Planning Commission & Land Use Authority - Regular Meeting

Welcome to planning commission meeting for the March 18th uh 2026 meeting. Uh we'll start this meeting off with a prayer from Commissioner Mitchell and a pledge from Commissioner Davis. Our dear heavenly father, we're thankful to have this opportunity to meet tonight for planning commission and land use meetings. We're grateful to be here. We're thankful for the opportunity to uh be involved in these departments. We pray as we go throughout our meeting tonight, throughout the agenda, that we can cover each item and that uh thoughts and ideas can be shared in a productive way that we can help to uh better our city. We're grateful for all those who continue to serve and and help out in our city and pray that would continue to help us all that we can do our part. We thank thee we pray and do so in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.

To the flag of the United States of America and to the stands one nation and justice for all. All right. Before we start and I look for approval of the agenda, we need to modify the agenda a little bit and move 4B in front of 4 A. Just it'll all make sense in a minute if we can get a mo. Do we need a motion on that? Yeah, if you'll ask the commission to just move to amend as you outlined.

Yeah, move to amend it. So, we will do 4B and then 4 A. Second that motion. No, I need to have a motion. I can't make Commissioner Davis. I move that we uh switch places in the agenda for planning commission to move 4B into the first spot and move 4 A down to the former 4B. This is Commission Mitchell. I second. I have a first and a second. All in favor? I. All right. Now, I need an approval, a motion to approve the of the agenda now that we've modified it. This is Commissioner Mitchell. I move that we approve tonight's agenda with the modifications noted. Davis seconds. I have a first and a second. All in favor? I.

I. Uh, item two is approval of the planning commission minutes from March 4th, 2026. We've had those and had a chance to look over them and look for a motion to approve. Commissioner Davis, I move that we approve the planning commission minutes from March 4th, 2026. This is Commissioner Mitchell. I second. I have a first and second. All in favor? I

I. Item three is declaration of abstensions and conflicts. Does anyone have any with tonight's meeting? All right. So item 4B, the reason we move this to the front is the applicant has asked us to table this again until the 15th. There was some sort of medical emergency with him. So we're going to table it until April 15. April 15th. And this will be the last time that they can table it without regoing through everything and doing it all over again. Correct.

That's correct. Uh the decision to table is the commission's to make and if the commission feels like it's not appropriate, they can decline that tonight if they would like. It is a practice of the city to allow an applicant up to two tables. And I might want to just explain the policy under that is at some point the purpose of a public hearing and the public information just gets lost the longer we let things wait and and and dangle. And so that's that's kind of an unwritten rule, but it's one that we've followed. We we don't usually get there. Um the city is aware of the medical incident for the applicant, and we we believe that to be a truthful thing and an impactful thing. And so that that also leans into the recommendation that you table it again.

So yeah, we'll need a motion to table this. This is Commissioner Mitchell. I move that we um table this item. It's four 4B until our next meeting which will be April 15th. Commissioner Tupo. I second that. I have first by Commissioner Mitchell, second by Commissioner Tupo. Individual voting. Commissioner Davis. Commissioner Mitchell. Commissioner Tupo. I Commissioner Gear I Commissioner Bulock I'm an I as well. So you people that are here for the item 4B.

Yeah item item 4B is the Antigua Lane zone change. Some of you were here before when we told you come back on the and we'll take care of it. Um that's being continued one more time to April 15th. Go ahead sir. Let me ask a question. Not on the substance of it. I can I can answer process questions for you.

Because he's had an amputation. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. We we we can't neither is the city. Yeah. Try to be fair and just in our process. Again, I'm not I'm not taking questions on the content. I'll take questions on the process just so I can make sure you're informed. Sir,

I'm saying the applicant has asked that it be continued till April 15th and the commission has voted on a motion to approve that continuation till April 15th. Yep, sir. Correct. This meeting's proceedings tonight are the notice to the public. Ma'am,

there there was a process. You just witnessed the process. Yeah. Correct. Yeah. Annoying, ma'am. This will be the second. This is the first table. Second table. It'll be the third meeting. So, they had their initial first meeting that was noticed by mailings. That was tabled till tonight. Tonight's table will give it a third date, but it was only the second table. You follow that math?

Let me explain it again. There's been with today's tableling, there's now a third meeting date. The first meeting date was the meeting date that was sent out in mailers and noticed publicly as a public hearing. that was tabled to a second meeting date, which is tonight's date. Tonight's table will table that meeting to a third meeting date. So, there's been two tables, but three meeting dates because the first meeting date wasn't a table date. It was just the first scheduled date for the public hearing.

The commission's welcome to do that if they choose. Any other questions on the process? Thank you. It's important to me that you understand it, especially when you're here. So, I'm happy to answer those questions. Thank you. We'll let them clear out and we'll start.

Commissioners, if you have ideas on contribution to future policy changes on how we do things like that, I think that those would be welcome and we can try and work and see if there's changes you'd like to make. I think the biggest challenge becomes the question of mailing it out every time and perhaps we do something like attach to the applicant's request a table to table the requirement that there be enough time as well as the expense paid by the applicant to renotice it for example right and so if you have ideas there let's not let those stop tonight let's let's keep those in mind and see if there's changes that you would like to see

I I I like that idea of the second if they're going to the table it the second time that they should have to re the applicant should have to pay to renotice it but in this sense where it was medical I I I don't feel like yeah I I you know how long ago did the city find out about the medical issue you know when that was it was that first initial hearing is is when we found out about it the day of so it got tabled but then we found out there was a medical issue remember he wasn't present. Yeah, that but two weeks. It seems to me like we could easily have

a page online for each issue that when something happens that changes, we can immediately update. We can keep that page like live real time all the time. So if there's any changes, we're posting it there and then everybody else can just go to that before they time out their schedule because it's super annoying to have this many people come out and then to have to close that. It's just I wonder about something like that. Your ideas for better ways Elden and I or to Elden and he and I can work on those and I imagine some form of just a written policy document that the commission adopts that applies when there's tableings of an agenda item.

Okay. One thing one thing I think we could do is anybody that comes for for a particular application if it gets tabled I mean we' already taken like roll and stuff people that are here you can put their name like their emails down on there and maybe we send out an email when the next meeting will be so that way we don't have to mail out a notification but at least the people we're here can get renotified by m by email if they want to. say if anyone wants you noticed with your email. I like that because then it doesn't cost anything.

Something to keep in mind though, we can't officially table an item until you as the body approves that. So, if there's any gray area that, you know, may not be certain that it's going to be tabled, it's hard to be hard. Yeah, because they're not going to know. I mean, it does you do forget about the notice. I like that idea. So, tonight's meeting was set in stone two weeks ago. Four weeks a month ago. Four weeks ago, right? And

is that is that when I'm here?

Yeah, it was a month. of tonight's meeting date and that agenda item and staff cannot take that off at their administrative level. That's something that the commission sets and adds and removes. And so I I believe that there probably are newer and better ways to get information out there. Um, we could give a notice such as the applicants requested for a table and per policy of the planning commission, it appears to meet the policy and so we anticipate that the commission will approve it because it meets their policy. We could do a notice like that. Real concerned citizens, they probably ought to show up anyway just to make sure, right? But yeah, I think there's things we could probably do that are a little better than just have them all show up and then send them away till another one.

Maybe they could also submit their concern to be included in the next meeting.

That's another one where this this is a good example for discussion because at the table we also were informed that there might be some changes coming forth, right? And so if I were one of these citizens, I would be cautious to not let that discussion of changes happen without me present either. So I I would want to make sure I make the meeting and probably feel some frustration that I made the meeting and it still didn't happen. And so I don't know that we can solve all of those issues, but I think if a city can be better at information and better at notification, it's probably something we should take pride in if we can. I wonder if there's room in the bylaws to make executive decisions without getting a quorum together and making a formal decision like that. I wonder if there's room if we know it's likely to be tabled and we know that there's a practice where it is. Like I wonder if there's bylaws to create a mechanism whereby it simplifies to put something on the agenda that says issue likely to be tabled or whatever.

Yeah. Uh, I think a policy could create that clarity if we don't already have it. Um, even if it was a policy that just said, you know, on on a written request of the chairman, um, the chairman is authorized to table something up to two times, right? So just because one of your leaders, the commission's chairman, and then he just let you know, hey me of these circumstances on those on that basis, I've tabled this, so it'll be off your next agenda. That would give us some clarity to let people know, too, before the meeting's actually impanled.

Yeah. It just depends on how long we know beforehand, too. Because if it was, how many times does that happen the night of that they want to table it and they don't let you know weeks out?

Yeah. Tonight's tonight's reason is I would say one of the rare reasons. The most common reason I think is an applicant that sees some adversity and maybe wants to go retool some things before the hearing and the vote. Right? That's probably the most common reason that a table ends up happening is it gets to where there's adversity and rather than go to a vote, they want to rejig a little bit. That's probably the most common. And the city's been willing to let applicants do that because it is appears to that that they're trying to be responsive to the feedback, right? And I would argue that that's probably a good reason to table is to let them try and go adjust to some feedback. Tonight's is an interesting one because yeah, it's that's We are aware of medical reasons at least in addition to other reasons that might be out there.

Yeah. And two tables is just so different than one. Two two in a row. That's brutal. Um. Yep. All right. Forward your ideas. Elder and I will work on something and see if we can come up with a plan. Um, hopefully we aren't trying to get too good at tables because hopefully they aren't very off. Very common. All right. Item 4 A is request to amend city code 10-3-3 preliminary plat form and content applicants push and GULE and it was reviewed by Elden. I guess I'll let you take it over.

Thank you commissioners. I just want to reiterate the applicant is Bush and Gudgel here. Um, and to kick kick that off here, um, we met with the applicant on this piece here to discuss development. And in this pre-development meeting, the, uh, 15t required landscape strip came up. And two examples here of what a double frontage lot is, is just north of Whammers. Some of you may not know what double frontage lot is. So, I just kind of want to explain that and be clear as to what we're proposing to amend. So, just north here, um, we've got two subdivision. Desert Meadows, which is on the right of this photo, and that's a 15t landscape buffer. I hope you guys have had a chance to drive past that and kind of visualize the depth of that 15 foot. And then on the left hand side of the screen is uh Heritage Place and that's a 10-ft landscape strip. As you get closer to Heritage um or the gas station here Whammers, it it kind of widens up and turns into like a 13 12 or 13t strip, but to the north there is a true 10 foot. These are great examples as they're side by side and allows us to see the 15t compared to the 10 foot. Two more examples of this are down south off of Hayfield Drive. This red dot here again on both sides of the street. These examples are 10- foot wide landscape strips currently in place.

And with that, the applicant has asked to amend the 15 ft requirement to 10 ft. Uh the new verbiage of this section of the code would read that this landscaping shall show a minimum 10-ft landscape strip along the boundary of the subdivision where the proposed plan shows double frontage lots. The landscape strip shall be designed to have a minimum of 10% live growth in the form of trees, shrubs or ground cover. And staff supports this amendment as we feel the uh depth there is minimal as the average person typically doesn't recognize that 5- foot difference and the sound attenuation impact would be minimal. And I'm happy to answer any further questions you may have. So, is it only the 15 foot on the straight zoning and because it's a PUD, they get to offset it and go to the 10 foot. Is that why we're having them side by side?

The the the standard is 15 foot. Uh PUB they have the option to ask um for relief there. Uh kind of a give and take. So quite often those PUDs come in with a 10-ft landscape strip, which is why we have those in the city. They they've been given that 10 foot. If they don't ask for uh the 10T in their PUD, they're held to the 15T standard.

Okay. You guys have any thoughts on it?

I have some thoughts on it. Um, I'm against it. I do notice the difference between the 10 and 15 ft. This is actually a really good example. It's by my home and I drive by it all the time. And what I've noticed is that when you do the 10ft strip, you can basically plant a bush in the middle of it. And that's different than when there's a 15 foot strip where you can do layers. And I think especially on a big corridor like Washington Fields Road, it makes a it makes a difference in how it feels when you're driving down that road, when you've got landscaping that goes a little that creates a little bit more of a buffer between you and whatever is in that person's backyard, whether it's RVs or a big fence or whatever else is there that's conflicting with what is now happening on the other side of that fence on this big thoroughare. I I think that it does make a difference and and I know you know the the it was put forward that you know most people's eyes won't notice that and I think in some context that's true. It depends on how rich the landscaping is and whatever but I've noticed that when it's a 10-ft strip it often turns into gravel with a bush up the middle of it. And I don't think that that is enough on a big road like this. I think it's nice to have discretion at times for PUB when you can make exceptions on other roads where it's less important and there you need a little less of a buffer. But we got a major thoroughare right here. I think when you're going down right there and I look on the left versus the right, it feels different. And it's one of those little nuance things that stack up over time that create the whole vibe of our city and that determine how it feels to drive around on our roads. Um, let's see if there was anything else I wanted to share.

I think I think that's that's basically how how I feel about it. This Commissioner Davis, I just had a similar observation to to what you were saying as I was looking at these as well. And what is what is officially the relationship between sidewalk and then when you have these these strips? Is there any are they typically congruent or do we just not necess are they all kind of depends on where you are and what's what's been uh I guess negotiated and and agreed upon. Yeah, there's a lot of standards. You know, as we were out driving around looking at landscape strips, some of the sidewalks are meandering through the landscaping. Some of the developments have given a designated righthand turn, such as Queens Ridge. Uh so some of their landscape starts off at, you know, a 20 25 foot and then narrows down to a 10 to to accommodate. There's there's a lot of moving factors here. So the and at what point is it required? Is that the size of the road that it borders or is it strictly on all subdivisions? You got the 15 foot.

I was just trying to visualize like even just a little bit further north on this road when you get to Heritage Fields, is their landscaping still 10 feet or does it eventually dive back into 15?

It's smaller. back in. Um, you know, old standards you slip through, get um the stand that they're held to today is any lot that's double fronting. So, if your driveway is internal to the subdivision in the back backyards butdding up to one of these major corridors, we're requiring that 15oot landscape strip. And then I apologize and Pete might have just asked the same question in the first, but why was 115 on this side and then the other side of the street 10.

One on the right is straight zoned. Didn't ask if they were held to the standard. The one on the left PUD. So they come came in with their zoning showing a 10-ft landscape strip and and it was approved that way. And is that from back of curb or back of sidewalk? Is that what uh it's usually a foot off the back of sidewalk depending on where the rideway ends. Sometimes it's one foot beyond the sidewalk. This larger road, uh it's probably 2 feet beyond the the sidewalk cuz the rideway is just a little bit bigger there.

So, I mean, we got your standard sidewalks four feet, five. So, then you only have 5T of landscape basically after that. or is it 10 feet? So, we're 15 from back of curb, 10 from back of sidewalk on straight zoning or on the 10 foot. That's my qu that's where I'm confused. Yeah, you if you if you got the answer. Thanks, Bob.

Yep. Bob Hermanson, appreciate the comments. Uh so, just just a small amount of background. Um, so so these items for for me and that's why I I'm personally the one that submitted the application is that so I deal with this with all the cities, right? And they're they're bearing most most of the other cities are at 10. That's just laying brick work for you. Um, where I run into issues is just from a density perspective. Um, it it hurts density. Does it have its does it have its place for sure. Should it be 15 on larger scale roads like that was pointed out earlier? I I could get my head wrapped around that. But if that's the case in in the applications that that I deal with, that's 5% of the time. So now we have a code based on that discussion is references 5% of the time. Maybe a maybe a suggestion would be that we define a rightaway that's larger and everything from there up is at 15. Everything that's down below that's in a smaller 50 foot rideaways and inside the internal subdivisions then then it's it's a little bit tighter because it's slower, it's not noisy, there's less traffic. There's those things. So that would be my my discussion. But across the board, that's what I'm running into just citywide is that it's 15 no matter where I'm at. It's not scaled to anything. It's just 15. And in my opinion, um to to somebody that's observant to to the uh the extra 15 ft, no question. You can see it. Um is it justified with the current landscape uh standards? In my opinion, if it's done to your current standards of landscaping, the landscaping is great. It handles it very well. It buffers the noise. It buffers the sound. It buffers the pedestrian differences between the back of sidewalk and the wall. Um, and so, um, in this scenario, this is a bit dated, is that those larger areas are the old school landscape standards and there isn't as much landscaping, but your current standards aren't, I think, are great. I think they they really do accomplish it.

And so the combination of the new standard of the landscaping with the 10- foot and then potentially a consideration of like maybe you consider it from 80 80 foot right away and larger. Um which this is I can't remember what's washing the fields right here. It's really large. It's 106.

It's 106. Yeah. So obviously this is way larger than even that is but maybe from there up that that would be the consideration. But the other item is that you have five foot sidewalk and then just as Elden said, depending on which rideway you're in, an additional foot to the rideway line and then another 10 ft is what I'm proposing right now. You would have five, one, so 16 plus 15, 21 ft of nothing. Now you have somebody to landscape it, somebody to maintain it, all of those things. And you have a huge corridor, you know, now because that's a landscape that's outside the 6 foot rightway. So in that case you'd have an additional 32 feet of space.

How did we get to 32 feet from 15? Walk me through that. Both sides both sides of the road. Yeah. Yeah. So now your scale of this road is is is already really big with no landscape strip and and then it's it's it's very significant is the point.

I mean I like the idea of scaling it according to the size of the road. I got on my kids' scooter a week or two ago and I rode down all this road and over into Industrial to go get a truck that I had done had some work done on. And when you're riding on a scooter or on a bike, you can feel it. It just feels different having a little more of a buffer. It feels nicer. You're going to attract more kids out to play. You're going to get more people walking on those roads. There's just like we want to entice people out to walk on on these big sidewalks that we're investing in. And I think that it feels different when you're walking in a narrower corridor versus a larger one. So I still think that personally I don't want to trim the code down to the narrowest exception. Right now you're saying, "Well, we don't want to make the code the broadest exception." And I'm saying, yeah, and I don't want to make it the narrow exception either because there are lots of thoroughares that I think need that bigger that bigger um space. So I wonder what it could look like to do some kind of a scaled

Yeah, there probably just be it wouldn't be a a graduating scale in my opinion. It would just be one like meaning there's two division there's one two scenarios. There's either under 80 or over 80. It's either 10 and 15 that it would get super complicated to keep track of if it got crazy. Yeah. But if it like was but like if you had the larger roads um that were large that were 15 and then uh other ones um I think it'd be close. Yeah. Our our 80 foot roads are only going to be two lanes in a turn lane basically. Correct. No, you would have on the 80s you would have you'd have five. Yeah. Yeah, you'd have two two travel lanes each direction and then a painted median

on 85 in the 80s, right? Yeah. There you go. Yeah. So, what from under 80? They're l What's Sandia? Three lanes 2008, whatever you want to call it. 66. Yeah, that one. It's not supposed to be a major one, but it is until we get our lighting that's going. got a five foot wall though that you feel when you drive through that area, right? You can you feel the closeness of that and that's Yeah, because it's it's it's tucked in tight because the old standards they're right on property line. I do like I do like landscape strip. I understand what you're saying, but if we do this I think

is is probably a good example of no landscape strip like there like there is a good that's a good example of we need something. Yeah. And I think Yeah. And I think I I think a 10 foot is is fair on that. Like we're saying under 80 they go 10 ft cuz it's not as it's not as wide of a road. But I also think that if we're going to we need to stop the PUDS from asking to go to a 10 because that caused the problem on the field road. I was going to ask about that. Why? Like it seems like it was in a it was in a PD

staff have a guideline for like I I don't see why staff would give a 10-ft PDD on that big of a thoroughare. Why did we do that? Is there like some kind of guideline that you're following there or is it just kind of like ask for it? Yeah. So yeah, missed it. Yeah, that one probably got missed. Yeah. I I can't say that there's a staff rule that allowed that made that one per se allowable. Yeah. Yeah.

We had pull up our master transportation plan um just so you could get a an idea of what we're talking about with the different roads. So with the discussion of of our 85 or above, so our ma our minor arterials and our major arterials. So the pink and the yellow roads would be the ones that we're referencing that would keep the 15t and anything orange blues would all stay with the 10 foot. So you're talking Washington Dam Road, you're talking um Telegraph, you're talking Fields Road, um Merrill. What goes in front of uh the intermediate school?

The what school? the intermediate school. Um, that's Washington Fields Intermediate. What that road that goes down? I don't know the Majestic Majestic Drive, but it changes. Nton's got a goes back and forth. Mandering, but it would be it would be the 10. I say, but the landscape currently on that road has the meandering trail that that goes along it. So, it's got to be areas of 15. Yeah. If you if we end up with a master plan trail in there, that would tweak it again because of the fact that there's a master plan trail. So then it would have to we can we can make it work with

even the 15 because we would take the sidewalk out and and you'd have a full 15t from back of curb to, you know, the the privacy wall that we could meander meander the trail through and still have your landscaping around that. So just out of curiosity, what would it look like to do one click lower? Like if if this is the 80 foot, what's the next one below that? That's your blue. That's that's the main collectors. Yeah. The other that's that's a significant portion of of not a middle ground. Yeah.

It's because a lot of those roads, you know, where kids are biking to school, those are the kinds of roads where you want a more attractive, you know, path for those kids. But it looks like there's not a middle ground between the two. Yeah, I would say once you get down to those major collectors 66 and stuff, you're I would I would our recommendation would be if you want to go with with with the proposal that Bob's talking about is yeah, we go with the minor arterials and the major arterials with with the wider 15 foot and from there down we'd go with the 10 foot. That's that's how I that's what I would say. And like I said, just make it so that even the PUDs can't suck it in

because that's what throws that's what that's the biggest on one side and the other it doesn't look right. I mean, yeah, they they have the right to ask for it, but we need to change it so that they can't in the PUDS just because it makes it harder. I mean, because it slips through and we miss it. There's so much else going on in the PUDS. Sorry. No, sorry I interrupted you. Um, that would actually solve my planning issue if it was 66 and up, right? That's what we're saying. 85 and up.

85, I'm sorry. 85 and up. Then I would know when I'm trying to plan a community because it doesn't sound like much to you guys, but when I'm trying to design the entire site and the amenity package and the building footprints and the whole thing and we just wrap this whole thing in one big package, that extra five or six feet, it's surprising how many times it it breaks a project. like it it it it really does. I'm not exaggerating. Like it really does make a difference. And so, but yeah, if it was that 85 and above and and then then I know and then then it's then it's it feels flexible right now because it's so big. But if it wasn't and this was a 10 and in the in the 15 and that line in the sand is there, then I know from this time forward it's not flexible. Like it's it's 10. And then all of a sudden now I'm not bringing it forward. the risk on your guys' end when it shows up with me or anybody else that it gets missed is gone in my opinion and it really helps it right. So that would be great with me. I think that's a great idea. Charles

chairman, I might interject here and just kind of pull back to talk more about process. This is really good discussion and I think it's the discussion that the applicant had hoped to have with you. So thank you for having that. Um there's there's several methods to how city code changes. One of them is by request of a citizen or an applicant. And so that's the process tonight. We allow those to happen maybe once every two years is the pace that those are coming right now. Not I wouldn't call them common but they happen. Uh the last one was from a a company that installs and maintains metal awnings and you some of you will remember that. So they came and discussed a couple times a change to the city's code about awnings. So that's the provenence of this one. That's how it got here. This one went through some internal discussion with staff and arguments can be made on both sides, but the question was, is this a land use ordinance? Because state law requires all land use ordinances be subject to a public process and a public hearing. So tonight's purpose was to have that that process and then your role is to recommend and amend and work on it and send something to the city council. They're the ones that'll decide whether or not to pass anything. But yeah, so tonight's role is I advocated that this is close enough to land use close enough to land use applicants that we should treat it like a land use ordinance and give it a public process. So that's that's what we're doing and I think it's been a great discussion. So any motion tonight doesn't have to say we approve the application. It would be we recommend it to the city council for consideration. And I think you can add some of these ideas to it. And

yep, it can go to the city council looking a little different than you received it because of the review and recommendation step. that's part of the the land use law change process. Um, saying that as well and knowing that the Washington dam road very well where that would be enforced on a wider landscape. I mean, yeah, I'm a little biased because I have property on there and my landscape's not 10 ft, but I'm industrial. So, does this apply to the industrial as well? I mean, it's not like you can make me change it at this point, but

you might have some grandfathered,

right? I mean, we've been there for a while, but I mean, if it's if it's industrial and it's a major collector, I don't see that being an issue with the the big setbacks because they are wanting more land. It's not it's not a walkable area. It's not you don't have as much in the industrial areas. In the commercials, yes. And residential, yes. But when you get to the industrial, I don't think we need to be landscaping it all the way out on these major collectors. I mean, they need as much road as they can if we can. We're already giving them the wider roads there. And I believe we need wider roads and a lot of our industrial areas, but for the landscape, too. It's going to shrink our sizes that we already have out there. And we need more bigger lots for that other that's just a something that I was bringing up because if it's industrial

and it's a major collector we don't we all we also talked about in the past we haven't ever done anything about it but we've talked about because on a lot of PDS we've kind of recommended this land we've it's oftent times preferable to to shrink the the landscaping um the corners so they can have a you know a right in or a right hand turn and a lot of times because of the landscaping they can't put one so then you have more traffic issues and I think it's the same thing if it makes sense in industrial or right turn lanes corners you know right right turn lanes or whatever into commercial property

that should be 15 foot buffer in that area not yeah just in prioritize better traffic over having a ton of So, is that commercial or specifically industrial? Well, what what Cory's saying is for your right your right turn lanes where where you pill off to turn in, which we want that so that it's not backing up and the landscape should be able to shrink down right there because it is a turn lane and if you are on your bike or something, you need to be paying attention cuz it is a turn in lane. So if if we allow them to have some of that as a right turn lane in on corners, I think that's a good idea.

Like I said, this is just a process. We're not approving any of it tonight, but it's a thought and I think that that should be exempt or part of the landscape where they turn in on at Whammer, for example, when we were talking about that originally, they weren't going to have that that ride in there because of the landscaping thing. That was one thing that we kind of amended to make sure they had those right ends on that which helps traffic a ton. Yeah. If we would have 15 buffer, they may not have been

Yeah. It feels like it it's pretty dependent on the street because even where it might be industrial like there we've got another issue coming up on, you know, First East or whatever that is down at the bottom. Um they're wanting to change it, you know, from residential to commercial, whatever. But where there's residential around it, again, we want the continuity of having it feel like a kid can get on a bike and travel that and it's going to feel good. Parents can go on a walk and it's going to feel good from point A to point B, even if you pass a little bit of something that is zoned differently. But when you're out on out on Washington Dam where it's like a mile of industrial, that's so different. And so how do we how do we how do we find a policy here that aligns and balances the different interests elegantly? It's

I think with residential I mean you I think the 80 you know the 85 foot road and above is a really good idea for that. Like I mean I I went through and I drove a lot of them but I also looked through you know Google maps and and looked at all these different ones and with 15 foot you do you get two layers of landscaping. Now with that said it depends on how much money they spend on the landscaping. Yeah, looks nice and some people it's just a sea of gravel

look nice but but you're right you go to 10 foot and it is a single you know single tier but I think that's a great idea what what you said that big roads need it smaller roads don't but I think industrial they need we need to prioritize the industrial land and that can maybe go to five foot or something commercial size road it is whether it's 85 and above 8500 we happen to have commercial come into that it's it has those same discussed we have an exception where you know turning lanes can cut into you know to the landscape requirements that combined with the eliminating the PUB option right

I think that's a pretty good balance that seems like a pretty good middle ground yeah a little more uniform to extend that on the industrial commercial areas we have ordinance the standard for those industrial and commercial areas part is 10 ft of landscaping. Thanks. I still think we should say look commercial can go can go into the landscape area four four turns if need be.

One one other point to this just and I think we're all in agreement about 85 and above. But one part with it, I agree it looks better to have more landscaping, but from a financial standpoint, I mean, I just just looking at it like let's say you got, you know, 60 70 lots in a subdivision and, you know, you're you're taking five feet off the back of them. That's about one lot worth, right? So, let's say that's about $3,000 per lot that you've added in cost. But it's not just that. What what Bob is saying is sometimes the whole thing doesn't fit anymore because of your roads and everything. Like I was looking at a project here just as an example and it would like taking five feet off like that would cause you to lose like 10 lots on the other side just because it adding $30,000 per lot of expense just to add

the extra five feet there. And and like you said, that'll make it to where project just doesn't work. And so sometimes it just doesn't make sense at all. And and people are always like, "How do we make housing more affordable?" One one way we do is, you know, the more exactions that you you make from the city, you're taking from, you know, the land owner to, hey, you want this project, so you got to do this, this, and this. There's a balance of you, you do some things if it makes it nice, but if it makes it so expensive that no one can ever live there, then it defeats the purpose. Yeah,

I think that makes sense. And I think you know a lot more about like that side of it. I think just as somebody who's not as deeply experienced in that side of it. For me, I think about where I live, Heritage Fields, it it just has this little tiny setback that that is it's not aesthetically beautiful. Anybody who wants to sell their home in our neighborhood, whoever is driving with their realtor along there, they're turning in there. The property values are going to be worth less and the kids are less likely to go get on on on the path. So I think it's like a balancing of all that like we have to build for long term what do we want our city to feel like in 10 years and 20 years for our kids and their kids and at the same time how do we increase density how do we do it elegantly and how do we make sure that everybody's kind of paying their part of it. Everybody's kind of like we're all chipping in to make this nice, not just it's not too burdensome on one individual builder or the city or whatever.

Well, ultimately it's the people buying the houses that Yeah. that pay for it. Yeah. I mean, so with that said, I I think I think up is great for the 50. Smaller than that is good for 10. commercial and industrial stay like they are but we allow right returns on commercial and industrial so this is a public hearing and I'll open this up to the public if anyone would like to speak on this one

Jared Bates with Rosenberg says want to give me my two cents I feel like that the landscaping should be independent of the zoning should be based on on the rideway so for example you know perfect example right here what you're looking at you've got Whammers on the left here it's got this smaller landscape, you know, does it, you know, the people in the street don't know what the zoning is. You know, you drive by and like, hey, it's it's smaller. This is weird, like you said. So, to me, I think it should be just based on on the rideway specifically. And I think um you know, obviously, if you're commercial or industrial, you've got a there's a a setback there independent, right? So, and typically there's there's landscape requirements, maybe you can get around um maybe get more credit for landscaping somewhere else as part of the site. So that was my thought and I think um as far as uh the road size question I agree with you know that 85 and and lower should be um sorry yeah should just be the 10 feet because sometimes um you know like Bob said uh you know if you're like in a regular subdivision you hey it's R110 those are harder to make work versus like a peed you know it's like the the R110 should get the credit not the peed to have more more perks or opportunities for landscaping either around so that's my thought

thank Thank you. Anyone else? Okay, we'll close the public hearing portion of this and we'll look for a motion. Approve it with what I'm what I'm feeling here. We It looks like an approval, but we'll approve it with our recommendations of what was discussed tonight to city council to let them change just for are talking about commercial and that wouldn't particularly apply to this though or would it?

So we do not want to convolute the two. It absolutely. Yeah. And I was going to go there. This this is Yes, you hit the nail on the head with that. Commercial industrial has their own area that a different standard that they're held. 85 foot and smaller are 10 foot and then larger than that are 85 and above. And small 85 and above 15. Okay. Yeah, I would say greater than or equal to. Okay. I'll make a motion then.

Um I'll make a motion to recommend approval to amend city code 10-3-3 section C subsection 2V preliminary platform form and content. And where we at? As outlined with the with the addition to say that all all rideways 85 ft and larger. Correct. 85 ft and larger stay at the 15t landscape strip. And all rightways, all public rideways smaller than that go to 10 foot. landscape strip and and that PUD zoning is not exempt from this uh requirement.

Davis seconds that motion. I have first by Commissioner Anderson and second by Commissioner Davis. Individual voting. Commissioner Anderson I. Commissioner Davis I. Commissioner Mitchell I. Commissioner Tupelo. I'm an A on this one.

I'm Commissioner Bullock. I am an I as well. So, we'll send this to city council with a recommendation for approval. Item 4 C, G-26-01, request to amend the general planned land use map from from the B US business to the MHD located at 920 South and 100 East. The applicant is Jared Bates. And we will turn this time over to Elden. The applicant is proposing to change the general plan land use map to medium high density here from business park for the purpose of developing the area into an attached town home development. the surrounding general plan. Pull that up. Is PUB to the PUDC to the north, open space to the east, business park to the south, and industrial to the west. existing uses and zoning surrounding the site. Here's the zoning map. You can see include PUC to the north, which are storage units. PUDC to the east, which is the river wash area. PUDC to the south, which is vacant land slated to be commercial, and industrial to the west, which includes Geneva Pipe and the FM Medical Facility. Staff has reviewed the requested change, visited the site, and reviewed long-term

planning for this area. staff does not feel comfortable with the proposed amendment as it creates conflict in land use adjacency compatibility with both existing and future uses. The shift from an employmentbased business park designation to residential creates an interface conflict. The operational requirements of the surrounding industrial uses and future businesses are highly likely to negatively impact the residential life, safety, and quiet enjoyment of future residences at this location. Staff recommends the planning commission recommend denial of G-26-01 as outlined above and that's due to the interface conflict of uses as previously stated. and this will be passed along to city council. I'm happy to answer any further questions you may have at this time.

I have a question. Why would you propose something that you want to deny? Applicant has applicant has the permission to ask whatever he wants from us whether staff agrees with him or not. Correct.

Well, the administrative process and the land use process doesn't stop just because staff might not see it as as good or adequate. Um, and so we'll bring it to you. doesn't have to make a recommendation, but as cities develop and build out the ORC chart, it's very common that there'll be somebody that represents a position from the city on on the application. Okay. Thank you.

Do you guys have any questions or should I open this up for public comment? All right, we'll open up item 4 C to public comment if anyone here would like to speak to this. And Wes Davis is actually on the line. I know Wes, do you want to start? Can you hear me?

Uh, yeah, happy to answer any questions uh if there are any. Thanks for for having me on. I think it's important for the planning commission to note that this process was started oh I think four years ago uh when there was some debate over the property and the use of the property and the family that uh was going through some legal challenges and we worked closely with the city at that time so that we would purchase the upper section and the city would purchase the lower section which uh the city then did that is potentially going to be cemetery, parks, whatever, lots of different uses. But at that time when we had the discussion with the city and uh dad uh was a part of some of those discussions so he could probably confirm somewhat of what I'm saying. We brought in a plan that had originally shown, hey, this is our intent and we did three or four different renditions which showed this parcel being town homes or multifamily type development and then the rest of it being commercial and even across the street we have that little 4 acres triangular piece that was also going to be uh commercial. Had some storage units designed on it, some other things, lots of things that we went through. So, the request that we're coming in now should not not be a surprise. It was in line with uh kind of what we presented to the city back then. When we came through for our plan amendment to go to the PDC, uh it was suggested that we just put in a bubble plan, which is what got approved. And in the PDC, residential is allowed as part of the use. And so, uh, again, it shouldn't be a surprise. It's been in discussions for years. This is what we've been presenting. The

applicant just feels that it, you know, he's ready to start, or I should say the owner, I guess I'm part of the applicant, but the primary owner, uh, wants to develop the property, feels it's time to start developing. And then the only thing that really makes sense at this time is to start with the residential so that we can build traffic count. We can build rooftops. We can start to build other things that will then support a future commercial development there on both sides of the corner on 100 east and industrial and also allows the city uh which I think the plan is to extend Maine and Maine will then connect onto this street. Uh I believe that's what the plan is to be and that's also going to take time that's not ready to go today. Um and so I guess the alternatives for the owner he's thinking man this is a great commercial opportunity for us and for the city long term it doesn't make sense to do it now. Uh the residential which is approve is allowed in the PDC does make sense to do now. Let's start with that and then any changes modifications are all going to come back through the city again. So, it's not like they can do anything without city approval in the future. It all comes back through the city again. And that way, the city gets a win, we get a win, we get to start now and kind of develop the property and build and get some momentum in the area. And I guess the other alternative is, hey, if we've got to develop now, the only other potential use is industrial and then eventually this will just all be warehouse and flex space and it's a lost opportunity for a potential really good commercial property, commercial corner. Uh, and so the request is consistent what we've talked to the city and proposed for years. It's nothing new or different. I know Elden may or may not have been he may have been on the back end of that. So, I can appreciate his stance and his comment. Um, and I don't fault him at all for that. That's his

position. It's fine. But I think it's important to note some of the context of kind of where we're coming from.

Chairman, if I may, since Wes referred to me, I'll I'll give you a little bit of response to that. Um, Wes is correct. There was a dialogue between the trusts realtors and the trusts trustees about land use concepts for the different parcels of land here. Um but he's also right that it was four years ago and a lot has changed. Um, just as a few examples, when that dialogue happened, there was in the main street interchange and that traffic pattern impact hadn't yet been felt by the city and the city now fills that and I think that flows into the recommendation tonight. Um, the property due north of this piece uh during the four years changed the zone and built and opened a uh storage unit, commercial storage unit facility. And so and so that one went from agricultural to commercial in the in the four years. The parcel due west went through its own change and now has a commercial office building on it and um the city has now planned for the first leg of the main street extension and I believe that's funded in the next year's budget. the budget that begins in July will have the first phase of that road project. And so, so I believe Wes told you the truth. I also believe that in the four years that have passed, circumstances have drastically changed in this region, and the applicant didn't come and oppose the storage units, didn't come and oppose the office building. And so, things have happened through the proper land use processes that have changed the conversation down there as well. But

does that does that change that our ability then to the potential of PDC of having commercial mixed in with residential that that didn't take away from the the provision in the PDC that allows for both or does that the PDC didn't vest any label on any piece of land. It was it was left more vague than that. I I do I don't think it changes the language of your approval. Um Okay. But it does, now that you've got commercial to the north and commercial to the west, I think that does impact staff's staff's review of of the application that it's received.

Sure. And that's part of the reason why we did want a little higher density multif family is also to transition instead of being single family standalone houses, these are affordable houses that are going to be standalone patio homes. So they're on that's the intent, right? I guess we haven't come in with the final plans design because we're trying to get through this step first, but the intent is to have affordable standalone patio homes or detached town homes, whatever you want to call that product. So, it is a little bit of a transition type zone versus straight single family residential.

I just going to piggyback off the zoning here. Um, you know, we have PUDR and PUDC. This whole property is zoned PUDC, which which is primarily commercialbased. Um, Wes is exactly right. They're allowed or permitted to do residential in their a mixeduse type product. conflict here is we don't we don't know how it's going to blend and mesh and coexist with the commercial. Um so I you know if a a property is zoned PUDC, you can't come in and build residential units. We need to see the the mixeduse component to how it blends, meshes, buffers, tapers, and and feels, which I mean, we can spend 10, 20, 30, $50,000 doing that now and then have it go down the toilet and then five, six, seven, eight years when it's viable commercial, do it again. But anything that comes in, there's a dividing road, right, that's going to be proposed in between uh the residential and the commercial. So there is a road that separates the two and then everything that comes along on the other side of the street will come before the city council and the planning commission and staff to get approved and they will have all the input to, you know, when it comes through and it's viable. just kind of seems like a waste of maybe time or not the best use of time and money to design 15 acres that's never going to be built exactly that way because just as the things have happened over the last four years, I'm sure things are going to change over the next four years, five years, whatever it is.

Okay. Yeah, this is the public hearing. Does anyone else have anything to say? Okay, we'll close the public hearing and if we have any questions for the applicant, we will we'll we'll ask. Sounds good. I'll mute myself. Um thoughts

just to clarify too this Commissioner Mitchell on the other corner Kitty corner from this development was another approval of storage and commercial I mean I remember that the theobald uh project as well. So they will be fully surrounded by industrial industrial commercial And it will be just an island of town homes in there. Think it's an appropriate spot for homes anymore.

I I I understand what he's asking, but he's asking for a zone a zone change, right? General plan amendment. Well, that would where it's already general planned PUD. Help me help me remember all this because I can't. If we're general planned PUDC, they can come in the 15 acres or whatever it is, 8 acres and this proposed medium high density, but if it was PDC, which is what it is right now, right? you can come in and have mixed use in there with houses in with it. And if I I think we're changing the zone. I don't I mean it is what they asked for at the beginning. I mean, and to have the storage units and everything else all the way around it, I I I don't love it. I don't like the idea myself. I mean, I whether whether if staff would have recommended approval or not, I still looking at it, it doesn't make sense.

Commissioner Davis, I mean, I I have I have the same concerns. I I look at this and, you know, we've been living through, you know, the bit of the Washington Dam Country Way situation. have homes that you know and this isn't to the scale of that but we I think we also you know have a responsibility to be to be sensitive to that and I I don't see the fit you you're talking about dropping 70 units in 70 homes 70 households it's going to be a you know I think when the dust settles I can see that as a very difficult living situation

Mitchell I I agree and I think commissioner Davis is well said. It's unfortunate that this individual that owns this piece of property has, you know, seen the changes. Like I get the frustration, right, trying to, you know, plan, but under the current circumstances and what has taken place, I do feel like it would create more of what you just said, Country Lane and the industrial out there towards the dump that is created multiple concerns and homeowners that are very unhappy and a conflict between commercial, industrial, residential. So, why create another situation just like that?

I I agree. The other question I have is we're not planning on a road going from 100 East over to 300 East Washington Fields Road right there. Correct. I mean, it just dead ends right there. That one there.

Uh, sorry. This is West. Yeah, there was a road at one time, but it's not connecting through. We would just go the road that we're talking about would just go be the access that's currently there that would go down towards John Kirkland's current property. And FAD knows where that is. It's right there on the map. Yep. I was just wondering if it was going to connect over on that road that just kind of dead ends right there. It looked like it originally that might have been a plan.

Yeah, originally uh an iteration of our master transportation plan one or two back 840 south was originally planned to come across and swoop up and connect across to 840 and stuff, but it was removed from the master transportation plan. And then yeah, then when that was removed, then the storage unit deal came in and so that kind of blocked the extension of 840. And then the 100 Main Street, it's going to come down. Where's I I know this isn't part of it, but I mean, they brought it up. Where's I've heard it a couple times in this. The main street's going to come down and

come down and then we'll swoop over um a little bit further north towards um Foothills over that way and it'll come down swoop over onto 100. We'll make an S-curve over onto 100 100 East. Yeah. So 100 east will come up and slide over and connect directly into Main Street and then we'll Can you So right now the city has uh township platted rightway farther south than than Main Street extends today. Yeah.

And then there's also township platted rightway at 500 South that's never been built. And so if you imagine, go a little higher there, Elden. You'll see that pink line past the green. So Main Street right now ends right where that pasture starts. And then that pink line is essentially already owned by the city. It'll be a little farther south, but essentially it'll take a a route connecting Foothill and then also connecting a proposed future road into St. George City that would create a east west route there between

essentially u m you know the exit 10 and 300 east kind of corridors. So that blue line that comes that's swooping up is going to go away. Yeah. Right. Yeah. It's what it'll just go up main street to the red one and go over. Yeah. red the pink that you see coming down on Main Street and where it turns blue it slides over to 100 East is generally about what we're looking to do with Main Street. Oh, so that is the the design for Main. Correct. So there's a there's a four-way intersection where Okay.

where Foothill and and Main Street will intersect and then on the south leg of that Main Street will and there's just kind of wild land along Mil Creek right there. But uh that main street route will eventually come over and make a southerntherly connection to 100 east and then the blue one will hook in in St. George where that's that's highly debatable. Right. I know. We don't know because it's St. George. That connection there is at this point in time looks like it's going to shift away from that location. Um, one of them that they're talking about is taking R840 South across, bringing it up over there by tagging go and pop

and bringing it in in right there. There is and then there's conversation about coming up further up there to like 400 South or something and coming across. But the middle one is the blue line that we have across is up for debate at this point in time. That one makes the most sense. So, that one's also subject to St. George City and the land owner um we don't we don't have the process that can exact that exact route from them and so it's a cooperative effort right I mean um both the landowner and St. George City seem to acknowledge that there needs to be a connection somewhere somewhere.

And so so we we feel like there's common ground that it'll happen, but exactly where is still subject to whatever plan it'll be. I think the last concrete planning we saw was related to like a medical center type project. And that one's road was a little different than this. It depends on what's going in basically.

Exactly. And that makes and that makes sense. But it will connect to St. George hopefully one day. Hopefully we're alive. Yeah. So, this is that what you're seeing on those those lines, those those general plan master plan lines is four years with the interchange opening on Main Street. The traffic situation at this land is just changed substantially. A very significant change and it's on the path to change a lot more here here in the next few budget cycles. Awesome. Thanks.

This is this is exactly why project we've had where people want to do a PUD peace mill and sort of treat PUD like zone straight zoning. This is the kind of mess you get because they you know it was it was granted PUDC four years ago with no plan what it was going to be and then there's no there's no entitlement there's no anything. It's just well it's just general plan PUDC. Oh but yeah

PUDC is what I'm saying with no plan. So I I I think I mean if they want to bring some sort of residential in there, I mean it's already zone PDC and they can do they can try some issues and and you he's right. It's going to cost some money to figure it out and try to figure but I mean that's what it's zoned now and if they want to bring some sort of of residential then they need to draw it up and show it's going to look like and show how in the world the traffic's going to work and how it's going to blend in. And that's what it's already zoned as. I don't see any reason to change it even if they want to bring in residential. I mean, they can put forth a plan or not, but wait though. I mean, I mean, it's it's a difficult area. It's a tough area for for traffic and everything else and and you'll sell it and then the people that live there, they'll complain about all the industrial and commercial all around them even though they've been there for ever and ever.

That that wouldn't happen. Yeah, never.

Yeah. I mean, I'll look for a motion if somebody wants unless you guys have any more questions on this. Uh, this is Commissioner Davis. I'll uh make a motion with respect to item G-26-01 uh to forward on to city council with a denial to the request to amend the general plan land use map for from business to MHD located at 920 South and 100 East. Do I have a second? Was that the right number? Yeah. 4C. He just he said action G-2601.

Um, this Commissioner Tupo. I second that. I have I have a first from Commissioner Davis and the second for Commissioner Tupo. Individual voting. Commissioner Anderson. I. Commissioner Davis. I. Commissioner Mitchell. I. Commissioner Tupo.

I. I'm Commissioner Bullock. I am an I as well. We will send this to city council with a recommendation for denial. Thank you. Uh item 4 D Z-26-05, a request to reszone approximately 11.5 acres located at 400 Western Maryland Road from the current R110 to the PUDC zoning designation. applicant is Nate Schaefer and we'll turn the time over to Elden.

The surrounding zoning to this site is PUDR to the north, unincorporated land to the east, which is county hasn't come into the city yet. R115 and R110 to the south, and St. George commercially zoned property to the west. The zone change request is for the purpose of developing the site into a commercial development proposal. I'll uh switch exhibits here. The proposal shows a 15- ft landscape buffer along the south B boundary for existing residential and a 10-ft asphalt trail adjacent to Melo Road which is part of the larger master plan trail network and that'll be an east to west corridor and to St. George as well. development is broken down into two different use lists with use list number one encompassing 9.49 acres. It's um outlined in red there and use list number two encompassing 1.96 acres and is outlined in blue and includes administrative professional type uses. A larger site will is asking for commercial type uses which we'll get into here in a minute. The applicant has asked to defer the site layout and design plan at this time and fully understands they will need to submit these plans and gain zoning approval prior to any work beginning on the project. Today's proposal is seeking approval to establish ingress and egress to the site along with the use list. Pull up this exhibit here. You can see

the proposed um ingress egress. Starting on left side is a right in ride out and then moving to the right is a full access movement which should line up with 400 west there. And then uh down around the corner is a right in right out as well. We can dig into the useless here. Uh I'd like to start with useless number two which applies to the smaller this blue area here. So if you keep this area in mind discussing these uses that they're proposing which include the first item administrative, executive, professional, medical and research offices. Line item number two is banking and other financial institutions. And lastly, mobile food vendor with a limit of no more than three vendors at any given time. And the purpose of that is to supplement existing businesses. um they they don't intend to have a uh use this site as a permanent food court area, but more of just just a benefit to the to the residents and a secondary use. Is there any items of discussion on those proposed uses before we move on? We can circle back if needed. The second use list number one, which is the larger site, um includes a a breakdown percentage of use. Down at the bottom here, you can see they're proposing 50% of the site will be retail, 30% of the site will be restaurant, and 20% of the site is office, which is a guarantee. um in in the next step of the approval process we will make sure that that

those percentages are hit followed through on line item number one is any permit permitted use list in the use list we just discussed uh line item number two is restaurants line item number three is retail sale and or rental of goods merchandise ICE conducted wholly within an enclosed building and that is applies only to inside sales only. Line item number four is one automobile vehicle lube service not to exceed.7 acres. Line item number five is recreation entertainment facilities not to include sexually oriented businesses. Line item number six technical schools which is indoor only and no auto mechanic related training. So I wanted to just focus on inside under roof type uses here. Uh number seven is reception center andor wedding chapel. Number eight is auditoriums, conference rooms, museums, theaters, and libraries. Light item number nine is retail sales of goods and merchandise, which may include display outside and enclosed building. And examples of this include artwork, beauty shop, bookstore, clothing, and florist. And lastly is medical clinic. Staff recommends the planning commission recommend approval of this zone change on to city council

based on the findings and conditions stated in staff report. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have at this time. This was just before us not too long ago, wasn't it? to change it to general plan amendment. I feel like we saw this just was that what it was? We took it out of what did we do? Took it removed it uh from low density general plan. Correct. To neighborhood comm. Okay. And that was two two and a half months ago.

Yeah. I just I couldn't remember the steps we did on this already. You can see this pocket here. They This will remain residential R110. I know they're planning to do bigger lots there. There will be no through connectivity. This road will continue north and then turn right or eastbound and connect onto 240. So what's that?

So this is going to Mitchell. I'm just curious why could why did this happen all at the same time on the first? It was just a general plan. Okay. So that's why I had to ask again too because I get confused because of the steps we have to take to do it. was general planned and then to non noncom.

It probably makes sense that we do general plan and zone change at the same time. But because of the state statutes about general planning and zoning, both of which are required of municipalities in exchange for municipalities given the right to adopt their own zone designations and zone definitions. It's technically impossible to do zoning and general planning at the same time because the zone must follow what the general plan then bakes in for it. And so it would also be an opportunity for the public to complain that they weren't given an opportunity at both steps to be heard of what the general plan should be and what the zone is. So, this certainly probably feels duplicative and it is in a lot of ways, but it's given the public the opportunity to come and comment one more time on a land use decision that vest rights and those rights, you know, lead to future uses and the public has a right to come and talk to us about that when we make those changes. Elden, I have a question. Remind me why we're like what the applicant's mindset is around cutting out that block for R110 out of that instead of just doing the whole thing commercial.

Good comments. Uh in that general plan amendment, it was discussed and brought up to transition and and Yeah. Oh, yeah. Because those are bigger homes, so it's going to go to a lower density right there to buffer it. Is that correct? Yes. So, they took that into account. They actually made that area larger. I can't remember if it was the planning commission or city council. They asked to, hey, let's make this area a little bit larger. The applicant heard that council and and here we are. Now, because those homes,

it's like big nice lots would be right next to the encom. So, they're going to do a little more Yeah. density. Okay. I believe you mentioned they there is not going to be any through traffic to that piece that's underneath the panhandle. Right. Correct. No interconnectivity with existing residential.

Okay. This is a public hearing and we'll open this up to the public hearing. Please come. So, my name is Taylor Fielding. Uh, full disclosure, I am currently the HOA president for Washington Fields uh HOA, which is the uh HOA just north of Merrill. Um, I'm not here speaking for the HOA. I um speaking on my own behalf. Um, I am here because a couple of our a couple of neighbors in uh the neighborhood did come to me because I am the HOA president um with some concerns. Um, but the fact I do live I currently live on the corner of 240 West and uh 2500 South. So, all the traffic that's being uh uh detourred off of Merrill along 2500 South is coming right past my house. So um and I was not aware of the uh plat change or I probably would have been here and and talked about this stuff first. Um then um I guess my concerns are we the marrow is already being widened to five lanes already. Um obviously it's going to be a m it is be becoming a major thoroughare. Um I my biggest concerns is these are this area isn't within the walking boundaries of both Riverside Elementary School on Merrill. It's within the walking boundaries of Washington Fields Intermediate just to the south. And it's also within the walking boundaries of Pine View Intermediate, formerly Fossil Ridge Intermediate. So like my daughter um is in fifth grade this year and she's got to go she's going to have to go all the way over to uh F Pine View uh Intermediate. Um I do have some major concerns about the increasing traffic in the area. Um so my my concern is additional commercial. We already have

the PO project going in next door uh in St. George. Um is going to bring a lot of traffic and um so my concern is is the increasing traffic in the area. Um also there is a lot of what uh St. George City has a lot of open undeveloped lots to the west of this that are commercial. Um so it seems kind of duplicative that they have open there's open space there that isn't being developed commercially. Um, so I would in my my personal opinion I would be opposed to the zone change. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else? Okay, we'll close the public hearing portion of this. Does the applicant want to speak?

Bob Hermanson, appreciate you guys' time. Um there were some comments on the uh the last item about you know generally you know the question is why are we doing it this way and not providing a full detailed site plan. Um in this case where we went through and did the general plan. We currently don't have zoning like it it's generally in that direction because the general plan is done but we don't have that. And so the intent here is that to try to reflect the comments from uh from the city council which one of the very specific items was the blue area on the on the left on the right. sorry um for the buffering with the uh basically professional office spaces so that we buffer for future residences. So we wanted to detail that and be very clear about that and I actually said that during the meeting at city council that I would do that plus uh to further uh show the existing R110 lots that were there as well and define that and that road basically just continues to the north just slightly hangs immediate right and ties into 240. So it just immediately that's as closely good. There's only like four lots that can fit right there and they were uh um sized and then upsized um during those meetings and from those discussions. Um then the other item is to match the consistency in the and be in harmony with the POS to have you know basically that that first use list which is restaurants and retail shopping and be cohesive with those items. We also wanted to define um the accesses um the accesses that Elden went through were were exactly what we're uh would like to do and and also being really clear. The goal is to be really clear with our design and our intent with all of these uh future users and with the developers so that we can you know speak clearly and say you have a right in right out here. This is a full movement. This is a ride in right out. so that we can really see what it is and then also define what the landscape strip is along the south buffering everybody that's residential

so that um so it's very clearly defined so the parameters of those f future commuter commercial users and those layouts can be really cleanly guided right off the bat so that there isn't any misguidance or anything else and then we show up with a full plan and with a with a bunch of folks that we don't even have a zoning yet we don't have anything and so in this specific case. Um, we don't have inherent zoning from the general plan. So, I'm just trying to get to where that couple items ago was so that I can present that in detail. And so, that's why I've split it up. Um, but I've also earmarked very specific items that that we agreed to and the access point so that it was very clear on what was trying to be accomplished there for the next stage. Does that make sense? So, that that's why this one's a little different than the other ones. So, any questions for me?

Thanks. Thanks, Bob. Do you guys have any other thoughts or we'll look for a motion?

Yeah, we we got it. We read it. Mr. Commissioner Anderson, I'll make a motion to recommend approval of Z-26-05 request to reszone approximately 11.45 acres located at 400 West Marrow Road from the current R110 zoning to a PUDC zoning designations with the findings and conditions outlined by staff. This is commission second. I have first by Commissioner Anderson and the second by Commissioner Mitchell. Individual voting. Commissioner Anderson. Hi. Commissioner Davis. I. Commissioner Mitchell.

I. Commissioner Tupo. I. I'm Commissioner Bulock. I'm an I as well. This will go to city council with a recommendation for approval. And item five is adjournment. This is Commissioner Commissioner Mitchell. I move that we Journ second first by Commissioner Mitchell, second by Commissioner Tupo to adjurnn. All in favor? I. We'll take a short break and come back for land use.

Welcome to the land use authority meeting for March 18th, 2026. Um, item one is approval of the agenda. If anyone here would like to if I could get an a motion for approval. This is Commissioner Mitchell. I move that we approve tonight's agenda for March 18th land use meeting. Davis seconds. I have first by Commissioner Mitchell, second by Commissioner Davis. All in favor? I I. Uh item two is approval of the minutes from the land use authority from the March 4th, 2026.

This is Commissioner Mitchell. I move that we approve the minutes from our previous meeting on March 4th. Second. First by Commissioner Mitchell, second by Commissioner Davis. All in favor? I. Uh item three is declaration of extensions or conflict. Does anyone have any with tonight's? No.

All right. Item four, a is a final plat approval for the Sam's Club minor subdivision located at approximately 1720 East Grapevine Crossing. The applicant is Bellston Construction and we will time turn the time over to Sebastian.

All right. Good evening. The applicant is requesting approval of the final plat for the Sam's Club minor subdivision located at approximately 1720 East Grapevine Crossing. The applicant is simply asking to separate a single commercial lot which is 21.66 acres in size out from the state lands with a single private road. So Sila currently owns the property and the applicant is just asking to remove that from their Sila's ownership. The zoning is currently planned community development with the planned community development zone surrounding the site. Staff has reviewed the proposal and finds it conforms to the zoning regulations and subdivision ordinances for the city. Staff recommends the lenus authority approve the Sam's Club minor subdivision based on the conditions in this report. Um that concludes the report. I think the applicant's here so they can you know help you guys questions. Thank you. Um how does that work? I've never How do we just take Sitless name off something? I mean why why is it coming to us? Is it just in the title work? It's already done. I mean, how does Can you Can you educate me on that a little bit, please?

Yeah, Sitla is a constitutionally established um public trust. When it was adopted, they were funded with land ownership on a just kind of organized random dedication of lands throughout all corners of the state of Utah. And so ever since then, they've grown with the state of Utah in how they manage and maintain things. And the latest rendition of what they do for properties within Washington City and my understanding throughout the state is they will enter into agreements with development partners and those agreements will be contractual only and title will not change hands until the development partner brings Sitla to a real estate closing where funds are verified from a buyer. And at that time, Sitla will convey it at closing to the buyer. So, it'll never be owned by the development partner, but development partner owns rights and exclus exclusivity of the Sitla parcel subject to the agreement. But at closing, money's paid in. Sitla conveys title to the buyer. And in this case, it would be Sitla deeding to Sam's Club. And then the Sam's Club terms as to how profits are split will be handled between Sitla and the development partner. And so uh that's a very simp simplistic way of describing it, but that's the concept. And so right now title is not changing hands, but we are proposing I I shouldn't say we, the proposal is to subdivide a parcel that would create a legal description that would go into a conveyance document for a closing like I just described.

Does that make sense? And so and so we're we're putting into existence a legal description that if if things go as as planned would eventually lead to a closing where this this end user is purchasing for a price. Sit's deeding to the end user and then the development partner and Sila um divide costs and profits according to whatever their terms of their agreement are. Okay. That makes sense.

It's unique and clunky. Uh it also allows the the constitutional school trust to avoid encumbering the the school lands before they have verified that there will be a payment to benefit the school trust in exchange for a an encumber encumbrance. And so I I think that's probably the underlying policy of this process is I believe that it would be improper to allow mortgages or incumbrances on the title of the school land before the school trust has received the benefit of the the purchase proceeds. So it's wonky, but that's because SITLA itself is this aberration in that it's a constitutionally authorized real estate dealer basically. And what happens if the deal falls apart after we approve this?

Um, if the deal falls apart after this is approved, there will still be a defined and approved subdivision for a lot of this size and design. And that could either be sold to some other buyer or uh my guess is it's designed right now at this shape and size specifically for this applicant. And so I would imagine it would get modified or amended for whoever the next and Sitler wouldn't be doing it unless it was because they're the ones that approved for this type of work to go in here.

Correct. Sitla is very narrow in the concepts that they want for certain areas that they plan. And so this area was conceptually planned for this type of big big commercial use. And so yeah, this is this is within the narrow scope of what they've kind of always seen this property to be used for someday. So we have to give it its own subdivision so that Sitler can break it out and fund and Costco Sam's Club. Oops. Sam's Club can purchase basically.

Correct. So this allows Sitla to sell as much as Sam's Club needs and no more and still protect kind of the the the the school's interest in the land. without having any more than is necessary be encumbered by a by a sale. Does the applicant want to say anything?

Hi Troy Gustin. Um, so technically this almost doesn't really need to be done because when the U parcel gets uh signed off, but right now it it essentially doesn't exist, right? There's no title for it. um they create a patent, the governor signs that patent and that patent's going to be signed based on these meets and bounds. And so really the fact that we're doing this is because the the purchaser doesn't understand the state process. And so it's it's almost redundant um because they both serve the same purpose, right? This also gives the purchaser a level of security that they don't have to go through another land use process.

Yeah. that this was done and and and buttoned up before they sign the closing and pay the funds. Yeah. And so so even though we're doing this, it would never get signed until the governor has created that patent that creates this uh this titled property and then once it's titled it own feeds fe simple, then it gets signed. So it's it really is that the organization that that I'm dealing with is I mean it's such a big organization. They got so many people that they just don't understand, you know, kind of that state process. So, easy enough. Easy. Thanks.

All right. I'll look for a motion on this. Commissioner Anderson, I'll make a motion to approve the final plat for the Sam's Club minor subdivision located approximately 1720 East Gravine Crossing with the findings and conditions outlined by staff. Commissioner Tupo. I second that. I have it first by Commissioner Anderson, a second by Commissioner Tupo. Uh, individual voting. Commissioner Anderson. I. Commissioner Davis. Hi. Commissioner Mitchell. Hi. Commissioner Tupo. Hi.

I'm Commissioner Bulock. I'm an I as well. And this passes. Thank you. Uh, item 5A is a final plot amendment. A final plat partial amendment A for the High Chapperel Heights subdivision located at 11:41 East Lost Ridge Drive. Applicants Kent Rasmanson will turn the time over to Sebastian. The applicant is requesting approval of a partial final plot amendment to the final plot of the Chapperel Heights subdivision located at approximately 1141 East Lost Ridge Drive. The reason for this amendment is to simply remove the common and detention area from the southwest portion of lot one and relocate the public utility and drainage easement alongside the street side of lot one. as is. That's the old exhibit. And um the next page shows the updated location of the easements. It's just simply across the front of the lot. Staff has reviewed the proposed final plot partial amendment and finds it conforms to the residential 115 zoning of this development. The subdivision also remains in compliance with the subdivision ordinance of the city. Staff recommends Zelenus Authority approve the Chaperel Heights partial plant amendment A based on the conditions and findings in this report. I can answer any questions you may have, but that's the end of this report.

I have a question about what staff said. You know, the engineer had a concern about moving that detention basin. Have you guys talked about that? What's Yeah, so I I did a site visit and the It's no longer needed. It's just the they're able to re I guess direct the easements to the front without any concerns that on the lot. But Sebastian, has the engineer removed his concern? I guess that's what I think that's probably. Yeah. Why is he still he expressed concern about where the water's going? Uh I wasn't aware of that. As far as I was aware, the the engineer did not bring up any concerns with me, but as far as I'm aware.

Yes. slick on here. He says, "I have hesitancy in removing a detention basin. Where is that water now going to go? How is it being addressed?" Is that in the flow card? Is that a city comment? Maybe John could speak on that. John's going to answer that for us. Yeah. Um, yeah, we don't we have we don't have any issue. The detention pond was moved during construction. The plans were revised. We did modified some modifications to storm water facilities and stuff like that. we meet all of our regulations and everything. There's not a not an issue at all with with that removal pond. It's already gone. Okay.

So, this was it was just missed on that removing the that area and stuff like that was just missed when we got to final plat and wasn't really realized until here recently that we missed that. So, it was already addressed during construction.

All right. This is a public hearing as well if anyone here would like to speak to this. Okay, we'll close the public hearing portion of this and look for a motion. It's Commissioner Davis. I'll make a motion to approve final plant partial amendment A for the Chapperel Height subdivision located at 1141 East Lost Drive subject to the findings and conditions and staff report. Commissioner Tupo. I second that. First by Commissioner Davis and second by Commissioner Tupo. Individual voting. Commissioner Anderson. I. Commissioner Davis. I. Commissioner Mitchell. I. Commissioner Tupo. I.

Commissioner Bulock. I'm an I as well. So that passes unanimously. Item 5B is a preliminary plat approval for the High Deserts Omegas subdivision located approximately 3450 south, 240 west. Applicants High Desert Omegas LLC Bryce Jones.

Uh so the applicant is requesting approval of a preliminary plot for the High Desert Omega subdivision located at approximately 3450 South and 240 West. This particular subdivision is proposing three large estate residential lots on an area of 5.01 acres. Lot one is 1.66 acres. Lot two was 1.34 acres and lot three is 1.40 acres. The lot is zoned RA1 with the RA1 zone to the east, the residential 115 zone to the north, and the residential 112 zone directly to the south. The development would be accessed via a private driveway with a gated entrance. A common area and a landscaping area are both provided along 240 west. Staff has reviewed their request and recommends the land use authority approve the preliminary plat for the high desert omega's subdivision based on the following findings and conditions in this report. That is uh the conclusion of this report.

Thanks Mashion. Do you guys have any? So, this is a random question that just because we brought it up earlier tonight, I mean, it doesn't affect this, but so we got a 15t landscape on this one. Is that because they want to or is it because that it's required because it's straight zoning? It's standard because it's straight zoning. That's the rule as of today.

Yeah. I mean, if it goes and changes, they'd have to come back, modify this, and move it to a 10 foot. Okay. That's what I was wondering. All right. This is a public hearing, too. If anyone here would like to speak to the public hearing, please do so. All right. We will close the public hearing. And if you guys have any questions or concerns about this or look for a motion, what is the zoning there? Is there still going to remain like the irrigation that's currently actually now? I can't remember if there's still irrigation happening on that piece. There is. I mean, has that been thought of or addressed? Yeah, maybe Brandy, if you could just explain just for nothing.

Uh, Brandy Walker with civil science rep representing the applicant tonight. Um, this is kind of a fun one. So, this is a family subdivision, a son, father-in-law, and other son. So they have active irrigation from the irrigation canal company that they've actually tapped into the pressurized main out in 240 west. So they have water rights and shares and they are actively watering the the field. So when they shut when they quit watering they are going to utilize their water shares in the form of a small neighborhood for the their three homes pond. Okay,

which is dual purpose for storm water. Okay, that's it on that. And they just have their private drive down the side. They're actually it's kind of they're making it a lot wider. If you notice, they have a 12oot landscape buffer on the south. So, they're really beautifying their the development for

Yeah. for long long term. I mean, they're making it so somebody can't put their house and block in the temple. I mean, it's well thought out, but yeah, Commissioner Anderson, I'll make a motion to approve the preliminary plat for High Desert Omega subdivision located approximately 3450 south and 240 west with the findings and conditions outlined by staff. If Commissioner Davis, second. I'm first by Commissioner Anderson, second by Commissioner Davis. Individual voting. Commissioner Anderson. Commissioner Davis. I. Commissioner Mitchell. I. Commissioner Tupo. I.

I'm Commissioner Bul. I'm an I as well. This is approved. And I'm on to item 5C is a preliminary plot approval for the Tobler field subdivision located at approximately 100 south and 200 west. The applicant is DLN Builders and I'll turn the time over to Sebastian.

The applicant is requesting approval of a preliminary plot for the Toblerfield subdivision located at approximately 100 south 200 west. This simple subdivision is proposing three lots on an area covering 0.55 acres. Lot one would be about 21 acres and lots two and three would both be about.17 acres. The zoning designation at this location is residential 16 with the residential 16 zone surrounding the development. The proposed subdivision conforms to the approved zoning and the request meets the subdivision requirements and other city ordinances. Staff has reviewed the request and recommends the lenus authority approve the preliminary plat for the Tobler field subdivision based on the findings in this uh report. Uh that concludes the report and the applet can answer any additional questions you may have. Thank you.

You guys have any questions? Yeah, Commissioner Davis, just a question. Has the engineer is he is he comfortable with the rightway? No. Yeah, that was didn't love it.

That's one of the one of the items I was brought up is, you know, they're they're requesting that we um look at vacating a portion of the rideway. We've been slowly doing this in sections in the old part of town. Um as you know, redevelopments come in and stuff, we've kind of been trying to narrow the wide rideways down to what our typical residential is now. Um the only thing that we're requesting is instead of just vacating the rightway for these three lots that we would much prefer that we would vacate the rideway for that entire east side of the block so that it's uniform on that side. That way we don't have these jogs in and out as we're doing these. We sometimes we run into more problems. So we're trying to do these in blocks large segments. It just makes more sense. So we're we're good with it. It's kind of what we've been trying to do is eliminate these wide rideways. And yeah,

this is a public hearing as well. We will open the public hearing. Okay, we will close the public hearing and look for a motion unless you have any more questions for Brandy or staff. It's Commissioner Davis. Uh I'll make a motion to approve the pre preliminary plant for Tobler Fields subdivision. The Tobler Tobler uh located approximately 100 South 200 West subject to the findings and conditions staff report.

Commissioner Anderson. I'll second by Commissioner Davis and second by Commissioner Anderson. Individual voting. Commissioner Anderson. I Commissioner Davis. I Commissioner Mitchell. I Commissioner Tupo. I Commissioner Bulock. I'm an I as well. Um

item six is adjournment. Motion to adjurnn. Second. First by Commissioner Tupo. Second by Commissioner Mitchell. All in favor? I I meeting is adjourned. Thanks everyone. meeting next week, correct? In two weeks. Oh, we have a land use. Oh, I thought Bonnie said we didn't have anything. No, sorry. Just land.