Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

e e e e

e e e e e

yeah all right this four four of the Quorum sure okay we'd like to call this meeting of the Utah County Planning Commission to order on this February 18th at 5:30 pm and we'd like to welcome any visitors we do have a new commissioner an alternate commissioner with us for the first time tonight do you want to introduce yourself Seth um yeah um just on okay um Seth Cox uh born and raised in Lehi currently live in Lyon um have five kids and uh just been trying to stay politically active and involved in our community so yeah awesome thank you for for that uh we'll start our meeting with a pledge of allegiance and commissioner Davis would you lead us in that tonight sure Al to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all want to say play who want to say playball play okay uh first item of business is uh our our minutes from our prior meeting oh is Karen good got down

here is this so uh I think the minutes from the prior meeting were included in the packet for the Commissioners and are there any uh any concerns or edits that need to be made is there a motion on the floor for the minutes if no one has any corrections I'll make a motion to approve the minutes from the January 21st 2025 meeting a second it's been moved and seconded to uh approve and adopt the minutes from the prior meeting we'll start down here with commissioner Sullivan yes yes yes yes yes okay the the minutes have been approved from our prior meeting I'm just going to sign that real quick while I'm thinking about it okay uh we have um the next item on our agenda is withdrawn application welcome commissioner so um I don't know much about withdrawn what do we what do we need to say about withdrawn so um the applicant has withdrawn their application and without the applicant um there is no action that you need to take we put it on the agenda because we had previous meetings that um show that the discussion was to have this on this agenda however without the applicant um wanting to move forward with their application um there is no action that the Planning Commission needs to take so so let let me just make sure I understand they they've withdrawn both of their application because there was two right there were two and they they withdrew both of them they did yes so it's not just that they're not here they actually with through the the applications correct and

if um they wish to um go through this or redo this or um amend that they would have to resubmit noticing would have to be done all of that action would have to be taken um and so also if the Planning Commission wish to go forward on any AG any item that were was originally withdrawn they would also have to go through the an application process or direct staff to go through the applic ation process so it's noticed and all the noticing and all the um staff reports were done again so even if the Planning Commission wanted to move forward with this without the applicant um moving their application forward um we would need to go through the entire process again to amend our land use ordinance for this and just one further question is so um with the withdrawal is is there any notification required to there is not there is no there's no requirement in state code or in our code um we have um there was somebody um in that area um that did speak at a previous meeting that did call our office and we did let them know that that had been withdrawn okay well I mean since there's no there's no action but is there any any discussion from the commission at all this that explains why there is anybody here why nobody's here tonight yeah I was wondering why we had audience so probably some happy your people don't don't get us wrong hey thank you you're welcome well there was more people last time yes for sure all right I don't know if there's any if there's no other discussion we'll move past item D the withdrawn applications and go to if I'm reading this right let's see d goes to e okay um

which will require a public hearing when we get to that point but uh item number one these are land use ordinance amendments and we have item number one uh jlc correct and do you have you have a okay I will yeah um so this item was continued from the previous meeting even though we did not discuss this um the applicant was um unable to attend that meeting so asked it that it be continued with this meeting so um noticing is are any the requirement for any noticing as the state requires have been done um for both meetings uh so just to make you aware um there's a lot of information in the staff report that I tried to put in there about this item um just kind of give you a um the applicant is requesting that um the area and width uh in the ra5 zone um be altered from 5 acres to 2 and a half acres for an HOA the way that the applicant had written the language in um in his requ in their request um made it sound as if the an HOA was only required to have two and a half acres I think the intention um that the applicant had was to have dwellings within an HOA to be at 2 and a half acres just just to to clarify that so um that that kind of just to give you that that kind of clarification that that's kind of the indication that we had with the discussions we had with the applicant um give you a little background on this the um ra5 Zone currently has about um 78,000 acres in the um that's still unincorporated in the county primarily that's located south of um Utah Lake but it is there are many areas throughout the county

have ra5 zoning um the ra5 zone is intended to be uh used for is an agricultural Zone it it is not a residential Zone although it does have a residential component to that um the intent of the ra5 Zone um is to utilize irrigated land um for growing crops and and raising livestock um to kind of cover a couple items that I feel are important the intent in the um land use ordinance I kind of pulled out a few that apply to this um one is to encourage and facilitate the order orderly growth and development in the county to Foster the County's Agricultural and other IND Agricultural and other Industries um to facilitate Provisions for transportation water sewage public or schools parks and other public requirements reduce um waste of phys of physical and financial and human resources resulting from excessive scattering and of population and to protect both Urban and non-urban development that those are just um some of the intents and purpose those are found in the intents and purposes of the land use ordinance the general plan is even more um specific on on kind of the goal of um the general of the future plans of unincorporated areas in Utah County couple of the things I want to point out were um one under the first objective non-farm residences on Parcels less than five acres and Commercial and Industrial Development should not be approved within agricultural zones consist consisting of prime Agricultural and

irrigated crop lands that's just one of the points that I was kind of wanted to emphasize um also with residential development in objective two it talks in general plan it talks about um planning for residential growth of the county the priority of location is um sorry excuse me the priority of location choices first within existing M municipalities second in unincorporated communities and areas um that have an have an exist exting water system approved for culinary use and fire suppression within with the capacity to provide for additional development and third on zoning Lots in the unincorporated areas of the county which comply with all applicable requirements for residential use of the underlying Zone um skipping ahead a little bit uh just the one of one of the things that um was identified in the general plan is um it talks about the unfortunately High uh high value placed upon Utah County Agricultural for aesthetic reasons is the very thing which threatens the continuation of farming in this area from um detached from the detached vantage point of Urban County of the Urban County residents the Farmland is a is a magnet that lowers residents to Res met admits cattle and corn fields after moving into agricultural areas the non-farmers annoyance at odors pesticides dust preon tractor and sprayer noise and runaway irrigation water creates conflict it's one of the points that was brought out in the journal plan um trying to I'm trying to be brief I'm

sorry so um but um kind of under some of the staff recommendations just want to be clear that the the goal uh for the ra five is um to maintain and and promote agricultural uses um and to maintain those agricultural uses on larger lot sizes if possible to support those agricultural uses um the so as I pointed out in the staff report there's research that has been done that as the lot sizes get smaller in agricultural areas um it diminishes the ability for agricultural um uses to exist in those areas they tend to be pushed out by residential uses um and so it's just kind of just to be clear that some of those things that um we talked about that kind of bring conflict exist and that forces many of the farmers in those areas to kind of relocate to other areas um one of the other things that it is important is at the time in the 19 in 1990 when um originally The 5acres Zone was being contemplated there was um some communication with the state engineer that um and there's a quote in the staff report I I think it's important so I want to just make sure that I read this it says it is my feeling that there is no only a very small quantity of unincorporated water and the potential for withdrawing 5,000 000 additional acre feet from the ground water Network could prove very taxing with that small with that amount of Wells I am certain that Mutual interference would occur and in areas with low transmiss trans I'm not going to pronounce that word because I'm not going to get it right um significant

draw Downs would occur I would also be concerned about 51,000 individual drain fields and the possibility of cont contamination um contaminating those um confin groundwater networks with the um with the unconfined aquafers carrying discharge from the drain field I think it would be in the best interest of the health of groundwater of the groundwater networks that this development should be uh should it occur be served by Central systems um couple other points just briefly um there are also concerns with the health department that um their distance require M and this is this is a health department requir not a zoning requirement so it's not necessarily something that we um would enforce but it's definitely something that you need to be aware of as far as the locating of Wells within a within a lot is that their requirement is that it's 95 ft away from the property line if you have lots that are 100 feet wide there's not a spot on that lot that you'll be able to put a put a well um based on their requirements um so just to kind of I know that I've been a little bit longer than I probably should but um just to just to make sure that um I just want to kind of be clear that the um the general plan and and the intent of of the land use ordinance and the general plan is to preserve and promote promote those agricultural uses um two and a half acre parcels um prioritize residential development over agricultural use um and the appropriate method of of accommodating those uses and those um those residential uses

would would be as the general plan indicates to first try and um Annex into a jurisdiction that can accommodate and serve those those properties um and those residential uses um one of the one of the the applicants um reasons for bringing this was to create affordable housing for in in uncurbed areas of Utah County um so in the Goan area there is a zone that allows for two and a half acre lots those lots are going based on the County's valuation um that's not market value but um the assessor valuation between 750 and about 9985 th000 um is the valuation of those so this 2 and a half acre lot is not really creating affordable housing um just one last um one last example that I kind of want to bring out is a couple of examples that we wanted to identify in that um this is one area that has been annexed into Salem City um this area was the was originally the um the dairy that the church owned um and just to give you an idea in the ra5 currently they would be able to permit this is without doing roads without doing any anything else 183 units um lots that would be created in the existing ra5 Zone um doing a 2 and a half acre that would double that which would be 366 units in Salem City right now um there they the low end of the zoning that they have would be about

2,53 and the high end would be about 5,000 so the reason that we have those the the policy land use policies that we do um not only isn't to encourage agricultural uses and preserve those agricultural uses but is also to preserve areas that can develop into more dense developments that allow for more housing more affordable housing um where you can see a clear difference between what the county would allow and what the jurisdictions that cons serve those those um those houses and those residential uses would would be able to allow um and these are all on Central water systems and sewer systems that can accommodate those uses as well so it's not if a developer were to try and go into an area to develop um areas that have been zoned with two and a half acre lots it'd be very difficult for them to be able to buy those properties from Individual Property Owners to develop those properties into something that would be affordable housing also inter interfere interferes with kind of Transportation Planning there's a whole bunch of other things that kind of go into some of the reasons why um this is not supported by staff and and kind of we really have a strong opinion about not modifying this this ordinance Shane can can I ask yes go ahead commissioner are there any because that because that is my fundamental question is you know if you know in the short-term gain because I because I I really am concerned about affordable housing and even if you you know um it doesn't take a whole lot of uh extra Supply to kind of tap things down but but there is a big difference between 360 and you know a couple are there any other studies uh I mean you know you kind of

used this but um which which I appreciate are there any other studies that kind of show that that is a trend in general that when you um you know when you uh break them down earlier that it does prevent because because I am looking for my grandchildren you know mostly and and um I mean my children are going to have a problem but my grandchildren are really going to have a problem and and so is there any other kind of I mean is this does this hold true pretty much everywhere or there studies or do is this the best guess there there are studies that show um both that agricultural di diminishes and that development is more difficult with with um lot sizes that kind of don't fall within a city's jurisdiction and I'm not saying that there aren't there aren't places for two and a half acre lots I'm not trying to say that that at all um but what I am saying is that um there we we actually have been contacted by multiple cities that appreciate the zoning that we have that prevents some of these developments from happening in order to allow for more plan developments in adjacent to their city um let me I pulled up a couple other ones just to kind of give you an idea um let me see so this this this development is in Lehi um they we um as planners we sometimes get together with other planners in the um in the area in Utah County area this is one that they took us to to show us how um the development happened how Trails were able to be developed because of because of the open space that they had um connections between between the different developments happened because there was the ability to have more open space so

yeah we're we're actually getting many jurisdictions contacting us and actually appreciating the fact that they don't have to deal with um some developers don't have to deal with multiple um individual Property Owners I'm not saying that that they're forcing um people that do want a 5 acre lot or two and a half acre lot out of the area but it it definitely makes it easier for developments to happen that are more affordable if you have to deal with um I mean if on a 20 acre piece you'd have to deal with four property owners in current zoning which is still a lot but eight property owners in in a two and a half acre Zone which when you're starting to deal with higher numbers of of property owners it gets more difficult for developers to get put property together in order to develop that property and we've found that to be true throughout the county and we've um also like I said we've gotten support from um other jurisdictions that are appreciating kind of our land use policies in that area is is there is that U Trend the same whether it's uh agriculture or non agriculture or um it I I don't know that I have that specific of information about whether um the land use prior to that is agricultural or not not generally it is agricultural um uses because that's flatter it's easier to right so so yeah in in some of our jurisdiction the E1 Zone um is in the mountainous areas where elevation changes and and to topography are going to be issues where in the areas where agricultural happens it's generally flatter or irrigated land that's been cultivated and flattened out so that it makes it much easier for developers to come in and reduce that number of units I can I add yeah I just I mean I've been listening to what Steven White

my represent has been talking about and I've done a lot of research on there's two topics there's housing affordability and there's affordable housing which are two different conversations and so I think what we're talking about is housing affordability and it seems like from just the stuff that Stephen White has looked into extensively for the state of Utah um what makes housing affordability is going to come first of all it's the missing middle so yeah something that's over 600,000 or 700,000 isn't what what we're looking for in terms of housing affordability but also too it's a lot size and so the I mean that's what it comes down to is you know infrastructure but also the lot size is what's going to make you know a you know young people to be able to afford houses right and so also along with that in areas that are not developed I mean in if you're looking at the ra5 Zone if you're looking at trying to get access for um employment um access to um other resources that people like as you probably well know you have to drive ways to get to a grocery store um and that's going to be the same thing with areas in the ra5 zone is it it's going to create um areas are that people are farther away from their jobs or create more Demand on Transportation infrastructure things of that nature so so there are other considerations that are going to happen because of the changes to um the requested changes uh one question so since the request is related to HOA what what does that overlay to this discussion that we haven't heard yet yeah so um as far as the County's um methodology goes it's it's really not something that we really take into into consideration it's I mean HOAs are another layer of um requirements that a

property owner would have to deal with we don't enforce HOA requirements um we don't generally deal with HOAs directly um it is not something we want to be in the business of making sure that they maintain an HOA um and HOAs can be there and they can go away if if they if Property Owners decide to so and so so the term approved HOA mean means nothing to the county yeah it doesn't I mean like I said the language that they're proposing doesn't really it basically allows an HOA to be on two and a half acres not dwellings in within HOAs to be two and a half acres and so we don't have an ordinance around HOAs or extra privileges that an HOA would gain if it was approved by the county or something in fact I don't remember hearing any you know applicant for an HOA come here so it's not something we deal with right right we we don't we we in fact we try to stay out of um dealing with HOAs because they have their own requirements and their own interests and we don't want to be in the middle of um those those interest or those requirements you can follow up with the attorney's office to ask them how much fun they they have dealing with HOAs try and avoid them as well okay are there any other questions for staff from the commission okay is is uh do we have um jlc here anyone just is the applicant here open it up well I think we can have the applicant speak before we open the public hearing if they're here but I don't see so we we followed up with them a couple times um we asked him if like initially he sent us an email um kind of being unclear about whether he wanted to be on this meeting we tried to follow up with them um to let him know that it was

on this agenda and that we were going to be hearing this item on the agenda um there was um not a we did not receive a response from him okay is okay so I think we probably need to open a public hearing and was that did you have just I don't know if it's appropriate just to make a motion to move to the next item on agenda or do we have to hear do we have to hear this you don't you're not required to hear from the applicant since he is not I mean I don't know if we want to if it's our policy to uh to discuss something if the person is not here I mean I would just move to you can still hear Public public um comment if you want to do I would also add to this was on we didn't have time we ran out of time last month on this topic and so I don't think I don't know if the applicant was here last was this on our agenda last mon no he he requested this not be heard on last month's agenda he asked that it be moved to this month and he it was his request that that this be heard on this month's application we heard from him during that time period stating that he was um intending to be here um I don't know why he he did not make it I move that we open the public hearing I I think since we've got people who saw this on the agenda we should open sure so we've got a motion to open a public here in a second we'll start down there with commissioner yes yes yes yes yes okay the the public hearing is now open is there anyone uh in our audience here or anyone that would like to address the commission on this topic come on come on come on no okay all right so there's there's no additional comment did did you want to make a motion then I I move that we move

to the next item on we continue this item to to next how does that work we yeah if you're if you're going to if you're planning on re bringing this up to see if he comes then we can move on to the next and then and I and I would just see I wouldn't move it uh uh if if if he comes in but I'm not I'm not saying stick it on the next agenda I just okay moving to uh just move to the next item and and he can coordinate with staff if you to schedule it again but but I think there's going to have to be a public notice anyway uh if it would be to the next one uh so the noticing has already been done it would not we'll I mean we'll still put it on our website we'll still publish the agendas on the State website as well so that it will be noticed as as we're required to first state code um we'll also if if you do wish to continue this to another meeting um it would be helpful for us to know like to specify which meeting you're wanting to continue that item too um and we can um if if you do wish to continue it we can reach out to that um applicant if necessary if we if we pass I don't even know if that's an action um does that give us F difficulty if if he want does he have to reapply then I guess like we haven't even voted on it does they have to reapply resubmit so um there so just to as you know this is a recommending body um this item will still go to the County commission for final um discussion they still would be able to hear that if he if the applicant wanted to attend that meeting they could still attend that meeting and um and be heard at the County Commission meeting would it go to the County Commission if we uh continued it to another meeting it would not until you uh make a recommendation so I I mean

my suggestion is we continue it continue it to at least one more yeah and then we can decide what what to do uh I I hate to keep wasting everybody's time if they're not going to show up then act on it vote on it on now is what you're thinking that's my opinion but I don't want to overrule I mean he's he's made a motion so uh I I mean I I would move to give him one more chance and then uh the uh if we have I mean what I'd really like to do is just gonna uh just move to the next item and and wait until staff if he approaches staff to for staff to put it on a a future meeting but I sounds that's not a possibility staff would push it on to the commission yeah whether we voted on it or not so um well first um there is a motion so we want to make sure that we make sure we address that but um if if you want to um put this move to the next item and and um come back to this item um during one of the agenda items at one of our other planners I will see if I can find some contact information and I will try and reach out to them and then you can make a decision at that point if you want to do that okay that's I mean that's I withdraw my motion and put forward that that that we move to the next item putting this on the next uh meeting uh that that would be a continuation oh a continuation anything you'd move it to the end of the agenda to allow time if you stuck in traffic but my my personal opinion on this is similar to solivan if it's been noticed the applicant is well aware and we are Rec recommending body so we can make a recommendation based on the information that we have before us and then when it goes to the uh County Commission the applicant will have another opportunity

to present information rather than delaying the process one more question before before is so it looks like he submitted this back in November he did and so did he he didn't get the Pi the date that this would be discussed here so um the date that we will typically if once we receive an application that application needs to be in um a specific time frame before the meeting in order to make the next agenda meeting or the next meeting his request was that he be on the January meeting and then when it got closer to January meeting he then requested that he be put on to the February meeting so he he asked for this meeting yeah he's this is this item has been on for a while and I'm not trying to sway it one way or another but he's been well informed as far as what um what the process is and what meeting he's going to be on multiple times so okay it sounds like it right now we've got a a motion to continue without a second we'll see without a second is there another motion to entertain we good I move that uh the Utah County Planning Commission recommend denial to the Utah County Commission of the proposed Utah County land use ordinance text amendment to sections 12.08 I'll second that okay um it's been moved and seconded to uh to follow staff recommendation for denial and and I would I would like to speak it against okay you know I I I do because because whatever we do in this body it kind is a soft um uh I don't think we thoroughly until we hear from the applicant we don't have both sides and there might be a good

reason I haven't if I were to have to vote on it I would vote no uh as of right now but I do think that in our system of government we we do whether it's the court system or whatever I think people have a right to make their case and and I'm concerned that we haven't we haven't thoroughly vetted this issue but we are going to give the impression that is for sure a denial and I can't I'm I I don't I'm not ready to give a denial yet because I don't think I have all the information so that's simply why I would uh vote against this is I think it kind of sets policy that and and so anyway that's my concern yeah and I I I I tend to agree with you I I feel like I don't have the full story here I I still think probably I would lean to vote against it but it is unfortunate we don't have his story um although I I do think it seems like we've given we've we've accommodated we moved it to this meeting we we've done the work to try to get that communication to take place so I don't think it would be it doesn't sound like it's it's staff or our you know that the commission has failed if we vote on it as as as we have the information in front of us right now but I agree with you I wish I wish I had his side of the story I wish I knew what he thought he or she I don't know if it's a she uh what the HOA would play in this and why he he you know felt like this was something that would be good I I don't you know I don't think I have all the details here I'd like to hear from from I would have liked to have heard from him before we vote even though I don't know that I it would have changed my opinion much and I think this this forum I think this you know these forums are where we should have the dialogue and the communication and ask each other questions and stuff so based on the information we have

what what could they present that might steer you in a direction to approve this if if I had a firm study for for me I mean I if I had a firm study showing that this uh didn't hurt I mean because one of the things we always do here is balance the my difficulty with any issue like this is I'm a property rights person in general I try to let people do with their property what they want to do with and so I am kind of you know he for for some reason this individual thinks that you know he's got uh land or you know that's the other thing is I don't know if he owns all this land or uh you know this is just his his idea for for for that but if he showed me a study that this would actually uh help relieve some of the uh pressure on you know the the 5,000 units that were short uh every year uh and going to continue to be you know uh I I could see that and so uh that's something that could change my mind yeah and I don't disagree with you because again I think we all recognize the shortage of housing units and stuff like this the thing that concerns me is this is a broad amendment to cover 78,000 Acres I know for a fact well I don't know for a fact but I serious doubt he owns 78,000 Acres you know uh and so I would I would think that if if they if he had a a project that was viable the studies showed that that it could accomplish the the the premise that he's presenting is there a way they could do some type of an overlay or some type of a development agreement with the cter anything like that that could allow something like like that to move forward without impacting 78 th000 Acres because I I don't want to see the agricultural uses

of the county go away I as a water guy too I know that water is a serious concern and and as well as water but the septic issues and and sewer systems as well so you know I would love to be able to hear something like that but I just in my mind you know which is pretty small uh and I I was hoping that the HOA was maybe that limiting factor that you you're looking for like maybe there's something about an HOA that would make this different but it doesn't sound like that's the case right so since that's not the case what was what was you know because I agree with you it be such a broad stroke here and it does seem like the right way to to have a smaller parcel is to be in a municipality which already allows for all that which is kind of the whole argument that staff's made here so um the only thing I I do feel bad is that I I look here and I see that he paid $300 that to submit this and then not come and get a chance to give his reasoning why he thinks this is a good idea that's that's the unfortunate part because he's going to get the answer back that we talked about it without him here and if he wants to re reintroduce this he's got to pay another $300 to get it back on the agenda right he does yeah yeah so yeah I understand the concerns I also I can do a couple things one I can make sure that the County Commission is aware that he was not able to attend or he did not attend um and that that way they can and and I will also be able to reach out to him uh the applicant directly and let them know when it's going to be on County Commission meeting which we already do but I I can make sure that he's available and that he will be able to attend so that he can be heard for that um uh so there yeah so that I can do those things as well to help kind of uh allow them allow him to be able to voice his um his case for for this application you know and and if I can

just express my concern I mean I you know I don't mean to uh harp on the dangers of government but I'm a big believer uh in this Valley about 25 years ago uh there was a problem with a lot of cities denying um subdivisions because they thought that there was too many open Lots on the market and uh and that caused uh cities don't government all lot of times doesn't do a very good job predicting what the market wants uh people that have got their own money in it uh sometimes have a better that and I would argue that some of the reasons that we have um some of the problems that we have right now is that it it takes a year to put a subdivision in and so all of a sudden you had all these cities that uh they denied uh subdivisions they denied subdivisions thinking there was too many lots and then all of a sudden there wasn't enough lots and once you get behind that Supply demand curve and so I'm just he hesitant of us because no matter what happens is um I I just don't know how I'll vote on the final decision because I don't want I don't want my stamp uh you know if I vote no uh am I saying that I want I don't want it to say that I automatically want two and a half um subdivisions but I'm I'm not ready to make that decision yet but and so that I think when we reject it uh rather than having it an item that we haven't decided um you I'm not those that know me I'm not afraid to make a controversial decision It's just sometimes it's best not to make a decision before you have all the facts but anyway so I'll I'll accept whatever this body you know yeah and I I I would just add a couple

comments um it it seems like the the fundamental purpose of the ra 5 zoning is to protect and promote agricultural land so when I read through this what what stood out to me is what is the vision that Utah County wants because you have somebody who wants in effect change that Vision this isn't going to do anything for housing affordability whatsoever our issue with housing affordability is the missing middle is smaller Lots is and and we hate to say it more more high density places so I so I'm not I I don't think and I agree with that it's not that's not an argument to me but I do think that it is a Crossroads in terms of do we want you know Utah County to look like LA County I mean what what's our vision for Utah County and I think it's really going to be important to keep some open space to keep some land um open um so we have options moving forward so and I and I so I I I I know it's a I hear what you're saying with the private property I completely agree with that there's a private property issue here as well but at the same time there's an overall vision for what we want our grand our grand children to see moving forward and I would agree with a lot of that I think that it's also important for us to remember what it is that our obligations are here as a Planning Commission we have some balancing and some evaluating in decisions that we make we balance private property rights and the ability to use your land and to um have vision and freedom as uh as uh commissioner Hera said but we also have the obligation to plan and to look forward and to look broadly and set things up for Success um if we approve things in in items such as

this that we're not necessarily setting them up to be successful in what it is that they're wanting to do and if there are better ways to do something better ways to meet needs better ways to plan forward so that we are planning and not just reacting and not only looking to granting the greatest freedom and flexibility of use of a plot but also looking to what it means going forward and the uses around it and not creating conflicts between existing uses and incoming uses balancing all of the rights and all of the money that needs to go in there I think is an important part of what we do in in your opinion if we were to vote on this and recommend denial do you think that they would pull that without it going to the County Commission or is it obl is it an obligation that it goes to County Commission so they vote on it it must go to the County Commission to vote on so they they it will be heard by the County Commission and um we do let the applicant know when it will on the County Commission I I like I said um especially um if if he's not able to attend this meeting I will um make sure that I get a response from him clearly stating that he the the date that we're going to put it on County Commission he'll be available okay again I would ask the question is are there any studies I guess my concern is is you know we talk about you talked about uh affordability is that you know the assumption I think that most of us have is that if this is denied that that there will be you know um we be preventing land from being developed into uh you know homes on 58 um my concern is though is that we might

also uh instead of having 360 Lots because there's plenty of you know my experience is most people that have a million dollars to plot down on some rural land can plot $2 million yeah and so and and so my concern is that we you know we we think that we might be saving this land for higher de enity right and and and until I see you I'm a data driven person until I can see that that's for sure going to happen and right so we we actually went through um and I only brought a couple examples but we actually went through the the past three years years of annexations um for the county um from uh from the county to Incorporated jurisdictions majority of those are um smaller pieces but the ones some of the larger pieces that do get annexed um I I kind of pulled out a couple examples but um we used existing zoning that they were zoned so um once they leave the county they get zoned into a a c specific Zone and we did research on determining what that zoning would allow we didn't obviously we didn't take out for roads we didn't take out for other types of and this is the the based on the city's ordinance what that density would be and for instance this is another example that's in Lehi that was um 100 acres we would be able to allow for 22 22 units um 44 with with a 2 and a half acre lot zoning in there and in in leh City they have it zoned for um 468 um U let me show you another example of um just in American Fork City and I'm I'm sure that you kind of have seen some

of this development happen but this area let me turn on the C area so these are you can see areas that are unincorporated are not highlighted and the areas in American Fork City um are green and you can see some of this area as they develop in in this specific area how dense that development happens this area right here I think is um designated for Road uh connector and you can see that that this plays out in in many areas in the county where there is open space that has been used for agricultural land that gets annexed in bigger um areas that that that zoning um especially right now in a lot of jurisdictions that zoning is is more dense than what we'd be a able to allow and accommodate in the county so especially with as we talked about with the infrastructure so I I I completely understand and we're we're trying to put that information together as far as we're we're going back with annexations and trying to track what um areas have been annexed and what those numbers and um zoning when they get in there what what that can produce based on the zoning that they get and the um the area that they are Annex in so I understand and we we try to give you as much information as we can to to make those decisions because we don't want you to be less informed in making these decisions as well and I guess my only concern is I just I seem to hear I seem to have friends that all seem to be uh Gathering five acres uh in the South part of the county and so uh you know and that's yep yeah I I understand that you know the definely the door might be already opened I guess you know but yeah and there like you said that that's the that's the prerogative of private property owners if they do want a five acre lot they they can develop that and

um in cities they have the ability to do five acres or or less Okay so we've had some discussion any any further discussion are we ready to vote I I would just say I my only I I have a whole lot of reasons to vote against this the only hesitation that I have is just not being able to hear their side of the story I I'm not sure what to do about that because I there's so many things about this that I don't think would be good to move it forward that I don't think that they could present anything that would change my opinion on it however I just I do hesitate that they can't defend their case it feels like the heavy arm of the of of the county you know deciding while they're not here right I mean it does seems like a continuation I mean would be the option you'd be looking for if if you wanted to give them a chance but they already asked for it to be delayed from last meeting to this meeting and how how much more accommodating could we have been and like I said I don't I don't see anything like the the variation of concerns from Health Department concerns to um you know the whole idea that cities are the ones that are better in a better position to handle the housing affordability in that and yeah just a whole lot of reasons that I think they would have to defend and I just don't see any way that they could resolve all those concerns and as a recommending body um we can vote and then like he said he would note to the Commissioners that he wasn't present but I I'm going to agree

that he he's not here and he wasn't here last month and he pushed it off and so he's had that opportunity so um you know let let's let you know let's move forward and let the Commissioners decide and he can be there okay so has everyone had a chance to give their discussion okay let's start with commissioner uh Allison yes so wait we're so just to to remind we're we're voting that we will deny as a recommendation we'll deny the applicant um application as as the staff has recommended and you're voting yes to deny yes yes yes yes no Okay so we've had uh see five to five with yes and one no so uh we so the as a commission the vote is to deny to recommend denial to the County Commission okay thank you that was I think that was very good discussion do we have the ability to explain a vote are we playing house rules or Senate rules it can I explain a vote I just I I just want to make my my my nay is not for the Pol for supporting a policy to go to two and a half acres it's just uh uh primarily because the applicant wasn't here uh and I I don't want to my vote to to say one way or the other of the policy so he thank you commissioner okay uh we the next item is um item number two Brad Ling which is uh a land use ordinance Amendment okay so I'm Kevin Stinson um we received an application from Brad um he is with U-Haul and they um they had a

request um in our neighborhood commercial Zone to add um a use to our our commercial storage currently commercial storage is allowed in the neighborhood commercial um and the the intent of that zone is um almost what it says it's kind of a to provide those conveniences in the middle of a neighborhood um it might be a gas station a storage unit um little convenience store something like that um now what they wanted to add with that is they wanted to add like most U-Hauls um they wanted to add um the rental of of trucks and trailers which is currently not allowed in the storage area or in the uh the Zone um we presented uh some options we've been going back and forth a little bit with the applicant on what they presented and um we presented some things to them and we we thought we had it all nailed down um and we sent the the packet off to you um and then they came back and and did make one more additional request request so I'm going to be presenting um a couple of line items that are different than what was presented to you um but initially let me go through this so um we we have come to um first of all that the storage unit facility that uh it would be uh an additional an accessory use to be with the storage unit facility so it's not something that they could just go do off on their own um and their storage unit facility to be able to do the renting of the trucks um would need to be at least 75,000 Square ft um and have a minimum of two stories uh now the area that we changed is this section number two right here and I'm going to jump to uh what we have worked out with the applicant on this um and uh the reason why they they have an outside storage area for those trucks that they want to be able to access fairly easily initially we said that needed to be all screened in um with the with site obscuring fences um they said it would be a little bit detrimental to their um their business plan and so we came up with another uh solution that we feel comfortable with

and they are comfortable with as well um that the outso storage unit uh area that that needs to be behind the front of the building um it cannot exceed 25,000 Square F feet it does need to be smaller than the area of the building itself and then any any storage areas within 100 feet of a property line must be screened unless it is um we have a few exceptions on there um the the side AB budding a railroad um I15 or an industrial Zone that's fairly standard um in many places um and the other thing that we did is we did look at Spanish Fork this area that they're particularly looking at and I realize we're not going for this particular area because this is a countywide thing but um it would be annexed into um Spanish Fork City and so we looked at their current uh codes and it would apply fairly fairly close to what their current codes are as well so we were trying to work with that too um the second thing that or a third thing that we we added on there is um they were requesting a display area for their trucks outside of that storage area you know a few trucks out front to show what what the options were and so we included that as well um and then uh and then just some kind of kind of housekeeping items in there of of needing a a site plan and things as they as they make their submitt um overall we feel that this does meet with the intent of the Zone um we didn't see any other ER any any concerns and again this isn't for a site specific area it is for the Zone the neighborhood commercial it's a fairly small Zone in the county um we got a few spots along I15 um some Mountain Benjamin um a few other places around there it's not a large Zone um I'm willing to entertain any questions and our applicant is here as well if you have any questions for him I I do commissioner so this fairly closely matches what Spanish work already has in

place as far as screening and location and height fence that sort of fence height that kind of stuff so when it's annexed in we assume it will be it should be a fairly smooth it's not going to stand out and so so when something is annexed in It's actually kind of grandfathered they would go with what they're they're currently allowed but it does somewhat mirror Spanish Forks so it wouldn't be like you said it wouldn't be an nice iore or anything against what their codes are the Spanish Forks code do you know if that's fairly similar to other municipalities for any other places it's very similar a lot of municipalities have uh these types of areas screened um and they do have different restrictions so yeah okay thanks are there landscaping requirements that we require for this no the county the County's not um hasn't really put that in any of their codes um they let the Landscaping be with the the people that are building and developing so I guess my if it gets annexed into Spanish Fork I would assume Spanish Fork would have some Landscaping requirements is that something that been discussed or no once again once they're annexed in they're grandfathered and so they're set on how they come in um and so there wouldn't be additional requirements for them unless they they go and make changes and need further permits or something like that then they would need to meet what Spanish Fork requires just to follow up with that there are most jurisdictions do have Landscaping requirements but um as as Kevin said County's been um reluctant to kind of enforce or to include Landscaping requirements it's just difficult for for the size of our area to enforce some of those requirements so we we haven't included those I do believe that most um commercial developments are anticipating adding some Landscaping um amenities to most of their facilities so that they can kind of fit into that area but no we do we

generally have not included Landscaping requirements in most of our zones and most of our requirements the 75,000 square feet large right I mean that's that is it is fairly large that would include all floors and that was a number that was submitted To Us by the applicant do do we have square feet requirements on other uses in that zone I mean that that are similar and 75 seems large um as far as this uh like we don't have a lot of uses that are similar to this and um generally if in these types of uses where they're accessory to something there can be qualifiers that they need to meet in order to get that exception and this is similar to that um as as Kevin said um the applicant is the one that proposed the these numbers I think it's important for us to we since we do not have a use like this that is separate from a storage unit and we we tend to most of the uses that would be similar to this we have restricted in most zones so this is something that's outside of what we' normally expect in the county um so there are certain kind of qualifiers and and um criteria that would we felt would be important and they also felt would be important to include all right um any further questions for staff do we we have um I think we have bradling here uh would you like to yeah sure you speak to to us I could probably answer a couple of the questions so our opportunity um yeah they're they're just asking me to have you state your name since you're at the

mic now bradling I work for U-Haul company of Utah the marketing company president for the state of Utah so um we do lots of operations all over the state at least that I'm I'm familiar with um what we're really looking for here we've been really honestly we've been trying to get into Spanish Fork um the opportunity there for land of the size that would hold what we needed has been extremely limited um I've worked with the py department and the mayor and and multiple people and and we've just been slowly having to work a little bit further out um looking at the developments and where things are going um clearly the unfortunate thing is is as a county I understand that this is a use that hasn't been really familiar with you there's probably not a lot of need except for the development is forcing that need we wouldn't be here if we didn't have a need to provide it for the consumer and so we're fairly unfamiliar with just dealing with counties I when we're looking for how we going to manage water and sprinkler systems and all of those things um but we have to overcome that because now we're trying to meet a consumer demand the storage facility is already an authorized use in the zone which works out great for us and I and it goes right along with the affordable housing because we offer small storage rooms that fit with people that are unaffordable housing however the the truck rentals we see as an accessory use um I know that there was some concern about you know they didn't want to open it up to a whole new line of business that Zone was not ready for but as an accessory use we believe that a storage customer and a Truck Rental customer are the same person and so we just tried to put it into a situation where we wouldn't

create a chance that literally every other truck rental or any other kind of rental company would come in and just to overtake a Zone and really CH try to put something in that was not part of the design of the Zone in the first place place this is supposed to be community-driven is the way I understood it we're just trying to serve that community and and so we really did come back with some square footage with you know if when you're really doing this for 75,000 square feet we're really saying the volume of people that will need this product based in this area they're going to have to have truck use if there was a 10,000 square foot facility maybe that need wouldn't be there and so we didn't want to push the county into having to Grant those uses to somebody who just built some storage rooms in a Back Field can I I I just rented a U-Haul on Friday or on Friday in thank you uh in if I had to guess it was in an or unincorporated area of Napa Valley uh just is a side not yeah well thank you for that we appreciate you appreciate your service so one thing just once again this this qualifier of the 75,000 ft that is only with the truck rental um like he'd mentioned um the the storage unit facility is already an allowed use if you want to do the truck L rental then you would need the um the additional and just just as you clarify that does the commercial storage unit allowed use have a square footage requirement just for storage units right that that's what they're proposing in fact they don't they don't have a requirement so so the storage commercial storage unit by itself does not have a square foot requirement but a storage unit that also rents trucks would have a

75,000 Square ft requirement and I hear what you're saying about you know you you wouldn't want that you know someone just you know renting trucks out of their barn or whatever in the back field I I I guess I can understand that but at the same time like is this is this so limiting that the only come the only entity that would use it would be U-Haul and that's possibility and I I think we were probably overcautious because I wanted you to like me no I um clearly the the premise of what we were trying to accomplished seems sound and and I that's a square footage we threw out there figured that that would be a safe place that a county would feel assured that they didn't get themselves into trouble um we would certainly entertain anything less than that but uh we we definitely want to see it as an accessory use we we we think that in U-Haul's World while many people believe we're in the truck and trailer rental business I don't believe so I've worked for them for 35 years and we're a storage rental company that rents trucks on the side um and those trucks is what facilitates filling up our storage facilities we have some 6,500 units that you owns in the state of Utah so um this would be vital for us because it's vital for the consumer to be able to get their stuff into the storage facility also to follow up with that um just just we when we have a new use in in most of our zones we try to be cautious um just because we don't we don't we don't know what we don't know basically um we can't anticipate different um things that happen with those New Uses and so when we have new uses that go in we try to be more restrictive and if we find that those those concerns are are not necessarily

there then then those restrictions can be lessened there is an opportunity later to adjust that number down if there's other other storage units that feel like that is too high a number they do have an opportunity to come to you and and discuss that with you and see if that's something and then we have a little more information about what we can expect for uh a facility that wants to rent do truck rentals as well then we have some experience in that right now we don't have any experience in what what we um are going to expect and what we um don't know what will be a a what can be a concern for us and so that's why generally we would like to start with a more restrictive number and then come down from there just so that we can sometimes ease into something that we can anticipate some of the um concerns that might be there it's it's more difficult for us to go backwards than it is to go forward and and in preparation for this we did a little bit of research on it they the applicant did send us some some renderings and these are just you know as I said renderings of of of facilities that they how they would look um they had three different buildings here you can see they're nice facility and then we went and we we looked um within Utah County even on other similar type facilities um with other different companies and different things that uh the cities they didn't have these additional restrictions um and it was you know a a car mechanic shop that had a a weed patch in the back that had a few trucks parked on it that they were renting them and it was just really a a eyesore to the community and so that's why like like Greg was saying we put these in if initially was saying okay this is something that's going to keep this area looking clean and and good and if as as as this progresses then uh you know if we find that maybe those those restrictions aren't needed we can make changes at that time been more than an acre that's what I was going to ask is

there I mean so let's say we pass this minimum uh floor area of 75,000 foot that's a twostory building what overall footprint landwise do you anticipate here two acres something like that is that what would normally accommodate that type of a building and set up um anywhere upwards of nearing 30,000 square feet but in this case I'm not sure that would even be that big it's more in the 25,000 foot range but we typically never build anything more than it's a then a 30,000 square foot footprint um and so that's kind of where our guidelines are so and that's and of course we run into we start to become a little bit cookie cutter in our organization because of of there are lots of places that don't want to consume 10 acres of ground with a whole bunch of Minis and that's just a bad look generally in today's standard so we would while we still need that mini units we just decided to take up a smaller footprint and go upwards and people don't mind we have elevators and they're air conditioned and nice and which your new modern stuff's all going to be built that direction so I get what you're saying but right now we could have I mean if they had 10 acres of an see they could have 10 acres of single story sheds right I mean right now because it doesn't have any requirement and absolutely that they wouldn't be able to rent trucks while they really the challenge yes for us too and and while we are struggling to have enough locations renting trucks um it's really tough in the market that we're in there's just not enough locations we don't own anything in the area um we would be desperate to open up anybody just to serve the community however we listen to staff and

the staff really recommended it that we take a really unaggressive stance as to what we were asking for and and so the size is pretty big really limiting the people that would be willing and able to do that including us you know I I also couldn't open up a mechanic shop down the street either at this point you know in the in even if the same Zone because it wouldn't be allowed all right I I guess I guess the what I'm hearing is we start with limiting and and and if and if there's an applicant in the future that really couldn't afford 75 but they could afford 50 they'd come in and and make that Amendment request it's true yeah and I I think that by if if we do have an applicant in the future that wants to to bring that number down we will hopefully we'll have some experience with uh a new facility to give you an idea of what what we can expect you have some examples of kind of what is in the area and what we've allowed in the past and what we've seen um with the concerns or lack of concerns with the size of a building but this works for you this works for us 1995 plus 137 a mile so yes all right all right is there any for any other questions for the the applicant okay thanks Mr Lan and we are in a public hearing still so yeah we are in a public hearing so is there I think I mean there's there's a couple others that have signed in but they didn't you know mentioned that they want to speak but is there someone would like to speak to this from the public okay we won't buy we

won't all right is there a motion or any further discussion motion motion if you do have the motion I I suggest that you also include the changes to section two as well 12.32 and what's the other number well this they've made changes here from what's in my packet part two of that se part two of that section okay so if you just had if you Lov it that section 12.32 then it should be okay okay well I will make a motion that the Utah County Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed text amendments to sections 12.32 of the Utah County land use ordinance with modifications as specified in the staff report and as presented along with any applicable ruming and reformatting in each section based on the findings listed in the staff report thank you than you second I have a motion and a second to um approve the staff recommendation uh any further discussion start with commissioner her at this time yes yes yes yes yes yes okay thank you for that okay we now uh we'll move to section F of our agenda which is is a zone map amendment is this still yeah this is still open right yeah we still have this one um so I just I don't know if I need to um if I'm having a hard time with applicants but the applicant for this item is also not here so just just be

aware um let's see let me get going um so this item is a a proposed zone map Amendment from the ce1 zone to the ra5 Zone um let me actually go directly to this um this is kind of the area that we're talking about just give you a little background this area was part of pacin they went through the process of disconnection um that process is basically um leaving a city and going back into unincorporated areas we don't see that happen a lot um but when it does one of the requirement in our ordinance requires that it zoned the C1 Zone um so even though before this went into um the city it was zoned ra5 when it come when it leaves the city and comes back into the county it is required by ordinance to be zoned the ce1 um it's which is the most restrictive Zone that we have um the applicant has um requested the area so let me give you a little closer view this is the area that we're talking about that is being requested to be rezoned um the as you can see it's surrounded mostly by Pac and city um and then there are areas of ra5 Zone um this is kind of the area that is the aals of this area that kind of show similar uses agricultural uses in this area um that that kind of match what is in the ra5 zone and on the property it's it's um been irrigated and um farmed for uh quite a long time and it and the zoning previous to annexing into pacon City had always been in an agricultural Zone um

this the applicant um so just to give you a little background on the I don't know if I have any NOP I don't um so the applicant has um utilized this property for agricultural uses for quite a while the the area this parcel here just to give you an idea is currently uh well it was it's one acre one acre in si in area and that is that parcel is was a non-conforming lot of record before it was annexed and and it would still be a non-conforming lot of record in the CE one zone and continue to be an a non-conforming lot of record in the ra5 zone if the zoning were changed the non-conforming sorry it's parcel record is um a designation that allows kind of for the grandfathering of that uh parcel to remain in that size and configuration as long as they don't change it to especially uh uh to a smaller size it allows the H the house that's on that property to continue to exist it allows the use of that property um for accessory dwell structures and other other uses going along with the ra5 zone so it continues to allow for those uses without being required to increase in area to the 5 Acres minimum um this parcel is less than five acres um this parcel this parcel and a parcel over here uh across the street were part of a farm unit originally approved as a farm unit um that

designation um was put in place in the N around the 19 uh 7s is that kind of allowed for um caretaker dwellings and secondary caretaker dwellings um based on acreage use um and the farming that went on on the property currently those uses can remain um the applicant has expressed an interest in subdividing this property into 5 acre lots um which is the reason that they have disconnected um because they were not able to be serviced by the city um I think it was mainly a power issue because of some of the conflicts between the City's power and um a another another uh agency that provided power in the area so so they are asking to they wanted to disconnect so that they could develop this property into 5 acre lots um they live in the area um in develop once they go through the process of subdividing this parcel would would be required to meet the minimum acreage of that zone so it would have to have at least five acres in order to maintain that dwelling that's on that property um there is a mobile home that would either have to be an accessory dwelling or be moved if they went through that process that's just to give you an idea of allowed uses that would be allowed in the in the ra5 zone also if they remained in the C1 Zone there's a 50 acre minimum and obviously I think that they're reluctant to subdivide property into 50 acres um at this point so they wanted they wanted to rezone that so that they could develop this property into five acre lots that's the staff report um the area includes those three those three part parcels and

the road that was also included in the in the disconnect so there's some areas of the road that are part of the C1 Zone that we would um like to include in that application to make sure that the zoning stays consistent with adjacent zoning in the area any questions yes so in in in our history what's the Precedence on these disconnecting I know it's rare but we if they were ra5 or they generally I mean I they come back as ce1 but right so yeah it's just a process we go through it's it's um generally to discourage disconnection from happening so that a property doesn't go back and forth to get the answer they want in this case it was a little bit different um they tried to work with Pac and City to develop the property were unable to do that in within the city because of those conflicts and so um the solution that they wanted to or that they came up with was to be able to disconnect so that they could work with the the power company in that area and um which we don't which we don't have any conflicts with in developing in in the that's the danger do they do they uh under C1 I mean as far as the dwellings there's rather have it yeah if they if they remained the way that they were they would not have I mean they'd be grandfathered in as as kind of an existing you e either way the the dwellings are okay it's just they wouldn't be able to subdivide right so yeah they they could subdivide but they'd only get two lots potentially out of that whole area so and that's not not something that they um want to do so they're and it's consistent with the zoning in the area it's consistent with the zoning that was previously there in in place our ordinance does require that to be ze1 so he's just going through the process of of asking for a rezone he's also talked to one of our planners about starting the process for subdividing the property and has met with them already and and I guess I can ask well if I'm

going to ask legal I probably shouldn't do it in public for him but uh it's pretty hard for us not to give our our five when it's surrounded I mean we'd have to have a pretty good reason not to uh and and usually too you you have the higher density closest to a city you know so if we didn't do this it's we got to have a pretty good excuse not to do this right reson Reon a legislative act so you don't need much to support your decision arbitrary and capric in Washington in salth Lake you don't need a lot um you you have pretty wide discretion but you've listed good reasons so who owns the roads in this now is this the new or is this the property owner that owns those roads no the the in the process of disconnecting I think when working with Pac and City they requested that those roads be included in the disconnection generally we would not the county does not want those roads back in the county they would want those to be maintained by Pac and City however they were included and um we don't want to leave little strips of C1 remaining in those in those areas so we want to include those in the in the request um just so that it's clean and the entire area is in the ra5 zone so in the disconnect they became County Roads correct so now that requires the county to go I guess on the South Side still not Pac but it's almost surrounded by Pac and probably will soon be surrounded by Pac with County maintaining roads in PAC and City yeah especially when they work out the power situation for that area another question so the the the parcel that's kind of up the upper right uh Corner outside of that property there's looks like there's

two homes there but there're certainly not 5 acre lots each are those non-conforming as well those are are actually let me sorry I turned off the C those are actually within the city bound they're they're um under the jurisdiction of zoning requirements of Pac and City so I don't know the history of that of that area but um I don't we don't have any jurisdiction over that don't know if you have an answer to this but this problem that this particular property owner had are other property owners in that area potentially going to have to have the same problem um I I they may um this this property owner um is facing this problem I think he's been working on it for about a year because he wants to develop the property I don't know how many other areas are um looking at that um the issue with the power between the pace and power and the power company that services this area I think they are trying to resolve those those issues and I I think it's been difficult between um those I think it's just kind of the agreements have haven't been worked out between those so it's possible um we haven't this is this property is the only one that we've had questions about disconnecting we generally don't see a lot of disconnections happen um but to answer your question directly yes that that those could happen in the future we haven't had any requests um from anybody else in that area to disconnect and is can't the Assumption be made is probably having a lot to do with sewer I mean because because I I don't think you can can you have sep or uh septic tanks within municipalities these days or uh if they're further than 300 feet away from existing facilities yeah most most jurisdictions have a requirement that if they're within like like svan said if

they within a certain distance of a sewer line that they have to connect um I think there are some State Health uh administrative rules that kind of kind of dictate some of that to some degree um in this case an acre uh so in this case the the the property owner um I think was anticipating of these I mean using septic systems but I'm not sure um I but their main concern and their their main issue in developing the property was with the power with the power company yeah that's interesting I have a question and you might have explained this why was it originally designated as CE critical environment so yeah was it clear to so um in our ordinance under um chapter 10 there is I miss restricted just automatically becomes that when it switches yeah I missed that I was like this this statement here that any any um portion of the county oh sorry any area or portion of this County which is not clearly zoned on said map um because of an action which would have um which would leave an unzon enclave of the of the property in unincorporated area is hereby declared to be in the ce1 environmental it's punishment so because of the disconnection they did not have zoning so the default is CE correct and prior to being in PAC it looks like they were ra5 right Z PAC zoning they had kind of a similar Zone to what we had interesting so make a lot of sense but okay I just want Clarity I what was confused a little bit by that right we need someone new to make a motion I'll make a motion that the Utah County Planning

Commission recommend approval of the proposed amendment to the official Utah County zone map did we have a public hearing on this one did we invite public comment on this did we yeah I think we tried to see if anyone wanted to I couldn't remember sorry make I could remember I don't see anybody and now I don't see anyone so if they they all left they were invited now they left be somebody there yeah okay I'll make a motion that the Utah County Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed amendment to the official Utah County zone map for the proposed area including Parcels listed there do I need to say every number okay currently designated as critical environment ce1 Zone to be designated as residential agricultural ra5 Zone based on the findings specified in this staff report under subsection 4 second all right it's been moved and seconded that we adopt the proposed uh Utah County zone map change and we'll start with just another question so again this the reason they couldn't develop in PAC is a conflict with power is that that was that was the information that we got from the applicant yeah yes yeah they um SCD is the company and they just recently separated through a very contentious um uh kind of separation between pace and power and and and scsd I think so there's some issues between the two trying to work out what happens in these areas where SCD still owns lines and Power in this infrastructure in area so if for some you know unforeseen reason or whatever they get this settled out I mean they could would would it be advantageous to the property owner at if they got those

things worked out to go back to Pac and Annex back into Pac um or does this his in in the first place they they tried to work those through those issues he was not able to but yes um I think in the future once those get worked out and and there as infrastructure to support it I think that if they I think his intention was to try and keep agricultural inness agriculture in this area and they so they are um fine with five acre lots is what the information that they gave to me um they want they didn't want higher density in this area currently um since they live close to it so I don't know if they would have asked for more than or a smaller lot size if they were in Pace or if they still would be fine with a 5 acre lot so but generally it's more advantageous to be in in a city typically and if we pass this then they'll still be beholden to the county requirements for proving of water rights and all that kind of stuff so correct we'll start down here with commissioner Allison on this vote yes yes yes yes yes yes okay that was let's see this is uh ask unanimously for a recommendation to the Utah County Commissioners and that moves us to um other business and I do think we might have some other business we do okay good let's let's hear some other business for a second the other business we wanted to bring up um commissioner just because and do we need to should we close our public hearing first yeah go ahead yeah anyone so closed so moved mov moved and seconded the close of public hearing elder or Elder commissioner her would you elevated this is to vote to close the

public hearing yes yes yes yes yes okay public hearing close we now go to um just wanted to discuss briefly with you now uh we don't have to go into a lot of detail um maybe some obligations responsibilities you have and don't have to to people um you recent you might have recently received an email uh someone trying to contact you in regards to your work here um probably the best approach I could advise you or recommend you uh take is this is uh an open public body everything we do here is in full uh view of the public um you are actually prohibited from any ex parte contact which means one-on-one contact with anyone who has business before this body if it's quazi judicial um that would be um conditional use permits um extensions on permits um something where you are making the final decision um you're treated quasi judicial meaning you're like a you're sitting as a judge and and one of the primary rules of the courts is we don't allow people to approach a judge after hours offline out of a meeting out of court and talk about their cases obviously you can see the conflict there it causes problems we need things to be done in in an open meeting so and and we will be doing open meeting training as soon as you guys have an agenda that will allow it okay um maybe a month or two from now about not next month not next month but summer usually slows down and we'll do that um it's it's brief it's informative it's

it's useful but until then just keep that in mind that um your business should be done here if someone contacts you someone send you something someone walks up to you and just hand you something it's best to get that to the staff at Community Development and give them a report this is what happened here's who called me here's who texted me whatever and just have no contact after that report it uh deliver whatever was given to you and then and then once once it gets into the staff's hands we can make sure it goes out legally and lawfully and and and to all parties and make sure that that it's done right um regarding this email we will respond um we will make clear that it was improper um possibly unlawful um the threat um to reveal personal information is against the law uh it will be prosecuted if it's done um if if anything's done like that um they have access to you okay the public has access to you through the county that's the way we've intended it that's the way we want it um you know there's suggestions that you should have a cell phone from the county don't recommend that we don't have those I don't know why you would want that um you also don't need a government an email uh there's an email that's provided through Community Development anyone wants to email you information it it will get to you okay that's not a problem it's not about access what this is about it's about improper access they want to get you one-on-one and either convince you or threaten you it doesn't matter why or what their intent is it's it's unlawful and so we wanted you to be to to assure you that this will be taken care of it will be handled um

if any of you like I said receive contact report it and if anyone of you if he if someone were to do something in social media or in the public or at your house or neighborhood anything regarding your job here report it okay uh we're simply not going to allow harassment or threats uh anything of that nature um we make it clear that you are citizen volunteers um you're doing this out of the goodness of your heart and we'll use the full resources of the county to protect you any questions yeah yeah just one question so if if they had a I know I mean like is the only way to get on the agenda here to submit an application or is there can they just a ask to have an item on the agenda for a public hearing on a on a topic generally you need to have an applic um but that doesn't that doesn't foreclose them from coming and talking about it during a public hearing um some commissions do public comment um there's pros and cons to that um but clearly in public hearings you hear from anyone in the public who has anything and the truth is if something is sent in we're going to look at it and if it's at all appropriate we're going to let you see it okay because like what how I started this we're about open public meetings and doing things in the public transparently uh the Sunshine Law that that is that governs everything we do and so even if they aren't on the agenda even if they can't be here if they will simply get something to the staff we will make sure it gets to you but properly because the other side has to see it too and has to have time to respond to it um so we're not trying to foreclose

anyone or shut someone out what we are trying trying to do is stop things like this threats and harassment um and xart a contact which is clearly prohibited by law anything else and going forward I think we're going to work out something so it will be very clear that this body will have uh an email and a phone number that anyone who wants to contact you can get in touch with the board and the only reason I asked asked my question is that did did do you think that that that they feel like there's there's a you know a stiff arm from from from this group so that some information never gets to the commission is is that why not in this case not in this case at all all right um this this person has a long history here uh a long history of doing things like this so no I don't think that was it at all it it was to coers you individually okay just just to be clear also when we receive anything we as much as we can we uh try and get that information to you if we get comments about anything any public comments we try to keep it accurate even if they're phone calls we try to keep an accurate record and make sure that you hear about those contacts that we have so if you and and you're welcome to contact us directly about any of those things if you have concerns or um want to talk about a specific item on the agenda we are open to also having you come in and talk to us about those um comments or agenda items as you see for okay and then just one last thing I think maybe mention this but there is an upcoming agenda item that this person is interested in at least he might have mentioned that too but he did um it's not next month maybe a couple months it is it's on the agenda for next month next month next month okay so we'll we'll be seeing more information about which is I'm G to miss the drama I won't be here next month I think that's I think

that's one thing that's critical that that uh maybe I didn't realize or or take full of is when we have items presented here and we have the you know the presenter or people in in and opposing opposition of it this is really the only time that we are allowed to ask questions and really dive into it with those that oppose it or those that are pro for it so we need to you know not have fear of asking questions because this is the time to do it because we can't approach them afterwards and they're not supposed to approach us so you know really Di into those questions during this meeting so that we can get all that stuff vetted out so that we can do our job the best way we can I agree so can you help me understand so it's is it you know because this body has two functions you know sometimes we're legislative sometimes we're judicial so it's just on the judicial side that we're not allowed because I mean that's just different than my experience when I was in the legislature I mean I got lots of hate mail and lots of contact and lots of you know I got a death I got death I got a death threat you know uh so so when can I mean quasi judicial it's prohibit you just can't even have a conversation right it's not a matter two two of us can't have a convers I mean because because we were always kind of taught that you can't have a a quum you know that was the the No No but if it's judicial we just can't have a conversation you cannot and those are in in this realm judicial you did you say uh uh which ones are judicial which ones are legis um there will be some extensions on permits that you'll look at um and because the on the permits we're the final decision body so it's just whatever it's the Fi we're the final right when it's going up to the commission you're just an Advisory Board

okay so and those somebody talks to us we're okay having or so the ordinance is we discourage that okay um it it can only go wrong for you and us if you have that contact and and the answer to someone is who wants to give you information please put it send this on to this email to Community Development or call them and or take it into their office that's the best answer you can give anyone that wants to approach you about anything on this board to say hey we want that information we want all the information we can get but please get it to us the right way and that's through through Maria at the office and and and is is another option to to attend the meeting yes so they attend the meeting right I mean that's obviously right and if they came here and they said well you know I'm looking at the agenda and it's not you know you're not really quite covering my concern that I came here for is there still a place for them I mean you said public comment we don't have public comment on the agenda item in this commission it's just something we haven't done but if someone came in and I don't know put their name down here I have a really I don't know I guess we we just ignore them until they went through you like a general concern is that what you're talking about concern something on our agenda we've listened to some pretty wide ranging non I I'm I'm just trying to think you know like if you told them hey if you if you have a concern come to the come to the meeting and address the commission which is the right answer but if they came here with an item that wasn't on the agenda then we'd be kind of give the stiff arm again should you direct them at that point to submit to Marie or through the the email address and ask to be on the agenda as I've thought through it that is the best course of action just have contact and then if you feel put on the AGA hands and then you can do with with it whatever you feel is necessary but the

truth is chair if someone were to stand up right now and want to address you I'm guessing you would let them talk absolutely would right and no one would stop you right now if they want to take if they want you to take action or something we would definitely stop it at that point but if they simply wanted to address you I think that's the kind of government we run here is we want to hear from people and we're not going to slap them down and say you can't say that well I think that was the only reason I'm asking is because that's kind of what I read implied in in there somehow was that you know they wanted to reach us outside the process because they you know I mean I to me that's seemed like what he was trying to get at but I I'll I'll let you deal with that was you huh also to follow up on that the county my email must have been easy to find CU he had everyone's email listed there I got an email so so just to follow up with that the Comm County Commission does have public comment you can also direct them to the County Commission if the County Commission feels like it's something that they want the Planning Commission to look at they can direct staff to bring an agenda item or direct Planning Commission to review this item as well so there are forums that they can go to that that allow them to address those with the County Commission I will say the email that they had for me is not one that I typically use but I have put it on my Republican County registration that's where I'm sure I I'm sure honestly what we don't have public comment but is that is that by our choice or the county commission's choice or by ordinance or what probably by your choice by our choice yeah if the board wanted to do that so if we found you can see yeah the public usually isn't here they really aren't it's not that they don't care it's just this isn't a priority yep and and it's also the scope of what it is

that we do we are here to address only the things that come to us whereas the Planning Commission or not the Planning Commission the County Commission and staff are able to take action way outside of what we're able to do so usually that's really quick so so when I'm reading through this information um I kind of want to know I mean and you guys do have a recommendation at the end but you know sometimes I want to I want you know in my head love for that to be elaborated upon right so are we allowed to reach out to you and say okay I mean you know like staff staff staff and just say Okay so there's this thing and like really ultimately I know you guys supposed to be biased but at the same time I mean I I'm I'm a little concerned that you know I mean I I know we have great Commissioners you know County Commissioners but they're also not city planners and and I do think that you could I think if we can merge the city planners with what we're doing here I I think you can get a good hybrid right but but you know so if they're not good we should recommend they get fired well I well I yeah I you have people that are you know County Commissioners that aren't planners and I I attended that planning you know that the city whatever the state planning thing and there's a lot of things to consider huge things to consider and I just kind of feel like there's people that are making decisions that don't have that as well and so I would love to be able to you know I I I I wish you guys could be less neutral and say well from a city planning stpoint like what do you think yeah we're like like Dale said we're always available I've worked in many jurisdictions that U planning Commissioners and city council have come into um

into uh offices even some have even set up a monthly meeting just to discuss the agenda and if you want that type of U meeting you're welcome to request that and we can accommodate that say that again we we could do what just you can request it from us and we can just set up a meeting that you can come in and talk about the agenda if you want to go through the agenda and all the items and questions that you have if you want to do that I know that's something to look into because honestly like we are the staff for the Planning Commission so whatever we can do to help you do your jobs you just have to say it you want an explanation you want more information maybe you want to find out the background of something just you guys also have a lot of um history I mean you have a lot of you see a lot of these things and um you have a background that we don't have but I feel like the E is trying to be neutral and it's like I I don't neily I want to know what's going to be the neutal they have I know but when you start actually what's what do you really think you know what I mean like in terms of because you're seeing the ramifications of City Planning gone I mean how do you get how do you get a community of of like that looks like Park City right that's a vision right yeah and we're well we're happy to to kind of go over those questions if you have um things that you want to request for a meeting different information you want us to provide for a meeting you're welcome to do that realize that that um we have some limitations as far as time goes um so if you do see and it's difficult for us um we'll try maybe we can try and get out the agenda earlier so that you can see what's on the agenda but um just let us know and if you need to continue an item you can always continue an item if you want more information about that item too but just I would commend staff in their kind of

seeming neutral I mean just just the political realities of living in a a pretty conservative state that you know you have you have to balance between democracy and becoming viewed as elitist that's and I think that's what they're trying to to balance and I think they do a pretty good job but they're also you guys are also going to meetings you're going to conferences you're seeing you're going to different cities you're you you have a totally different lands you have a city planning land that unless you're unless you've gone haven't gone through that whole process you're not going to have but the general plan provides that overall General scope or idea for the county right and and by the way we are planning on going through a a major update to the general plan which you will be involved in very very significantly so um just be aware that that that's coming and you'll be able what we try to do is get the opinions of of the unincorporated areas of Utah County to kind of address some of these questions like for instance the one that came up do people still want to preserve a in the county is is that a priority for them those are the types of things that we'll be looking at and addressing and that's the as you can see I referenced the general plan quite a bit in the staff report because that is the guiding document for as soan said th those are the The Guiding documents for the direction that the county is supposed to be going if those change then the policies of the county would change so it's important to make sure that that um as we go through the process of looking at the general plan to try and be involved as much as you can so we'll try and we'll try and include you um from the beginning and and um right to the end so okay good deal well I I I doubt that many of us are neutral

on the BYU game going on right now so I no idea is there any further discussion no idea all right then we are adjourned thank you just as a friend