Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Actually, I think we have everyone present pretty much. Well, I can tell. Um, so we'd like to uh call this meeting to order. And our first uh order of business is the approval of the minutes from the October 21st meeting. and we'd like to welcome everyone who's come uh to attend the meeting tonight. I move to approve the [snorts] minutes as submitted. I'll second it.

Okay, it's been moved and seconded to accept the uh the minutes from the October 21st minutes as they've been published. Um all those in favor say I. I. [snorts]

Any opposed? Nay. Looks like we've got approval of our minutes. Thank you. [clears throat] We now will move to um item C on our agenda. It is uh does require a public hearing, but we'll first hear um staff report and then we'll open for public. Sure. Mr. Chair, before we start, this is Bryce Armstrong, staff. Um, usually we we do other business at the end of the the meeting, but I just wanted to take a moment to recognize one of our outgoing planning commissioners who I understand may have to leave early tonight. And so, we wanted to catch her while she's still here, Karen Ellingsson, has uh recently won an election that will have her serving on the Springfield City Council. And so, um, I hope that's all right for me to share that.

And so, um, unfortunately, we're going to lose her on our planning commission. So, we just wanted to recognize her. She's been with us for several years and been a great asset to to planning in Utah County and Springville's in good hands. Um, we have a really small token of our appreciation, a little little pen um from Utah County that we'll we'll give her, but it's an upgrade. Yeah, it's a little better than a bit, but we sure appreciate her [clears throat] uh her service. And so, Awesome. You were the And you were the chair for a while, right? because when I first came in, you were It's awesome. Thank you. We will miss you, Karen. [clears throat] Thanks. Miss serving with all of you. It's been great. Congratulations.

Thank you. Yes. Congratulations. Cool. Thanks.

Okay, I guess we'll move to our first agenda item. Um I'll uh I'll kind of introduce that and then I'll turn it over to a presentation. Um, so several years ago, the Utah State Legislature approved a bill that requires um certain counties and and cities to adopt what's called a water use and preservation element as part of their general plan. Utah County was one of the counties that that needed to prepare that. Um this plan was to address um a number of items and we'll get into that but some of those include the effect of uh permitted development or patterns of development on water and demand u of development water demand and water infrastructure methods of reducing water demand and consumption for existing and future development. Opportunities for the county to modify the county's operations to eliminate practices or conditions that wastewater. um consult with public drinking water systems to consider effects on water supply planning, drinking water sources, storage capacity, distribution planning, master plans, uh and other items. As as all of you are aware, the county is a little bit different animal than than cities, especially as it relates to um municipal type of water systems. So, um, our our plan is going to look a little different than the city's plan, but nonetheless, that there were certain elements that needed to be met. So, to that end, uh, the county was, um, able to receive a some funding from the state to help us in that preparation, and we've, uh, contracted with a consultant, Hansen Ellen Loose, to help us with that preparation. And so, um, I'm just going to turn it over to to their representatives, uh, to introduce kind of a brief summary of of the process and and the plan. So,

thank you. Uh, good evening, commissioners. It's a pleasure for us to be here to present this water use element plan that Hansen Elus has been helping you with. We are fortunate enough, we do a fair amount of uh work with Utah County Public Works in helping you with your water rights and water assets. And so this was a natural segue for us to to help with this water use element plan. Um my name is Delmas Johnson and this is Katie Jacobson. And I'm just going to really key up for Katie here. She's going to give you the nuts and bolts. Um, but as was suggested, the the legislature over the last five years or so has really become water focused and that was happening anyway, but the Great Salt Lake really put a hyper emphasis on that. And so, uh, it became obvious that that some needs needed to be addressed. And one of the bills obviously came out of that effort was to create a water awareness in land use planning which really has not been completely comprehensive [snorts] ac across all levels of government. And so that's why this bill was passed is to create that water awareness. And so when land use planning is done, there needs to be consideration for water because as we all know, land without water is not very valuable. And so, uh, that's why that's why this is, uh, on the books. That's why this effort's underway. And so, this creates an opportunity for the county and their planning to really consider the limitations of water resource availability and how that impacts land use planning. So, I'm going to turn it over to Katie, and she's going to give you a review of what this plan's all about.

Okay. Thanks, Delmas. Uh like Delma said, the the foundation for the plan was to integrate water and land planning together. When the code actually came out saying what was required, it was kind of a hodgepodge of items. So there will be a few items that we go through tonight. We'll have some water resources related items, agriculture, drinking water, and then stakeholder coordination. Uh so on the water resources we looked at the effect of permitted development on the water demand and infrastructure. We looked at we focused in on the the public community water systems in the unincorporated areas. So these are not your city systems. It's the smaller unincorporated systems. We looked at how much they were using in water and we'll go into we'll go into some of these things. We looked at the effect on the Jordan River watershed and specifically that's related to how that flows into the Great Salt Lake. The state wanted that included and the regional conservation goals. Uh so this here would represent an idea of a water budget for the entire county. Hansen Allen and Loose helped with two studies. The first was for Mount Nebo uh water agency. That one was completed in 2019. that covers more of southern Utah County. And then there was a 2025 study for the Northern Utah County Aquafer Council for their managed aquifer project that covers more of northern Utah County. So these two studies together cover most of the water uses in the county. Uh so on the top of the graph here you can see existing we have the top bar in blue is our existing reliable water supply and the bottom bar and that green is the demand and so you can see demand is less than supply. We're doing well in that regard. There's enough water right now. Projecting out

into the future you can see our demands come just under the reliable water supply. So again it looks like there's enough. The nuance there is that a lot of the current water supply is surface water. It's untreated for agriculture or for outdoor watering and the demands that are coming in the future will be more of indoor demands that will require treated water. So the volume of water is sufficient but we don't have enough treated or drinking water. We'll need more of that going on into the future. Um next is the regional conservation goals. So when we looked at these the public community water systems in the unincorporated areas on average they had reported usage of about 374 gallons per day per capita. And the goals that were set by the state for the Provo River area is 179 gallons per day per capita by 2030 and 162 by 2040. And the the county is not a water provider, so you don't have a lot of direct influence over this, but if the county does want to support these conservation goals, we have a list of suggestions to look into. So this this element does not commit you to doing any, it says these are things that you'll look into and we've listed some of these these there. Uh the next section in the report is agriculture. So it was very important to the state to look at how agriculture is being preserved and the message we got from the state folks at uh the department of agriculture was that Utah County is doing very well with your preservation of agriculture. I saw on your agenda you have some items tonight to look at um in that regard. So one of the items was to identify those areas to evaluate efficient irrigation practices

and to see if irrigation companies are being protected as development comes close to them. Uh this is a figure of three different types of agricultural protection areas you have in the county. So again, the message from the state is that the county is doing well, but it's always something to continue uh to continue to recommend and see if we can protect even more um if that's what the county desires to do. This this slide illustrates the difference in uh the unincorporated. Again, this is just your very small water systems. We'll look at a map of those in a second, but those unincorporated water systems are reporting about a thousand acre feet per year. while agricultural use in the county is over 200,000. It's just just to illustrate the difference right now that in the unincorporated county there's very little municipal use compared to the agricultural. Uh this is a map of the canals and irrigation [clears throat] companies in the county. So as your community development department is reviewing developments, they look at this map. They make sure that the applicant is is properly protecting irrigation delivery systems and working with the irrigation companies to make sure we protect those. Uh onto our drinking water section of the plan. We were required to evaluate the source and storage capacity for all the drinking water systems in the entire county. So that includes all your municipalities and cities in addition to those small systems. and look at strategies for water supply diversification. So on diversification, a lot of your drinking water right now comes from wells and springs and some is purchased from Central Utah Water Conservancy District. So diversification is just continue to expanding those opportunities that water systems can

have different options that if their springs aren't doing well one year, maybe they can purchase from central Utah, something like that. And this is a map of all of those community public water systems. So in green, the majority of the area is your incorporated systems. And then in orange is our unincorporated systems that were really more of the focus of this element because each of those cities that's over a certain size is required to do their own water element uh separately. And then finally, coordination was part of the requirements from the state. And so we have reached out to all of the public water systems, the community water systems in the unincorporated areas and invited them to review the plan. We've invited them to this meeting to make comment if they desire and we'll have comments open for about two weeks where they can submit written comments and we'll evaluate those with your community development department and see if we need to make revisions to the plan. Uh the county has also community development department has also reached out to some of your large agricultural producers to ask them to review the plan and to the canal and irrigation companies. Uh so for any in the audience that would like to make written comments, I'm taking those through email. My email address is up here. It's katie katie halengineershengineers.com. Thanks. question. So, you said that there it will be open for public comment. Is that are you suggesting that there'd be public comment before we vote tonight or or is it is it before the uh Utah County Commission?

So, it's it has been available for public comment prior to this. There will be a required public hearing tonight and there will be opportunity to provide comments after tonight prior to the county commission's final approval. Okay. Okay. Any other questions?

Um I just have one question based on the the comment that you made about the surface water and agricultural uses versus anticipated future uses. So if I understood what you were saying right, are you saying that right now that a lot of the water that is used for agriculture is rainfall that just comes and it's not part of the system already or are you talking about untreated gray water? It's um rain uh rainfall. So Strawberry Reservoir into the Spanish Fork River system that is a huge part of your your uh county's usage. Then similar things, you know, up in the northern part of the county. But yeah, so basically rainfall into reservoirs and canals uh but not not treated or you know waste water, gray water. Okay.

Yeah. So with that anticipated future demand on the water system um what is our replacement rate versus demand rate

using faster than the rainwater is able to either get into the reservoirs or go down into the system and permeate into the wells. um that I guess everything in the watershed is connected, but there's not really a direct connection between what goes into Strawberry Reservoir or other reservoirs and then what makes it down into wells in the in the valley. And so wells in the valley are keeping up right now. Um and Delmas, I don't know if you're aware of any aquifer studies that have evaluated that countywide. I guess the the the new CAC was based on a little bit of that, but I think the takeaway there is that you'll need more treated surface water. So, Central Utah Water Conservancy District is looking at treating water and then providing that to municipalities. And so, they are already getting started on on that kind of a system for South Utah County.

Okay. Yeah. Both agencies that Katie referred to, both Mount Nebo and the Northern Utah County Aqua Council are aware of the finite groundwater supply

and it's not unlimited, which I think 30 40 years ago we presumed it was. And so now we have to kind of work within what is a safe yield and be aware and monitor what the pumping levels and and uh static levels are in our wells because many of them are declining. And so we need to and so the plan was meant to help you be aware of that and to plan accordingly and just know that it's if surface water is not available, groundwater is not the default, okay? because it's not always going to be available. So, uh, right now there's efforts underway to bring that more into balance if that addresses your question.

So, I have a question and maybe this is more directed towards staff, but so this study, you've been consulting with Holl for a while. Um, were any of the water users notified about this study prior to this meeting? And if not, what was was there any notification just about the the standard Utah County Planning Commission meeting? So, you know, what's

So, we we had to get comments back from the state on this and our timeline was crunched quite significantly. So, we did notify them on Friday. So just last Friday the 14th, we emailed the email address on record for all of the unincorporated water systems that went out to them on Friday for to let them know about this meeting here tonight and it has been on the agenda as you mentioned. And was that just culinary water users or did that include irrigation water users as well? Um I think your office sent it out to irrigation companies. I I sent it to the water.

Yeah. So we we also sent notices to um the canal and irrigation companies and also um some some of our a users um in the county as well. And when did those and all and all cities in the in the county? They went out the same day on Friday. The letters to the cities went out 10 days prior to this meeting.

Okay. Just for your information, I I shared this with, excuse me, with our general manager at the Strawberry Water Users Association. Had him. He's pretty darn sharp. Sterling Brown. I had him uh take a look at this. I'd read it and I asked him to. And as far as agriculture goes, we we have no issue with it. It's, you know, it's it's not a problem. In fact, I the comment was it was it was in his opinion and mine. It was very well written and it looked it looks good.

Further questions? And again, just to um follow up on the the comment, there will be opportunities to provide additional comments after the meeting. We'll accept those and incorporate those as as applicable in a recommendation to the county commission.

Thank you. Hey, we we are um on this item we do need to open a public hearing, right? Yes, it does require a public hearing. We ready to open a public hearing? I move the public hearing. I'll second. You go there first. Okay. Okay, it's been moved and seconded to open the public hearing. All in favor say I. I. I.

Any opposed? Okay, we we're now on a public hearing. Um, in past uh planning commission meetings, we had a signup sheet in the back for those that wanted to speak, but we've moved it up here to the podium. So, those that would wish to speak in turn can come to the podium. And just while you're there, I've been asked to have you record your name while you're there. um just for for our records. Um if anyone wants to speak to this um to this uh water amendment, general plan water use and preservation element um please come forward and and uh and the time we we're giving three minutes for each each person would like to speak in this public hearing. I think are we able to use this? Good. We'll set a timer. You can see how much time you have left. So, please come

state your name too when you Elden Packer. I'm with Lake Bottom Irrigation Company out of Provo. Okay.

Um, just want to let you know that uh we got noticed yesterday in the mail. So, anything to do with water, especially this significant, is um it's good to notify people, especially the guys who are the boots on the ground that actually use it. And I run a canal company. Uh, one of the I mean, what you're trying to do, I think, is a good thing. I think we do need to look at this for the future. I think that's great, but please talk with the people who actually use it and start there because I think a lot of the information that you get just off of the graphs and other things sometimes don't really tell the full story. And I know that in our canal, we're a surface canal company. Uh, a lot of the wells and things are recharged in our area because of that canal. We're 13 miles long. We hit three different cities. uh we hit a lot of the significant county area in Provo and West Provo area. Uh we go out through vineyard and uh those type of things is just important to help us know and understand what's going on and what you're trying to represent because a lot of us also work with the legislature as well and deal with the state issues as well. So I just feel like there's a real piece of what you're hearing in some of this may be missing. So we will definitely do our written comments and those type of things, but um you know we'd appreciate a little bit more notice. I've got a meeting right now at my annual meeting for my irrigation company. So, I'm going to leave. But, um, that's just the one thing and I'll read that, but I haven't had a chance to even get into it yet because there just was no notice. And I would just say we need to have better notice on these type of things.

So, you and just just I know your your time's up, but you're you're you say you haven't had a chance really to read it, so you don't really have any any comment on it other than the notice right now? other than what's been talked about here and even in the letter that was sent, there just isn't enough information there to really gain an appreciation for what it is you're even trying to do. I I have a question. Sorry. How much of the canal is within Utah County versus within the city limits? Um about a not quite a third, probably 25% of our So there are portions within the county. Yes.

Yeah. Thank you. Hello, I'm Juan Garido. I uh represent Lynon City Public Works and I'm also the president of both uh North Union Canal and Provo Bengriation Companies. I'm uh I also belong to the new CAC, the North Utah Tech Council, Aquifer Council. And uh I'm in full support of uh what we're trying to accomplish. I think we're switching from uh flood irrigation that is way past overdue to to do a more efficient way of of watering. So I I work with Delmas and Katie and whole bunch of other municipalities. And uh I think this is a good thing. Just have to make sure we protect uh everybody that is uh using the water, which is pretty much the the whole county. um offer your support for for this program.

So, you've reviewed the plan and don't have any objections to it. So, I' I've been part of uh helping putting plans together and I haven't completely read the whole thing as of the late draft, the last draft, but yeah, we've been part of the we we have to as a city, we have to make our conservation plans and and uh uh plan for for the worst, trying to to hedge all of our bets on on where the next water is going to come from. We uh as part of new CAC, we help monitor our our wells and how much of that draw down. So also promote uh water conservation within our city and our green spaces. You know, try to make it go as far as we can. Thank you.

Thank you. Uh, is there anyone else that wants to Right.

So, I'm Cynthia Chamberlain. I'm just a resident out in Utah County. Um, my concern I I hope this helps, but there was a few years ago that um a rock crushing asphalt company transferred um like surface water from Utah Lake to and was approved to a well with using culinary use water for enough wells for 32 homes. And so my pro my I just want to make sure hopefully in this whole water conservation we're not taking things that are approved for you know surface use dirty water and giving them culinary water. That was really hard for us to see where we are where we have wells that are drying up. Um but now they're just using them to spray down dust for culinary water. And so I just think that hopefully there's you know again I've not seen any of it because I'm just a person. Um, but hopefully there's something in there that protects culinary use for what it's supposed to be and it's not just used to spray down dirt trucks.

Thanks. Thank you. [snorts]

Mark Bezant from Pleasant Grove. I'm president of the Pleasant Grove Irrigation Company, chairman of the Pleasant Grove Metropolitan Water Board. I found about about this meeting this afternoon and concerned about the short notice and uh when we see these kinds of graphs come up about what is optimum, what is being used, I'm concerned about who's coming up with these kind of figures. had a sister who had a lovely home down in Ivans, Utah. It's nice cactus their front yard and around the landscaping. That's what they considered, I guess, is optimum in that area. And I'm not interested in Utah County looking like Ivans, Utah. Uh but anyway, I have some concerns in terms of notification opportunities to really give input in our area covers from the mouths of American Fort Canyon clear over to London. We've got agriculture urban uses, but I have some serious concerns about where all of this is really heading. Those are my comments. Any any questions for any others that would like to address the public hearing? Okay, seeing none. Should we close the public hearing?

Close the public hearing. Second. Been moved and seconded to close the public hearing. All in favor say I. I. Any opposed? The public hearing is now closed. Um, so I have a question for staff. Um, so this this plan is more guidelines or or does it does it put any new requirements into ordinance? I was hoping you'd ask that question.

I was going to try and explain that. Um, general plans are advisory in nature and so this is part of the general plan which lays out policies and guidelines that um are not regulatory. those uh policies would need to be implemented through applications through a a land use ordinance in this case. And so um any of changes to any of the requirements in the unincorporated areas would uh be followed up with a land use ordinance text amendment which would be a public hearing and be notified. We don't anticipate anything pending. I think as people get into this plan they'll find that is is very well written. It's very um agricultural friendly and it's it's intended to um to help preserve and and conserve water. Um again, anything regulatory would only [clears throat] apply to the uninorporated areas, but we still recognize the the need for coordination with um systems that serve cities. And so um that's been been addressed there. But uh but you are correct. Um this is just advisory. These are policies and and guidelines and and objectives to we're still adopting. That's the goal is to meet these and then those that are needed would be applied through adopting ordinance changes. I noticed [clears throat] in in reading through more some of it that there was a request for similar plans or I don't know similar or or I guess plans from the municipalities or the water districts and and a list of those who or the last time they had provided updates to their plans or their is that a is that required by to to these municipalities to to provide that to the county.

I'll maybe let let Katie expand on that, but as I understand it, I think there was an invitation for them to provide. Okay. Is that And yeah, I was just wondering if that was a kind of a requirement that we've pushed or is it just like a request?

These are one of one of the interesting things that ended up in the code. It says that the county must be aware of the conservation plans that municipalities in the county have. So, we put a list of them in there. Now, you're aware. So, I think that's the minimum. Um then you if you know if if you wanted to expand upon that, you could coordinate with those cities, read the plans, see what they have in them, see what the county can do to support that. Um you don't have a conservation plan yourselves. The municipalities are required to have one once they're past a certain size. But yeah, the the code the requirement from the state is the county needs to be aware of the plans the conservation plans others are doing.

Okay. And maybe to follow on that and just to make sure as a since we've heard from the public just you know just just now or and and also leaders over some of the water districts. Is there is there anything in here that's adding new kind of ownorous uh requests or requirements on these districts that weren't there before? There is nothing on the irrigation districts or for agriculture.

Uh I think the intent of the state is to make sure that the county is coordinating with those systems in your development process. Uh so as as they have explained to us that is part of the development review process that they try to locate any facilities they're aware of and make sure that the developer is getting all of the required paperwork and authorizations from the canal companies. So no there's no recommendations or uh any type of policy that's for an irrigation or canal company. Um the only thing that would be even a recommendation towards something is those conservation goals that we looked at that we're recommending you could support some of those things. Again, you have a different role than a water provider or even a city, but it might be something that you can encourage in some some creative ways.

And Mr. Chair, to follow that up, um as I touched on earlier, county is a very different animal. Um we really don't get we're not we don't regulate um water that much. We we don't have uh any requirements for landscaping water unless you're in a development which is um we we get those but we don't have a lot of them and there are existing ordinance allowances that allow reductions in those requirements. We're still below what the state requires for irrigation um out of using groundwater. Um but if uh if it's an agricultural operation, we don't have requirements. We don't get into that. We don't regulate, we don't have additional requirements. Um the only time we get into requirements is when someone is developing residential property and there may be some uh some landscaping uh requirements and some irrigation requirements. Is this is this um plan element is this replacing one that we used to have? No, this is a this is a new L [clears throat] new plan. Yep.

Okay, that's all I have. Thank you. Any any other questions? Question. Uh my understanding of this plan is it doesn't impact any of the current uses. It doesn't limit any of the current uses of the water in the county. So the one of the requirements is to evaluate ways to reduce existing water usage. It doesn't say you have to implement them. It says you have to evaluate it. Right? So that is a recommendation from the state. They would like the county to support reduction of existing usage wherever possible. Um

but that's another matter down the road that they would have to take up with the particular water users. Yeah. Yeah. And there's and again you guys don't have the authority to to do that but like the water companies they could implement different rates or tiered structures different structures to encourage reduction of water use things like that. But again it's not things the county would be doing. And and this proposed plan does not uh affect the allocation of water. No at all. No. And this this is just going to be part of the general plan. Right. Yes. what because of state law, what would be recommended for approval tonight will be incorporated as part of the general plan

and and if and if anything wants to be done with a particular piece of property uh with the water use there, it have to be by well I assume there's going to be ordinances that are going to be created to deal with the plan potentially. Um there are people there was an example about a change of use water. We don't get involved in that at all. That's that's at the state level. at state level.

So there's a lot of these things that we just don't have any regulation over the the county the unincorporate Utah county community development ordinances and so um but yeah if if if we feel that maybe we can look at our development requirements for outside watering and maybe implement some additional changes. um we feel like we've been out in front of that a little bit already. But if we feel like yeah, it's we could probably do some more ordinance requ to to help facilitate conservation, then we would come go through the land use ordinance um amendment process.

So as I went through the plan, I I didn't see any place where it required people to conserve you conserve differently. It's like it's recommendations. It's proposed. uh this would be smart if you folks did this, but there's no requirement and so there there would be no violation if they continued to conserve water, use the water they're now the way they're now using it.

Yeah. Yeah. With this being a new element, it's the first year and so we took a very high level just these are some things you might want to look into. Maybe over time maybe you tighten it down more and head toward ordinances, but right now it's just here are some things to be aware of. as we move forward and and this element can be amended. We can come back, get some feedback, get some use out of it, whatever that looks like, and we can come back and do a general plan, address, make sure we're compliant with the state requires that, too.

And so, just just one more. Um, so this if we pass this, this would be a recommendation from the planning commission to the county commission. And when would they hear hear this one? I'm glad you asked that question, too. Um, so the county commission meets every Wednesday. There are some holidays coming up, and so we anticipate putting this on the the county commission agenda for December 3rd, which is a Wednesday. We'll we'll notice it up. People can contact our office to get that date to make sure it's it's set. The state does require this to be adopted by the end of the year. So, we want to give the county commission they they have two or three meetings in December. We want to give them the opportunity to if they need to continue it for a week or two or whatever. So, it will be before the county commission for final approval anticipated on uh December 3rd.

Okay. I think I heard you mention that maybe Utah County hadn't filed their water conservation plan, but you don't you're not required to file one, are you? Because you don't have 500 connections and stuff like that. The other item is uh how accurate do we need to be on a lot of these facts and figures as far as water sources, capacity sources for cities and storage capacities and stuff like that?

That's that's another one of the requirements that was perplexing to us. Uh the state already collects all that data. So every water supplier is required to report all of those things. It already exists in state databases. So, we regurgitated back out what was in the state database. Um, we have done master plans for about a third of the municipalities in your county. And so, where we've done their master plan and we know more about their city, we use that data. And then we went to Waterlink. So, that's a public database anybody can access. It has the safe yield, which is more about how much the aquifer can produce. And so if we had uh they were asking for gallons per minute safe yield is usually in volume per year. Uh but they also are they also have a a gallons per minute rate on there. So we pulled from there and if that didn't pan out, each water provider reports their actual use each year. And so we took the highest use and used that number. So we had to pull that together for every municipality in the entire county pulling from our knowledge from water link or from reported use. So I I don't think that the state is going to have a certain requirement for accuracy there. I think it's just to give you guys an idea of the magnitude of how much water is being used in the county. But certainly that would be an opportunity for places to improve in the future.

Yeah. Excuse me. And yeah, the only reason I bring that up is is because I previously worked at Vineyard City, so I know some of those these facts and figures aren't quite accurate. So u and and just for general knowledge, uh where it talks about the table, it talks about acre feet purchased from Cent Water. Yours is a use it or lose it kind of thing. So whatever you're contracted for, you have purchased. So that might better reflect the amount of water that is actually purchased and whether it's used or not because it's

that we pulled from what's reported to the division of of water rights. And so I'm not maybe you're even more familiar with that of if actual use is reported to water rights versus the purchased amount. Yeah. I would imagine it's actual usage. So I think it probably it says purchased but we actually we got that from division of water rights. So it's probably actual. Yeah. Yeah. That's correct. it is is actual use but you know that where it says purchase that's they don't drive correctly and I know this is new as well but uh vineyard currently is 100% cent water they they divorced themselves from from borum this year so again those are little minor things there

okay uh I thank you any any further questions for these guys is Is there a motion? I'll make a motion. Uh, I move that we approve the um Utah can to I make a motion to approve the amendment to add the water use and preservation element to the Utah County general plan along with any applicable reing and reformatting in each section or chapter based on the minimum findings that were noted. Can we recommend approve? recommend. Yeah. Yeah. So, we're recommending to the recommend. Yes.

Second to say recommend. Yes, we need to say recommend. Okay. So, we've got a motion to uh approve the recommendation of this. I'll second element plan element. And it's been seconded. Any discussion? All those in favor of approving this plan element say I. I

recommending approval. Approval of recommendation. I don't know. Either one. One of the both. Uh any oppose? Say nay. Okay. It's been approved. Thank you for those who came for this item. We'll now move in the agenda to item D. Um this is for conditional use applications. Um, we'll first hear from uh Pacific Corp. So, as you probably are aware, uh, Pacific Corps is requested that there uh, that this item be continued until the January planning commission meeting, which we anticipate to be the January 20th is is what our schedule. We haven't approved that schedule yet, but we anticipate that that's that will be the date that they would um likely

they specifically request this because they knew Karen wasn't going to be here. [laughter] I can't speak to that, but yeah. So, so they they did uh make that request. Um, and so we would recommend that we continue this item to the January planning commission meeting. And they're not here to to speak to that extension request.

Yeah. And we we we did our best to get the the word out to residents that may have been interested in this um just so that they would not have to attend um and not hear any discussion on this as well. I know uh the question was asked and maybe I'll just re ask it just for for the benefit of everyone here. Um so is there is there any re is there any reason to deny the extension? I mean is there is there a justified reason to to deny it? So to deny the continuation, sorry.

So this is their application. Um, and as Dale can probably um, speak more to this, but um, with it being their application, they have the ability to to make this request to withdraw their their application. Um, so this is kind of we we it's kind of in their court to to make this. They can request specific dates for um, this to be heard. It really is there isn't um a really good reason not to allow this to to be continued.

Okay. Any discussion from the commission on this item? Considering a lot of the public comments and things that I saw, it's looks like there's still a lot that they got to work out on this. So, probably. Okay. Is there a motion? Um I will move that we continue this item until the January 20th, 2026 meeting of the moved. I second and seconded to approve the continuation of the Pacific Corps application CU 2022505. Um all those in favor say I.

I. Any opposed? Okay, that's been passed. If if you're here here for the Pacific Core item, that'll be revisited in January. Moving on on the agenda, we now have uh an application uh CU 2022-12 Frogtown Solar.

Hi. Yes. Um my name is Lindsay. I'm here representing Aubra Avenid Power. Uh we were granted a conditional use permit in December 1st, 2022. Um and we're just requesting an extension of that conditional use permit. Um and it's uh for this it's a 325 megawatt solar facility. So I'm Yeah, go ahead. So, so um what in reading the the material that I was given, so this is already been approved permit and you're just asking for an extension. It was going to expire in June.

Yes. December. Is that right? Okay, that's correct. It was going to expire in December and you're asking for it to be extended. That's correct. Yep. And so again, I'm I'll ask staff, is there any reason to that we should consider? I mean, an extension is is something we grant, right? If if unless So So our ordinance requires that um or allows for an extension to be granted if there is substant level of substantial justice. Um that term is used in state code as well. the say that term again. Substantial justice.

Substantial justice. Okay, I'm here for that. Um, if you want more about that, we have our attorney here to give you more [snorts] detail on that. We talked about substantial before. Let's put Dell on the spot. [clears throat]

So if uh so the applicant has has um made that request in writing as per our ordinance. They have um identified reasons for um the need for that substantial justice to be met. Um those include um kind of finding an offtaker or purchaser of the of the power that they would produce. um the federal um uncertainties, current federal uncertainties um uh and then also uh supply of raw materials due to supply or due to uh constraints with tariffs and stuff like that. Um there they just to give you a little more background. Initially this was uh granted an extension at the time that they our ordinance at that time allowed for one year and then they could request additional time. At that time they did request additional time um and were and the planning commission or the board of adjustment granted that. Um the ordinance now has been modified and allows for one extension of five years. So after uh if this extension is granted that extension um at the end of that extension, if that project hasn't received or hasn't uh obtained a permit pursuant to the project, they would have to go through the conditional use process again and make that same request.

Um other than that, they're they're request is to extend it five year or that the date that they would be extending to is based on the approval or the expiration date that they currently have. So that would be December of 2020 or 2030 that this would be extended to

and you we also sorry um we did also receive three comments. Um those mainly dealt with um the approval of the project, not necessarily didn't specifically identify um the comments for substantial justice. It mainly just dealt with um the the conditional use approval, the initial approval, which this isn't a rehearing of that approval. This is only just to address an extension. So, we're not here to address and you you have dealt with this before. Um, this is only to we're not here to hear the conditions. We're not here to modify those conditions. We're only here to um allow for an extension as per our ordinance

for substantial justice or substantial justice. Um and so so in this case it's be if there's um reasons that they have not been able to hit this timeline that are justifiable. I mean is basically the

Yes. So so there there are a number of things um and the next application kind of goes into more detail on on those types of things with with uh solar projects. There are multiple things that they need to address including um agreements with um the Pacific Core because the connection agreements for the grid. There are infrastructure improvements potentially that would have to be included. There are um other uh kind of supply and permitting processes that they would potentially have to go through. it it is um reasonable to um to understand the need for some of these things to and to grant that. Thank you. Did you have more you wanted to

um I think you I think you addressed it. Yeah. And I would just add that Pacific Corp has procured over the last couple of years and so it's not just us in this boat. Um it's and that's probably the bigger reason um because we have we have agreements with solar companies in the US and otherwise but um I'd say the offtake the purchase of the power is is the biggest one. Any questions for the applicant. Thank you.

Any questions for staff? Anyone questions? Okay, I'll entertain a motion. [snorts] I'll make a motion. There you go. I did one already. You wanted

U. I move that we approve the extension of the termination date for appeal number 169, which is a conditional use request for solar energy facility as an electrical power generation plant subject to staff staff findings included in section four of the staff report and the conditions included in the 2022 action reported with an updated termination date of December 1, 2030. moved, second and seconded. Any further discussion? Okay, then we'll call for a vote. All those in favor of uh this motion say I. I. I.

Any opposed? Motion passes. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, back to the agenda. Hang on. Quick silver. We are on uh application CO2025-13 for Quicks Solar.

Thank you. Also another extension um this is for Quicksilver. Some of you may remember this uh project and be familiar because they have um submitted multiple applications for um expansions of this this site. Um the original uh application was submitted in 2021. They were uh just to give you an idea that's the area that that that was included in this application. The approval was granted and um they also asked for an extension. That extension is um coming up in 2022 or sorry 2026, October of 2026. um they're requesting this extension kind of to align with some of the other approvals that they have been re they've received so that they can um kind of make sure that their entire project can be developed at the same time. Um just to give you a quick idea there though just to just give you a little bit of additional information about this. There are um the original application was made up of multiple part parcels in the approvals of uh that were originally granted. The applicant was required to combine parcels in order to remove an agricultural restriction. They have done so um And this kind of shows a little bit of what the green outline shows what the original um parcels outside boundary of the parcels. The highlighted or the shaded area is the combined area. One parcel now is um no longer well it's part of the approval but it's not anticipated to be used other than an access road. Um so just to

give you a better idea that area that is highlighted in red is um the original parcel configuration but the area that is not um opaque within that is the area that will not be included in that will not include any any structures associated with the solar project. Hopefully I confuse you sign or sufficiently. Um but other than that the the original approval included that area so that it is included in in this but just to make sure that it's clear that that area that is not um filled in is not going to be included in the um condition or the uh solar facility. The applicant again identified um reasons for the substantial justice requirement to be or that to justify the substantial justice requirement. Um they included kind of the uh the fact that they have multiple approvals that are um part of the same project that that kind of need to be coordinated that requires additional planning and additional coordination. um the uh Pacific Core process as well um making sure that any upgrades are completed um any requirements by Pacific Core um can be met the offtaker the um finding an offtaker for the the power that's generated from the plant um the planning and coordination with with other uh stakeholders and then also infrastructure improvements uh they are asking or the the ordinance allows for the five-year extension. The

extension would put the termination date uh to September 2nd, 2031, which um at that time if the any there wasn't an application or there wasn't a permit um obtained for that project, then they would be required to submit a conditional use to um a new conditional use to go through that process. Again, the applica applicant is here to address this if you have any questions as well. So once again, this is just this isn't really hearing whether they should or not. It's just giving them an extension,

right? [clears throat] Yeah. So, [clears throat] one one of the reasons is so that they can can of join conditional use permit.

Yeah. So I think the applicant probably can address this better than I can but um the the the area that I didn't include a slide that showed the entire area but they in fact just as recently as um earlier this year they have obtained additional areas that um need to be coordinated and and planned to um kind of include the entire facility and that's one of the reasons they're u asking for that additional time. So be before before I just have a question on the fiveyear if they don't hit in fiveyear they have to kind of start over does that change if if I mean can they just keep adding parcels and and new permits on small parcels adjoining that then extend this out in perpet

this is only for this area. It does not include any of the additional approvals. um if they uh they could not. The only way that this the area could be added on to is if they go through the entire conditional use process full in for the joint. So if they wanted to add on to this area, they would but they um and they wanted to um include that area, which I'm sure that they wouldn't want to do, but if they did want to go through that process of adding to this conditional use, they would have to go through the entire process. um including any of the requirements that have changed and and have to meet those.

Okay. Any any further questions for staff? Okay. We'll we'll hear what you have to say about your request.

Good evening, commissioners. I'm Adrien Bell with Holland and Hearts. It's good to see you again. I'm here representing the applicant. Um and just in response to a couple of the questions, yes, we have as we have developed the project over the years, we have acquired additional sites for use uh for solar and rather than amending the existing approval, which is the one before you on the screen, we have processed them as separate conditional use permits. So we we now have the main project site which is the one before you plus some additional sites that we secured because they were processed as separate cups. They all have separate termination dates. We want to ensure that we maintain our approval on this main project site to at least get us to the point with the other project cups that we have sufficient time to continue to develop the project. That's that's just how the patchwork has developed um over the years. Um, in terms of the justification, we have been working uh diligently on developing the project since we've been before you and well the board of adjustment in 2021 acquiring additional sites. We've been working on the interconnection piece. Uh the proposed uh interconnection substation is the Mercer substation in Eagle Mountain. Uh this year alone we will have spent uh 13 million in in uh interconnection upgrades with Rocky Mountain Power. Uh we anticipate spending another 11 million next year to ensure that our project uh can interconnect and that the Rocky Mountain Power grid system can support it. So we are definitely dedicated to this project. Uh we're committed to it. We're investing heavily in it. Uh and we just respectfully request uh the extension so we can continue on with our work. Any questions the applicant? [clears throat] Thank you.

Thank you. Is there any further discussion? Is there a motion? Basically, I think this means that just they have until whenever their first one up up until like 20 I guess with this extension up until 2030 to get everything put together and turn 31 and and once this is um there's there's no extensions after this. There's they would have to go through the entire process again if they don't. That's what I understand as well. Any any further discussion? Is there a motion? I can make a motion.

Okay. I make a motion that the Utah County Planning Commission approve the extension of the termination date for appeal 1595, a conditional use request for solar energy facility as an electrical power generation plant subject to staff finding included in section 4 of the staff report and the conditions included in the 2021 action reported with an updated termination date of September 2nd, 2031. moved. Second and seconded. All those in favor say I. I. I.

Any opposed. [clears throat] Okay, that's been approve. Approved. [clears throat] We'll now move to the next section in our agenda which is our agricultural agriculture protection area. We have a couple items three four items for agricultural protection areas. So we'll first here on Rajlar Rashlar

LLC. So uh well uh thank you for for listening to us. I'm Kevin with Community Development and yes, we do have these four applications. This first one is Rush Lars. You can see from the picture there, um it's uh Rex Lararsson's corn maze there just off the Benjamin exit. Um so before we jump into this and and I'm sure you're all experts on this already, but this just a couple of reminders of what egg protection is and what it isn't. Sometimes that's a little bit of a confusion. Um a protection allows property owners only to take uh certain advantages. It doesn't really affect the the neighbors around them. Um, so for example, if you own a dairy farm and your farm isn't the most pleasant smelling and your neighbors want you to shut it down because it smells, um, they could take you to court and the judge has to throw it out. They just there's there's no argument there. Um, also it does give protections against zone changes. So if the county or wants to get annexed into a city, if they wanted to come in and change the zoning, they could not do that. Excuse me, they can do that, but it's a little bit more difficult. There's several more steps that would need to take place. Um and then uh finally um I went blank on that. Uh it does not prevent the property owner from developing. So for example, if you are in a farm and you have the egg protection and then you decide I want to build industrial buildings here, the county comes in and says we're going to change this zoning to industrial. as the property owner, you agree everything can move forward with those changes and you can still remain in egg protection or you can get out of egg protection. And getting out is a cost-free, very simple process. Um, takes a couple of weeks and and they're out. So, it really does not hurt the the land owners in any way that way. Um, couple of things that they do need to do. Um, through the state regulations, um, they allow us to set the minimum acreage. We've just recently lowered that to 20 acres. Um and then also they do need to be practicing good farming uh practices. Um also they do

need to be part of the green belt. Um they need to be um in a zone that allows for farming. Um and they need to um be pursuing good like we talked about good farming practices. Um your role as the planning commission is we need to evaluate the applications. um there's certain things that they're going to be looking at making sure that it is good prime farmland and we're not you know putting a egg protection on rocks or something like that. Um state regulates they said that we need to be is it currently in production? Is it zoned for that? Is it viable? And do we anticipate in the future that this is going to continue as an agricultural area. Um there is a protest period once we notice this. There's a 15-day I word it as a protest. It's actually a a 15-day period where people can add, make comments, u make requests to be removed or or protest. Um and so we need to evaluate each one of those individually and see um if they want to be included or removed or whatever the case may be. Um once that is done, we will uh pass on the information to the planning commission. There is an a board that will also pass on their recommendations and the planning comm or excuse me, the county commission and the county commission will make the final decision on that process. Um, so this particular one, as we mentioned, is just right off of the Benjamin exit. Um, let's see. Just right there to the north in the pink, that is Spanish Forks C's uh current boundaries. And then to the south is Salem or excuse me, that's that is correct. Yes. So, this one is approximately 20.5 acres. So, it just barely makes the the minimum there. And I did a soils report on this and it came back that it is 100% um prime farmland. Um, so you can see the zoning. It is RA5. Um, just to the north is one that uh maybe you remember we did about uh two years ago, the Leland uh egg protection

there. Um, kind of gives you an idea of what's going on there. Um, and it does lie in the Spanish Fork annexation policy plan and they were made aware of of this uh request. Um the surrounding areas do consist as you can see as farmlands um and and different things to the east uh is starting to develop and we're getting more residential a little bit to the south is starting to develop. At the moment they're mostly open fields but they are are developing as well. Um the final is during that protest period we did have some uh applicants that wanted to make some changes in the blue there. uh that applicant wished to be added to the the request and then um our public works department asked for the road in black to be excluded and that with a um I believe that's a 56 foot rightway on that one as well. Um other than that that is all of the requests and I will entertain any questions you have for me. The applicant is not here but he did send a representative I believe that was willing to speak if you have any questions as well. I I remember that that joining properties can join in on it, right? That's I remembered that from yard. So the road that's just a request from from the county departments

public works and then and is the 50 what you say the off the rightway just with the rightway there. That's just the normal standard right away or for that type of t typically the process is the county will go through and they'll purchase the land. They're not going to take land from people that aren't in the business of doing that. Um and they would purchase that land and in that case the county would then be the owner of the land and they can make the decision of staying in or out of the egg protection as well. So that's kind of the process that's happened in the past.

Does that amount of land decrease the requested amount to less than 20 acres? The requirement is as long as the original proposal now with this here we're approximately 30 acres or something. But if if we were right at 20 acres and there was a road going through it and it was asked to be removed. The the state law requires that the original proposal has to meet the minimum and then whatever modifications you have that doesn't matter. So it seems to meet all the requirements.

It does. So staff recommendations is we are in favor of of uh honoring the proposal with the uh the addition. So I kind of have an unrelated question, but it kind of goes back to the water use element um with a protection and stuff like that. If for some reason the county were to try to decrease water usage on agricultural land, this would be exempt from that. Correct.

Yes. If in that scenario, we have to have a governing ordinance, probably a land use ordinance, and once ad protection is assigned to a property, then they get all the benefits of the ordinance in in place at the time that they received ad protection. That little triangle at the top, that's not partial, somebody else's property. [snorts] Any further questions?

You ready for a motion? Yes, let's do it. Okay. I make I move that the Utah County Planning Commission recommends approval to the Utah County Commission of the proposed creation of the regular 2025 egg protection area for agriculture protection which includes approximately 20.52 acres with the addition of A and B and based on the staff report and minimum findings listed above a Second that.

Okay, it's been approved or uh moved and seconded to approve the staff recommendation on this um designation. Is there any further discussion from the commission before we vote? Was there any request on the roads as well? Or any recommendation? Is that in any I'm sorry I didn't hear. So there was there were two requests for modification. One was to add the additional property and the other one was to remove the the road right away. He he did say a great Yeah. I So that would just to be clear that would include includes A and B.

B is less the county road at 1800 West with 56. Thank you. Right away.

Okay. Any further discussion or questions? Uh then let's call for a vote. Uh all those in favor say I. I. Any opposed? With nay. The motion passes. We'll move to the second application for the Thompson family. And as he's pulling that up, just just as a point of information, there is another review board. It's going to be the egg board, and it's going to be a very similar meeting to this. Then it will go to the the county commission. At that time is when we'll have the public hearing. Um, so the Thompson is a similar one. It is um located Oh, we we we're well aware of all of these wonderful things here. We're going to skip that here. So, this one here is located um just south of Spanish Fork. It is surrounded by Spanish Fork City there in the the pink. Um it is approximately 23 acres and um with a soils report that does show that it is 65% uh prime farmland. It is currently being uh farmed as well. Um the area lies in the RA5 zone and the TR5 zone. Um and it is in once again the uh Spanish Fork annexation policy plan and they are made aware have been made aware of this. Uh we did get a request again from the roads department um to remove this one as well as it's also another 56 foot rideway. It kind of splits that property right down the middle there with um with that road. Um as you can see the surrounding areas it is developing all around it. Um immediately around it. It is also being used as farmland and then as you can see all the development and residential that is around it as well. Um there's just some more pictures of the land. So staff once again with this one also does recommend um approval

and we do have our applicant here as well if you wish to hear from her. Can you move it back one picture? Let me back it up a little bit more. Oh, let's see.

Yeah, just right around the fairgrounds. Are there any questions for staff? Anyone ready to make a motion? I can. The Utah County Planning Commission recommends approval to the Utah County Commission of the proposed creation of the Thompson family farmstead 2025 agricultural protection area for agricultural protection which includes approximately 23.84 acres with along with item A less the county road river bottoms road with the 56 foot rightway for the Utah County Public Works and based on the staff report and minimum findings listed above. Second.

Been moved and seconded. Any further discussion. Call for a vote. All those in favor say I. I. Any opposed say nay.

M motion passes. Move next to the DW Miller land livestock. Okay. So, this one is located more in the Benjamin area. You can see on the map there to the east is mostly Spanish Fork City. Um, the original application was for 140 and a quarter acres. Um, the soil report shows 23% prime farmland and 62 farmland of statewide importance. Um, let's see. Uh, the area is in the RA5. Um, most of the proposed area is in the pace and annexation policy plan. they were also notified and aware of this meeting as well. Um, as you can see also the the area around it does consist of a lot of farms um and what they they're asking for as well. Um, now this one here is a little bit more unique as we mentioned in that uh 15 uh day protest period or or change period um we did receive a lot of applications. Um there were a lot of people uh that wanted to add. Um so you can see the the the pink there, the orange, whatever color that is. Um they were all ones that did request. Um you can also see there are three uh in kind of a brighter orange. Um those were after that 15 day protest period. Um however, in talking with the attorney and looking through the state code, um it is your uh your discretion if you want to include those or not. staff is in favor of including those. You'll see down on the bottom in the middle there's one that's got an X through it. That one doesn't touch. That one's not consistent with the state code. They do need to be touching and so that one should be excluded from from the request. Um you can also see we have several um roads in there that requested to be removed. In black, those are 56 foot rideaways. Um let me see if I get

them all right here. in blue is an 84 ft rideway. That's the smaller one on the left. Sorry, the upper one, that is a a future road that is not there yet. That's 8,000 South. The black road um is there and it's smaller at the moment. And then further to the east, that one is is there as well, but the the current blue line is not there yet. So, they've requested for that one, it will be a major road. It's 132 foot rideaway that the public works is requesting for that one. And then um let's see. Looks like we used the yellow one and that one is for 109 foot right away. The blue is 8,000 8,000 south.

South. Is it That's the road that goes over goes all the way over and then over the interstate. Yeah, that that's 8,000, but 8,000 South hasn't been completed to that point at this at this stage. Yeah, you can kind of see to the to the right or to the east of that area. Um there's there's no road there for a little bit. So, this map right here is just showing the original application, right? And all of the additional is all us surrounding.

Yeah. Is there any kind of a potential problem for these islands that it creates of according to state code um they've met all the requirements there's no potential problems it's just um an additional protection on those properties excuse [clears throat] me just sorry this is Bryce of staff just as a reminder act protection doesn't change any of the underlying zoning The uses are all all going to be similar to the RA5 zone whether they're in or out. And all of those properties except for that one down at the bottom. All of those do properties do touch

and the applicant would like to speak as well. I was going to have him say it for me. Um I mean I can make it really quick or I can read you my entire dissertation

reasons. Yeah, dissertation is a very good way to put it. Um, as applicant, I'm just asking that you not remove the rightway wits from the act protection. It's just to the point of what I'm Do you want me to give you my whole soapbox dissertation about it? I was also the applicant for the Leland Act protection um in 2023. The roads were kept into that that was contiguous to the money act protection of I think over 6,000 acres that's in Palmyra um also in the county. also included all the roadwits and then earlier this year I was the applicant for the I like act protection areas. Sorry. So I was applicant for the Larsson act protection area in Spanish city boundaries. They too kept all the roadwoods in. So sorry it's floating in front of me. I'm just asking that this one be traded consistent with that.

I guess I'm you're asking that we not include the roads. Yeah, I'm asking so keep the roads and don't exclude. I'm asking that all the all mile long everybody who added into it let everybody add into it. I'm just asking that you not exclude any rightway lists for future votes and you can still have roads in the act protection per state code. So why does public art works want them excluded? Yeah, I wish they were here. If they were, I would give my whole entire speech to them. But they've been consistent on trying to exclude their roads and future roads just for for planning purposes. So, do we put any hurdles in place by doing that to them?

Okay. But the but if it's in an egg protection area, it doesn't prohibit the county from creating a road in that area. Correct. It just it adds levels of complexity of potentially obtaining the rightway. I mean, I'm not really wanting to hear a dissertation, but I'm I'm starting to get curious as to what the hear hear the full argument out.

I can make it really quick to the point. So, Mount for Parkway over in Caleiff. Um, my family had sold 100 acres uh of our property to the county for that road. So, when that first started, that was a straight line on the map. But when Glenn and Richard got in there were talking to the property owners, it they moved it and shifted it around so that it wasn't as impactful on the farmers. So that's why it kind of curves where it goes this way. If you preemptively take out an entire section, it's not going to end up being a straight way. So where the property owners are the ones asking to have be in act protection, wait till actually gets through the process, talk to them about it. This isn't the avenue I think to actually go through and be asking to preemptively take it out. So when it comes down to it, the lines it's not going to be a straight line road. Does that kind of make sense? So, so you're basically reserving the discussion for a later date on where the roads are going to go

after it goes through the planning, after it goes through the environmental and we actually know more like sighting wise what's going to be there because there's so many springs, creeks, court decrees of the water out there that by the time you get the wetland permitting coming in, it's going to have to jog around and that's going to be outside the very straight width for the rideway that they're wanting to take out. And then I think another aspect of it is with it being act protection that just makes it to where they're more part of a conver a part of the conversation making sure that agriculture can still function. It does not say at all that you can't use it for a road. So that's just making sure that you can actually still make sure that agriculture so you want curvy roads which are quite

it has to be dangerous. I would not want us to be bifurcated. So where that top right blue road is, um, a lot of that out there, it's pivot irrigation. Um, or not pivot, it's a wellline irrigation, sorry. Um, so that's going to bifrocate the roads. So that would make part of it to where it's not even really viable. If it has to shift, [snorts] sure. But I don't think we're at this point now to say where it does go. One more thing is that this line, that top right blue line, it's not on the Utah County's general plans trans transportation element. This is on max plan.

If it's approved as such, does that require Utah County to put that road in that right away? Approved as such. Well, if if we if we grant Okay, I guess if we grant if we grant the exclusion as recommended by staff, does that mean the road has to follow this? No, no, no. This is just exempting it from act protection. Also, those conversations with public works will happen as well. They're they're going to have to deal with the each individual property owner to um acquire that rightway. they will not be exclu ex excluded from that conversation as well.

So what is exclude what is keeping these exclusions in the approval? [snorts] How does that complicate it? How does it complicate it? Yeah, I'm turn to our attorney for that one.

Hoping to avoid that. But [laughter] um so what you're going to do is you're going to change like like Bryce said, you just made it more complex and I think that's why the county commission generally excludes roads. Um you will make them Kirby. Um you will change the it changes the standard for eminent domain. It just makes it more difficult for a court. It makes it more difficult for the government to to build roads. That's what you're doing. Um the a protection statute changes the standard for eminent domain if you leave the roads in.

But if the county needed to they could go through the reversal process at the time and say let's just take the act protection off of this corridor where we actually want to put the road. Right. Uh no we we can't take it out for that purpose. Once once we place it on there we're stuck with the the higher standard. Unless the property owner takes it out of act protection, would they have to take the whole parcel out or could they take a portion? Just take the road. What if the county bought the property for the road? We always buy property for road. So then the county could take it out then at that point.

Well, but we would buy it at a different rate because the eminent domain the condemnation process changes if it's in an EPA. And I'll just say as being on that end of it, having after working with UD do and everybody else, the countyy's very good about how they're treating people and how they go out there and make sure that everybody's treated compensated correctly and they've been great with that. But sorry. And also, you said you didn't want a dissertation and I even tried narrowing it down. But you're right. Do you have any other questions for me by chance? So we potentially could ex uh approve this just as it's recommend recommended, but the the commissioners could obviously reject that as well.

Yes, this is just a recommendation. You also have the option to um approve it with some exclusions, not all exclusions. Again, some of these are already existing roads that are being requested to be excluded. There's I believe just that upper right blue one is the one that's a future road. I guess I'm not I'm not fully understanding why if we res if we exclude, for example, where there's no road right now, this blue one, how that makes it easier if this if the county comes in later and eventually wants to put in a curvy road. It seems to me that it's going to be complicated anyway.

No, they don't want to put in curvy roads. Those are dangerous and require much more property to be disturbed. That's why that's why public works has road maps and they try to plan these out years and decades in advance so you have a better road. Oh, okay. So, the county wants to keep the roads just like this. Exactly. Yeah. The way it is the way it's drawn and that's why they asked to exclude it because they believe that that will be the safest best route for that road. Not saying that's where it's going to go, but if if everything works out as planned, that's where they would like the road to go because it's the best use for it. But but the county would have to acquire that land. Always have to acquire. Yeah.

Just to provide a [clears throat] little context, the the county has recently launched a an effort to update our our general plan, which will include our transportation element and create a transportation master plan. So hopefully within a year we'll kind of review some of our our planned roads and and have those included in in some of our updated documents.

So the note does state the county is currently and actively working on obtaining the rightway for the future 8000 South Road corridor. Are they working out this far? Have they contacted property owners about that? with that. I'm also working closely with you. Happened for a while and specifically on the Benjamin interchange project. From what I understand, the county is working to obtain the property for the road I-15 to 3200 West between 3200 West and this here. No. So I think that's yes they are working to acquire 8,000 south but not 8 south 8,000 south through here that hasn't come up and on's plan this is a I think phase three future road and it's not even showing us fiscally constrained so at best according to MAG's future planning 2050 that's outside the 20 year lifespan of an act protection anyway so that would be a future very future When the when the county negotiates for those rightways and stuff like that and and compensate the property owner, do they take into the account the existing usage of the property and how it affects that usage for irrigation, for example? Yes, they have. So, so all these property owners have joined in and that that adds a little bit more responsibility to us to get this right because it's it's a much larger area, right? And if it if it was single

properties one at a time, then you know, maybe that makes it a little a little easier. I don't know. But since since this uh public works request to to to keep these off is is there, it's it's going to be hard to and to not see that as um serving, you know, Utah County to to keep this out. To me, seems like I mean, I'll I'm just stating my opinion here. seems like there's a there's a benefit to other property owners around there to allow for this so that you know they can have the roads that they need. So yes, these guys need the agricultural protection, but not protecting these road areas is not really it's hurting the rest of Utah County to not exclude that. That's my opinion. Is there further questions, discussion? I'll make a motion to approve the um creation of the DW Miller Land Livestock Agricultural Protection Area, including all of the additions listed that are not that are contiguous and with the exclusion inclusion of the proposed roads by Utah County Public Works

and staff and staff and staff findings. I'll second. It's been moved and seconded to um approve the agricultural protection with the this the exclusions that have been um requested from public works for the roads. It's been moved and seconded. Um is there any further discussion before we vote?

I think we should include the roads. I like straight roads and you have the the county has the flexibility to if they need to change it they can change it but I think they should be included as staff recommends. So is the motion technically that means they're excluded as staff recommends. Yeah as staff. Okay. Gotcha. That's I'm wrong. We got double negatives going on here. Okay, [laughter] keep on your toes. All right. Um, if there's no further discussion, let's uh call for a vote. All those in favor say I.

I. Any opposed? Nay. The motion passes. Um, so that's our four. Sorry. Was that was there was a nay? I'm sorry, what? There was a nay. Did I? There was no nay. No, I I just said if there were any opposed, say nay. Okay. And there was no nays except for my asking for nays. I thought you were voting. I just understand we are excluding the roads. Is that correct? Thank you. Okay. Um we're on to other business. We have one item on other business. Last farm. Oh, the beck farm. Yes, please.

All right. So, let's see. So, this one here is, as you can see, located um very similar location just off the uh the Benjamin exit there as well, a little bit further to the north. The Benjamin exit is uh actually the bottom of that page. You can't quite see it. Um so, it's approximately 25 acres. So, report shows there's 100% prime farmland. Um it's in the RA5 zone. Um this one is in the Spanish Fork uh annexation policy plan, and once again, they were notified. Um the surrounding areas, as you can see, are currently being farmed and and um be consistent with that. Um there were there was one additional request to add the one there in blue. Um and and there were not any requests from public works on this. Cover the objection also.

Oh, I apologize. There was an objection as well um from the gentleman um he is just to the on the south of the original one um just to the east um and he said that it would be um bring that in my staff here. He had three objections I believe. Let me get that pulled up here. There we go. Um he said it is not compliant with Utah code. If you recall, we just barely or Utah County code, we just barely changed this to 20 20 acre minimum and he said you have to have the 40. So a few months ago that is correct, but it's no longer correct. So it is compliant with that. Um he did also say that it felt it did not meet the uh continuity thank you

um portion of that. We have precedent in the past and in other places that if they touch at a point um that is considered um contiguous. We've done that in the past on on other egg protection areas and feel that it is can be applied to this as well. Um his claim of the adverse impact on adjacent properties, I I see no evidence of that. He didn't provide any evidence and from the years that I've been doing this, I I do not know the negative impact to to other property owners. Um and then it's inconsistent with Spanish for annexation policy plan. um they don't have a zoning for this area. It is part of their policy plan where they want to annex it in, but it is consistent with the land use codes that are in place at the time and and for future use. And when it's annexed in, then they will designate and change those codes. So, um from from staff's review of this, I don't believe any of his points are are valid.

So, so the blue is in and the the white shaded areas are white shade is the original application. The blue to the north, the outlined blue, dark blue is the the request to be added. And okay, I guess I'm confused by seeing the two Becks over all the way over this end. So the Larsson, it the Larsson was the original, but it's Beck. It's also me. I liked. So um [laughter] I can give you the whole back history on this. So my husband's great great great grandfather was Joseph Beck. Okay. That was actually also an Indian reservation there. The Beck's our cousin and we call that the Beck farm. Okay.

Because anything about farming, it's named after somebody who died 100 years ago. So [laughter] that's why. So the name on our agenda is whatever you put on the application. Is that what it is? Okay. I will just at the rate I'm going, I'll just start naming them after you guys if you just rotation. Sure. Okay, that makes sense. And can I just be snarky and say the road's included in this one? So that's nice. Thank you. Okay. So on the report it's showing four parcels. Is that correct that the maps showing three parcels?

So there are um there's a a really tiny Let's see. Is this No, this is the tiny one. There's two down on the south. There's one to the to the right. And then this requested one to be added. There's a yellow line in the middle. That's uh Right. That one has two partials. Okay. All right. Oh, yeah. Got it. Okay. Any further questions? What What is this diagonal road? That's Yeah, it's the train. Oh, that's the train. [laughter]

It is the army of the train. Any further discussion on this one? Is it there are no I mean I know there's a road down the bottom of this, but are there access roads going?

So there is an access road um just on the tip of that blue um triangle that wanted to be added. Um it comes in kind of following along the the train tracks there, but it's just the tip that basically gives access to that parcel. When we get to the back field is so to the right of that smaller triangle or that's a rectangle. That's smaller triangle. So we have a road that goes from there to the back field. But that's not Oh, I thought I said access road. No, just county roads. Oh, just kidding then. You don't mind? Well, just wonder. Any further questions from anyone?

This one easier. This one's easier, right? Smaller. Okay, if there's no further questions, I'll make a motion. St. That Utah County Planning Commission recommends approval to the Utah County Commission of the proposed creation of the Beck Farm 2025 agricultural protection area for agriculture protection, which includes approximately 25.15 acres. Addition of the Eckles parcel number 250090038, which is 11.94 acres per the owner's written request and based on the staff report and minimum findings listed above.

Second. Okay, it's been moved and seconded. Is there any further discussion? If not, all those in favor say I. I. Any oppose? Nay, there were no naysay for the record. Okay, we are moving to the one other piece of business. Thanks, Karen.

The other business is um this was brought up last month about adding the pledge of allegiance back to the agenda of this meeting. Any discussion? Take a picture with all of us. Be awesome. Yeah.

Your best smile. You got to send it to us.

Your fingers right on. It might be like take a take a couple so we are not blinking eyes. You guys be kind of cool if you guys were.

That's fun. Karen, I'll send we'll send it out. Awesome. And then we'll remove you from our email list. [laughter] You know what? We're making public comment on it. Good luck. Thanks. Thank you. Make sure they treat you good. Thanks for your service and good luck. Oh, seems like it. Now you're going from the the pan to the fire. Yeah, I think so. Good luck. My son lives in Springville, so [snorts] I I'll tell him who to who to call.

Okay. Um let's uh let's talk about this uh pledge of allegiance. Putting it back on the agenda. some um I'm not sure actually how it got removed. Yeah, let me context. We didn't have it officially in our rules and so we just wanted to be clean about if we're going to do it that we have some type of traceable action. Yeah, that's that's that's only why we did it. Yeah, that was we were doing it for months and it kind of just came off the agenda and I think probably about the same time we picked up all these new items to talk about in this meeting. So, um, no one's fault, but should we put it back on the agenda? I move we add the pledge of allegiance to our agenda.

Second. Any any further discussion? Okay. All those in favor say I. I. I. Any opposed?

None. That passes unanimous. Before we move to the public comment, can I ask some question ask a question just we've seen a lot of uh solar approvals come through and there's a part of me that's like I don't have a problem with people doing what they want to do with on their property but I am a little worried about turning hundreds of acres of land into just a one big solar farm. Is that something that we can at some point maybe look at some ordinances to rein that in? It seems like they're just going like crazy. And I don't know is that I don't know if this is even out of order, but I'm I'm just wondering can we get some kind of if we need to make a change to our plan or

zoning? So I appreciate that concern there that concern is is shared by others. Um what what I can say is we are going through our general plan update as I me mentioned earlier that should be coming forward and come before you in in this next year. One of the requests from staff were to develop a a policy that's related to energy production and solar and other types. And so I think that might be the first step is to um maybe include that as as part of a general plan policy and then follow up that with some some ordinance changes or or whatever to as a result of those those policies. So

yeah. Okay. Feels like all these that have come through there's nothing we can really do about them. And so but it sounds like if we Yeah. Yeah. It can certainly be a recommendation from the planning commission independent of that. Um, but that's kind of the step we're going to take and kind of see where the administration is on that. So, but that general plan will be coming to you for recommendation. And so, um, if there something that's not included in there that you'd like to see included, that can certainly be addressed at that time, too. Okay.

Also, to follow up with with that with Bryce's comments, um, we do not know how many of these will develop that. A lot of these do get approvals prior to um not all of them develop into solar projects. Um the ones that there is one that has and the other one that um with quicks I think that's mo most likely to happen but there are a lot that may or may not depending on what's required of them to connect to the grid may not be able to develop because of the cost of the improvements that are going to be required of them to be able to make that connection. So although there are multiple and you do there is a lot of solar out there approved right now not all of them may be developed in the future.

One last comment there was a bill last year at the state level that would have um preempted some of our local ordinances and and had some requirements that didn't go through but I wouldn't be surprised to see something coming forward. It's it's not just the Utah County issues. Do we have a zone for nuclear power plants? We do not. Like Brigham City was in the news this morning. Yeah.

Before we get to public comment, too. I had one other business. I didn't put it on here, but this is really quick. Um, next we have a short meeting next month and we're thinking of maybe providing a a nicer meal for you after if that that's okay. So, we'll send out some um some invites and see how many we're going to have since we didn't have a barbecue. Just got to keep say you get someone dye their beard and pretend to be Santa Claus. [laughter] We will. He looks more like an elf to me. [snorts] He is. [clears throat] Okay. Uh we're to the point where we would open for public comment. Do we need a vote to open public comment? Nope. It's on the agenda. Okay. We're we're open for public comment and we have a taker.

Thank you for waiting so long.

Not a lot. I go to a lot of meetings in my other role. Um my name is Sheri Anderson. I'm actually here on behalf of the mayor of Fairfield. Um she is also at Eagle Mountain tonight because of the annexation policy there. Um as these things come through like Quicksilver and stuff like that that does affect her and she would like to be more involved. She wanted to put this on public comment in March 2025 staff report on page three of five. states the proposed area is adjacent to Fairfield Town boundaries but is not part of any annexation policy, especially noting that it was not included in Eagle Mountain or Fairfield's annexation policy. This information is correct. Fairfield Town formally adopted and passed its annexation plan in August 2024, several months prior to the annual Quicksilver submitting any application. Following that adoption, Dale IR emailed confirmation that the county had received Fairfield's annexation plan and an overlay had been filed in case completing competing annexation petitions or objections arose. He also stated that the county would circulate those documents to all departments involved in the annexation. The annual application which was submitted on February 8th, 2025 has required a 16.94b approximately 6 months after Fairfield annexation plan had already been adopted and properly filed with the county. The addition on page nine of 19 in the March 18, 2025 meeting minutes, it reflects that the mayor McKini stated that the proposed area within was within Fairfield's adopted annexation plan. However, her objections were not acknowledged and the staff asserted at the media that they were unaware of the NEX and annexation policy for Fairfield. For accuracy of public record, I wanted to state clearly Fairfield Town did have an adopted annexation policy and plan before ANU submitted its application and the county has been formally notified of this in 2024. They just would like to be a little bit more involved.

Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to address public comment? Come forward. [laughter] You stood up. If there are no further public comment and there's nothing else to discuss as a commission.