Planning Commission & Land Use Authority - Regular Meeting

Mitchell and I will lead us in the pledge of allegiance. Dear heavenly father, we're grateful to be here this night. We're thankful we can gather together to go over the items that are on our agenda. We ask at this time that thou would bless each of us as we do so that we can um do what would be best or a joint effort in um making our city a um a great place to be and to live. We're grateful for all those who serve and work diligently to help these um agenda items move forward. And we pray that thou would be with each of us this night. We thank them this pray and do so in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.

Please rise to the flag. of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Item two on our the agenda for the for tonight is approval. Our item one is approval of the agenda. Sorry, I skipped one.

This is Commissioner Mitchell. I move that we approve our agenda for tonight's meeting. Davis. I have a first Commissioner Mitchell. Second, Commissioner Davis. All in favor? I. Item two is approval of the minutes from the January 7th, 2026. If you guys have all had a chance to go through those and of January. Commissioner Tupo. I second that. I have a first by Commissioner Davis, a second by Commissioner Tupo. All in favor? I.

Uh, item three is declaration of abstensions and conflicts. Does anyone have any with tonight's meetings? Uh, 4 A. Item 4 A is G G--25-08, a request to amend the general planned use map from NYD not yet determined to and MD medium density to industrial located at approximately 3600 East Foundry Drive. The applicant is JP excavating and we'll turn the time over to Elden.

Thank you, commissioners. These next three items all involve uh parcels of land in this general location. You can see that black uh highlighted area. Kind of bounce the cursor around. This is the area that these next three items involve. Um they're all related to each other. Uh all stand on their own as separate. Just point that out about the general plan here uh that commissioner just announced. and then a zone change and then the hillside extraction or the hillside overlay removal application as well. Um so just wanted to throw that out there. There are three separate applications all stand on their own. We can dig into this first one here. General plan is concerning this parcel here with the star. The current land use designation at this location is medium high density. You can see this yellow color there which is 5.93 acres and the not yet determined which is the gray just uh south of it which is 5.88 acres. The application is proposing to change general plan to industrial for the purpose of developing the area into an industrial development. The surrounding general plan designations are industrial. The proposed change is in the hillside overlay zone and on December 4th, the hillside review board reviewed proposed development plans for this area which include the land in this general plan application. Reviewing the development plans and visiting the site, the hillside review board supported the proposed development. Staff has reviewed the requested change and is comfortable with the proposal.

Staff recommends the planning commission recommend approval of G-25-08 as outlined above and shown in the exhibit onto city council. That concludes staff report. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have at this time. My only question is how did we get mix? How did we get the little island right there in the middle of all the industrial?

Great question. There we can pull up the maps here. Um you can see what we've got going. As applications come in, land use just tends to evolve over time. land owners will put in applications and depending on what land owners are included in those applications weird and this is one of those areas where we left out some medium high density and surrounded it by the industrial area you can just see south there there's some medium high density at one point I think most of this area was medium high density maybe three or so years ago ago is is when this changed to industrial land owner was not included in that in that change at that time.

Do you guys have any questions for Elden? No. This is a public hearing. So, if anyone here would like to speak to item 4 A, now is the chance. Okay, I'll close the public hearing portion of 4A and if anyone else has anything. If not, we'll look for a motion on this.

Commissioner Yur, I'll make a motion that we approve G-25-08 general plan amendment and recommend approval. Commissioner Mitchell, I second. I have first by Commissioner Year, a second by Commissioner Mitchell. Uh, individual voting. Commissioner Davis. Commissioner Mitchell. Hi. Commissioner Tupo.

Hi. Commissioner I'm Commissioner Bulock. I'm I as well. This will move on to city council with a recommendation for approval. Um I just lost my internet. There it is. Item 4B Z-25-25. A request to reszone approximately 4.65 65 acres located at 300 South Smelter Drive from the current OS zoning to a proposed I2 zoning designation. The applicant is JP excavating and we will turn this over to Elden. That red dot is the area that we're looking at. I'll go go on to this next exhibit here. Um this is the proposed changed here. We've um you can see this white area is open space. He's asking to to change it to industrial here, which is this red dot area. Kind of confusing there. Hopefully that makes sense with with what we're doing here tonight.

This all ties together. Correct. Like we're Just eventually it'll all be industrial.

Correct. Yeah. Trying to put all the pieces to the puzzle together here and make make a development. The requested change is from the current zoning of open space to a proposed I2 zoning designation. This particular location has a general plan of industrial and the surrounding zoning is also industrial. The purpose of the zone change is to develop the land into an industrial development. The proposed zone change is in the hillside zone and on December 4th, the hillside met to discuss this along with the general plan amendment and and those development plans. The Hillside Review Board supported the application and staff recommends that the planning commission recommend approval of Z-25-25 as outlined above and shown in the exhibits on to city council. That concludes staff report. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have at this time. year, can you give me a very brief explanation about the Hillside Review Committee's purpose and role, brief and concise. Um they're a board that oversees the hillside overlay zone which has been identified by the city council as an area we want to you know have a second set of eyes on to uh protect scarring viewshed corridors prominent ridge lines that criteria um should re receive review and and go through that process to make Sure. We're we're uh standards to avoid long-term effects.

Well, thanks. And I should have asked this before, but who sits on that committee? I don't have that list in front of me, but give that to the commissioners. Okay. Is it staff? Is it Oh, it's uh civilians within Washington City. Thank you. Every board member is a Washington city resident.

Cool. That's what I was wondering. Thanks. This is a public hearing as well. If anyone would like to speak to item 4B, now would be your chance. So, I'll open up the public hearing to 4B and please come up, state your name, and try to keep it as brief as possible, please.

Evening. Steve Kelly or just a resident off a country and um just got notice of the potential changes. I'm curious, one of the things we deal with as citizens that are living out there is air quality with dust with what's going on with the um landfill and reszoning open space and current residential space into more industrial. I'm curious if there's been any consideration or studies on what that will impact both traffic and air quality.

It's I have no clue about that. Um, I guess that would be uh something I'm highly concerned with. I mean, we have quite a few citizens out there. We're are in a contained valley um that is currently zoned for residential. So, we got kids that are um being raised there out playing in the yards and the dust I know is something that this council has been addressing with. And so if there hasn't been any consideration on the impact of air quality and traffic control making these changes, I think that would be a big miss on what the citizens will be most concerned with. Um, but I'll speak for myself. Thank you. Thank you.

If I'm repetitive, sorry. My name is Dave Christiansen. So this red circle, can you tell me you're want to reszone it industrial? So you going to put industrial light industrial in there or you just going to excavate it?

To go to I2. Uh so the uses would need to abide by the I2 use list, the zoning ordinance. Speak up. Can you speak up? It it'll it'll be I2. So whatever whatever can go into the I2 zone will be able to go in here.

Okay. So, um I am concerned like the previous resident about the truck traffic on South Country Way and if any of these changes are going to increase that South Country Way traffic is becoming quite a hazard and I know that we have a person here, Jordy, are you here? Jordy took pictures of the bridge underneath of all the cement cracking and the bridge starting to to have the early stages of failure and the asphalt on either side of the bridge. We get 50 to 60 heavy duty trucks on South Country Way every hour and only one out of three of them are covered. So we get all the dust flying out of those trucks. Maybe this is not the right forum to express that, but my concern is and I think every a lot of people here is that anything that you do to reszone this is going to increase truck traffic on South Country Way, then that's a that's a problem. So,

thank you.

Hi, my name is Braden Miller. I live off of Country Way, off of Real Drive. Um I'm one of the corner houses that that's in the area. Um I have a lot of thoughts and obviously oppose this um approval. Um but similar to the other um individuals that have already expressed concerns, mine is also the uh truck traffic that already exists. Uh since the landfill road was closed about a couple months ago to get repaved, um trucks have since then found it very convenient to go through country. The number that was just provided, I honestly would not be surprised. I haven't gone out and counted, but at any given moment, there can be 10 to 15 trucks on that road running between Washington Dam Road and Real Drive. Um I wouldn't be surprised if that number that he provided is is double at this point. Um so the concerns that I have as a resident are um the turn from Washington Dam Road to um Country Way. A lot of those trucks, it is not built to support two trailers, let alone even one uh turning on and off that road. Uh vice both vice versa. And it is a road hazard. Um if we move towards the bridge, I also took some photos of the bridge. Um I believe that uh Jordy took some better ones. Um but there is structural damage that is beginning to occur particularly on the south side of the bridge. Um with a little bit happening on the north north side of the bridge as well. I don't know if there has been a um a study on the weight capacities of that bridge in recent years. Um I know the bridge is in in more than 15 years 15 years old and there was a roadblock at the end of it uh prior to that prior to the residential area. Um the other concern is that this uh road country uh runs directly through um a residential area on both sides of the road. Um it is not Washington Dam Road. It is not River

Road in St. George. It is none of these wide big roads. These are this this is a narrow road. Um and it also passes a park um where there is constant children and dogs and people, cyclists. Uh there's a bicycle path that goes underneath the the north side of the bridge. Um so there's obviously that concern as well with a lot of pedestrian and cyclists in the area. Um having this industrial area obviously is or this industrial possibly approved would only further the uh what should already have been considered in the past with the weight capacities. Um really my concern is not approving this due to the increase of of truck traffic as it's already increased and a couple of the residents and and myself have already uh prior to even knowing about this were working on uh gathering a petition together to restrict weight capacities on countryway to reroute them over landfill road. Um the other concerns that I have is the uncovered uh loads that are also happening. Um, a lot of them in involve a lot of dirt, rocks, gravel, and so forth. Um, and they are often uncovered. I won't say all of them. Um, but that poses a hazard for just any random driver that that does drive that road. Uh, and particularly increasing that risk for the residents that live in the area. Um, I have I didn't know this was the planning commission, so I addressed some pages to particularly the Washington City Council, but I can leave a copy of these with with it with this this planning commission as well if you would like. Um, otherwise I can email it to the the appropriate party.

I would email it to the appropriate council members. Great. Thank you. Hello, my name is Kelly Buchanan. I also live on Countryway. Um, just wanted to know in the past there was talk about another uh more infrastructure and another possible bridge that was going to be downtown tying into closer to the southern corridor. Uh, just want to know what the situation of that and the status of that. Is that still in the plans?

Um, I can speak to that. It is still in the plans, but still in the plans is probably a good way to describe it. It's it's not imminent. It's not been funded. There's not an agreement between the multiple cities and traffic agencies on route and location. So, it's in the plans, but it's it's not it's not imminent in the next 3 years or more. It's still got some time to to develop. Gotcha. So, with this new zoning and and the new construction that will be going on in this zoning area, um is there no infrastructure tied to with this project that would like help help fund that or reroute reroute a road so that traffic's not going down country way?

The the maybe I'm wrong with that. Sorry to cut you off, but the infrastructure that would come in would they need to be the bridge over the over the river and hook into the Long Valley exit. So there's I don't know how this would tie into it. You asking about infrastructure for the bridge that'll that's in the plans or are you asking about this issue with the bridge? I guess the plans are still out quite a ways then on the bridge. Correct. There's there have been meetings between Hurricane City and Washington City and county folks. Um, there is a map that's got a line drawn,

but it's not any more deep than a line drawn on a map at this point. There's there's not particular locations identified. Um, it also was proposed to run through the middle of a private land and none of that's been acquired. And so, okay, in addition to the funding and the the the studying of the route, it's planned. I do believe it will happen someday, but it's not imminent at this point.

Okay. All right. Well, just to I just echo what previous gentlemen have said about the traffic's a big concern and and the dirt and the dust and Yeah, it's a it's yeah, it gets pretty busy up there. So, thanks guys. Hello, Mr. Sig Miller, Mr. Davis, Mr. Bullock. Is there something funny? Okay, Mr. Mitchell, Mu, how do I pronounce it?

Tupo. Tupo. Perfect. And Mr. Um, I wasn't planning to come here. I didn't even know about this meeting till just Can you state your name name for the record, ma'am? Yep.

Yep. Wasn't planning on coming here. I heard about it an hour ago. My name is Kathy Porter Barlo. I own two homes in Red Trails. I've called the city several times. I've emailed and I've expressed concern about the semi-truckss. So, I've already expressed concern and I did get a call back and was told that I mean you guys are already aware of our concerns, you know about it. It's a long-standing concern from many of the residents. So, this is not a new concern. Um, but I have some questions because I don't really fully understand because like I said, this just came to me about an hour ago. So, I haven't had an opportunity to do any research about the difference between like an open space zoning and the I2 zoning and all that kind of stuff. So, my first question is how would it change in terms of the semi-truckss? Cuz when I looked it up, when I looked up the I2 zone, it doesn't sound very favorable to have this in our community where our children are playing. So, can you explain to me what the purpose would be for the applicant by the name of Mr. Palmer, Jed Palmer, whoever the applicant is, what would be the purpose of doing this?

So, the purpose of a public hearing is for the planning commissioners in their roles as planning commissioners for No, I'm sorry. to receive feedback from the public. Sorry, excuse me. And Mr. Palmer himself or his representative can stand up and explain things, but but these folks aren't here to argue or explain purposes of these things. Their job is to decide whether it's purpose of the change of the zoning. So, let me restate my question so it's clear. Thank you.

Okay. Um I'm not asking about the meeting that we're in. The purpose of that is clear to me. Obviously everything's kind of you know to be considered right so things are being considered these are proposals there's an applicant what is the reason an applicant would want to change the zoning what would be the purpose is there any answer to that as to why the zoning would change to an I2 zoning what would be the purpose of it report states the purpose of the zone change is to develop the land into an industrial development

into industrial. So for businesses and so does is there going to be some opportunity to find out what specifically Jud Palmer is planning to do with this application? like no, this is just a zone change to be able to put something that is able to go into an I2 zone into the I2 zone. If you would like to put I mean, you drive down the Washington Dam road obviously and that's there's an I2 zone there.

So, it'll be something along those lines. You'd have to look into the the record of what can go in there and things like that. industrial units. The industrial is different than other setbacks, but it would have to fall into what can be done in the I2 zoning. So would it so would the I2 zoning be part of that in terms of country way? No, it's just that little spot right there. Everything else around it's already I2 zone. Just that little spot where there's spot. All the purple is industrial. Right. For some reason that white spot didn't get a zone. That's why they left it as open space. Oh, the white. Okay.

So, that red is the piece of ground that he owns that he's asking to make it available to use like the rest of the purple zone. Okay. And is the city council going to take into account the residents that are there? I have no clue what the city council is going to do. Okay. Um, so the city council does monitor these meetings. They watch the recordings and in my experience, they take into account resident feedback. They think it's important and I'm sure they would thank you for coming.

Yeah. Well, let me just say when I bought my homes, I was sold on something. Okay. It was an experience when you see this video of of the drone flying over. Okay. And you see the parks, you see the river and the different walking paths, okay? you see opportunity for, you know, a lot of good things for your family and you don't see industrial stuff in those videos that they show obviously, right? Cuz that's not going to sell homes. So, it's very disappointing and I don't like the attitude. I'm just going to state it for the record um that I got in my reply email that I sent because it wasn't even addressed. My concern was not addressed at all. It was totally ignored. So, I mean, at least address the concerns of the residents is what I'm hoping will happen as we move forward. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening. Um, my name is Ty Prince. I live near the corner of Washington Dam Road in Country Way. Uh, with your permission, I've brought two sets of photos that I'd like to give you. They show exactly what our neighborhood is experiencing every day. Um, 5 years ago when I moved into the Countryway Estates, I'm one lot adjacent. Um, it was a quiet, safe, family neighborhood. Today, that same road has turned into a non-stop conveyor belt of heavy commercial traffic. At all hours of the day, there there are fully loaded semi-truckss, often pulling multiple trailers of gravel, dirt, and rock lined up through our neighborhood, waiting to turn onto or off of Washington Dam Road. This is no longer occasional construction traffic. It is constant. While my own home faces Washington Dam, the homes on Countryway themselves um have paid the highest price. Their property values have been devastated. Two homes have been listed for sale for an extended period of time and are effectively unsellable because of this traffic. These trucks cannot physically make the turns without driving over the sidewalks and the medians. In the photos I have, you'll see large boulders being dragged across the median. A stop sign that is repeatedly run over. A realtor sign that's been run over so many times it's essentially part of the ground. Our Countryway estates neighborhood sign which has been run over multiple times and had to be relocated and rebuilt. Smashed mailboxes throughout the neighborhood. city city paid for sidewalks and curbs that are crumbling under the constant weight of being driven over, rendering the ADA required access all but unusable and standing on the access points extremely dangerous. This isn't just cosmetic damage. This is ongoing destruction of our residential community. Just up the road in Sunrise Valley Park is Sunrise Valley Park where children ride their bikes, play, and run around every day. This is a family area yet it is now surrounded by idling semis, traffic jams, noise, dust, and debris. And I swear I did not copy that other guy's notes from earlier, even though they sound very similar. Um, the bridge, the bridge is cracking, crumbling, and

failing under the constant weight of these heavy trucks. It was never designed to handle this level of traffic, and it is getting worse every day. Tonight, we are asking for your help. I don't necessarily speak for everyone, but I know I speak for myself and my household. We are not opposed to progress. We are not opposed to businesses operating. We understand development. It's part of the the nature of life. What we are opposed to is allowing even more heavy traffic onto our road and bridge that are already failing before any zone changes are approved before further removal of the mountain is allowed in uh item 4 section C. This truck traffic needs its own dedicated route. That could mean either like we've mentioned earlier building a bridge which is sometime away or um redirecting the truck traffic up over Landfill Road towards Telegraph. Any solution that removes even a portion of this heavy commercial traffic from our residential streets. Approving these changes as they stand tonight sets this community up for failure. Failure of the bridge, further destruction of our homes, and eventually someone getting seriously hurt, a child hit by debris, or worse. These roads cannot sustain this traffic. Adding more will only magnify an already dangerous situation. Our homes are being buried by this dirt and debris. Our quality of life is gone. Our quiet enjoyment of our property is removed. and our neighborhood is sacrificed. I am asking you, please do not approve this unless there are significant changes to the travel plan, even reducing the maximum weight limit allowed on our road, which is a residential street. Uh, please protect the families that all live here. And then if you'd like, I can give you a copy of these pictures. I have two of them. May I hand them to you or there shows all the damage from the rocks and the boulders and all that kind of stuff. Thank you.

Thank you. So, my name is Jordy Panccock. Um, I've got some pictures here just of the bridge that I'll submit to you. So, I went and just took those today that just really shows a lot of the damage on the left and the right side on one side of the bridge. It's super visible of how much damage is there. What I've been told is that it's checked on every year. Um, but it's I mean it's apparent that there's obviously issues. You can see rebar. There's massive chunks of concrete gone. It's folding away from the wall. And one of my big concerns with that is when you look under the bridge, you can see all of the sewer lines, the water lines, everything that supplies our community over there runs under that bridge. So if anything happens to that bridge, we have 400 plus homes over there that no longer have access to water, whatever is underneath that bridge that supplies to our homes. The other thing is also all of our schools, all of us commute over that bridge to get to work to school. Buses, if anything happens to that bridge, most likely the buses aren't going to come to the neighborhoods to pick up kids. They're not going to go around all the way over the hill to pick up kids. We're all going to have to take our own kids to school. the buses aren't going to do that. So, it would highly inconvenience everyone that lives in the neighborhood that has families. Um, and just to go along with what everyone else said is just the dirt and the dust has come become a huge problem. We've lived there for four years now. We were the third house built in red waters. And when we were first there, even during the construction of all the homes there, it wasn't very bad at all. It was it was bearable. It was understandable. We were building homes. There was dirt and dust. We live in the desert, but just over the last 6 months, ever since they shut shut down the landfill road up over the hill,

everyone just uses through Country Way now. And it is it has gotten terrible. If you drive down Country Way, you can just see the amount of dirt and rocks and gravel. Even just in the gutter, the ditches, the sidewalks, everything is just covered in it. There's days I'll come home from work, if I come up an overland filled road and come home, if I'm behind a semi or a garbage truck, you have to stay 200 yards away from them because the amount of dirt and dust you can't even see. It's like going down a powdered dirt road. That's how dirty and dusty the road is, just further down in the commercial area where kind of where the picture shows there. And one of the things is I don't most everyone that's talked I don't think we're so opposed with this section two right here that we're looking at. I think everything that we're so concerned about right now is section three where they're wanting to take out 30 something acres of land and truck that out through our community. I don't feel like this one that we have up right now is too big of a deal just because it's already in the industrial park. It's not a very big zone right there if we're just putting buildings there. uh in the section C where they're wanting to remove basically a mountain of land is where the major concern comes from in my opinion. So,

thank you.

Hi, good evening. Um my name is Colleen Cup. Um, I live in the Red Waters area off Country Way and I just actually found out about this as well not even an hour ago and um I wanted to come up here and speak as well because I have I echo pretty much what everybody else has said. Um um I have two children. I know many of us here have children and my children use the park across the street and the the amount of truck traffic's been crazy these last uh few months, maybe even more. Um, and I've noticed some of these trucks even are running the the stop sign. It's a real safety issue and I'm concerned about um, also the bridge as others have mentioned. I've seen the cracks and we ride our bikes, my children and I ride our bikes under the bridge. Um, my son was just saying yesterday he's afraid to even drive over the bridge because of what's going on. And so there's a lot of concern for safety with all this truck traffic. Also, the dust is a problem. Um, yes, in the mornings especially, you can see it all the way down the road. Um, you don't want to follow the trucks because you don't want to get the dust on your windshield. There's so many reasons. Um, people's homes aren't selling in this area. I think property values have gone down. Um, and uh, I like I said, I there's so many children that cross that street and they play at the park. They ride their bikes. I do too. I love going over there, but I I worry about those trucks. And from what I'm seeing here, any zone changes is going to increase more traffic through our neighborhood. And I too am worried about quality of life. We moved here two years almost two years ago. And I too was very attracted to the area because of the river, um the beautiful landscape, the scenery. um you know we

were not a you know I mean yes there's the new developments that happen but it seems to me that putting in more industrial when there's already a problem with what we've got it just I I have an issue with that and I I hope maybe there can that this all can be taken into um consideration. So um thank you. Thank you. I got to get up. I got a big mouth. I only found out two hours ago, but it hasn't changed a damn thing. Uh, semi-retired. Please state your name for Pardon? Please state your name for the record.

Oh, I'm sorry. Thought you knew me. Seriously, Larry Step. I live on Country Road. The uh truck route. Okay. When we moved there, we're from California. I'm not a liberal. But they got good things in California that they don't have here. First of all, it's illegal for trucks to be coming down that road. 60 ton trucks. It's not designed for, it's not made for. If you're delivering to a job site, then that's different. Cement truck comes up. This is a route. We were there when the trucks were not allowed to come down it after the bridge was in. Nothing to do with the damage. City council can regulate that. You can regulate that till they build that bridge or they can go back over the uh uh what's it called? The the garbage run. What do they call it?

Okay. They can go back down to Telegraph and do it the way they did it before. The reason it's not being done, it's money. It's strictly the time and the gas. Two. How many is on our city council? Huh? One, two, three, four, five. Is everybody here? The planning commission, sir. The city council has five members plus the mayor, so that makes six total. But this is the planning commission.

Okay. You could regulate that. That's just a way done. Okay. No longer you can go over. That would be simple. Costs nothing. Yeah. It costs more for the business. The bridge wasn't there before. They were making money before. That's something that um just come down there anytime you want. 4 in the morning is ridiculous. It's it's just absolutely ridiculous. So, I'm not going to say I'm for the industrial thing going in. I think it should be there. That's where all the industrial is, light industrial or whatever Palmer wants. I think he's right. If you're going to move half the 40,000 tons of dirt out of there, that's a big consideration. And uh this city might have to get a couple good attorneys if they start getting into this kind of stuff. It'd be real simple for you guys to put your head together and say, "Okay, right turn when you come out. Go to Telegraph. Do it the way you did it before." That's all I got to say.

Thank you.

I brought pictures before, actual pictures. Boy, I wish I'd had a time I'd have brought it. I brought pictures where these rocks had been hit. And uh Marty has an asphalt company. And when he put those rocks in there, they're like this big around and these trucks move them. And when they have to hit their brakes, it's just a matter of time before something happens. I I just don't even want to say it. And do I like it in front of my house? No. But if they were driving over the industrial road like they did when they first put the dump in, the bridge was never there. We wouldn't be here today for this problem. So, it's going to be a real issue. It's not. And everybody can say, "I wish we would have." And I if this was California, it wouldn't be happening. Yeah. Anyone else? Okay, I'll close the public hearing portion of this. And we're we're not the ones that decide what the truck traffic does, what any of that stuff does. What we're here to what the planning commission's role is is to decide does this zone fit of where it is. So all your concerns have been noted. City council will watch this, monitor it, take read the minutes, and it will go to them, not to us. So, our role is to approve the zoning or not approve the zoning. That's what our role is here tonight. It's not to do any any of that other stuff.

Recommend or approval or denial. Tonight's just your your decisions are recommendation. The council is the deciding body. If you can make it quick because I've already closed the public hearing portion of this. My name is Boyd Clark. I live in Red Waters as well. If this is approved, what is the next uh plan is what is to be next after all of this?

So, the next step is for this to go to the city council and it'll go with either a recommendation for approval or a recommendation for denial from this body and then the city council will have a meeting. You may have a chance to come and watch and participate in that as well. So there's still another step in the process that's all before anything gets approved. Are you asking about after the city council meeting? Yes, it's approved.

So if if this were to be recommended for approval or denial tonight and then go to the planning commission and get or then go to the city council and get approved, the land owner would have a vested zoning right to use that section of land for industrial uses. The city doesn't require any subsequent planning zone changes don't require site plans or grading ideas. It's something that because state law says that city if cities in Utah if they want to regulate land uses, they must both adopt city code that identifies those zones and and establish a planning commission that reviews those applications. If the city is to do that, the state law says that we can then adopt codes for zones within our city. And so this city has chosen to do that. Every other city I know has chosen to do that. And so that's the process, but it is a state right that allows land owners to come and ask the city to initiate a process that may may allow them to get a new zone designation for the land that they own. Do you guys have any questions for the applicant or does the applicant want to come and speak?

I mean, it's up to you. Can you turn your mic on? Oh, sorry. Who would everyone go to to address because we that's not us. So, who's the appropriate body for them to?

Really good question. So, this body's purpose is to review land use applications much like this one. The city council possesses some limited authority to regulate road uses. Um, and I I use the word limited just because the the provenence of public roads is that they are exacted from private land owners and dedicated to the public, usually without any sort of purchase money involved. And and when they become a public road or dedicated to a public road, there's legal theories as to the public's right within those roads. And so there's law and state law and statutes and cases that suggest things for example that um a city could close a road for a one-time timelimited parade. Now in Washington city that to do that you have to come to the city council and have a meeting and have a hearing and they have to publicly approve or deny a request to close a road like that. Cities also have the ability to close roads for emergencies. You know, say there was a fire or a flood and they needed to get emergency traffic in and out without the the imposition of public traffic. So, they can do it for that. Um, and so the city has some ability to regulate public roads. Another one is things like, you know, certain road barriers or barrels during road construction, whether it's on the on the road itself or on the shoulder. The city can regulate traffic flows with with temporary control measures. Cities also are allowed to imp uh implement things like medians or concrete ways that help separate traffic and help limit the amount of you know cross maneuvers that happen in certain areas and we've got some of those in our city. And so there there's the ability to regulate the flow

and the process of public traffic within public roads. Cities also have the ability to essentially remove a road from the public right. Um and so there's a process for that. The city council has to do it. There's also findings they have to make. Um that's a big deal because the minute it's gone, a lot of people lose their public right of way to access their property. And so it's rare, very rare that that happens. In my experience, it usually only happens when a different route's been built that can replace an old one. There is the ability for a city to adopt rules that would limit traffic within the roadway on certain conditions. Um, you've probably seen noise ordinances where they where the heavier trucks that use what we call engine brakes or Jake brakes are are limited from using those brakes in certain areas. roads that have weight ratings where certain vehicles are not allowed that weigh too much for the nature and type of that roadway's construction. Um Washington City has not adopted any of those. I'm I'm looking at Saratoga Springs uh ordinance that has done that and I'll just share some examples of what they have regulated. Uh Saratoga Springs chose to regulate large trucks. Um, and what I want to share is just the the specifications. Uh, those trucks that are 45 ft or longer are limited on certain roads, right, that weigh 18,000 lbs or more. And so, Saratoga Springs had hearings, adopted a land use ordinance. This ordinance has a couple paragraphs that explain the reasons and the justifications for that, and then they've given their limits. Um, assuming this was a Washington city ordinance, I don't know that a 40 foot truck is any less impactful to the things that the residents are sharing,

whether a 30-foot truck would be, but but there is there is the ability to adopt some things, but even those if you start looking at the parameters, there's there's probably I mean there's a lot of things that could fit within those parameters that still have have impact within the public roads. And so that's my best answer. Hey, that this is Commissioner Mitchell. Are there certain types of bridges that are designed to carry certain amounts of weight and is there a way to determine what the design of that bridge will carry?

Absolutely. Yes. Um, and within the most recent weeks, maybe even week, John, you may be aware I'm I am under the impress I understand from the city manager that he requested that that bridge be evaluated and the evaluation came back and said that it is fit for public traffic of the type that it's currently having. So, um, my impression from that meeting with the city manager was that there's not a bridge concern here. to carry the industrial traffic like the the trucks and the capacity that they're hauling. So, the citizens that are that are concerned about the bridge failing based on those findings. Um, and I get that I I look at the pictures. Some of that could be cosmetic and not structural damage that you're seeing, but we'd have to trust that the city, you know, does take that in consideration and inspects and whatever requirements are to allow the public to feel that that bridge is safe.

I'm not a bridge attorney. I am aware that the city manager has had public works confirmed that that bridge gets inspected once yearly by a third party bridge inspector and that he also requested an additional recent inspection of it um due to his own concerns and probably because of some of the out public comment that his office had received and he's told me that it it came with the recommendation of traffic Tupo. Are are we able to get a copy of that report? Probably. Yeah. Who would we request it from?

Uh it's the city manager who informed me of it. I'll speak with him and see if we can get it for you.

Thank you. One of the things that I failed to mention on the Saratoga Springs statute is it also in the ordinance establishes truck routes throughout the city. Okay. So, it says these roads are all truck routes. And it establishes exceptions. And you won't be surprised that those exceptions are things like school buses, moving vans, um construction vehicles that cannot reach the job site without leaving the truck routes. Um and city city trucks and trailers that you know need to be there as well. And so there's exceptions to that. Um, and so if the city were to adopt a regulation that regulates types of uses within public roads, which it has not yet, um, there would need to also be a designation of what those routes should be within our city. And, you know, a lot of folks have said, you know, just rerouted over to Telegraph. And I'm I'm sure that that public hearing would have a bunch of other people in Telegraph who think it should be rerouted somewhere else. And so, that'll be a that that that's a difficult task. It's that's hard work to try and figure out what those routes are and and which ones are best for a community. To date, we don't have any such ordinance on our books.

Again, this is Commissioner Mitchell. I wanted to mention and I think this comes up regularly um and I'm sure I don't know the exact time frame that that land has been industrial that's been around but as long as I have lived well I can't say as long as I've lived here because the landfield was in St. Georgia at one point and then became, you know, Washington. But that land has been industrial. So, there were a lot of residents that make it sound like it was a surprise that they came to know that the land was industrial. I feel like the timing um yeah, it is outside of your residential, but I feel bad that there are realtors that potentially are trying to make a sale and they will print the picture to try to make that sale. But that property has been industrial for as long as I can remember and I've been here my whole life. um the residential property that is there um now there I like these ideas of potentially you know directing industrial traffic to at a certain size I mean my recommendation would be and I know this isn't the meeting to be at but I'll share it anyway but there are certain trucks that that maybe aren't appropriate to travel through a residential neighborhood um but then also So, you know, there are smaller smaller commercial vehicles that are less intrusive that may be appropriate to come through a residential.

I got a comment. May I comment to that?

This is Commissioner. If if I lived in that neighborhood, I'd be frustrated, too. I would I would be concerned about the traffic, the uncovered loads, the bridge capacity, the air, my kids playing out there. Um I grew up here. I I actually went to the dump three times this week with all my yard trimmings. Um and it was the first time that I'd gone that back way through your neighborhood. And the whole time I was making that trip, this is before I had done the research on these particular issues. cuz I did get my truck all dusty today too driving out there to look at this particular area. And as I was driving through, I was like, "This is it's odd. It's weird. Growth does weird things." And having a residential neighborhood that close to the landfill is weird, no matter how you look at it. Um, and we're not here to decide whether to make that happen or we that that happened. And now we've got this area. As I drove out there and I looked at this particular spot, I was like, "This needs to be industrial. There is like nowhere in this town like this town has to grow. We need a place for industrial things to go. They have to go somewhere." And going out there where I stood in this spot and looked all around at 360, it was like everything I saw was big gravel pits. It used to be, you know, Western Rock out there. It's the landfill. It's all this other stuff right here. And it's like there's no better spot for industrial stuff in my opinion to go. So we have two issues here. We've got what do we do with the specific issue before us which we're going to make a decision about which is should we reszone this? And then we have this other whole basket of issues that you all have taken time out of your busy lives to come and address and they're really important.

And I think we it's a challenge to balance all the interests, right? That's what we're kind of trying to do. And that's, you know, the leadership's role is to balance the interests and find the best paths forward for everybody. And this is just a weird spot. It's weird that we've got that big of a a residential neighborhood that close to the landfill. It's just around the corner from the landfill. So, we got all these big trucks digging these huge holes in the earth, creating all, you know, the dust and everything else that's happening out there. And several things are true at the same time. And that's the most appropriate place for that to be happening. It's literally at the landfill. And there's a residential neighborhood here that are that now we have some other concerns that need to be addressed. Um, so I just wanted to sh to share my thoughts about that. Like, thank I'm thankful that you came. And I can see, you know, this was just like a little crack that opened up and then suddenly everybody's like, "That's it. Let's go. This is it." You know, um, and it's obviously there's a lot of concerns, a lot of tension, a lot of frustration naturally. That's how I would feel if I lived in that neighborhood, too. It's kind of shocking to me driving through that neighborhood and seeing the changes that have happened just from that one decision of having the route to the dump open up right there. So, I I I totally understand that. I think there that we have to look at those as two separate things though. So all of the energy and the frustration and the concerns that you have need to be addressed through the through appropriate channels and probably not going to be easy answers around that because the placement of that neighborhood makes the whole thing difficult. Um but tonight that's not really what we're deciding tonight. We just have to decide should we make this zone change or not. And when I go out there and you know when I look at that and I drove all around looked at everything and I was like you can't even see this particular spot almost from any neighborhood and

you look around it's just like this this is where industrial needs to be. There's no better spot for it around here. So um so I just wanted to express gratitude to you guys for to you all for showing up and and expressing that and I hope that we can find ways to balance the interests in in other channels. But for tonight, we're just really deciding about this one zoning issue.

Know some some deep history on this that I think might be informative for the the commission and the and the residents here. Prior to I believe it was 2006, prior to the ' 0809 recession, um a landowner that controlled most of the north side of the river here sought to change the zoning from industrial to residential. And that project trying to remember was it what was it called? John something waters. It had its own onsite uh sewer lagoons and haded water in its name and it succeeded in obtaining a zone change and some vesting for residential. And then in the '08 and part of that also uh there was the requirement that they construct a bridge to cross that river. Um, prior to that bridge ever being dedicated to the city or any homes being built, the ' 0809 downturn put about 75% of the project into foreclosure. And it ended up being owned by uh banks out of New York City that ended up with the asset, the portfolio of assets that included that one. Um, then around 2010 or so, one of the banks came and said, "Look, we can't sell this bridge. Nobody else wants it. We're going to give it to you, the city." And so the city ended up owning I think about 60% of it um from one of the banks that had foreclosed 60% of the bridge. Um and then with with some time the city got into contact with the other owner that still had maintained some of the ownership, Mr. D. Atkin and or his entity. Um I'm sure it was an entity, not him personally, but he was the representative. the city bought the other portion of the bridge and then it took a couple years until it was opened as a public route. Um, other developers bought the remaining interests of the residential development that were foreclosed and

then we see what we see now as it came in. And so it was it was kind of in fits and starts because it had a multipleyear obstruction there in between related to that recession. Um, so essentially it got entitled during the real hot period that led up to the recession and then it went cold for some time and even even how the bridge came about as a public route was was interesting. And so today today it's open. Um, the folks that live along Country Way have been in this room many times to oppose some of those those those issues because they were right through their front yard. And so so here we have what we have today and do our best. Bob Hermanson representing the the project tonight. Um just wanted to say great discussion. Is there any specific questions for me you'd like me to address? Um there may be a few additional comments on the next item on on C slightly different than this one obviously, but anything that I can help with now?

I don't. Thanks.

Thanks, Bob. All right, this is Commissioner Mitchell and I feel like Commissioner made a great description of what's going on. And I think um for me, I'm in agreeance that the industrial fits there. The other issues that are at hand are are different and need to be addressed. But unfortunately, this is not the meeting where that happens. So that's kind of where I I'm at. Be curious if there's other commissioners that have any comments. Otherwise, I'll make a a motion. Testing. Come on. All right. This is Commissioner Mitchell. I move that we recommend approval of 4B Z-25-25. the request the approximately 4.65 acres located at 300 South Smelter Drive from the current OS zoning to proposed I2 zoning designation with the recommendations and findings by staff

Commissioner Tupo. I second that. I have first from Commissioner Mitchell, a second from Commissioner Tupo, individual voting. Commissioner Davis,

I don't know if this is working. Is this working now? Uh, well, I have a question before my vote because I would like to I mean, is it appropriate for us just from a process standpoint to amend potentially amend this motion to provide additional language basically requesting and recommending to city council and staff that they do begin the process of designating, researching, designating specific, you know, truck truck routes within, you know, within the code. So, generally conditions on zone decisions are are um not upheld by the courts. Um I think you could make that recommendation, state it. Um but if if you're wanting to make this this recommendation a condition of some process,

I would I would just include it as a recommendation. Clearly, city council, they they view this. They're watching live. they're often here in person, but I think it's important too to begin to lay lay that groundwork as well because, you know, this this matter is not going to go away. I think that's

um Commissioner Davis, I I agree. And so maybe we do add to that motion um just a recommendation to the to the council to to research and to um adhere to the the public comment tonight and identify potential. Then we suggest we begin the process of identifying and designating truck rounds before and and you have to come to again that all has to be stratified with the with respect to the different types of vehicles what have you but I think it's it's important to to get that process moving is is my position. Okay.

So if we're cool with that do I yeah do I need to state more or can we go off of or do we start over and let brother uh You're fine. You're fine. um recommendation. It's not binding. It doesn't impair anybody's land use rights one way or the other. I think it's it's more than appropriate.

Um part of the egg we've got to crack here is let's say that we had identified truck routes, this area would still be an exception even if we had the Saratoga Spring statute, right? Because of historic use and also because it's a construction site, right? And so it's it's not an easy thing to create and it's probably not something that would satisfy everyone ever. And so it's it's it's a project and I think your recommendation and I know the council will hear you and and it'll be then within their perview to decide what to do. Yeah. Okay. Then assuming that is captured in in the motion I vote I. Commissioner Mitchell I. Mr. Tupo I.

Commissioner Yur

I. Commissioner Bulock, I'm in I as well. This will go to city council with the recommendation of approval. Item 4C Z-25-26, a request to remove 31.7 acres from the hillside protection overlay zone located at 300 South Smelter Drive. The applicant is JP Excavation and we'll give this to Elden. Give me just one second here, commissioners. I apologize. Okay. As shown, um the applicant is proposing to remove 31.17 acres from the hillside protection overlay zone. As shown in the slope analysis exhibit, the majority of the proposed land in this area has a slope that is greater than 30% which does not allow land disturbance. However, due to the location along with significant disturbance to the hillside that has previously occurred in this area, the proposal is to remove the area from the hillside rather than creating an island of hillside protected area, trying to mitigate the existing scarring

that has occurred. The applicant is proposing to terrace the land upward towards the east property line, which is where the hillside would be cut and blended back into the existing ridge with a proposed 1:1 ratio. On December 4th, the Hillside Review Board reviewed proposed development plans for this area. Those minutes are attached to this report for reference. The Hillside Review Board made a recommendation to approve the removal of the proposed acreage here within the hillside overlay zone due to the amount of disturbance that has occurred on this land with the condition that the specific details of the easterly cut be brought back to and reviewed by the hillside review board with all grading for this cut being done in accordance with the IBC guidelines. Staff recommends the planning commission recommend approval of Z-25-26 as outlined above and as shown on the exhibit onto city council. As shown here in this map, this is the acreage proposed to be removed. There's some photos here that we can dig into and further identify and and see the land as it lays. Um, this is looking eastward towards the proposed development. You can see just to the right of this screen is an existing access road that goes back into county property is on the southern uh border of this development. This here is the approximate location of their proposed road B.

If you were to travel on that access road east, you would come to this disturbed area uh maybe 150 200 feet east in on that roadway. You can see that this is the existing scarring that has occurred. Um, Hillside met on site, looked at this, discussed it with the applicant, was determined that rather tried to save and mitigate and make this look as it once did to just let's let's remove it out of the hillside. It makes sense to do so. There's so much scarring that has occurred. Again, another photo, different view of that same area. This red line is approximate location of that eastern boundary line that would be cut and blended back to the existing ridge. And again, that's just an approximate location. If you were to go east um on Foundry Drive, this would take you up into a a bowl area. And we are looking south to the hillside. You can see the approximate cut location that would blend back up to and tie into the existing ridge. Again, same view, just a little bit different angle. And again, just another closeup shot there. The hillside discussed this cut. You can see um that this area here, if you can see my cursor, this kind of outcropping there um was just discussed that the this cut should match that existing slope to help it blend in with that natural feature just to minimize the look of that which the applicant was on board with and and thought that would be a great idea as well. That concludes staff report. I'm happy

to answer any questions you may have at this time. This is Commissioner Yur. I have a question for you. Um, I mentioned earlier that I kind of like drove up and around there. One of the questions I have is I didn't like walk to the top of that and then look around. I kind of like drove around as much as I could to see from which angles this might be visible. like were there residential neighborhoods? Were there you know it like the scarring and all that is already there so you know it is what it is but going that high up into the hill I couldn't like get up there to look around and see if it was going to be visible from farther away. I'm wondering if you when you guys met on site as that committee, did you go up there? Did you look around or do you have any concerns about where you know obviously like right next to it? That all makes sense. And even from what I could picture around it seemed to make sense, but I didn't walk up the hill. What are your thoughts about that?

It'll be a large cut, approximately 100 130 feet tall of a cut. um up close next to the development, you know, you're not going to see it as much. There's a a couple areas traveling east on Washington Dam Road that you would catch a glimpse of this cut. Um not going to be a significant u scenery. You know, you're not going to it's secluded. It's going to be hit and miss from where you could see it. a large area that will be seen once it's cut. Thanks,

Mr. Um I do have a question regarding what is the process of cutting a m a hill out the and how does that affect the surrounding areas? Is it going to ruin people? Is it going to shake the ground? Is it going to be loud for long periods of time? Is it going to crack people's foundation? What What's the process?

Great question. Um, with with development, they they're required to submit soils reports that identify the type of soils that are in this area, which would then dictate the the path forward to remove this. Um, I don't want to prematurely speak as as to the specifics that it would entail, but it could be blasting, drilling, uh, big heavy equipment operations. There will be vibration. You know, that's kind of standard with with construction process, but I would lean to the the applicant, the developer here to speak to the soils.

Thank you. Okay, this is a public hearing as well. If you would guys would like to speak to the overlay zone of the 4C, now is your chance to do so.

Hi, my name is Jonathan Monson. I'm a Washington city resident. Um, I think we probably all got up and talked too early. I think this is the one that gave us the most concern. So, sorry sir about uh your your application drawing drawing all the discussion one. I think it is I think this is one that's the most concerning. I think everyone's obviously concerned about the the trucks in general and I think this this project we are concerned about the the additional truck on on country, you know, the traffic on country. Um is it is there a possibility of understanding the timeline of the project and what um what additional uh traffic would be required on countryway um in order to to to do the project is that is that I don't know if that's that's information that we already have or

I'll talk to that a little bit from what the city knows and then the applicant might be able to give timelines as to how long it takes to remove dirt and and get it out of there. Right now, this land is covered by a different zoning decision that happened in the prior decade that identifies this as a hillside that must be mitigated in order for it to have construction activities on it. Some folks think the hillside overlay zone disallows development. It doesn't disallow it, but it does require that a hillside overlay committee or hillside committee look at it and then and it's mostly engineers on that committee or or land related uh professionals and then they recommend uh for mitigation measures so that can happen. And so it's it's got a a a designation right now that makes it a little more complex and difficult to dedicate to to develop than some other piece of land that weren't in that. This request is simply asking to remove that prior zoning decision which would then allow them to flow into other zoning decisions to pursue whatever they might go. And so there's still some process here before they can do anything without meeting the mitigation plan. In this one, the applicant's viewpoint is because the time when it was given an overlay zone as a protected hillside and because what's happened all around it on in both this city and other cities and the county um that their proposal is that it perhaps isn't one that merits continued hillside protection overlay categories. And so so that's really what the question is tonight. I think all of your your feedback, not just yours, but the rest of the public's is pertinent still because all three of these are in the same area and it's being recorded and received and so there might be some timeline from the from the applicant,

but even they I think understand that they're still a couple steps away from timelines beginning for them. Understood. Thank you, Elen. I have a question. Maybe your can answer it for me. What is this zoned right now that in this overlay zone? Will they have to come back in and reszone it or is it already zoned the I2? So your previous decision involves this. Okay. Um so you recommend to approve that and then the remaining areas are industrial I2.

So right now it's got two layers of zoning. Oh, this is the last zone as well. Okay, that's where I was. So, it's got a it's got an I2 zone, but a hillside overlay. Okay. Top of that, which just Yeah, it it deepens the administrative process for anybody that proposes to develop it. Okay. So, we'll take care of this so that the I2 zoning can go in. I mean, once it's in that either way, it's out. Okay. Yes, sir. So, it it could probably be develop. Well, I don't want to say probably because it's a steep hill. In theory, an I2 use could be established there if it met the mitigating factors with an hillside overlay zone still on it,

right? But they want to make it so they can get more stuff.

Not likely on this one, but in theory, those two can coexist if the mitigating factors are met by the by the applicant. So this just to restate since we're getting clear on this, this is already now and with the little recommendation from that small little pocket of last time, it's already I2. This is already zoned industrial. All we're doing is asking about hillside overlay, which had a specific purpose to preserve those hills. And now the hillside overlay committee is saying this hill is already so marked up that there's no preserving its original nature. So it just as well be used for industrial. And that's all we're deciding is whether to recommend approval for removing that second overlay zone. It's already industrial. Is that right?

It's a good summary of it. Yeah. And we'll clean it up and make it look better. Can I point to point something on the picture? Just you can point at it and then maybe come back to the mic so we capture your comments. Elden's Elden's drawing the area right there. He's drawing the zone. Yeah, this is approximate but the general area

which involves the general plan that we just discussed the zone change. So, could you do the Can you Can you state your name again for the record? Oh, Dave Christianson, Red Waters in Mirage Drive. Can you do the uh street view? No. You had all those photos? Okay. Well, and this is per uh from the street view. And you had a red line showing a proposed road. So, do you want to change the zoning just so they could put a road in there? Is that my understanding?

No. No. No. We're not changing the zoning to put a road in. We're changing the zoning so they can do what they need to with it. So, so that they can use it as the I2 zoning. And they're taking this hillside out and they would have to have a road to wrap around it to use it. I'm assuming that's what the road's for. So, because it's probably not going to be one lot. It'll probably be three lots, four lots. I don't know how many lots are going to be in there. That's something. That's another can of worms to open up later. So, bottom line, if they're going to develop that into I2, right, field two, they're going to have to flatten that land, haul all that dirt out there that's now kind of a hill.

We don't know where they're going to haul it. Well, I mean, you're not going to build a building on the side of a hill, correct? So, whoever's developing it. Okay. So, one thing for the city attorney. Uh, you were talking about Saratoga Springs. I have two kids live there. Washington City has an ordinance 5-2-4 weight limitations. City manager authority to prohibit certain vehicles on city roads. said prohibits prohibitions may be imposed due to the potential for serious damage, deterioration or destruction of the street itself or the potential of harm or injury to traffic or pedestrians on or along said street. And I have emailed Jeremy Red a couple of times about this ordinance and uh you know he's responded and uh but again if something like that is going to increase the traffic on country way then I think that the commission should vote not to approve it. And I think that we should look into this 5-2-4.

I'm very well aware of it. I discussed with the city manager today. Okay. My team's looked into it. We discussed it with him today. He's aware of it as you mentioned. You've emailed him on that. I believe the reason why he asked the bridge to be reviewed was because also of authority he has within this. Um I'll just clarify for you that's not the planning commission's authority. I know

that's not the city council's authority in the code. It gives the city manager that authority. Um our city manager interprets that to be an extenduating circumstance. Um something of an emergency type nature. He does. He's not convinced that it allows him to just make a road designation that's clearly within the the authority of the city council. And so I think if he is to bring one about, he's likely to bring it to the city council and work with them as they make a plan for their city. So we as residents should work with the city council on this ordinance, this code. Could we do that?

Absolutely. I I I work with the city council members and I see them work with members of the public all the time. I think they would like to have a have a conversation with you. But like Larry said, before South Country Way was paved completely up to landfill, the trucks always went over landfill road to Telegraph. And I think that this would give him the impetence and the authority. What What are you pointing at? Sorry. Oh, the 5-2-4 weight limitations, axle limitations, and for the good of the community. I've advis I've advised him about that. Yeah.

As recently as this afternoon. Yeah. But I just think that, you know, if we could direct the traffic to turn right and go over landfill, now that it's repaved is really, really nice. And it's only another extra 10 minutes on their trip. Thanks.

Hello again. Uh, Ty Prince is my name. The only reason to remove the hillside overlay is to be able to develop it completely and a lot quicker um with greater truck construction traffic. I would like to I don't know formally or whatever enter my previous speech into this particular topic as well. All of our concerns are still the same as far as the traffic. It's going to allow by removing this uh hillside overlay. It's going to allow the owner to then bring all the trucks and all the equipment on top of the existing traffic we already have. I do not obviously I'm not a a road engineer or whatever, so I can't speak to exacts, but just by observing the road, it's not designed to handle the amount of traffic that's already there, let alone the additional large vehicle traffic that will then begin to flow as soon as they have the ability to start tearing apart the mountain. I'm not opposed to them, you know, modifying it or whatever, but we need to discuss alternate routes, alternate ways to mitigate the traffic because that is the biggest problem and opening it up freely to that is going to be an even bigger problem. So, thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Kimberly Monson. Um, we have already had an issue with air quality. Um my husband and I purchased an air quality monitor um at the beginning of like it was like September when the OP landfill caught fire. Um we've already been having problems with that. I am concerned about the health um problems that could ensue if they are blasting this hillside or we have a very silicar soil. Um and silica does not break down in the body. So when you breathe in silica it stays there. Um, so it can cause long-term um, respiratory problems. And so I would like to know before that this is this action moves forward um, I want to know some of the potential health risks for us as a neighborhood because we're stuck. We're we're here. We are in a situation where we've got different wants and needs, right? Um, so our neighborhood shouldn't be there. It shouldn't. Um, and it breaks my heart because I absolutely love it. Um, but what we need to do moving forward is recognize that we're here and this all these homes are here and our safety and our health is important and we want to know what those what the city's going to do to make sure that we stay safe um because we're here now. Um, so the blasting and drilling and the noise and the dust, um, it's a genuine concern and I see on the dusty days, I see spikes in our, um, air quality that it goes into hazardous ranges on those dusty days. Uh, and on the smoky days from the landfill. So, I just wanted to point that out, too, that it not only are we having safety issues from the trucks, um, and there's going to be safety issues from the dust and from blasting. Thanks.

Thank you,

Steve Kelly. I I just wanted to put on record that my same concerns on the last item are all applicable to this one as well. But I also wanted to include that um and acknowledge that this is a zoning commission and I think a lot of us understand that and a lot of these concerns are being expressed to the city council as well. But I do feel like they are appropriate here because part of the zoning and planning commission is to do the due diligence on reszoning and all of our concerns I think is part of that due diligence. Um the history of of how the community ended up so close to the dump um could be you know revisited. But the reality is that's that's what it is right now. And the concerns I think most of the citizens are expressing right now is that when you look at changing a current zone to something else, that's going to have a future impact. And we're concerned that that future impact is already here now and you're only going to be amplifying it. And so if you can't clearly uh come up with a plan or express how this resoning will mitigate that amplification that it feels like the due diligence hasn't been done. And that's my biggest concern right now. Um, I also feel like that's appropriate here to the hillside overlay. That overlay protection is there to asssure that that due diligence is done specifically on a hill, not just reszoning. And so, disregarding that and saying, "No, we're going to go ahead and go through it even quicker with less oversight again just makes it seem like the due diligence hasn't been done yet." I do want to think that you've got that you've driven out there and you've seen what the citizens have expressed. And so, I I don't want to disregard that no due diligence has been done, but I did want to tie the string around. That's why we're here expressing this specifically to the commission. Thank you.

Thank you.

Um, prior to all these other individuals also coming back back up and reiterating their statement, just for the record, so it's on camera, so it's taken to the city council. I'd also like to add my comments that I previously stated to to this particular section of of concern. Um, and also add to Steve what he had to say. Uh, the matter of the fact was that the the industrial was there. Um, and the city council or whoever did the approval still went forward and approved um a residential area as well as put in a city park. Um, so we're sitting here with what we are now and you know instead of amplifying it, that's really what we're asking for. And once again, thank you for your due diligence and thank you for your consideration. I may just add a an interesting note. So, state law that authorizes cities to adopt their own zoning rules also compels that the city follow the state's uh public hearing requirements. And so, this hearing is held and all of the hearings this planning commission holds are to satisfy both city ordinance and state law. And so, not only is it a good recommendation, as was stated, um we are compelled to allow the public to stand and give us feedback on on zzoning applications. And so part of what we're doing tonight is helping the state accomplish their their policies as well. Um I would just clarify that the park in that area was put in um by the developer of the homes um as an exaction required by the city council uh for the approval to get those homes. And so it wasn't the city that built the park. It was dedicated to the city after it was inspected and accepted by the city's inspectors and then dedicated for public use there as well.

Okay. If there's no one else, we'll close the public hearing portion of this. Do you guys have any questions for Bob? Yeah, let you address some of those. Um, yeah, Bob Hermanson, appreciate you guys' time. Um, I'm happy to run through a few things or if you're welcome to ask me whatever you like, whatever would you like to do. I I felt like maybe give you a chance to address some of the concerns and then and then maybe we might have some more after.

All right, sounds good. Um, so the um the history that was went through on the project and so I basically did all of that from way back in time all the way till now. And so the guy that did the planning for the residential up against the industrial then in on the way to the landfill that's me and so I was the one that did this you know 101 15 years ago now 15 years ago. And so um anyways you did it just for clarity. You did it as the engineer hired by the land owner. It wasn't your decision. You weren't the land owner deciding to go put this in. Is that right?

So I'm a development consultant. So I consult all of my clients on what should be done with all land uses. And so, um, yes, my recommendation to them was to do what was designed. The, uh, latter plan that was there had double the density. We thought that that was impractical. I did I make a recommendation to my client and, you know, 90% of the time those things move forward through the city process and that's what gets approved. And so, yeah, so I did that in this case um, from from inception all the way through. Um, meaning from the pickup in 2010, not in the first one that had the really silly plan that was in in in place. it just didn't make any sense. Anyway, so moving forward into that um through this these residential pods, these four residential pods were established. There was a ton of discussion on Country Way, the design of it, the bike lanes that were there, the stop signs were there, the way that they're striped. Every single one of those items were items that I negotiated with the city council in order to help mitigate these future concerns about the industrial and this residential and how this merges into this uh river area. And that's also why we put the park there as well to make sure that that we could transition. At some point you have to transition from these one use to another um collectively with with staff and council and everything else. The the plan was was was brought forth. It was modified, tweaked the best that all of us could do together. And that's what was was planned and built and improved. And that's what you see now. It's just now it's taken more time for industrial to get built and get developed in this area. All of this area that we're talking about was all included in those plans from 2010 and continuing to the north and to the east all the way up through the road that you guys are referring to as Purgatory Road and the future bridge that will cross at some point um you know or could cross near um basically um goes right down through Western's Pit and 90s into Southern Parkway. And so all of that's part of this planning uh atmosphere that I've been dealing with since since 2010. And so, um,

um, we did we did all of those things to try to help and foresee into the future what this traffic was going to look like because obviously there was going to be a tremendous amount of truck traffic with the industrial and then also the landfill. Um, and there's also a private landfill there as well. Um, and so, um, we did the best we could with that and then, uh, you know, later on everything gets built. Did residential first and then we picked picked through the industrial um, areas which we're we're still doing now. Um, one of the other comments was, you know, which uh are we working towards the future Purgatory Road and and that part of the land development. Um, generally the city always requires us to build infrastructure getting to there. It's conforming to the master plan, which is this is part of that. This is smelter way. This is the road that accesses purgatory that in the future will alleviate a substantial amount of traffic for these residents over here on this on the side. It's still a long ways out. I totally agree with that. I don't have I have no idea how far it's going to take us to get to where that bridge goes in in Purgatory. It connects to Hurricane. It's gonna it's going to be a minute for sure. Um but as we develop and we go that easterly and then turn and go north, we are putting in those sections as master planned through the city. Um uh now at the same time, Country Way was also the same level of planning as well. So we've done the same thing. We built Country Way with that same idea and then we're working our way um in that direction. Um the uh just to be clear um currently in that I call it the valley parcel because that's what we used to call it. There is um Elden would you mind pulling up just that aerial that you had up that kind of shows it there's a there's a big valley in between that whole area and I'm going to step over here and point real quick unless um you can see this. So currently right now there is a permits entire valley here a a mass grading permit which is under construction right now like it's this is in under construction and it's it will be in under construction for a

substantial amount of time for removal and this went through hillside it went through zoning this is a couple years ago now two three years ago I can't remember exactly um that I brought through as well with the intent that there would be industrial up into that valley and that is still the intent today um what we're trying to do as far as mitigation goes is that we have um in that mass grading plan there's There's about four million yards of of dirt to be ex to be removed to be exported. For those who don't understand how much dirt that is, it is very substantial. It's just being picked away at, right? It's a it's it's a very small portion of all this industrial traffic in the landfill. I mean, honestly, it's probably 2% of the traffic. Like, it's a very small chunk, but it's just trickling out. There's trucks rolling out of there a couple days a week. You know what I mean? Like, it just depends. with this proposal. The the first item is is that um we're we're we have uh for the most part except for this item we discussed tonight, the I2 industrial zoning that has the hillside overlay. We can develop it now to be clear. It just has some restrictions with hillside. We have a substantial amount of disturbance that's on the bottom edge plus the very large old school uh disturbance that's all through this area. got all of this already. We got all of this. It is undisturbed. But when we we submitted an application to Hillside, we had great turnout. We had probably I'm not sure. I mean, it seems like there was 10 or 15 people there. I remember 10 people probably. Um full discussion. We drove around the site. We looked through it all. Um if you've been out there, um it does make some logical sense that we have substantial disturbance on both sides of us. it's not really worth protecting. And that's what our proposal was. And that's what after a couple hour discussion in the office and and out on the site with all of the committee

members, they agreed that the intent here would be that we would staircase up from those lower lots on the left and then build paths up to that level so that all of that disturbance area was then mitigated with with construction with with with retaining walls with buildings. And the very large scar that's there now. Yes. To your point earlier is that it will be roughly 25 30 feet taller than it currently is right now will be they'll um one safe. Right now it's it's not but there's really nobody there other than the user, right? But it would be um built in a way and then and then staircased back up so that the there wouldn't be any rockfall hazard. That would be the be the item and that'll that design would need to go back to Hillside to be fully reviewed by the whole team of engineers that's on that on that um that committee. Um and then approved as well or recommend for approval. Um and so the intent is to clean all of that up. But the but the cool stuff as far as like um the folks that would that that currently live in the residential community down below is that by doing that the p the area in the back there the 4 million yards that I referred to before I the when we remove that chunk of dirt and we push that back up into that valley that I I'm lowering my proposal and this Elden knows this and we've talked about this in Hillside is going to be reduced to to almost a million yards. We're going to reduce exporting out of the area. So all of those trucks, so 25% less that we are literally doing right now, we're proposing that we don't do that. Like we're going to we're going to limit that. And so that's the other gain with this is to make all of this area look much better than it does now and reduce the trust trough traffic. Now, I can't control anything of the all the

businesses are doing, all of the landfill stuff. Not talking about that. just specifically talking about this part of the land development which is substantial with the export. Um I'm proposing a 25% reduction of of this by by allowing this to happen if without the without the hillside overlay zone this item being removed. It's probably only maybe a 100,000 yards. So I'm 10 times the reduction by removing this and cleaning it up. And so that's what I'm really trying to accomplish. So are are you saying that By removing the overlay and allowing this piece to be developed fully I2, yep,

industrial, you're going to be able to use a lot of the dirt in the development. So even though it seems like you would need to be shipping all that dirt out and be creating more based on long-term plans, the way you're planning to develop this would actually decrease the amount of dirt leaving by 25%. Am I catching it?

That's exactly right. Yeah. And if it wasn't if the if this owner, which owned all of this, this is all the same client all the way from the bridge all the way through here, didn't, you know, have his arms wrapped around this entire project, you couldn't do these things. But in this case where it's all the same person and we're planning all of these huge chunks together, it it all just works out better, you know, o overall. In fact, we were going to leave it. Otherwise, I would have done this when I did the big proposal. But once we got out there and we started cutting through this and looking at it, it just honestly it just doesn't look great at all. And so we we reround and now we're adding to and modifying what we already submitted submitted because we think it's better for us for everybody. Like it's in every level it's better. And so that's what we're trying to do by removing it to be clear.

Sorry for being long-winded. Um any any other um just looking through my notes. Any other specific uh comments. I don't have any. I felt like that was a a great explanation and helped modify how how that was all what what you're going to do that it will actually help decrease the traffic. Yeah. And not a small amount like I'm trying to right. I don't know how to describe a million yards of dirt, but it's it's very substantial. I have one other question. Before when we saw the image about where that cut was going to be and it was like way up on the hill.

Yep. you know, that could imply residents could get the idea that they have to remove that whole mountain. And I based on more information, my understanding is that's not what's happening. We're going to be tearing up to the top, right? So, it's not like we're cutting that hole. Well, it's going to be steep. I mean, just to be very clear, it will go it will go up and it'll basically every 30 feet there'll be a bench and then it's going to go up 30 feet. they would do another bench and so it's just going to step back so that it's mitigating rockfall and just on that side and that'll be heavily monitored with geotech as the work's being done generally. There's another comment. How do you do that? Right. You start at the top and start peeling up and building that as you work your way down.

Right. But you're not you're not like cutting you're not like cutting into the mountain and laying a flat parking lot into the mountain. No. You're you're tearing up to the top. Yeah. Well, so both ways. So the larger cut slope that we're that we're talking about is that this guy right here, this will be a large puzzle with tears all the way down which isn't going to go down this. Yeah, it's going to go substantially and then you're going to have a step down. So, this just looks

the only you're going to see all these large buildings. You're going to see these but from a distance you're going to see on this is probably um in the neighborhood of 60 feet tall of what's actually exposed. And the question is is at what angle can you actually see it? And I say 60 ft. I'm saying if you're standing beside it of actually what's exposed like in the road in front of it, that's what you're going to see in the worst possible scenario. Like standing right in front of it. Yeah. The question is is like across the valley, what are you going to see? Right. And so and it's really spotty. I think I think it was Elden was making the points about the different aspects and the angles. There's like snippets that like, oh, there it is and there it is and there it is, but then it's it's it's because of the angle it's at, you can't see it.

Yeah, it's kind of ideal tucked around that corner. Yeah. Yeah. So, um, any other comments or questions? No. Just ask for the for the trucks that are exported. It has been my assumption that those are routed based on destination. For sure. 100%. Is that accurate? That's correct. Is there any context or understanding you can add to that for me?

Um well generally um we've had I mean just where the land development is like where it's going on is really where the trucks go, right? and and so in generally heading south I would say that probably 70% of the of the earth goes south because of that's where all the land development is and then you have you know 25 or 30% heading north and there's only two ways out of there you're running north or you're running south and it's just is what it is and it's um yeah that's what we're what we're seeing

and it's purely based on that and and to be clear that dirt gets moved in the county regardless of this site, right? Like it will move somewhere somehow. Whether it's here or somewhere else, it doesn't matter. It's moving every day right now.

Yeah. That's the nature of where we live. Oh, go ahead.

No, I I did want to comment on comment on that because it happens all around us. I I mean I don't want to I want to recognize the comments and I know the Monson's brought this up the the concern for the environment. I think I mean we live in the environment it happens all around us every single day. One thing that I think that development does do is it does, you know, if you look at it as a whole, when it's complete, the dust is settled, right? You're putting in asphalt, you're putting in pavement, you're putting concrete, you're putting in buildings that cover up the areas that when the the wind blow and and you know, the the elements come that um when it's solid, uh there's less disturbance or less air or you know, dirt in the air. So to me the development um it's just an improvement an improvement to the area. Plus it provides you know opportunities for others to you know obtain jobs and to to make a living.

Is it okay? We've closed the public hearing portion of this right now. Yeah, I just had another question. Commissioner Davis, for the applicant, we're talking about, you know, potentially 70% to the south, 30% to the north. Is it within your control, your purview to wind that up to send more to the north as as you take on this this element of the project?

Generally, it's not because it's not only just the applicants trucks that are hauling other, it's there's other other construction companies, right? when they need the dirt of this magnitude, like there's just trucks kind of going wherever they need to go. They pick up three loads or they pick up 20. We we don't have any control of which where they go because it's a substantial amount obviously, right? I mean, you take this on, you start, you know, tearing, you know, tearing the hillside that you would think that's a reliable source of soil and a deal could be cut. And maybe I'm oversimplifying. Are you and then I'm sorry with respect to the disposal of the dirt that's removed? Um, you mean as far as a negotiation of where like with the with the person that you're dealing with to to do it?

Exactly. Generally, the answer to that question is no, because they'll just find it somewhere else

that's closer. All of this dirt exists everywhere else too, right? So there's this, like I said, whether this is happening or not, it'll just go come from somewhere else. Um so generally we don't have um always fine to make a recommendation but um generally this is I mean that's why the master plan is what it is. That's way your why your road neck your road network is the way that it is is that it's conveying traffic very well to the south the way that it's designed. So it's really hard to send them to the north to when they're purely paying based on time and fuel. Yeah. So,

does Commissioner Yates have a quick comment as it's wrapping up? Um, I know that as a community grows quickly and the assumptions change rapidly, it's hard to stay in front of that. Um, from my perspective and not knowing all of the the details that went into the decision, I think it was a mistake to put a residential neighborhood right around the corner from the the landfill. I just think that was a mistake. And I think that now we've got to deal with that. You know, as a city, we have to figure that out. Um, and I think the traffic and air quality, those those are real issues. From my perspective, I just think that this is an appropriate place to have industrial. I think right up that valley, it's ideal. It's in it's right next to the landfill. There's visual barriers from almost every angle. It's a huge problem having that residential neighborhood there. And I think that's that other basket of issues that has to be addressed. and other channels. Um, but for me, I think that, you know, as a balancing of interests, this community needs industrial. We need places to go put all of the machinery and all of the inner those, you know, other projects that make our lives possible. And it sucks that it's that close to a residential spot. But um in my opinion, I think that having been out there and seeing how scarred this is, I don't think it's worth protecting that hill, I think it's an appropriate place for

and and as we move through our planning commission and you know, we are looking to the future and it's not just our city. You got to realize that this is going to tie into another industrial area in hurricane. So eventually this will run all the way into the purgatory area and then they won't be going eventually they will not be going through there. One day we're going to get a bridge that comes out and eliminates this from country way. It's going to come out and hit SR7 which will make it even easier for them. And the problem that we have is is growth. You know we that's what good and bad. It's not roads don't just just appear you know. So eventually we'll get there, but I mean now it is what it is. So it's not going to be bad to have I mean it I agree with you. I don't think we should ever had that subdivisions out there, but it is there and we're going to mitigate it eventually. It's just going it's just not going to be tomorrow. As soon as that as soon as that bridge comes in, it will help. But it's there. They have that right. So once it develops, it'll push it. It'll push. It'll be more of a push to put that road and that bridge in.

The more this gets developed, the more they're going to push to put the bridge and the road in. And I mean, I mean, and obviously that's how it's not just going to appear. There's got to be a need for it. Well, and and just to build on that, I've only been on this commission a few months, but one of the things I've learned is that we do a lot to have developers pay for the lands and the the roads going into them. And so, the city avoids a lot of taxes to its citizens by waiting until a developer is ready to develop the land and then they say, "Okay, developer, but you're paying for the road." And that makes it so we all don't have to pay that in taxes. But that also means that it gets pinchy when the city needs to go do some proactive thing like changing out a bridge that there's no developer developing that area to pay for it. That comes right out of city taxes and and city managers and others don't want to raise taxes. So the more that we can wait until something gets developed by developers, the more we can externalize those costs to the appropriate person who's going to be benefiting from those developments. And so that's another thing that I didn't understand before beginning serving on this commission.

Not right now.

So if you guys are have any more questions or comments, we'll look for a motion. This is Commissioner Yur and I will make a motion that we recommend approval of Z-25-26 to remove the 31.17 acres from the hillside protection overlay zone um on 300 South Smelter Drive. And I'll do it with the recommendation that we also include a couple of notes to city council about the traffic and the air quality and the other concerns that were brought up on the the prior um motion as well.

Davis first by Commissioner heard a second by Commissioner Davis. Individual voting commissioner Davis I. Commissioner Davis is an I. Commissioner Mitchell I. Commissioner Tupo I. Commissioner, you're I'm Commissioner Bulock. I'm an I as well. Item number five is adjournment. Look,

Chairman, if I might, um, in the city council's annual retreat last week, they adopted another policy. And I just before the folks leave, I just want you to know that the city council is intending to publish on their meeting notices that the opportunity for public comment at their meetings is is also available. And so if there's a question you weren't able to ask tonight, I I recommend you go visit the city council. And I understand that the mayor and the city council are consolidated in their viewpoint that they want to hear your your feedback in that meeting as well.

Do they do they limit that public if it's been said here or do is it come they re readress what was already addressed?

It's at their discretion. Um, as I've observed their discussions and their practices, I don't believe they intend to limit it if it was stated here. But let's say that 10 10 neighbors showed up and they all wanted to read the statement, same statement. The mayor would probably say, "Hey, one of you come and read the the one statement." And so they they probably would limit repetitive comments. Um, state law does not require that they hold a a public hearing like we did tonight. This one was a state required requirement of us. Um the city council is is essentially stating that they're willing to go beyond the state requirement if there's additional folks that want to meet them there or maybe couldn't make tonight but can make next week's um they they they will give those folks the opportunity to share their feedback in the city council meeting as well. And maybe for those that aren't sure, city council also meets on Wednesday nights. Planning Commission is Monday and is the first and third Wednesdays. City council's second and fourth Wednesdays of every month. And so next week, city council would meet on Wednesday night 6:00.

That's good to hear. Mr. Commissioner, I'll move that we adjourn planning commission. Second. I have a first by Commissioner, a second by Commissioner Tupo. All in favor? I meeting is adjourned. We'll start the land use in just a moment. Take a short break. Talk about our neighborhood. That's next. That's next. We have there's actually different committees. Yeah.

meeting to order and so we don't have to be here all night. So, welcome to the land use authority meeting for January 21st, 2026. We're going to start with the approval of the agenda. Commissioner Tupo. I make a motion to approve the agenda. Commissioner Davis seconds. I have first by Commissioner Tupo and a second by Commissioner Davis. All in favor? I. Item number two is approval of the minutes from the January 7th meeting. This is Commissioner Mitchell. I move that we approve the minutes from January 7th. Commissioner Yur. I second. I have a first by Commissioner Davis or Mitchell, a second by Commissioner Yur. All in favor?

I.

Uh item three is declaration of abstensions or conflicts. Does anyone have any with tonight? All right. Item four A is the to amend the final plat for phase one at Red Mesa at Sunrise Valley subdivision. Applicants Bill Cox and we'll turn this over to Sebastian. All right. Good evening. Thank you. The applicant is requesting approval to amend the final plight of phase one of the Red Mesa at Sunrise Valley subdivision located at approximately Beck Drive and Countryway. The reason for this amendment is to adjust the lot lines of all boundary lines to the center of and along the existing block walls. So if you can scroll to the exhibit that'll be scroll down a little bit actually. So essentially what they're doing is they're removing the pad lot lines and just vacating the limited common areas as well as the common areas to ordinary non-pad lot pad lots. This would increase the size of each lot respectively. Uh so if you could one of the are you on exhibit one right? Yes. So top top page up a little bit. Yes. So this is the existing final plat and as you can see it shows uh common areas as well as the limited common areas. However, if you scroll down a bit, the reason for this amendment is to vacate those common areas. So, the lot lines are along the uh block walls. And for you, if you don't know, common limited common areas essentially are uh

they limit the development capabilities of develop the lot owners. So staff recommends the laneous authority approve the final plan amendment for phase one of the red me subdivision based on the findings in this report and that that that concludes that report. I can answer any questions about you know pad lots or uh common areas if you have any. So basically what we're doing is for we got this for PUB was a I think it's kind of a dumb design for common area that basically only the homeowners can use

that but it's common area that there's no access to it just him. So all this is doing is basically giving those homeowners that property that was in their thing. Correct. All right. I just wanted to simplify that so that we we understand up here so it's not so

yeah and it's it's an area that that it's a little bit amorphous for the city because limited common area can be is defined by the CCNRs and those can change at any time but in general as Sebastian stated it's it's area that is identified as common area not owned by the pad owner but owned by the common entity But the limited common area is limited in its use in in essence that it's exclusively to be used by the pad owner adjacent to it but owned by the common entity. This change doesn't add any lots, doesn't change any density. It basically erases that definition making the limited common area from the prior plat just by the pad owners as well. So it's it's just privately owned instead of

exclusively common while still being owned by the common entity. So Commissioner Davis, just from my understanding, therefore there's going to be a deed action for each lot. Platt. Yeah. That's right. We're at the plat state.

Yeah. So this plat actually because it affects other private ownership areas will require a lot more signatures than your typical plat because folks will have to consent to it. We don't believe anybody's going to disagree with this um because it does take that pad owner's ownership envelope and widen it to include what was previously their exclusive use common limited common area. Um, most CCNRs allow things like a structure like a home or a cassita ined common area, but they do allow things like porches and gazeos and kind of accessory uses. Um, one of the areas we've struggled to administer is pools because pools are permitted as a structure and the pool would then be placed on land owned by the common area, the common entity, not the pad owner. And so we've administered that by requiring that the HOA pass a resolution authorizing that owner to in construct a pool within the HOA owned limited common area. This fix simplifies the administration for the city kind of planning and building issues because if someone wanted to build a pool assuming this gets approved their pool permit just comes under their ownership right and the city process it applies the standard codes there. So, can we not do these anymore?

I hope I hope that that becomes the fast law.

There's a couple of issues here. There is an ordinance where provision of common area flows into a calculation that can uh essentially provide a what's what the the city code calls bonus density give you more lots than you might otherwise get based on your your application. And so if limited common area is being utilized to you know allow greater density and then being privatized that's that's a concern we might have from an administrative standpoint. That's kind of what they're doing here. Uh I mean in in reality, but I think this is something that we should look at further on and not let it happen again. If we're going to have common area, make it so everyone can use the common area and not just in the back of someone's house.

Yeah, that's my my viewpoint is similar in that let's either make it privately owned or commonly owned and not have kind of the gray area where it's commonly owned but privately exclusively used. Right. Right. That one's that one's just it's hard to administer. There's frequently like a lot of the land uses that are becoming common these days want to stretch into that. It's just difficult to administer that not privately owned but but exclusively used by the private entity. And so I and I'm not going to speak for Elden, but I I think that I would like to see it gone. Growing away from that concept is something that that we would welcome. Yeah.

Okay. the PUD, you know, um, our smallest straight zones, R16. PUB allows you to get into the 5,000 square foot lot as our code reads. And I think that's why the applicant steered this way in the first place. Um, along with maybe some increased density, which Bob spoke to earlier when he previous planning in this area. Um, you know, I think it's a healthy discussion. You know, is the city on board and wanting to to get a smaller straight zoned area, you know, an R15 and R14 to allow developers straight zoning and get those smaller lots

want to entertain. New to all, this commissioner, you're being new to all of this. To me, it just looked like, and I'm sure I'm missing nuance and stuff. To me, it looks like the builder was like, "Oh, we can get increased density if we throw in some common area. Let's throw in some dumb common area and get, you know, an increase in density and now we're having to like fix that." So, it, you know, that is weird to me just as a new person to this. I have a question actually for Sebastian if I could. Sebastian, right now there, from what I was driving around and stuff out there, looks like there's like walls surrounding most of these lots.

That is correct. Essentially, the the neighborhood does not act like a like a pad. It's it acts like a straight zoning. So, this is just legally changing the plat to align with the current sort of look. Got it. So, all the changes where we're increasing lot sizes. Those block walls are already encapsulating the additional changes. Like, you're not going to have to knock down block walls to go encapsulate the additions. That is correct. So the uh the the plat amendment is just literally just amending the plat so the lines fit the existing block walls. Fits all the walls. That's correct.

Okay. I wanted to make sure because there's some bigger common areas here that they would if they're pulling those in. It didn't look to me when I drove around like those were already in part of the There are some common areas which will remain, but most of all the limited common areas will be vacated. It's only the common areas that are already enclosed within people's block walls around their homes. Yes. Okay. Yes, exactly. Any other comments or questions or Okay, this is a public comment. Did you guys want to speak to it?

Yeah. My name is James Peterson. I am one of the residents that's affected by this. Um, yeah, I I would I like your summary of saying let's let's not do this. Buy having bought one of these and not understanding this uh has been a little bit of concern. When they told me I had 0 or 0.08 acres and I looked at the size of the lot between the block walls, it was very confusing and neither the title company nor the realtors nor the seller. Nobody really disclosed why there was that discrepancy that seemed to have happened there. So, I think it would be a lot more clear to to to have that going forward is not not not an issue if if we could if you could avoid that. I think the future homeowners would would appreciate that as well.

Mr. Peterson, I'm glad you came. Can I just ask you how you feel about the concept that if this plaque gets approved, you would increase your ownership? Is that something you are happy about or is that something that you wish? It was my assumed ownership, but now it'll just be recorded legally that way. And I'm glad to know that my pickle ball is mine now. My pickle ball court. So instead of just exclusively your use. Yes. Now it's your use and ownership. Permission has to be asked. Yes. Don't have permission to come jump his wall and play on his pickle ball court.

You But you can talk to me about it. Thank you. Please state your name so we can get on record. And my name is Tim Farmer and my problem is I what I'm looking at we're talking about phase one. Is that correct? I think I live in phase three. We're going to get through all the phases tonight. So this is going to apply to all of it. So each each phase requires its own plat. And so we've listed them as different agenda items. the the topics and the themes are going to be identical for each one, but yeah, we we need to have a separate legal item for each separate plat because they're different legal. So, right now, we're only addressing

correct, but stick around. We'll get to phase three quickly. All right. That's what I want. A Yeah, we got A, B, and C to go still. It'll be the same thing. Thank you. If we're done, is there any more public hearing? Okay, I will close the public hearing portion of this and look for a motion. This Commissioner Davis, I'd like to propose a motion for the approval to amend final plat of phase one of the Red Mesa at Sunrise Valley subdivision subject to findings and conditions in staff report. Commissioner Tupo, I second that. I have first by Commissioner Davis, a second by Commissioner Tupo. individual voting. Commissioner Yuri, Commissioner Tupo.

Hi, Commissioner Mitchell. Hi, Commissioner Davis. Hi, I'm Commissioner Bulock. I'm an I as well. That is approved. Item 4B is amend the final plat for phase two of the Red Mesa at Sunrise Valley subdivision. I'll turn it back to Sebastian.

All righty. So it's the exact same concept as before except we're amending phase two and this consists of 30 lots and so I'm not going to read the whole staff report. It's the exact same concept of you know the pad lots are will no longer be paddle lots. They'll be non padalotss and um yeah so you have any specific questions for this phase you know I can answer those but the concept is the same block walls you know it's nothing's changing. Awesome. Thanks. Yeah.

Okay. I will open the public hearing on this portion. Okay. I will close the public hearing on this portion and look for a motion. If you guys don't have any questions, this is Commission Mitchell. I move that we approve um item 4B to amend the final plot for phase two of Red Mesa at Sunray Valley with staff's recommendations, finding and conditions. Commissioner Davis seconds. First by Commissioner Mitchell, second by Commissioner Davis. Individual voting commissioner Davis. Commissioner Mitchell I. Commissioner Tupo I. Commissioner Yur

I. I'm Commissioner Bulock. I'm an I as well. This is approved. Item 4 C is amend the final plat for phase three at Red Mountain Subdivision at Sunrise Valley. We'll turn the time back to Sebastian. All right. Once again, same process except this time it's phase three as you mentioned and it will be 8.23 acres of um I guess limited common area and this would be consist of 28 lots. So, same same process. I don't have any further staff does have any further um comments on this. I can, you know, answer any questions you may have.

Sebastian, I I had one on this phase. The the chunk of common area on the top and the bottom. Um the other the other phases appear to have created some access points to the common area that remains on the peripheral, but this one I I'm not sure other than just the lots that that are adjacent. Missing other other access points from other areas that would get folks folks there or

not that was mentioned on the plat. So that may just be open space, but as far as the what are shown in the plat I I don't see any secondary access points. Okay, that's it there, Elden. And so it might have accesses from other points all because it looks like it backs up to it essentially is just an open space as far as I can tell. Yeah,

you have to ride your horse. not related to this item. Maybe after this, but I I'd just like to get the temperature on planning commissioner, the land use authority lot sizes, you know, would that be a move in the right direction? Something you'd want to consider amending uh recommendation to council? Obviously, it's, you know, their final decision, but kind of get a temperature in this room as to where you guys are at in regards to a straight zoned um that is, you know, an R15 or R14.5 or 4,000.

Yeah, we'll we'll we'll finish this and then talk about that real quick because this is the last item for the night. So, and I didn't have a public hearing on this one, did I? No, you haven't. Okay, we'll open up the public hearing for for 4C.

James Peters again. I I would just like to ask a question on this. Um, there is no distinction really on those properties that lie outside the walls to indicate that it is part of the the subdivision. Um there's no markings or anything there as near as anybody could tell, but I guess those are accessible to the public back there, but uh no more so than the the slopes that are probably on uh sit or BLM land or whatever that is behind there.

So you'll notice there if Elden can zoom in, it is hashed and the plat does identify that as common area. So this is land that would be owned by your HOA. It is not considered public, but it is considered land that any of the pad owners have an interest in because of their their proportion of ownership of the common entity that owns it. Um John just went and consulted and we're informed that that is land that is intended to be uh remained just natural vacant as it stands today. And so it doesn't sound like there's a need to get in there and maintain a playground or anything like that. And so it's it's commonly owned by your common entity. Uh but it's not intended for it to be a destination type land. It's just being left open for the benefits that open space provides just in and of itself.

Okay. With no distinction between that and the land that's adjacent to it to the to the Yeah. The the land that Well, it is distinguished from the land that's adjacent to it because it's owned by your HOA, not by the BLM or any other entity. Right. with the with the on the description, but physically looking at it, you can't tell where one ends and the other starts. Yeah. And the BLM land adjacent may never change. I I do understand Sitla's in the business of selling land to developers for development. So that that land may end up on an application here someday, but but yeah, right now it's the intent is just to leave it as it as it is. Thank you.

Anyone else? Okay, we'll close the public hearing portion of this and look for a motion. Commissioner Tupo, I need a motion to approve item 4 C to amend final plat for phase three of the Red Mesa at Sunrise Valley subdivision with the recommendations, findings, and conditions in staff report. Commissioner Yur. I'll second first by Commissioner Tupo, a second by Commissioner Yur. Individual voting. Commissioner Davis. I. Commissioner Mitchell. Hi. Commissioner Tupo. Hi. Commissioner Yur. Hi.

Commissioner Bulock. I'm an I as well. So that's approved. Um, as far as the lot sizes, I I don't know how you guys feel about it. I mean, my biggest concern with lot sizes is parking. That's, you know, I mean, either make the streets big enough to get the so that they're not a small street or there's or sufficient parking. I I I don't have a problem with small lots and and single family homes on them, single dwelling units. I think it's a good I think it's a good move to help entice some attainable housing for people. I'd hate to see them turn into rentals. I mean, that's obviously what they do later on in life, but to help someone get started and get in a home like that, I think it's a if it's in the right spot, I don't see a problem with it. I mean, I'd rather see that than condos and town homes. My personal opinion.

Yeah, I would concur. you need a blend. I think it's you start. I think it's a good starting point on something like that. I mean, it's not on the This isn't on the agenda. It's just we're just kind of talking. Maybe let me maybe let me frame this a little bit. This is an off agenda discussion item being. So there can be no motion to pass here, but Elden, the the city's director of planning and zoning, has asked for just some feedback from the commissioners on their feelings about a proposed or or the possibility of proposing a future city code amendment that would allow an even smaller lot than is currently allowed.

Okay. And I think that answers my question because so the R6 is the smallest currently in Washington city unless you go into the PUB and and then you get into the 5,000 square foot. Part of part of why I think Elden is suggesting this is that previously to get smaller lots you had to do the bonus dat and and limited common area and that could be accomplished if the city were to adopt just a smaller zone designation than we currently have. You can accomplish the same smaller lots out the and it might schematic of the density

and it might help too. I mean, I know that you the amenities are always nice for everybody there, but it'll also help. It that gets a sticky sketch, too. I mean, you want some amenities, but not just straight housing. I mean, it's it's a hard one to to do as well. Yeah. And I can't remember who mentioned it and the planning. I've heard it from the city council members as well. The desire that if there is going to be common area, let's have it be meaningful, meaningfully common, not just not just something that Yeah. is measured in a corner, but but you know, not necessarily beneficial to anything,

you know, someplace where kids can go play and because I mean the lots aren't huge at 4,000, but they're still decent. as PUB we did a George Washington 13 that's required byity I know we beat ourselves the amenity is not meaningful area it's small it's a waste over time they could straight zone it and avoid the amen certain area Yeah,

smaller PUDs, you know, larger scale EUDs. Yes. Bring amenities to benefit the residents. I do think too that there's got to be the buffering, right? Like I'm just that's going to come at us, right? That somebody will put a R4 next to a current. I mean, we're seeing that now, right? And that happening. and you see the residents that are really concerned that the higher density is coming in close to their you know quarter acre lot or whatever. So I do see that I mean that's going to come at us and so my recommendation if we do allow it that there be some kind of planning to help make sure it makes sense and that's hard to do right because I think it's we're kind of moving into that direction where that's what's desired. How do you not hurt the people that are currently here?

And in fact, this a little bit tonight was a figment of the era when large lots were were the expectation and and you were you were expected, you know, to have a yard and a basketball court, you know, a garden and some of those things of a of an era which is, I think, nearly moved on. And so, yeah. smaller lots was developed within a framework that favored and preferred and almost mandated larger lots, right? And so we're now in a in a setting where smaller lots are not just appear to have a favor from from elements of planning and water use and those type of things, but I think price of things has made them very favorable from a pricing standpoint as well. And so they my understanding I'm not a land developer but my understanding is they sell really well this market people are very to get one of those.

Yeah. I wouldn't be opposed to a smaller lot as long as it's placed in the appropriate areas like a buffer zone or I think

something like that. I'd hate to give a blanket R4 zoning and not have any sort of thing on it with I I don't know. It It's tough. I because you don't want someone just coming in and taking advantage of the smaller lots and and destroying the community that's around them. I it I mean I feel like if we're going to do that, it's got to be a hard it's got to be a tough one to get at some point. I've always felt like that's the only thing Damn Road lacks. They've got every other use on there, but we need We don't have any We don't have some tiny homes out there. That's the only thing they don't have. There's plenty of tiny homes. There's people living in trailers.

We just don't have any apartments out there. They lack some curb and gutter in a few places. Not Not after the road project, though. we'd want to tie the the news new zone to the general plan so it fits in with the R16, you know, so you couldn't put this R14 next to a R15, you know, it needs to fall within the general plan and fit in those planning concepts. I think I think it's a good concept for little spots that isn't necessarily like some of the downtown stuff, you know, those or wherever they're doing it. But I just would hate to see somebody come in and split up nice lots and change them into those.

So there's not even a pro-form ordinance written yet, but Elden's Elden's giving you some insight, right?

In a way that it would essentially pair into the smallest zone, smallest lot zone that we already have and that would flow into the general plan. So only the places in the general plan that currently allow the smallest would qualify for the next one if it were. And so it already, of course, the general plan does change and does morph as as the generations and the decades come and go. And so that general plan can be amended and and and changed as well. But yeah, that's theory there is if if it were to be something that gets approval, we'd we' we'd couch it only within the areas that are currently general planned for the small existing

smallest. Would it would it tie in with like the multi-development too? I mean I feel like so so multi-units and single family units are one of the things that we try to buffer and plan for and so we we haven't discussed that far but my feeling is we would pair it with the existing single family residential small designation not the multif family ones this is a very candid conversation I didn't tell fat I was going to bring this up the land use authority on on thoughts formal discussions add this this is just off the cuff here just

two quick thoughts or questions one is have we done enough PUD that allow this that we can go harvest some lessons from that in the city can we ask like where where has that worked where have we bumped into things can we just take a pause before we authorize a new one and look back and see what we've learned from the PUD and also if St. George has an R4 equivalent, can we have a conversation with them about what they've learned before we, you know, open the pipelines? That's kind of like where my mind goes with it.

So, the we've got a couple of really good examples. So, Sienna Hills and and Coral Canyon are the two that I thought about. The bigger the PV, the more meaningful the the feel of the open space and the wild areas. And even the amenity is is more meaningful there. Seems like the smaller they get. Elden gave the example on on George Washington Boulevard that was I can't remember 13 Elden 14. the smaller they get, they can still provide what the PUD code requires, but it's so small in proportion that it's that it's

it's hard to even as even if it's just open space, you don't feel the same feeling that you do as you go through Coral Canyon and feel kind of those those ribbons of wild area that's that kind of feels all around you out there because of the the magnitude of the size of that PUB. Yeah, I would just suggest if you're wrapping up your I guess your information gathering, Elden, I would go back to one of the first things that Pete said with respect to parking because that becomes the biggest gotcha with these things when all of a sudden you got a couple maybe three vehicles and now you've got heavy heavy congestion and I think it you know it detracts from you know the intention of of the develment itself even with that PUD that we you know that little thing we talked about here um on George

that's that's the biggest concern wherever you go is the parking and the safety of all the parking and how many generations are living there now if it starts has a smaller home and you're probably not going to have multiple generations but still would need to be I think an element for consideration

interesting issue because yeah smaller lot you're going to have less so even if you were planning a park in front you're going to have less room out there for the for you know the hobby truck or whatever it is. Uh the other one is it's unique to our area but maybe not unique to others. Areas where the land values are very high almost compel that you build a structure that maximizes as many buildable feet of that as you can so that your structure that's put on the land uh harvests and it builds upon the land value. And so in theory, you go buy a big lot and build a tiny house, you basically just devalued your investment because the house didn't harvest that land value. Whereas if you put a house that's, you know, magnifying the land value, you can you can then build upon that value by building the appropriate house on it. So I I think that people are probably going to try and even the smaller lots put as much house on it as they can, which

Oh, you'll have to. I mean, I think someone once told me it's like 25% whatever you pay whatever you pay for that lot. Your house has to be 75 or four times what that lot's worth. So, if you bought a half a million dollar, you got to have a $2 million home on it. Yeah. To justify it. But I don't know. That's not my line of work.

Makes sense to me. It's not mine either, but that's I think that's what we see out there. I think that's what we see is you can't afford to build a small house on a on an expensive lot. And it's I say that intending it to be funny, right? Like if you have to invest that much money in the land, you you're you're wise to then invest additional amounts in the house to to add it all up and and build something of value. Well, if you guys are done, I'll look for a motion to adjourn. This is Commissioner Mitchell. I move that we adjourn. Second. I have a first and a second to adjurnn. All in favor? I I Thank you guys. Thanks for coming.