that's already a big concern on that hillside with that one access to that whole subdivision basically.

I put the staff report in, but I don't know if I put this in. Do you have, there's a link to it in the staff report. Which page? Is it in here?

Yeah, it's like a, there's a small version.

Okay, right there. So there are actually two exits from this. Do you want me to show? Yeah. So this will exit all the way down here. and this will exit down here too. So there are two outlets here. This is county land and this is the border of Tremont right here. Okay, that's the border of Tremont.

Both of those exit onto 10th North?

Yes, they both exit.

Exit under that other small road.

Nope. This, this, oh, this one does not exit on the 10th North. This is another one. And then it goes on to Valley View Drive and then Valley View Drive comes down. Yeah. Yeah. To 10th North. And then this one comes all the way down to 10th North as well. There is, this will be brought up in the MPI. So I'm going to hit it off and then maybe it'll save some time for the, for the, because I know this was discussed at the MPI as well. This road going through right here is of a concern because this property owner doesn't have the intent to develop out right there. And so it has been suggested that this right here be brought down right here. And so that the circulation of this, instead of these traffic going here and all down here, if this curves down right here, they can jump right here. This is a major collector road. this is a neighborhood road this is I think 66 feet and this is just 60 feet and so if this turns down this way then more of these houses will likely go to where traffic is wanted down here versus they'd have to go through there's a huge bump right here and more neighborhoods and smaller roads down through here so that's something that I was a feedback that the the citizens gave that I felt was valid to bring up that that would be a Because if this isn't developed within the next 10 to 20 years, all of this is going to be a dead end street and this is all going to go, they're going to all go feed to here. There's no, and they're not going to go here and then go all the way over here and then come down. So that was some feedback that was given at the NCI. So I just wanted to bring that up.

Thank you. Okay.

Okay. I think that that concludes my presentation. And if you guys have any questions, thank you. Thank you. Madam Chair.

Anybody else? I do have a question. So in the mode of medium density, do we have in the land use plan what that's outlined as?

There's buildings, there's standards, and the Utah State standards, is it Utah? It's medium, okay, low density will start with low density. Low density is R120 rural residential, okay? Medium density is, R1-12 down to R1-10, 10. And then low density is R1-8 and below because R1-8 is our highest density single family housing that we have in our code. So medium density or low density is R1-8 and below all two. That's high density, sorry. High density is multifamily housing to R1-8. Medium density is R1-10 to r1 12 and then height and low density is um r110 and rural residential i'm sorry r1 r120 that's what it is r120 and rural residential yeah sorry i should have put a target we can actually i'll write that down would that be helpful that would be super okay um with that being said you want that included in the staff report

So that you have a really busy. Okay. It's really hard to find.

Yeah. I have stuff for you guys. I haven't brought it to you. I gave it to the council and it's like a zoning. I will try to get that printed off. I will for sure get that to you. I'll give you a digital copy of this week, but I do have like a breakdown of zoning and a breakdown. I meant to get it to you. Sorry. I will get that to you and I will get this to you too.

Awesome. With that being said within our, Do we have a differentiation between attached single-family housing and detached single-family housing? Yeah. So like townhouses versus single-family housing, or is townhouses grouped in with multifamily housing? It is. Townhouses grouped with multifamily.

Anything that shares a wall is multifamily housing.

Anything that doesn't share a wall would be single residential. And that's specifically like, is that specified in our code? Can we add that to the code somewhere?

The exception would be a single-family dwelling with an internal accessory dwelling unit, like a mother-in-law apartment. Not a duplex.

That's an ADU. Yeah. Yeah. So I just mean like, can we like classify it somewhere in the code? So it says what like attached family for single family housing and searches.

It's pretty, it's in the standards. We can review it and look over to see if it needs further clarification.

Cause when I looked at the standards, it looked like attached like town homes were still, if it was a single family, it was still part of, it was called like an attached single family or something like that. So I just wanted to make sure that there was some clarification there, because if it is single family, low to medium density, that makes it confusing if there's multi-family housing in there, right? If townhouses are considered multi-family housing.

Or if there are lots of- If you're going back to the high density versus the medium density, even if they were considered single family, which they aren't in code, but even if they were, they would still be considered high density for tree mountains.

Because the lots are smaller?

Because they're 8,000 square foot lots, yeah. Because it usually goes by lot size.

Does that answer your question? What are the lot sizes for this townhouses?

You said they were 20 by 75, 1,500 square feet is what was said in the report.

Is that the lot size or the townhouse size? That's the townhouse size and that's the lot. That's the rest of the building by the HOA.

Yeah.

Okay. So you don't own your land, you buy a townhouse?

We own everything from the walls and above the foundation.

But not below it.

And not around it.

Anybody else have any questions?

Yeah, I have a list. I assume an HOA is going to be required to maintain, put it all together.

Not only is HOA required, the HOA is maintaining all the parks as currently as written unless there's an agreement to change that. So HOA will be required and HOA is maintaining all the parks. How the code is written is the HOA maintains the parks, but the The outside amenities are open to the public, but anything inside like a pool or a rec center or something like that, those are only for the community members too. So that's how it's written. That was brought up too. That was a good question.

So in the past, when we did the ordinance, we designed it that it was going to be like the stuff fenced in the fence was going to be private, the stuff out of the fence was going to be private.

Yeah, that's what I meant to say.

Is that what you're meaning? Yeah. So do they actually have a design? It looks like this is like a landscape plan. Is the design, why is the design not in the package?

For the specific amenities?

For the whole project, I mean.

They've provided, you mean the design for?

The project, like just the overall lots and everything. The only thing we have is this like zoomed in.

There's a link to this. Did you get the master development agreement there? And then they- yeah it's on there but it's just like that yeah zoomed in is that the only thing they gave us was the landscape and amenity plan yeah that's all they gave us was landscape and amenity plan and then they also gave it some conceptual ideas and um but they're more they're there's some things like this at the end yeah we don't have this is the document from the developers But there's not much more as far as like a plan for what are the amenities going to look like They just give concepts and ideas and that's what I'm trying to sit to nail down in the development agreement. I haven't so Like if you want this I got it

I guess maybe this is subsequent but we don't do we know I guess it will be quantified in the development agreement when the park will be required to be installed and when it will be required to be bonded yes yeah those can be

I should have brought the development agreement in with me because I didn't get what it says in there but I don't know off the top of my head.

Is the development agreement and all of this going to be negotiated prior to City Council with all of this approval so they have something to approve?

Yeah, so the idea is there might be some input from you guys from the Planning Commission to see in the development agreement and then there's still the attorney review and we'll get all of that, take all that input in and then we'll give it to the City Council And it will be all solidified before it goes to the council. I should have brought the development review in here so I could answer that question. Sorry about that, Micah.

But I mean, I assume, I guess, we'll need to work that out. Because to me, I mean, if we're giving them the bonus, we want to quantify.

I mean, this is a significant amount of open space and a significant amount of parks. Yeah.

You know, that is the reason for the bonus in my vision.

Yeah.

Does the trail coincide?

It counts as open space.

But is there a trail in it, I guess, is what I'm asking.

Yeah, it says a 10-foot paved trail. What's the red line? It's that red line.

Oh, is that it? Yeah. Oh, okay. I didn't know what the red line was. Yeah. And in this development agreement, you mentioned earlier that the upsizing was going to be in cash from the city?

no i traditionally hasn't been the case it's been it's been impact the reimbursement right yeah that's what i was just wondering so is it cash or does it impact your reimbursement though according to public works and finance we would have to they they are wanting to use when we do enough sizing now we just pay for it that's that's kind of how they're why there's

I guess does the city have that amount of cash laying around? The reason why they did the impact fees was to keep it project specific so that essentially the projects pay for themselves and essentially the developer takes all the risk and the vision was to try to protect the city's cash.

I understand that. That's something we went over with internal discussions and dialogues, but the reality of it, it's like a short-term loan that we're getting ourselves into and we're not having the ability to pay back those short-term loans. As we move forward and we're moving forward there's there's the impact fee reimbursement and the impacts coming and the impact fees coming in. They have to they have to stay in the green and there's I have to refer you to finance and our public works on that. Other than the fact that they they're wanting to if they don't have the ability to to upgrade, then they don't ask for the upgrade you know so that's that's where. where I've been talking with Public Works and Finance to try to make sure that we get that more solidified. So we would have to work that out before they proceeded with that deal. And there will be subsequent meetings with the Public Works Department because they are having those short-term loans that we've been doing with impact fee reimbursements aren't being paid for by the impact fees coming in. And so we're running into deficit in that and so we're trying to figure out how to not create that and I I understand the the logic to that trying to implement it and making it all balance out is a more detailed process that I'm that we're so we're so exploring and I've been involving finance and the public works with that and the attorney as well so just trying to trying to try to move forward so we're still we're still working on the city to make something that's that's more that does exactly what you want to say is to help to help the city so that we can get that infrastructure i think sometimes they're just doing more than than we've been because maybe the work is more and anyway i'm rambling now well i guess i just i guess we need to understand it better i mean the way i understood it was

the developer would essentially upfront the money for the upsizing and then would be reimbursed by impact fees from their project, which would then incentivize them to try to build it. Decent enough because I guess I don't understand the short-term loan component, where that falls, if it's just an accounting principle so the city has a way to track it. But I guess I would like to understand that because the whole vision in my mind was like, was essentially we put the risk on the developer to say, okay, the city essentially has nothing to lose and everything to gain. They have to pay for all the public fund improvements, including the upsizing, just like River's Edge is doing right now, putting in all the secondary water systems that the city doesn't have the money to do.

What it comes down to basically, Micah, is the public works is not able to pay all the impact fees. We will be, on the course we're continually going, we will be in deficit. of what we owe developers in our impact fee reimbursement account that we have. So we have an account where we get all the impact fees in and then we pay them back. So what must be happening, all we can figure is we are upsizing more than we are able to pay back. And so they're wanting to say, hey, we're going to stop upsizing until we can figure out why all these upsizes are costing us more in the long run. And they're trying to figure that out still. Because it's not balancing out. It's not balancing out to where we are actually able to run it through and stay in the grid. So we will be owing more impact fees in the next few months than we are actually collecting. And I don't know the accounting principles or how that happens. And so that all we can figure is when a project comes in, we're upsizing more than we need to. Or maybe not, I don't know.

Well, yeah, I would love to see that, how that actually shakes out because I mean, really the vision is you're not going to get any of the money back on the upsizing until it's the development that uses the upsize type. Yeah. I mean, but I don't know that, you know, the whole vision was to kind of put that on the developer so that the city didn't have to outweigh that. But I don't think stopping that upsizing is a good solution either.

And kind of in an attempt to respect people's time. That doesn't have to do with really the... I agree.

But it is critical to this conversation because in my mind, I mean, that's part of the whole vision of this was master planning and, you know, essentially putting big projects with parks and all the cool stuff together and putting most all of that risk on the developer.

But that doesn't have anything to do with the upsizing of utilities. That should be good because all the bonus entity is based upon the amenities. So the discussion should be on what are the amenities that they're providing.

It is unless the city is not wanting to master plan those upsized utilities to go through because the city doesn't have enough cash, you know what I mean, because these developments may exceed the city's cash amount, in which case then we're going to go backwards in the planning. You know what I mean? Because we...

I'm not seeing the connection.

The vision is when you master plan those and you put the utilities in, that they're large enough that they can serve whatever the master plan for the whole city is in that area. You know what I mean? So that we're not like...

But the utilities are going to have to be put there whether they do the PUD overlay or not. So I'm not sure how that applies to changing the zoning with the PUD overlay. But I agree with you that we need to have master plan development, but I don't understand how the utilities...

takes into play whether or not the overlay is appropriate for the area or not because whether they whether they master plan is the area they're you're going to have the same issue with the utilities it's going to be the same the difference is who's responsible so like river's edge is an example is responsible for all of those improvements and upsizing to pay all of the money up front you know what i'm saying and so that's what that's the way it was at least originally advertised what the city was trying to do with the PUD and the overlay. The PUD was essentially a mechanism to try to make it fair and transparent.

But the PUD has no reference to infrastructure upsizing or utilities. So the only reference it has is with parks and amenities. So I'm still not seeing, I'm still seeing that there is a correlation. River's Edge is required to to bring in secondary water, but they would be required to do that, whether or not they had an overlay or not. The upsizing is an addition, it's a different issue.

Yeah, it's a different, but it's a similar issue, because it's the whole infrastructure question. Do we as a city have enough money for the infrastructure?

It's an infrastructure question, not an entitlement question.

But I assume it's a development agreement that we'll have to all work through anyway.

Gotcha, okay, I understand.

I think it's important just because we don't want We don't want to do anything that's going to burden the city beyond financial capacity to be able to do, just like River's Edge is doing. They are installing secondary water for the entire area, not just for the project because it makes it more financially feasible for everything. What we don't want to do is do a master plan, five acres or whatever, 58 acres in this case, and then not plan for all of the development around it. you know, for the upside and then make sure that exactly.

Okay. So, so what you're talking about more like overlook, they needed, they needed to have more water towers and then that would help everybody around whatever, whatever that seems to be.

I just want to see and make sure that we're not taking a bunch of liability as a city that we can't afford to pay when it's really something that could be borne by the developer as part of the incentives.

Okay, so figuring out funding, and that would fall, I would say, under a funding mechanism, whether it's impact fee reimbursements or paying in cash, figure out what the city can do and have that nailed down in the development agreement. Is that what I'm hearing you say? Okay, I got it, thanks. I got it, big bold right here.

Okay, thank you. So it feels like we have, like, the general thing we're building on tonight, and then we have all these other things outside of there that really could feed into it but don't tonight. Is that my understanding? I don't know. You're talking about the development agreement stuff? Well, yeah, the development agreement stuff. But the problem is that they actually do make our decisions different. Absolutely. Yeah. We don't know what's outside this bubble.

Yeah. I feel like we have decent time to give the applicant a chance to answer some of those questions.

Yeah. Yeah.

Or public MPI first or applicant first?

Maybe MPI, then he can address all of the questions or whatever.

Okay. When was the applicant built into?

Usually in the staff discussion.

Okay. So seeing as how we already have this outlined, why don't we listen to the applicant right now? I have a feeling that we've discussed probably a lot of the things that came up in my field.

Hi.

How's it going? Great, thanks. Sean Herring. Strata Burns. Nice to meet you. Nice to meet you. Where do you want to start? um so can you address some of the questions as far as your ideas i mean it feels like we don't have a very concrete idea of what the actual plan is and we're worried about some things is there anything you can um no i feel it's pretty concrete this goes back about two and a half years and we've been through this process and changing

Pretty solid two and a half years. We've got community plans, calculations, storm counts, water pipe sizing, all that stuff. I don't know if it's part of this report, but there's a lot of detail in there. So I think it's pretty clear what our plan is, even down to the open space and the amenities offered on that open space and landscape plan. The detailed preliminary plot, we started two and a half years ago in a different direction. We were asked to do a full preliminary plot, almost 100% construction drawings. So we have that level of detail for this. Again, I don't know if it's in that report, but there's about a 50-page construction drawing plan that actually has some of the utility sizes and connections and rerouting and the tank movements and a lot of that stuff.

What about the concerns we have with the roads? Is that something you... The roads connecting? Well, considering that the person in the middle doesn't want to sell their land.

Yeah. And so we've kind of got the west side and the east side. You're talking about the one on the east side of the road, right? Yeah, where she was... Oh, sorry. So obviously then the main road north and south connects and there's two connection points to the south or east. I'm not going to bring it up, but there's a couple of connection points there into the existing rows. I can't remember the name of that new development that we're tying into. Something.

Yeah.

Yeah. So we'll be connecting into that row. Okay. Yeah. So we're connecting there, connecting there, connecting there.

We want this one, Tiffany.

having just come from that area it seems like there's an awful lot of traffic being built into that situation there yeah so this this map doesn't really show the existing but yeah we're connecting here by the open space and then these two connection points that goes there on that screen yes please

I know where, yeah, I'm just saying that.

Connection there, there, there. And I don't know the plan or the timeframe for the stuff in the middle or this connection point here.

I think we just heard that the landowner doesn't time the selling, so.

And that middle one.

Yeah. Okay. Does anybody else have questions for?

If we were to, if we're not able to do community, what would be your plan moving forward?

We'd have to reconvene. I think we're allowed, I think you said 200 units there.

Yeah.

That's not ideal. We'd rather create a community, some open space, some connections, stuff not only for this community, but the surrounding area.

So I think there's enough water for almost all of this community right now. up like making the tanks bigger things like that that's for future so that's why it's a little bit different because we're already in here we're willing to put the tanks everything else in there we've already got enough water almost except for the top i guess that would be the yeah part of the construction drawings there's some pressure zones in there and we wouldn't have enough wouldn't happen for there but most of them do all the up is for the future so that's that's why i think that might help you a little bit like you kind of understand where we're at

city because we've gotten enough pressure almost for that entire thing but just not yeah almost enough pressure there's a little part in the top so they get started you do work their way up that'd be like phase three in the future but we also have to disconnect and reconnect some lines to increase pressure in that area to be existing as part of those construction drawings um because there's some road lines going throughout there but i do remember that discussion talking about how

was something just kind of like we're the end of the line yeah connect those pipes and increase that and just for you guys for sake of puds compared to say you put 200 lots up there residential quarter acre lots for every all these lots here because you got to see think of the size of the house right then the concrete right you guys are super worried about water correct if the footprint's a little smaller on the lot the concrete the home takes up a lot more of that lot you have a third acre lot like the ones just just west you have a third acre lot down there and then you have uh it takes about the same amount of the amount of landscaping for that third acre lot contributes to almost depending on the size of the lot but almost eight units and not not townhome i'm talking a single family or cottage so you're talking how much grass you have to water, things like that. You can almost get in eight, probably six to 10, as high as 10, depending on the size of the lot. Because of the amount of concrete, size of the house, you want to save some water, this is a good way to save water right here. It's a very good way to save water. Yes, there are parks, but that's not a homeowner only thing. That's everybody shares, they get their walkways. Everybody wants a park. It's no different than a city park. It's no different than things that the city has to water. So that's using water as well. But these kind of have that, that benefit of you're going to use less water for sure on that. And if you wait, they were all quarter acre lots. I promise it'll probably be, I don't know. I mean, third acre, you're almost six to 10 units, quarter acre, four to eight. You know, you're getting in four units for every quarter, just on water. I'm just talking water, nothing else. And PVS was great too. is usually have those rules like, hey, you've got to put in the front in a certain amount of time. They look nice, so they're cleaner. You can't just leave crap everywhere. You just, it's, they're clean, they're nice. Yeah, a lot of people don't like HOAs because they are strict. They don't just let you put your stuff on the side of the road, park your car there for three months. So I get it. I understand people, PUDs always have the oldest negative plus the city costs. City costs are weighted. they're going to put in the parks they're going to get city could take over the parks you know if that was one something that they wanted to do have the atla put it in city take it over then the community can take it the trails are all useful anyway by everybody you're giving people safe places to walk i get it there's sidewalks but still you're crossing roads every other you know 200 yards or across the road but if there's trails gives you a lot of options

So if you look at the utility plan, you don't have to bring it up now, but we were asked to do multiple roads with dual lines in there just for pressure, just for water, future connections, and all that. So there's, again, going back to the plans, there's a lot more detail in there that outlines, I think, some of those concerns that were thought out and put together previously.

i see on a couple of these drawings you have an elevation line of 4600 feet is that your water pipeline yeah i believe there's three zones that i think there's a there is three zones that um it's all in phase three that i see the anything above the 4600 yeah what is it the water problem area that's quite a few places yeah it's that north northwest the majority of it with some of the reconnections

Again, there's three zones. One zone wouldn't be able to be completed without tank improvements or extra water to the north, but that's all been, yeah. What do you anticipate the cost, just as a ballpark idea of fixing some of these infrastructure things and putting in the parks and all of the amenities, which none of this stuff you would have to do if you're just building right over the lots. What do you estimate that expense to be? It's seven figures. It's a couple million dollars in improvement costs, open space costs. These aren't just throw some sod out there. There's some pretty well thought out amenities. The expense, relocating that tank and then those lines,

pricey and then dual lines within the roads is pricey so um rough estimate's going to be two two and a half right easily with that sorry another question that isn't part of the like pud right the land swap and all that so with the like dual lines and things like that to create that better connectivity is that that would be part of the land swap kind of

part of it right i would have to talk to public works and finance society to decide if you want to impact the reimbursements or pay for it in cash but that wouldn't be necessarily part of the pd so like the neighborhoods they could still be it's kind of connected to the pd and the fact that we would want to have that laid out in at least to some degree in the development agreement okay yeah so sorry i interrupted you're good i just was thinking like for the people that are already on the hill even if we did not suggest the pud

council, they could still be getting these improvements on water pressure and things like that because that could be part of that land swap deal with the development agreement instead of with BP, correct?

I'm not sure. It could be, but I think we'd be a little bit less willing to solve all those problems without the BP in place, if I'm being honest. It makes no sense really to go and do all of the other improvements. throwing half acre, third acre lots in there and not solve some of those problems. We want to solve some of those problems in the best interest of everybody, but it makes it a little bit harder without the PUD.

And the developer, they would still have to do, they'd still have to have water pressure for their developer there.

Yeah, I'm just talking about the existing homeowners who are already struggling with water pressure.

I'm just trying to figure out what the problems are besides moving the water tanks.

There's a bunch of problems. There's existing lines that don't really connect to the right spot. It's all been worked out with engineering. Yeah, there's a bunch of issues.

It's kind of like a tree. So like the branches we're going into, in other words, if we connected them, that would increase that pressure. No, I understand that. But if it was built out anyway, then those would be standards that would be applied, whether the PUD was applied or not.

But how much they would be willing to do in addition, that would be discussed. there's one point on street lights is that a city decision is that a there's no street lights are shown on that final plan no our plan is to put street lights if you require street lights i think that that might have been an oversight on when they were because it's actually part of their pod uh bonus density points they're required to not only put in street lights but upgrade the street lights above that part of the code. Where would you put in the street lights?

Just because that's the end of the city right there, right? That's the last piece. Just because there isn't, I mean, there's going to be that traffic, but it's only going to be

that's yeah i'm sorry and then i'm just i'm just someone's stop sign stop sign or stop lights you know i'm not talking pretty talking just stop lights all right yeah okay it's thanks to the light yeah yeah yeah sidewalks yeah i don't know where that was wasn't this for our plan is to put in whatever street lights there's no page 31 no street lights or something well it's probably the same they're not

Well, it says in the development agreement that they don't have, and that's something I asked them a question today, and they responded that they plan on doing street lights. I did forget to update that, because that was a question I had, too.

I think we're shown even in the construction drawings, so I plan all of them to make sure we're meeting that. That's great for the development agreement.

Yeah, in your master development agreement here, it says that they're not included, which I thought was odd.

Is there anything else you'd like to touch on in the development agreement?

Okay, seeing as how there is, I think the discussion is over with the developer, we will excuse them to go sit back where they would like to sit. Thank you very much. Thank you for your time. We amended the agenda by adding that the NPI would be able to speak at this time.

My name is Lane Wilding, and I am the leader, one of the leaders here at the Chumash SDPI. It was mentioned earlier that we did meet last Wednesday, and we had 20 residents in attendance, and I thought the discussion was very controlled and very well attended, and people were very attentive, and a lot of hostility was brought up in that meeting. We have eight questions listed in there, and I think Christine has addressed most of those. We'd like to see something in writing relative to those so that we can actually feed that back to our MPI. When you turn over the page, I put a survey together to go to the MPI, and I asked the question, are you in favor of this? Two options were, one is that the current single family housing on 12,000 square foot lot with R1-12, or would you prefer to have the proposed PUD overlay in listed there I gave five options to either strongly disagree, be neutral, or strongly disagree with options in the middle. I sent the email out to 75 of the MPI that I have emails for. Of the 75, I got eight people responded back. That's about 11%. And of those who responded, 100% said they strongly disagree with what should say PID overlay instead of PID overlay. i did get comments i opened it up for comments and so you'll notice that the comments are there and uh you're welcome to read those or ask me questions relative to those comments if you would like but i feel that the mpi has taken the time to look at this to think about it um i will make a note on the last page very last line that states that if the

overlay that we the Tremont West MPI will be working to get more of the residents to complete the survey to take it to the City Council to give so that we can give that input to the City Council as well so thank you for your time you're welcome thank you madam chair something that was probably overlooked that does represent the MPI there were 20 people in attendance at the last meeting and I thought that was a very good turnout for them and it was a good discussion and I don't think that that was in attendance in the, at that meeting. So I wanted to just put that out there.

Okay.

Okay, we will open up to the public hearing. Ai-Ai, please state your name and ask your notes.

Good evening, my name is Lisa Christensen. I live at 1070 North Valley. We drive directly below the proposed development. My primary concern is that this proposal is not consistent with Tremont City's current land use plan. The city has repeatedly recognized in many meetings and many minutes, development density should decrease as development moves farther from the main corridors. The land use plan is meant to guide decisions like this. If exceptions are repeatedly granted through overlays, the plan loses its meaning and residents can no longer rely on its consistent guide for future development. There are serious concerns still about infrastructure, which we have talked about, especially with water pressure roads, sewer, especially capacity sidewalks and other things. Our schools, parks and public facilities must also be considered. continued growth, additional demands on these community resources, including the limited space available for parks and recreation. Traffic and emergency access are additional concerns. More homes would mean more vehicles. Using 1000 North with only two points of access. These concerns are not new. The residents of this hillside have been coming before the city for well over a year and a half, asking that development here remains consistent with the city's land use plan and the single-family character of this area. There is also significant property issue that directly affects my husband and me. The proposed plan shows that road crossing, if you looked it up, through our property, and we own that property, not the developer. A plan should not rely upon access across property the developer does not control. It would help the circulation if the road curved down. I want to emphasize that I am not opposed to development. I could support reasonable flexibility in single-family lot sizes, particularly if it provides meaningful green space and trails. But this is different from introducing multi-unit housing and substantially greater density onto this hillside. When I saw the original concept for this property, it consisted of only single-family homes. I respectfully ask you to follow the city's current land use plan, respect the existing R1-12 zoning, listen to the residents, and recommend denial of this PUD as currently proposed. Please ask the developer to return a plan centered on single-family homes that is more appropriate for this hillside and surrounding neighborhoods. And I add again, I'm not opposed to smaller lots that they talked about, I do a single family. Thank you very much.

I appreciate that you gave me the opportunity to speak both as the MPI representative as well as for my own personal. um first thing i'd like to state is i believe it appears that tremont is moving becoming to become more of a theater community and less of a rural community it appears that all of the things that have been going on recently are pushing us to have higher density more apartments more townhouses and smaller lots that are less than r18 even the developer here indicate that he has several lots they're going to be r14000 square foot lots are called cottages i'm not sure how you can build a house on something like that my recommendation is i believe that this pud should not be approved to go forward but i would really like to see them stay with the r112 as it was currently zoned They talk about putting a park up there. If they put a park in there, is it going to be big enough that it'll be a baseball park? Because I know Tremont needs more baseball parks and more soccer fields, but I don't see that field, that area being big enough or flat enough that that can happen. So I'm not sure the park would be of much value to me personally. I don't see a need for us to have that additional park. That's just me. Turn over the page. I have several questions that I have come up with. One that's interesting is the number four there on page 22 of their document. It says they'll be selling single family homes for the price of $115,000 and they'll be selling their condominiums for $75,000. I said, man, if you can do that, sign me up. I will send out of your way and I'll be happy to buy five of them right now. Okay? If you'll sign a contract with me, I'll be happy to buy five of them. You got five sales. that's what your paperwork said um the next one on the bottom of that i asked christine a couple of weeks ago brought into the city council uh the pipeline of what's coming and taking some notes there i asked the question how many doors are currently in tremont are zoned r1a or less including townhouses and so on so i went took a copy of the zoning map and i physically counted each every one of them We currently have 72% of our houses in Tremonton. The smaller lot of apartment townhouses, R18, are smaller lots. 72%, only 28% are R110 or greater. And I can break that out into medium size and large lots if you'd like to go that way. So that second chart there is from Christine's chart so the page that shows you what the raw data looks like for the numbers my numbers and I want you to understand that the numbers with my name are my estimates okay those are the things that I've come up with that you have how to come up with them the chart underneath that one with the bars on it shows you the high density housing and the low density larger locks and the boxes on the right side shows the percentages relative to each one so you can see what they look like and how we are sitting as far as the community. And the last page is basically looking at, again, the current number of doors that we have in Tremont. Based off of my estimation, we have 3,118 doors that fit in the townhouse, apartment, or small lot, R1-4, R1-8. And we have 1,200 doors that fit in the R110 and greater lots. if you look at what's approved in the zoning pipeline this is the data that christine shared with the city council a couple weeks ago it was that second chart the third one is if you look at the value this the pud overlay they're talking 206 or 258 units that will fit into this r18 townhouse category in the number 48 units with the r110 or greater and i believe they don't have anything that's r112 or greater so i think those are all just r110s so my recommendation and my position is i think we should stay with the with the master plan or with our master plan and uh you know that was owned as part 112 when they bought it and they knew what it was on that and i think they should stay with that and we should go forward

michelle martin i also feel like this should stay at the r 112 zoning this beautiful piece of property is right smack up on that beautiful hill right in the middle of it and you're going to put 120 town homes right in the middle of a hill they're either with an hoa they're going to be higher costs i don't know how many people are going to want to live on the hill, pay higher cost, and live in a townhome. And with future growth and development, if they want low density housing up there and nice, I would like to be able to also have people with more financial stability come in and build homes up on the hill, more money. Having townhomes in the middle of them looking down on I'm not sure they're going to want to build a house there or It's going to devalue their property because there are townhomes below R1 12 is already medium density We have that defined. It's already medium density. We don't need to go to high density in the middle of the hill and I look at this plat and I count 10 roads to nowhere. There's three going up. There's two going out at the top. There's two coming down here. There's one over here. You've only got the two that come down and can eventually attach to anywhere. I was told in an earlier meeting many months ago, this road that they're talking about looking at at the top that is supposed to eventually connect overlook and and clear over to the freeway that that's over 10 years down the road um i was told i don't know if this is true or not but i was told that this whole development was going to be done was to be done in three phases in three years so if this is all done in three years and we have all these roads to nowhere i think that presents a problem and especially If that higher road, which they're hoping to agree, is 5, 10, even more years down the road. And as we saw a month ago with the fire on the hill, it's already going to be hard to get off that hill with 200 more homes in there.

You put 400 more homes in there.

Had the wind been blowing south instead of north, it would be a completely different Tremont City right now. And that's all I have to say from you.

Thank you. Do we have any information about the fire code in that area? We will have the fire department take this. I'm sure that was scary for all of them. It scared me and I wasn't that close. You too.

Amanda Jones. reiterate but not going to be told some of the things already said I went to the NPI meeting and with the good turnout a majority of the people did not want this development going in so that you were aware and so you know it for us it doesn't make sense to have townhomes above these single-family homes it feels a little bit opposite of what you would expect to do And as I said, it doesn't follow our general land use plan. And Christine has already stated that we already meet the affordable housing criteria with the state and that there are several developments that haven't even broken ground yet that can still be built that we haven't seen yet. So we already meet what we need for the affordable housing, higher density. We already need it. So we don't need it. And that's where we ask for you to listen to the residents and what they feel with this. Sorry, just checking . Okay. So just in conclusion, we would love for you to stick with the already zoned or with what it already is zoned at. Keep that medium density like it is with the other developments that are already up there so that it stays in uniform with what they have and doesn't create a higher density than there already is.

Hi there. My name is Mark Boulay. I live right on the edge of the development on the busy highway that they'll be developing coming down the hill there. I just have two comments. One was the can of worms you kind of opened up about the impact fees are not enough to cover the development. So I don't know what responsibility you have with impact fees, but I know ultimately that will lead to my taxes going up because the city doesn't have enough money. So please keep that in mind if you have any control about that subject. And my other comment is I don't think we should do the PUD. I think we should just keep it at R-12. Thank you.

Bruce Hancock.

I live up on the hill as well. Just jotting down a couple of comments that I heard. The school was represented really, really well.

I'm definitely against the high-density housing in the community. A gentleman, a developer, talked about water. Probably not all that big of a concern for the city because they keep pricing us out of the water. So we won't be able to use the water we need to water the lawns anyway. So we've got to think about that just a little bit. I'm being a little bit sarcastic, but he talked about concrete, and that's great. does save water and i get that right but he didn't talk about what it does to our property values and our homes up there so when i get ready to sell and i want to retire move south or whatever i want to do what kind of value am i going to get because now i got eight concrete homes next to me think about that the other thing is the traffic we talked about that that's way too many cars You take 306 homes, times that by two cars per family. What we already got, I mean, that's well over 1,500 cars going up and down the road. It's a lot any day. And that's at least they make one trip. Got a lot of moms making more than that, shuffling kids here and there. So safety can be a real concern on that congested 1000 North as it already is. We haven't improved it all the way out. Second thing is two and a half years we've been fighting this. The developer come in and bought it as R12. Why every single time does the developer come in and want to make it more dense? What's the real reason? It's money, money, money. Just a quick calculation. You mentioned $115,000. Lane did buy a bunch of them, right? I think we're all smart enough to realize that's $115,000 per that 4,000 acre lawn or 4,000 square foot lawn. He said $2 million to put in the parks and such. Take that $2 million divided by 250 high density housing, you get $8,000. So $8,000 it's costing the developer per unit to put in parks. Take $115,000 minus the $8,000, that's $107,000 that's gone where? In the developer's pocket. That's why we can't afford stuff. That's why our kids can't afford it. The profit is too high going into the developer's pocket. I realize that's not all of the infrastructure put in there.

But my point is, that's astronomical profits that are being asked for.

and gain at our expense as residents. Again, deny the BUD, keep it R-12. We're not against having development go in. I knew it when I bought it, I would have neighbors, but I want the right neighbors.

Thank you.

I'm Jonathan Butler. I live on 2300. Currently, you know that we have a school being built behind us. It's been a while since I've been to the meetings. I've been trying to be more active, but it's been a while. As far as I know, there's access coming off 2300 there. There's also been talk of a second egress to get to the school, but supposedly going up towards 1000. Not sure on that. But I know that there's supposed to be two routes to a school. You can't just have one main, and it couldn't be just off of 2300. And I don't see it going onto the main road going out to Bothwell, which leads it up to the road going up to 1000. You put in this development along with the other developments that are in the works. And that is, that's a lot of traffic up on that. And I don't see the road capability being able to handle all that. Recently, yes, we just had a fire there and we are very lucky that it blew north instead of taking it south because yeah, it was pretty good for my house. And I know that from talking to people recently up there about the water pressure alone, some of them barely take a shower depending on the time of day. So the water pressure, the water, that stuff, yes. And I know that there's been talks about water tanks and water storage and pressure. it's it's a real thing out here i'm also going to say look into the future where it's not just homes and tree mountain we're just pushing homes and homes and homes you're going to have if you if we're just going to build homes there's not going to be any revenue coming in from any kind of business all that bit that revenue is going to be going to brigham logan ogden everywhere else everybody's going to be passing by from you got everybody out west of here the whole west half and everybody's passing right through the train line you're not getting any revenue except for all the houses that's our taxes so i agree with that all you're going to have to do is text crap out of us and i've been here since 08 i kind of just got to the point where i just want to move out honestly let's go with development keep it the r112 we know that there's going to be a development But let's start thinking more of how are you going to get people to stay here, to live here, and to contribute. There's got to be jobs here too. So now you're going to have to bring in commercial jobs for people to not just have to leave here and start bringing in revenue. Those commercial places are going to take water and other resources as well that are going to put the demand on our city. So there's going to be other things that are going to impact us. It's already been zoned this way. They know it just like it's been said. We need to start sticking with the plan and start thinking of how we planned it already. And yes, we do need more people to be more active in the community. Thank you for everything.

Okay, seeing as how no one else is rising for the public hearing, I would like to move on to consideration and discussion, deliberation, and voting. Okay. Is there anyone who would like to second that? Motion to close the public hearing has been made and seconded. All those who are in favor, please say yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Okay, so moving on consideration and decision for deliberation of motion and vote. The things that we would like to discuss as a body, are we feeling like we are ready to make a decision?

I feel like honestly we can't approve it without, we can't recommend approval without having all of that other information that we need from the I would agree.

Is there anyone else that would like to say something different?

Unless we just put like a stipulation.

Yeah, we want this to be included in it, you know, for us to be able to approve.

I'm feeling like that might be too many things. Okay. So seeing as that is the case, I'm thinking that we would like to vote down the overlay. I would accept a motion to vote the overlay down.

I move that we recommend denial for the City Council for the adoption of the Valley Vista PUD overlay, application 26.014, located at 2650 West Hollywood Drive in Trinidad City, based on the findings and the conditions listed in staff report.

I second that.

All those who would like to deny Valley Vista's PUD overlay, please say yes. Yes. Did you say something? No. Okay, all those who would like to, all those who disagree, please say no.

Okay. It's not that I, I'm not ready to deny it at this point. I mean, if anything, we should get the information we need, but the whole vision of this PUD was, that's what we wanted.

I mean, 11 acre park, incredible. I mean, it's bigger than Jeanne Stephens. On a hill. It's on a hill, but it's still open space. I mean, all the other developments that's there are out of zero.

I think we should look at it.

Well, it's going to be about, I mean, we're not that much with less traffic.

If we just put in a bunch of homes, we just lose all the acreage of the parks. It's going to be about, I mean, just a little bit less houses, but I mean, probably more people because there'll be bigger homes with more bigger families than you would traditionally see in a townhouse environment.

But I'm not completely convinced that that is the thing.

yeah understandable i just feel like this isn't the place for i mean for all of that density given the circumstances i'm manifesting a temple on the hill that's what i'm going for just keep bringing it up and the church will eventually listen to us you know i i think the it's important to listen to the residents on the hillside there

But I think that Mike has got a good point that there are a lot of amenities that are offered in a development like this that if it is developed in the smaller density, the current density that it's zoned for, they may eventually be able to be improved and added. but there will be a cost to it that the city and the residents will have to bear rather than the developer so i think it's important to understand you know as residents that you know we get what we ask for and that could be a little more costly amenities amenities down the down the road because the developer hasn't helped

and do it a different way and my hope too is similar to whoever i can't remember who said it but i really do wish that we would get businesses that would compare the costs as well that would be something that would be lovely when my rainbows and butterflies are there so well that's the caveat to this scenario is most of the businesses they can't come unless we have housing for the workers and most of the housing for the workers couldn't afford r112 home on the hill like this that's the biggest thing makes an issue with a lot of business stuff is we have to create housing that they can afford to bring the workers in or have our kids employed there you know well and that's the thing though is that it's chicken and egg situation and also you know the problem i have is that when i go around our area like even the older homes they may be priced out of some of these situations and maybe the option is to be building little house casinos behind them or whatever but they're not selling And we've got a lot that's open, and either the prices need to come down or something needs to happen, you know? Sure.

You know, the interesting thing is that people only want certain kind of business. Yeah. And that's the problem that I see it, that there's all sorts of business that would like to come in, but there's a lot of opposition to that business, too. It makes it difficult for business developers. want to come into a place and then have to deal with that as well so I you know as a community we need to be willing to accept the trade-offs that come with development on both sides whether it be business development or residential development and but people a lot of people only want it one way and so we've got to make concessions as a community and in order to do that in the last few years a lot of that business development has gone to our surrounding towns or counties because they've made it more advantageous to go there than we've been willing to do here well and there's a couple of other things i think we should address i mean really the fire risk is still there very much the fire risk is still there we still have the

There's no walkable parks within walkable. And I think it's a trade-off, and I totally understand the position. But we also have a scenario where we have the ability to master plan. This is going to take many, many years to develop. I don't think it will be done in three years, three phases. I mean, I don't know. I mean, my gut is probably closer to 10, if you look at the historical projects of this scope. um but also like some of this stuff i want to get this on the record just to be clear um there were some comments made about we want people with more money and i just think we don't discriminate based on money you know this is a fair housing opportunity and it should be clarified that

houses in our community, a huge percentage of our community is in that category.

I agree that we have some, but so I deal with this every day, and every single day I have people come to my office and they can't find a place to live. And so I don't know what's going on with the market.

What I see is we have a high percentage of those affordable houses in our area, and a low percentage of the more expensive homes. But we can't afford them.

as i talk to people in our community and i think that this is a very it's hard to say in a politically correct way but i think maybe it comes down to the fact that there are a lot of spots in our community where we're not adhering to what our properties should look like and i think people's ideas are going well if we offer lower cost housing we are now going to have people that don't care of their property and i think that That is a fear of a lot of people that have come to me and don't know really how to say that. They do value people that come and can't afford, but they also want people that are responsible as community members. And I don't know that there's a planning commission way of solving that.

There is. And that's why I asked the question about the HOA. So if there's an HOA, will this hold it up? is to enforce and it will actually be enforced better than the existing developments around it because the city can't do that I would agree with that but I can show you ten ancient ways it's true it's true I understand And that's part of their, yeah, it's just part of their situation.

But it's also to maintain and keep all the amenities nice and all those things.

So I agree, and I mean, I understand the position. I just, I guess, as we're going forward, you know, when people come and say, hey, you know, we want a park that's walkable, and we want our water tanks upgraded and our water pressure and our roads improved and all these things I mean it comes back to we have a solution or add and those things we're going to have to be dealt with from a city and a our own budgetary expense I'd like to also address the uh the 2023 Land Use plan

think it's a great plan it has good guidance good instruction and then their staff summary just about every one of this does not meet does not meet that integrated plan and uh when you buy something you look around you expect what something's zoned that's what's going to be built there when you it's

Well, part of that, I want to talk about that one second. So like this goal two, where it's talking about preservation and open space. I mean, if that 11-acre park, which is 40% larger than Jeanne Stevens, doesn't meet open space, I don't know how you'd ever even meet that goal. You know what I mean? Like to me, like a goal of we're having preservation open space in this development.

is more than just open spaces it's the environment that it includes the homes too right and not just open space but what kind of homes are there it's it's the whole thing going on i agree but i think the open space is what the original goal in that intent i wish it i'm just like a city council that the best plan is to stick with the plan and substituting I mean think it through if we want to rezone something then we rezone it if that's to bring in different business if that's to change that look of how our city looks but let's decide what our city should look like and then stick with that plan as long as nothing changes well the city council has the option to change

But when I read the land use plan, this is what I see. Well, I know. But when we did the land use plan, it didn't contemplate all of the things that have happened with the world, the market, the cost, the rates. None of that was contemplated.

But when we were on the council together before, we didn't even have that.

We were just struggling. I mean, at least then we had some guidance and direction. Yeah.

And I think it's good. And I do generally agree. and the whole vision of the pud was to say we should follow the plan unless somebody comes up with a huge piece of property and they want to do a huge master plan and they want to put in a huge park and they want to do the trails and all the cool stuff that no one up there has ever done i mean we don't have a single development that's even come close to this and multiple of the people that were here spoke today have done the developments and they have put very tiny little things at anything but the vision is i mean this is bigger than just a base of development. And we put all the homes in there. I mean, it's not going to preserve the agricultural sentiment of it anyway. You know what I mean? We just lose all the open space, and none of us can afford, including those people, to buy the open space and leave it open unless we do the plan like we had. That was the whole vision of the PUD was essentially forcing the developer to give us 11 acres, which is bigger than Jeanne Stephens in this development you know what it means it's like significant it's not just a tiny thing and i think when it's built everyone would just love it but i also think it depends on this the area i think especially after the fire last month that doesn't feel like the best area for it or the traffic i mean yeah no i agree yeah yeah i agree but i think all those issues are still there so basically you're speaking to punies but not necessarily this Yeah, well, and I think overall, those issues are all still there. The fire risk is still there for all the existing homes and it needs to be, I mean, we need to address it either way. We can't afford to put in the tanks now without the bill. So it's kind of like you said, hey, you know, it's like, who's going to pay now for the same fire risk as you have?

When you came up with the idea of sectioning them off in their own section, I mean, as much as that seemed uncomfortable, it was.

What do you mean?

Remember when we were talking a long time ago about them paying for that and the concessions and all of that and the pressure, and you said that we were discussing them becoming their own entity to pay for the taxes of the own entity? Anyway, it was something I thought about. Okay, I assume we've already had the vote and we can move on. So, I would like to close the consideration and decision, or I would like to.

Make a motion to adjourn.

We're making a motion to go on to business and staff questions.

I make a motion to close consideration and discussion.

And open business and staff questions. Open business and staff questions. All in favor say yes. Yes.

Okay, do we have business and staff questions? Just a few things, okay? I have five different things. First, I wanted to go over our general plan. We just ended the RFSQs, which are requests for certain statement of qualifications. And we've got at least five, I think we have more than that, like six, at least six. So we'll be going through and embedding those and bringing those up to you. Really excited about getting our general plan updated, okay? I wanted to give an update as you guys are deliberating with the businesses coming in, just because I haven't done that for you as the council. We've got three different businesses coming in. We've actually had businesses reach out and wanting surveys on what's going in. And we've got, I think it's like 93 acres of people that are in pre-application spaces for businesses to come in. Anywhere from a hotel to stores to different things, there's lots of businesses that we are seeing interest and we are getting actually quite a bit, even more or about the same of business inquiries as we are residential. So we're really excited about that. And there's a lot of, there's quite a few opportunities coming up. Okay, and then for Parks and Rec, and as far as the city going, I wanted to give a quick little update. We are actively working with Parks and Rec to get some funding for, oh, there's a couple grants I've been helping write. and I don't remember the names of them right now, but they're to help with the Parks and Rec and the trails, particularly the trail system. We're working with Gideon with the UDOT. They have an 80%, 20% match for our trail system. So there are ways that we can get parks in the city without having to add taxes to the people. And we're diligently seeking those fundings as well as for Safe Routes for School along 2300 West. because of the new school coming in. The application just opened, it opens in October, and if we can get that application turned in and get the funding, then if we can get some help from that, then add the school schedule to be open in fall of 2028. And then, so we're trying to correlate the safe route to school so that we can make improvements on 2300 West. So I wanted you to know that that is in the works to try to make it safe area for our children on that road. So there was a question about 23 about the bear river mountain road coming up to 1000 north with a view that i remember but that is where it is originally the second outlet i remember who said that okay so that that is supposed to that is that is correct that is still in the plan according to the master the plan development that the second entrance would be to 2004. as far as how close we are to getting that completed, I don't have an answer to that, but other than that, it's where it is.

And then one thing that, let me interject, sorry, I'm going to stop your thought process there, but you mentioned sidewalks and access to schools. I work for the school district. We have a big concern about West Main Street and access to Sandalwood side of town. No sidewalks west of

okay this is really good information and I would like to get and we're going to get in a sidewalk inventory so that when we do the safe routes to school we have a better idea of where like I would love to get with the school district you know I'm in the transportation side of it bus kids across Main Street okay less than

a mile from the school because there's no crosswalks and sidewalks.

Okay, that's good to know. So we might want to add that into the grant proposal as well as 2300. Yes, a crossing across Main Street.

Okay, right there. On the west end, east of 10th West.

Yes, okay. Will you give me the details after that so I can put it in?

I can just go over with you. We don't have a plan put together or anything, but I've noticed that as

as we're dealing with the busing yeah as we're going through the safe routes for school we'll want all that information because we're um i'm going to be asking people in the mpi are going to be helping with that to use that ground breaking okay i was going to suggest to you my husband and great have been friends before so yeah we definitely would um there's a few people that have volunteered to help with that and then we're working on that because that's really important that we get from that minute too okay then my last thing is the box other county summit and so far we have andrea karen and ben signed up and we will pay for your meals oh and then jeremy too right yeah yeah and jeremy r ultimately i just want to make sure you didn't miss anybody else if you want to go it's it is so you have to tell me now but make sure you send me an email or let me know it is on september 24th from 9 to 2 30 in Box Elder County. So I just wanted to bring that up. And that's all I've got for tonight.

Thank you so much for your time.

Oh, no, no. Yeah, we were.

I'm registered and approved.

All right, all right. You can register without paying for it.

That's good to know. Okay, thanks.

Okay, I would like to take a motion if anybody would like to.

Well, one thing we do, once a motion has been made and voted on, the discussion should stop. Once a vote has been taken, we shouldn't discuss it.

If you have any discussions that need to be made prior to a vote, that's when they should happen. But once a vote has been made and everyone is approved or denied or whatever, the discussion turns on.

Okay, we will do better.

Okay, just letting you know.

Would anybody like to make a motion to adjourn?

I'll make that motion to adjourn.

Seconded. Everyone who approves the adjournment, please say yes. Yes.

Thank you for your time tonight.