Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Um, start off with a pledge of allegiance. All right.

Um, the minutes were sent out, um,

Hopefully everyone had a chance to review them. Entertain a motion to approve. I move to approve the minutes from the last meeting.

I can second.

It's been moved and seconded. All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? No. The minutes are approved. All right. First item subject to public hearing. We have a proposed Utah County land ordinance text amendment. to section 4.44. We have a staff report for that.

Yes, we have a, our staff will prepare or give you a presentation. Xiaodong.

Good evening, Commissioner. I'm Xiaodong, a planner with Utah County Community Development. So our applicant is proposing a tax amendment change for removing the perpetual, sorry, permanent perpetual easement on section 4.44 of Utah County Land Use Ordinance. And as you say in the map, so the applicant own a 50 acre land in Alberta area and want to build a single family home on the Circle area. However, so it appears a gap land separate the parcel. So a gap between the, so a gap owned by the federal government which is BLM between the tunnel road and also the subject parcel. According to the current Yulia County land use ordinance, if the property cannot meet the frontier requirement for this situation, So that means you need to obtain a permanent perpetual easement granted by federal government. So the applicant and our staff are working with the BLM agencies based on the BLM regulations. So they can only release a 30-year access easement and another 30 years for renewal upon the expiration. So this is why we have this testament change and also staff has considered about the applicant situations and also other scenarios may happen in the county. So we come up with this text change. So we come up with some ideas. So we gonna replace a written permanent perpetual easement with a written easement or state or federal equivalent for land in state or federal ownership. So this term may give property owner more flexibility to use or to utilize their land. And also we come up with a specific term which is initial term Initial easement term plus any available renewal term must be 50 years at least for this exception. And if the easement renewal is denied or the grantor does not extend the easement upon the expiration, so then the easement will be terminated. and also any permits conditioned on that access under this easement will be automatically terminated as well. So this term will give the property owner more stable and more long-term certainty for them to live in that house and also that land. And also we come up with this easement runs with the land and abandons the successor and assigns of the subject lot or parcel to protect the future land owner's interest. And so we also, so our staff also communicate with our applicant for this tax amendment. And as applicant, good for this tax change and also want to use staff version for this tax amendment. And by the way, our applicant are here today and if you have any questions, we are here too, happy to answer. Thank you.

All right, are there any questions from the Commission for staff?

I guess we're talking about the language Yeah, I have some concerns. So to me, we might be mixing up some interests or estates in real estate with this language. So that's my initial concern. But if we look in 8C, the proposed language, I'm wondering if as permitted by the grantor is necessary. We haven't talked about grantor and any of this before that. And I don't know that it adds anything to the paragraph. Because the state, the feds, or the railroad is going to provide some kind of agreement And each one of those entities will give us something different that allows the crossing. So I'm suggesting that instead of saying as permitted by the grantor, we just put a period after railroad.

Okay, thanks for your questions. And so this version, so this text version, we also communicate with the county attorney as well. And we come up with this language. So as permitted by the grantor. So we have that because if you take a look at.

Yeah, I'm looking at Dale in my peripheral vision to see what his comments are to that. Sure.

Yeah, I think you can strike as permitted by the grant.

I don't know if it adds anything to that paragraph. It probably does, no. And then skip a sentence then. If the easement renewal is denied or the grantor does not extend the easement upon expiration, the easement will terminate at expiration. And again, I think that's already stated in that if it's not renewed or it's not extended then it's terminated at that point and then any permits condition on accents access condition on access under this easement so my suggestion is we just say if the easement renewal is denied or the grantor does not extend the easement upon expiration and any permits conditioned on access under such easement said easement Instead of this easement, I don't know if that's quite the best way to say that. With this, maybe such is better. And then it shall automatically terminate. So I don't know if we need the extra, the easement shall terminate expiration. That's going to be by its own terms, right? We're saying the easement terminates by its own terms at that point. So I don't know that we need to add that. These are just my suggestions.

Did you also include a then? Oh, okay. Yeah, yeah, yeah. If then. Yeah, I agree with that. That's a good change.

And then again, that last sentence in red, this easement runs with the land. And we're talking about expiration. And if the easement runs with the land, there's no expiration. We get a right and if it runs with the land, I don't know that there's an expiration. That's a good point. I know with the railroad rights that they grant, they're specific to the landowner. When that landowner sells, that right goes away. You've got to get a new So we'd have to go back. And I know the BLM right-of-ways are the same way, too. So that'd be federal land. So I'm just concerned about that last sentence, running with the land. Obviously, that's what we want. But I don't know that we can impose that on the feds or the state or the railroad. We cannot.

Yeah.

So that's my concern with that last sentence. Most of these are going to be with some kind of private road crossing agreement, and it won't say easement on it, unfortunately. We wish it would, but it doesn't. And then under 8H on the back page, and the subject lot or parcel will not be used. I don't know, Dale, what do you think about changing will to may? Because what we're saying there is that we've got a restrictive covenant. The owner's going to sign saying, I agree that if these things happen, then I can't use the home for human occupancy. I don't know if that's better.

Most of the time when we use restrictions, we use will or shall.

Okay. Maybe shall.

Yeah, shall.

Shall is even better.

They're not always enforced, but if they had to be, it kind of provides a little bit.

Shall is much better. That's all the comments I had on that proposed text amendment.

I have a little different definition of run with the land, so maybe I'm a little confused. I thought run with the land means it doesn't run with the owner or with the person. It actually is attached to the land, so you can have multiple owners, buy, sell, buy, sell, and it stays with that land. That's right. But it doesn't mean that it's in perpetuity. If the easement expires, then it expires. But as long as there is an easement, it's attached to the land, but it doesn't necessarily mean run with the land doesn't mean This is going to last forever. But maybe I'm wrong on that. So I defer to the attorney on that one.

No, I think it's a good point. I was just concerned with the ambiguity that that might create. With running with the land, gives it some kind of long term.

If it were like it was written before, permanent perpetual easement, run with the land would make very much sense. Now that we're limiting it and we're acknowledging that it won't run with the land for beyond the expiration date, it is problematic to have that language there. That's a good catch.

Yeah, I just thought it would create some ambiguity there. And if we're saying that you have the right to stay in this property as long as this right to cross, whatever that right is, exists, then you're golden. But when you lose that right... for whatever reason, then you don't have the right state to live in the home anymore.

Yeah. Maybe let's look at some contractual language to just emphasize that it will be the government can be bound by an initial term and then renewal. That feels like it would be better than run with the land.

Yeah. Yeah. Just knowing those agreements you get from the railroad or the BLM, they don't run with the land typically. They are for that person. And when that person sells their interest, that right goes away.

And that's why we're here is the government, be it federal, state, whatever, they're not going to give permanent perpetual easements. We wouldn't. No, no, no. And so that's why this has to be.

Yeah, I agree.

It's a good change.

Yeah.

I mean, it is a policy judgment for you folks in the county commission to make. Do we even allow it? Because there is there is an argument that could be made that since it is it is access over government property. Maybe we should never allow that because the government can always step in and take it away.

Yeah.

You know, even their easements, they might have a 30-year time limit on it. I'm guessing the government's going to include some kind of clause to get out of it. You know, if they have to come in and build a, you know, I might be extreme here, build a military base, they're going to get rid of these things. The government's purposes have to come first. But, you know, We've weighed that out and tried to see some way for these folks to be able to use their property. And they're not the only ones. This happens around the county. That's why we came up with the 50-year. At least we're acknowledging that if folks can go get an easement, a useful easement for 50 or more years, which is almost a life estate and property, maybe we should allow this kind of access. But it's clear you could say, no, I don't think we should ever do this because it was written as a permanent perpetual to begin with for the very reason that it's the only way to guarantee access.

Yeah, I think there's so much land that's locked by SITLA land, by BLM land in Utah County, by railroads that you can own the property, but what value does it have if you can't cross any of this? So I think that opens it up. I think it's a good idea to do it. It's going to be problematic. I don't, the financing is going to be tough for access, but it's doable. I've seen it done.

My only issue is if, let's say you're the third owner in and you think, oh, I'm going to buy this nice house. You buy the house and the easement expires in three years. How is that person put on notice? That's, to make sure that if I go buy the house for sale, about 50 acres is great, and then I don't even know there's a 50-year easement that's in the last three years. In some way, I just want to make sure that people who are protected, maybe they would do that in the title research. Maybe that's okay there. I don't know. That's my thought.

Sure, and that's a very valid concern. Subsection H does require the original owner to record a restrictive covenant acknowledging this So it would be found through a title search, but it may need to be renewed, it sounds like. They may not be able to piggyback that owner's easement. And that's what we found with the railroad. That's only a license or an agreement with that property owner. So they may have to go get their own.

There should be something in the record that would indicate that there's your access.

I have a question.

And the easement's recorded. Whatever they obtain from the federal government will be recorded. So it'll be in the title record.

So if it's terminated, the agreement is terminated, so what kind of liability does the county have in having approved that property?

Some. And that's why if... this commission or the county commission were to say we're not going to do this it's understandable um you know what do we tell subsequent owners that um we allowed a home to be built and occupied and sold and not guaranteeing access yes that is the problem here that's why it was written originally as a written permanent perpetual easement across state or federal land because that's the only way to guarantee it. So is there some risk? There is, but it's a risk that they are assuming, that they're well-informed, that is clear on the title. So there might be some liability, but we've done as much as we can to reduce it.

But isn't the building permit also going to have some kind of notice in there that you've got to confirm your ability to get to your property?

Not necessarily. It'll be approved. It'll go through an approval process and we'll state the conditions of approval. Generally, we determine through a zoning review that the property has met all the requirements and so there will be reference to their access requirements. is utilizing this provision in the ordinance to meet. The gold standard is the direct access off of the county road. I mean, that's kind of how we created this. Then we have these exceptions because these things have crept up over the years. And so we would refer to this exception as how they're meeting that standard of access. But that would just be written on the approval of their permit application, which a lot of owners don't probably look at. Maybe their contractor will, but. We hope the other documents and the other methods are on full awareness, full disclosure. Obviously, the original owner will know all about it, but to Mr. Sainsbury's point, the next owner is going to just assume, oh, yeah, everything's good, so business as usual.

I would think, though, that if the federal government, let's say, had a 50-year lease, and they came in after 25 years and said, you know what? We want this land back because we want to build a military base. Because there's a lease in place, it depends what the lease says they have. But I'm assuming the lease is going to say, if the federal government wants to buy it back, they can, but there's going to be a price associated with it, and it's going to be the value of whatever. So there is some protections, hopefully, when the lease is drawn up, that if they want to buy it back, if there aren't, my guess is it would be eminent domain, and the courts would have to come up with a value for that. Because if I own 100 acres and I have a nice home and they want that and that's the only access I have, that's taking away my ability to use my home for the next 25 years. So I don't know how much liability. I mean, I'm sure they have some. But I think the federal government or whoever the lease is with would have those things worked out if they wanted to come in sooner. And then the 50 years, that's just your risk. When it expires, that's just. That's just your risk. But if it's during the lease, I think they're okay. I think they're covered, you know, one way or another.

It will be interesting to see what these easements look like.

Yeah, that's the point. What does it say? And some of them are revocable at will.

Well, if they did that, I certainly wouldn't build a house.

Well, the practical impact is you're not going to get financing. Unless it's pretty solid, you're not going to get title insurance. People, at least, hopefully they'll review those things. I think it's a good idea to try to provide a means for folks to get to their property.

Do you guys know how many properties, because you said there's a lot of properties that would be affected by this. Do you know how many, kind of roundabout?

Oh, no. No, I mean, there's... There's multiple. I mean, we just don't really know until there's so many different situations out in the county that could potentially meet this criteria. We don't know how many would, you know, logically utilize this. In my experience, so we've had this. This isn't new. This is just refining it to match what is practiced. I think we've probably issued maybe less than 10 in 20 years that utilize this. these existing types of exceptions. And that might be a high number.

And would those property owners understand the risks and all the details behind that? Because they're sort of going through the harder process here. But would future owners wouldn't have to jump to this hoop? Do you think they would understand some of the risks that they would possibly have with that?

I would think so. Because they're going to come to our office and say, hey, here's my parcel. I want to build on it. We're going to say, well, you don't have frontage. And then they're kind of shot down unless, you know, but we'll make them aware of these exceptions. And so at that point, they'll say, oh, I see this exception and start reading through it and work through it and understand that. Usually how these come out is they say, well, I have an access easement to my property for camping, whatever, you know. And so they're aware that they potentially have some access granted. but then hopefully through the process of obtaining a building permit that they'll be more educated on what they're getting into.

I have one question. So I did some research about some land in our jurisdiction about the land doesn't have the frontage. If you are interested, and we can discuss after this commission meeting, because I didn't bring that information with me right now. Thanks.

Yeah, I knew an individual that unofficially subdivided a whole area into five-acre lots and sold them. And it was never approved by the county. It was never. And the poor buyers went in, and it was all in a contract, and they gave them money. Then the guy disappeared. And I just worry about the citizens being aware of what's going on. And I think that's covered here. I think we're pretty good, so.

Any further questions for staff?

I guess I have one last question. So what's with the 50 years? Is it like the magical number?

It's better than 30. So we had heard that the federal government might offer 30. 30 didn't seem like enough. We toyed with 60, doubling that. hundred you know the federal government uses 99 year leases all over for different things just trying to come up with something that was workable but but was long enough that we would at least protect maybe the first owner with a 50-year easement there there's no magic to it it it might be wrong maybe it should be 75 i you know i That's really a judgment call. There's no law that says this is what it should and shall be. It's really what you feel is the best to protect people, protect the county.

Yeah, and that's why I'm suggesting. I feel like 50 years, maybe you could extend that.

That's what you guys do. What would you extend it to? Add years to it?

Yeah, absolutely.

What number would you think of? The world will end before then.

For some of us it will. Minimum 75. Okay. I mean, we have somebody up our canyon who put in a honey year that nobody can build on that for 100 years, and he's already passed on. So, I mean, that's kind of a visionary approach, but so.

We have heard that some government agencies will only give so many renewals, so it will be capped at some point.

Right. Oh, okay. Yeah, that's the challenge I see with that is you're not going to get anything close to that from the BLM or from SITLA. And the railroad for sure you won't. So I think that amount, I think 50 years is going to make it tough.

Oh, really? Okay.

Yeah.

Okay. So are they going to have to come back and say, OK, 30?

Well, they're going to have to go back to the owner, the BLM or SITLA, and get a renewal. And it's always fun to work with those folks.

Any other questions for staff? If not, we can invite the applicant up to tell us about yourselves, about your property.

Well, as you see what it is, the parcel, it already has an access road that's been used for years. We're in a lot of this situation you guys have been talking about where we want to build on it, but we're stuck because we have to get the right-of-way from BLM. And you're right, they will only give a 30-year right-of-way. But they put in there, it's renewable, it's just on the owner to make sure that they renew it before the expiration date, which you can apply for it three to six months prior to it expiring. So they don't require it to be recorded, but we know the county will require it to be recorded.

And another practical problem with that is many times that right away they won't notarize it, and it's hard to get it recorded.

So...

So you have to get that acknowledged so it's recordable.

Um... How do I tell them? Do I just tell them that it needs to be notarized by whoever signs it?

I need to get this recorded, so it's got to be acknowledged.

Okay. So they have provided us. They don't have the right-of-way approved yet. It's in the process. They expect it's about three months out or so, but they did provide a letter of intent that they are going to approve this, and they're good with it.

by their terms and once that right away goes through they give us a grant that's what they they grant us the right away yeah so the blm right away that the blm keeps its own records and a lot of the stuff it has is not recorded in the county so there's no public notice of what's going on like mineral rights they'll lease out a mineral right but it's not recorded in the county So they'll issue a right-of-way and put it in their file, but it's not recorded. And you've got to get it recorded.

And I understand that that would be the part that the county would be where they would be protected, right? Basically that it would come up on a title search because we get it recorded so it will show if we were to sell the property that there was one. But I don't know. I know there was some discussion. I can't answer it. You guys were talking like you think maybe it's specific to the landowner. I don't know if that's something maybe we need to find out if we were to sell it. Does the new owner need to get their own right-of-way? I don't know. That part I don't know.

It just depends on the form of the right-of-way agreement. For example, the railroad will never give it so that the new owner can use it. The railroad always says it's just you.

So depending on how they word it, it'll tell us. Yeah. Okay.

Any further questions for the applicant? So it's just that little strip of land between the road and your property line? Yes, 30 feet. Can't you make a right turn there and go up to your property line? Or is that? Everything around you is BLM. Well, it touches the road.

It touches the road on the one corner.

Yeah, that's what I'm looking at.

Yeah. Why can't you come in there? There is a ditch. There is a ditch right there. You can kind of see where it's a lighter.

That's kind of a ditch. Insufficient frontage. Yeah. Oh, that's it. So maybe.

That whole stall frontage is just 30 feet that's BLM.

For now, you could get the easement here. And then some other, someday down the road, if you have to, you can build over the creek or the wash, whatever it is.

It might be easier to throw a culvert in that creek than working with a male lamb.

We're halfway there with them. I don't know.

So... You'll get something from them. The challenge is, is it going to be what you need?

Well... Like I said that that roads already established from the previous person that live there and approved, like you said around the county so the roads already pretty much there that takes you onto the property. But it is along that frontage road. There really isn't a great access on the other end.

Is that a public road?

Is that a legal mapped road?

It's a county road.

It's the tunnel road out in Alberta.

Is that a class D road, Bryce? No, it's a B road.

It's a county B road, yep. Just As a reminder, and you know this, we're talking about this situation, but this is general to anywhere in the county. So we're not tailoring it or using this situation to determine how to go forward. It's a good example.

You just get to pave the way.

You guys are the pioneers.

And that was my question to staff was if people aren't going to be jumping through the hoop you're jumping through, are they going to know what they're getting themselves into?

Generally, I mean, even with this situation, we've looked at all options with the applicant to see how they can meet the ordinance without having to go through this, and this is kind of where we landed because of the factors associated with their property. So we do that with all people that come in and want to build, review their options, and see if they can meet the current ordinance, and if they can't.

Yeah, I like the effort. Yeah. Otherwise, that property just looks like that for the next 100 years.

Yeah.

All right. Any further questions for the applicant? Thank you.

All right. Further discussion? Public hearing?

Oh, yes. This is subject to public hearing. So should we have a motion to open a public hearing?

I can make a motion to open a public hearing. I'll second.

Motion and second. All in favor of opening the public hearing?

Aye.

Any opposed? No. OK. We are now in a public hearing. Anybody want to come up and make a comment? Seeing no public comment, anyone want to make a motion to close?

I can make a motion to close. I'll second.

motion to close public hearing made and seconded all in favor aye any opposed none okay public hearing is now closed now is there any further discussion on the proposed amendment notice you had some changes um potential changes

Yeah, I went through those. I don't know who's keeping track of them. They're on the record. I don't know how we even make a motion with that.

I think you could refer to the changes. You could refer to the changes that you articulated. So that's sufficient?

For your changes, yes. If anyone else wants changes, we need to have maybe a

Well, I guess I'm going back to the number. If they don't issue 50-year agreements like that, then maybe we should make it 30 so that we're not having to revisit this down the road.

The way it's worded is it includes any possible renewals.

The sum, the total of the initial plus a renewal. And we've reached out to some of the agencies to get a feel that that's kind of in the ballpark of what we could issue.

Oh, okay.

I'm just going to tell you where I'm thinking, and that is that this kind of situation is fraught with all kinds of risk, mostly for the landowner, quite frankly. And it worries me, especially subsequent landowners. I keep seeing all these different scenarios. Let's say somebody gets approval, then they just don't have to build on it for 28 years. And then they sell it with them thinking there's a building permit and then it's whatever. But at the same time, to counterbalance that, I feel like we want people to use their property and have access to their property and be able to use their property. You know, people ought to be able to use their property. So I'm kind of leaning more that way. So with your recommended changes, I'm okay with approving it.

Yeah, I feel the same way.

Okay. Anyone want to entertain a motion?

I'll attempt a motion here. I move to adopt the proposed ordinance change, proposed language change to 4.44A and A8C and H with the modifications that we discussed tonight. With the modifications that I proposed. And again, for clarity, this is a recommendation. Did I get the paragraphs?

And this is a recommendation to the county commission. Yeah.

Yeah. Did I get the paragraphs right? 4.44A8C and H. Yep. That's my motion.

Okay. It's been so moved. I'll second it. And it's been seconded. Any discussion on the motion? If not, all in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? And that passes unanimously. Well, that recommendation is forwarded to the county unanimously. All right. Moving on to our next item agenda. Utah Planning Commission, County Planning Commission. Thank you, folks. Utah Planning Commission proposed text amendment to the land use ordinance, sections 1.28, 2.08, 16.44, 16.92, and other applicable sections. And yeah, let's have a staff report.

Good evening, commissioners. Greg Robinson. community development staff. So Senate Bill 284 was passed this last legislative session. These are changes to reflect the requirements in that bill. I'm going to have Kevin address from staff, Kevin address the business license, and then I'll go through the remaining changes after he's done explaining kind of the changes for business licensing.

Thank you. I'm Kevin Stinson. So mine is very basic. It's actually just that 1.28 that you see there. However, it refers to another section of county code. So we're not going to be debating or talking about the county code. We're just talking about this section here. The bill required that we have a stipulation for any unlisted or new businesses that we don't have in our code, that a process that they can go and apply and try and get that business allowed or reviewed. So all this is is just stating that there's a process that's in the county code that allows for that application. I believe it should be in your staff report if you wanna refer to that of what we're gonna be later proposing to the County Commission. But it is the process that's outlined in the state code that they can apply. There's a review process, and then there is some criteria and stipulations that we look at to see if that matches closely to another business or allowed use. If not, then there's a process where they can apply to get it reviewed, and the county commission will designate an area that that use may be allowed. We also allow them to have appeals if we determine that it is not allowed. Any questions on this?

As I look at it, it's just nothing's changing. It's just you're clarifying. Is that right? Exactly. I mean, it sounds like it's basically the same ordinance. It's just you're making it a little clearer other than a couple of definitions, which I think help.

In the land use ordinance, we are. I'm just talking about this one he's talking about. Yeah, but there will be a new process approved in the county code for the new analysis. You got it.

Can you give me an example? It's this new and unlisted business use.

Can you give an example of that situation, like how it's handled today versus how it would be handled under- So currently, if somebody comes and applies for a business that's not listed in our code, if it's not listed, it's not allowed, then we would deny that. They would have to go through the process of changing the code, which would have them come here, then go to the commission and make those changes just like we did with the previous line item so this is going to allow it's going to streamline a little bit but still allow pretty much the same process with the new state requirements it would go through the county commission only so so how does that happen with somebody who wants to create a business but they don't really know what that business is that's that was what i was kind of curious about because it's they have an unlisted

It's a new or unlisted business use.

So our businesses, allowed businesses, are listed in the county code of what they can and cannot do. If it's something that's not listed there, then they would go through this process.

Okay. The process is a little unique in that if it does necessitate creating a new use listed in our land use ordinance, that strictly... a process that goes through just the county commission. The planning commission is kind of left out, which is kind of unfortunate because you guys are the ones that really vet these in all other situations. And so it's a unique process, but it's mandated by the state. So we're just following that.

Does that happen very often? I mean... It seems to me, someone comes in and I don't know what this is, you'll say, well, it looks like an office use. And they go, okay, I'm going to, it just seems that this would be rare. Someone's bringing a 500,000 square foot data center or something, that you'd have to do. But most of it, I think, would just fit in with something because you've got so many now that

I think this applies a lot easier to cities. In the county, we don't have a lot of development in the business.

I was going to say, this is county. But it's a statewide thing.

Yeah, to Mr. Sainsbury's point, I don't think this will be utilized a whole lot in the county.

Say that again?

To Mr. Sainsbury's point, I don't think this would, we don't anticipate this being utilized a whole lot in the county. And we really try to make it fit where we can. So we try and have uses identified that are broad enough to kind of capture everything that's within that use and be a little flexible. But sometimes it's hard.

Any other questions? And then Greg will go over the rest of the ordinance.

GREG MCKENZIE- All right, so the other changes that are happening are mainly just to reflect state code changes. Where we could, we just referenced state code sections that they were listed in so that if those changed in the future, we wouldn't have to go through this process again. The appeal authority changes are mainly to reflect the responsibilities of applicants who are going through an appeal with the county. They talk about mainly having the burden of proof for those, and they again reflect the state code requirements for filing an appeal. And finally, the biggest changes are probably to the powers and duties of the County Commission. These don't change a lot of what we currently have. However, there are some changes that are being mandated by the state. There are processes for filling vacancies. There are processes for appointments. There are processes for removal that have been clarified and added. We worked with the attorney's office to kind of develop those in response to what changes are required by state code. If you have questions specifically about any of those changes, I would be happy to try and answer those. But Generally, we tried to reflect what we currently had in our ordinance, clarified some of that, and organized it a little bit so that it's less blocky with big paragraphs and tried to break it up so that it's easier for people to kind of digest. So if you have questions, I'll be happy to answer those.

I'm happy to see conflict of interest language now.

yeah we did have we we had some pretty good language in there, but I think this helps further that so yeah I agree.

Any further questions for for staff. Seeing no questions, this is subject to a public hearing. So should we open it up?

We're going to open a public hearing.

Been moved.

And second.

All in favor of opening a public hearing? Aye. Any opposed? OK, we are now in a public hearing. Anybody want to speak to it? Okay. I move to close public hearing.

I second.

All right. It's been moved and seconded to close public hearing. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? None. Public hearing is now closed. Discussion?

I'd like to make a motion.

Okay.

I move that the Utah County Planning Commission recommend approval to the Utah County Commission of the proposed amendments to the Utah County Land Use Ordinance 2 Sections 1.28, 2.08, 16.44, and 16.92 to amend requirements for new and unlisted business uses, definitions of certain terms and phrases, appeal authority rules and procedures, planning commission rules and procedures and any associated ancillary changes along with any applicable renumbering and reformatting based on the findings listed in section five of the staff report.

It's been moved.

Seconded.

It's been seconded. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all in favor of approving the recommendation, aye. aye any opposed that passes unanimously for recommendation all right moving on to conditional use applications we have one application from jeremy rig trip request for conditional use for a proposed feed mill which exceeds 40 feet in height in the mining and grazing zone have a report from staff

Great. So this is probably look familiar to you a little bit. This was an application that similar to an application that was approved last year. The applicant went through the process of trying to develop this property to the north where they have most of their operations located. But in their development, they determined that it would be better located on a different parcel. So this is the same structure that was approved. And let me kind of get into this. So there are three parcels to the north. It was on the third to the north where it was going to be located, if you recall. However, the applicant has determined that they needed to move it. south to this location in order to facilitate their operations. The structure is essentially the same as what was being proposed. They've been going through the process of getting a building permit. And in that process, there are minor changes that have been made, but the change During that process was kind of identified that they need to change the location and that's why it's coming before you for your approval at this time. There are this the parcel that it's located on has an existing home it was permitted dwelling there are three other parts are three other dwellings within a half mile of that site. This site is up against the mountain so it will help to kind of obscure some of that the height of that structure, the height is of the structure is going to be 158 feet total. Our ordinance allows for an occupied structures to exceed 40 feet, this will have occupied areas in that structure, however, all the occupied areas are going to be below 40 feet so. This will be an occupied structure, but the occupied structures will not violate our ordinance because the structure above that is not an occupied area. That's how it would meet the way our ordinance is written, because our ordinance refers to unoccupied structures being able to exceed 40 feet in height, but does not allow occupied structures to exceed 40 feet in height. There's one additional Condition added to this, which was number three, that was that if a permit was issued for this property, for this location, that the previous approval of the conditional use 25-08, which was the one that was approved prior, would be deemed null and void so that we can eliminate that sitting out there if they wanted to. It does not eliminate their ability to come in the future if they wanted to develop that. It just kind of cleans up some of those requirements so that these approvals run with the land. They do expire after a certain amount of time if they don't make progress. However, it's just cleaner for us to be able to track that. So that's the only condition that differs from what it was originally permitted. And so if you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer those as well. And the applicant has a representative here to discuss any questions you might have as well.

Questions for staff? All right, let's invite the applicant up. We've been patiently waiting.

These meetings are always fun for me, so I don't mind. Mark Greenwood with ALM Engineering here in Provo. And I appreciate the commission allowing us to come before you. and present this conditional use permit. Just for point of understanding, the original location that we had was just north of the existing Ag Farm. And as we were going through the process, one of the things that we discovered is that according to FDA requirements, if the farm ever came down with bird flu or something like that, Any structure within 1000 feet would have to be shut down, and so we decided that we're better off to move it to a secondary partial to the south just to prevent that possibility. structures the same. it's it's. we'll be glad to get started.

So I don't know, a feed mill, what's a feed mill?

So it's where they put the corn and all the mixes and things together to mix it up and create the feed that they feed to the chickens. And so rather than just raw corn, they can add extra nutrients, they can add extra ingredients and things to to benefit nourish the chickens so why would you i'm just why would you need 120 feet that's really tall i'm just kind of well the bins themselves are close to 80 feet tall that hold the processed feed okay they've got uh nearly a million and a half chickens And so there's quite a few chickens to feed, and this is the size that they're using to process. So most of the stuff up on top is really just conveyors and lifting systems to get them up and hit the bins.

That's a big operation.

As a matter of fact, the first time I went out there, effectively they've got 400 acres out there. And I saw it over the satellite view and I thought, oh, okay, that's good. We got out there to those buildings and those, I don't know what they call them, but the buildings that they have, the chickens, they're three stories and they're enormous. They're probably a thousand feet long.

So you talked about being occupied in the lower levels. What does that mean? Is that like offices or is that just where the chickens are?

There's three operators that will typically be there to just manage and monitor. It's a pretty automated facility.

Thank you. So the height is just to increase capacity?

Well, it's to help get to the bins. So if you look at the, well, you can see the height there. So the bins are quite tall, but it allows everything to be pumped up or augured up to the top and then fed to the conveyors.

That's to load up the bins, and then to take it out, it's down below someplace.

It's all down below, yeah.

So are the chickens at this site as well, or is a million chickens at this site?

Oh, yeah. Yeah, there's well over a million chickens out there. I worked with Mosita on some stuff recently as well, and it's amazing these two businesses. Mosita has about 18,000 head of cattle and they're about to double. And yeah, they're considering a new dairy in the same location. It's about the same amount of cattle. And when I came out to see this farm and got to know the rig trips fairly well and realized how large this facility is, it's amazing.

Got to feed the people of Utah County.

Yeah.

It's not an egg production. It's a meat production, right?

No, it's eggs. What's eggs?

It's eggs.

It's all eggs.

I'm not sure if it was Costco chickens we were making out there.

No, no, it's all eggs. As a matter of fact, the first time I met Jeremy, I says, hey, I'd really like a couple dozen eggs. And he says, FDA won't let me sell them to you unless you're going to buy them in multiple semi loads.

Yeah.

All right. Any further questions for the applicant?

I'm just thinking of the sweet aroma that floats around. That is. Between the dairy farm and the egg farm.

Yeah. So the area just to the north is actually where they used to process the chicken manure. And my surveyors that would go out there complain daily. We don't get out there. They've actually moved that to the back quite a ways, and they're doing it much thinner, so the aroma's not near as bad.

Is that Jerusalem Studio lot, is that near here?

Yeah, it's just to the east. Matter of fact, you could almost see it if it went a little bit further east than that. It's very close.

And the prevailing wind is... Do they smell it?

I don't think so, but I never heard a complaint. Of course, back then they didn't bathe much, so maybe they wouldn't know.

All right. Any further about the application? Okay. Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else? Want to discuss or make a motion?

Public hearing, right?

Oh, no, this is not subject to a public hearing. It's a condition, I guess.

I just think it's a great location. I mean, it's out in the middle of nowhere. If you're going to do this, do it as far away as you can. I just think we should be as supportive as possible. I think that's a great place for it.

I agree. Nobody's here to object. Want to make a motion?

I'll make a motion. To approve the conditional use as requested.

I second. And moved and seconded. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? All right. That is approved. Moving on. Do we have any other business to? Thank you.

No. We were hoping to not have any applications for July and give you a month off. But we do have one. So we'll reach out. July summers are hard. to get quorum, so we'll reach out ahead of time to see if you're available.

Is that going to be July 21st?

Sounds right. Third Tuesday.

Oh, I should be available.

Yeah, I mean, if you've got plans and we can't get a quorum, and we told the applicant that. We encouraged them to maybe go to August.

I'll see. I don't know if I can make it either, but we'll see.

Okay, maybe... Maybe we'll have Marie reach out a little extra early so we can give the applicant extra advance notice. Okay, that's it.

All right. Public comment? Anybody want to say anything? All right. I think we're ready to adjourn. So adjourn. Do we need it? I always forget.