Planning Commission & Land Use Authority - Regular Meeting

off with a a prayer from Elden Gibb and followed by the pledge from Commissioner Tupo. Father in heaven, we're come before thee tonight here to um discuss city matters and uh with a a clear mind and thought process and uh hope to have a healthy discussion and dialogue between the commissioners and and those who live here in Washington City. grateful for the land that we live in and the freedom that that we're able to practice here. We say these things in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.

Please rise. God, indivisible, liberty and justice for all.

Item one on the agenda is the approval of tonight's agenda. This is Commissioner Tupo. I make a motion to approve the agenda. Commissioner Davis seconds that motion. I have a first and second. All in favor? I I uh the approval of the minutes from the March 18th, 2026 meeting. It's Commissioner Davis. I move that we approve the minutes from March 18th. Commissioner Year. Second. First by Commissioner Davis, second by Commissioner Yur. All in favor? I. Uh declaration of abstensions or conflicts. Does anyone have any tonight? I have none.

All right, we'll jump right in. Item 4 A is G-25-07, a request to amend the general plan land use map from the low the LVD to LDM, LD to CCOM and noncom to CCOM located at Antigua Lane and George Washington Boulevard. This was this came from uh the February March 18th that was tabled to March 18th which was tabled till tonight. This is the last time that it can be tabled. It must be voted on tonight. So with that being said, we'll turn this over to Elden.

Thank you, commissioners. That's exactly right. This has been tabled. There was a medical condition with the applicant. Um and I'd like to revisit this here just with it being tabled for so many times. We can kind of refresh our memories here, wrap our heads around this proposal here. This is the location involving 17.94 acres. Uh first is to note this commercial area to the south. They're asking to change approximately 5.38 acres of Ncom to CCOM. And then just to the north of that, they're proposing to change 4.38 acres of low density to community commercial. Secondly, they're proposing to change 1.43 acres of low density to medium density and 2.39 acres of very low density to medium density for a total of 3.82 82 acres and change approximately 4.36 acres of very low density to low density. But here gives you an idea of how the land currently sits to the right. That's the existing general plan on the right and what they're proposing to the left. That concludes staff report. Um, I'm happy to answer any questions you may have at this time. I I would like to just note again that staff uh is supportive of this request as outlined and this will go on to city council uh for approval. Um,

we've had the public hearing on this.

You've opened it twice. Um, in both of the uh motions to continue, I believe we've shared comments that we would allow the public to again if additional context or detail was provided. And so I I would say chairman, it's up to you to you you open it and invite invite those to comment and if you if you're okay with it. Okay, we will open this to the public comment. if you've I I don't want to go through what we've gone through the last few times with reiterating everything because we've we've heard it all and but if there's anything new that wants to be said from the public's for a public hearing, please come forward and do so at this point.

Hello. Um I'm Liz Fischer. I live on Galilee way. And I think just in addition, I did my on my email comments, but just I wanted to just say how improbable it is um that someone would hire an engineering firm with no project in the um foreseeable future. So I just wanted to point out that there are different uh commercial properties. For instance, an RV dealership might be different than say an assisted living facility. So, I think that the neighbors are just concerned in the mystery that is surrounding all of this that we just have absolutely no clue what it is. If it's an assisted living and it would be something like that and we know what type of development it is, I think that the concerns would subside. Thank you.

Thank you. Larry Hayes, I live on Galilee. Uh, you said that you I don't I'm not sure sure what you mean when you say you heard it all, though. You didn't want to go over stuff. I'm just saying you're you're re restating what you've already said in the previous meetings. If you haven't been to the previous meetings, yes, please do come. in the two previous meetings, right? I mean, but to get up and tell us exactly what you told us last time is what I was saying.

We didn't take comments last time. I'm sure the first time we did, even the first time when I was here, but I think that makes you qualify. If you're not repeating yourself, you're welcome to go ahead. Exactly. That's

I didn't wasn't able to speak, so I won't be repeating myself. Uh the uh we were here three, four years ago, maybe longer, on another uh hearing on that same proposed property about the size homes that they were going to build there. And we all took part in kind of came to agreement with the uh medium or uh I think it's the low density homes and the biggest concern was going to be the traffic going up and down Galilee Way and that was before Washington George Washington Boulevard was built. I imagine there'll be more entrances coming from there. But my biggest concern is you're going to build apartments there, town homes, but everyone knows it's going to someone's going to buy it and they're going to rent them out. It's going to become rental property, okay? that to squeeze that many homes at the end of a residential street in a residential area that we were told was going to stay low density at the last hearing. And now the government comes in and says, "Well, no, we want it. We're going to change it again." I think the room would be more crowded if the people I talked to, they all said, "Why bother?" They've already made up your mind. Have you guys already made up your mind? And ma'am, have you already made up your mind about this? Is it going to be approved as medium density?

That's why we're here to listen and make our decision. So, do our comments mean something? Of course they do. Our concern. Also clarify, Mr. on this issue they are a recommending body and so this confrontation have you made up your mind their job is to hear the comments they are meaningful that's one of their main purp their their role just a minute I'll I'll

their role is to hear it all and then pass a motion the motion can say to recommend denial or approval that advises the city council that they did their role pursuant to state So really, we're trying to satisfy the the process that the state says cities must do if they want to have zoning. And so on one hand, you're here as a land owner that likes your zoning and wants to protect it, but this process is required of the city if we get to give you zoning and defend it, right? So that so so it feels adversarial to you, but it's the city doing exactly what the state says cities must do so we can protect people's zoning. I understand the process. So if the process, as you explain it, if everyone in this room except maybe one or two say we don't want it,

well then that should be the process. That is not the process, sir. I mean there probably not. There may be one or two people that say when we built here, when we moved into that, a lot of us looked at the area and that area was open and then three four years ago you came along said we're going to make it low density. We had these same hearings and we were against it but you said we're going to do it and you did it. Council approved it.

State law does not say the zoning passes if the crowd is in favor or against it. It says a planning commission must recommend approval if the application conforms to the general plan and other city and state laws. And so it's meant to be a technical deter.

And then there's case laws and the judges call it quote public clamor where the judges have overturned decisions because they appeared to solely rely on the crowd and not the technicals. It's meant to be a technical land use decision of does the applicant's application conform to city's general plan and the city and the state laws.

Just recently, our governor was pushing for affordable housing and he called on the cities to change zoning to put in affordable housing. And then right after we receive a notice on this. So our neighborhood has been picked in Washington to be the site of affordable housing. We can call it town homes, but everyone in here knows that they're going to become rental property. They are going to be become become going to become rental property. We're gonna squeeze twice as many people into an area that all around it is low density homes. And I would ask you not to do that. Just for our street or if you want to go along, build a wall at the end of the street. Wall that section off. Let them come in from Washington and not be able to use Galilee as a thorough affair.

Thank you. Thank you.

Chairman, can I just say one one other thing? You gentlemen can still get your moment um or your moments. ington city doesn't select zone changes. They are made by application of land owners. And so the city and and this body of commissioners don't have a secret meeting where they identify parcels and say that's the one we want to work on. The parcels are brought to them by application of land owners as land use rights vested by the state of Utah. City is aware that almost every single zone change has consultants and designers who are working towards a desired end between them and the land owners. While city promotes a process that doesn't look at the end use, we don't pretend that we think that there's not planning there. We understand and almost always there is. The reason why the city promotes a process that doesn't look at the end use refers to that burden of proof I mentioned earlier which is on a zone change. The question isn't is the end use the business that the neighborhood wants. Question is does the zone change conform to the city's general plan and other city and and state laws. For that purpose, Washington City does not even ask what the end use will be. Uh in a zone change, we ask what's the zone change you currently have? What's the zone change you want? And that's the nature of of the decision is does your zone that you're asking for conform to the general plan and any and other state law.

Go ahead. Well, I'm Ryan Taylor. I live on Noble. Um I missed meeting. I was sick. But the previous one, the reason remember being told it was tabled is that the developers need to go back and look at not going as deep into the residential neighborhood on that property. Did that happen last month? People are saying it was just tabled again last month, but not no new presentation. No. Okay. So, it's still the same. What is it? 600 and something feet deep. Is that correct? Yes. Nothing's changed. The original Do you guys remember that conversation? What we told them was we don't see the need to be pushing this back that far. Yeah. And so we were about to vote to not recommend it.

And then the applicant asked us to table it um because the applicant didn't have the information the applicant needed in order to explain why they were asking for that much. And so we sent it back and we were going to deal with that last time and then it came this time. And I just want to acknowledge that the process can be very frustrating. A lot of you have been here three times. That's a lot to ask. You're giving up your time and it's it's annoying to come back that many times. Um I don't think it was avoidable this time. That's sometimes what the process is like. But so that's kind of it still stands as it was before. No changes. Yeah, they didn't make any changes.

Yeah. My only real comment is I still think it's too deep into a residential neighborhood for that commercial. Um I'm not a fan of the medium density up against the low density either. I like the idea of a wall separating make everybody come off towards Washington instead if it has to be and just kind of separate the neighborhood and all the through traffic that it'll start bringing to it and uh you know we've already seen the impact of things like the wheels park what's a ton of traffic in the area you know and bringing another commercial property that dumps right into the neighborhood I think will you know just be another layer. Thank you.

Thank you. Good evening. Uh Chris Kurs, 1475 Majestic Drive. Um real quick, just to touch on what Attorney Sig Miller had mentioned, he said one of the jobs of the planning commission is to determine that this is in fact in accordance with the general plan of the city. And as we discussed at the first meeting back in February, it does not conform with the general plan because again what the applicant is proposing is to put community commercial directly next to lowdensity residential. And if you read your own general plan, it does not allow for that. There is supposed to be buffering between the various densities of housing and then the various types of community commercial, neighborhood commercial, etc., etc. So that's the first point just to reiterate this change would not be in accordance with the public's general plan. Uh the second thing, there has been a change since we had the meeting back in February and that was the opening of the wheels park. So the opening of the wheels park gave all of us uh the ability to experience what a marked increase in traffic would be in the region on the back roads there. Correct. And so though it is not a commercial business, it's an area that's very attractive. There were thousands of people there. We had multiple motor vehicle accidents there the first couple of days as as we all recall. Correct. So, we're aware that the roadways there and the way everything is set up really isn't designed to accommodate even more increased density of traffic into a community commercial right next to this wheels park there. Uh again, if you go back to what the original general plan calls for, which is to have your community commercial closer to the intersection of SR7 and then feather that out the neighborhood commercial, that's going to provide, you know, an area of a/4 mile, potentially up to a half mile of that feathering of the traffic so that you're not going to have such a density of traffic going to community commercial, potentially a mall, potentially a box store because we don't know what's going in there, right? Nobody sitting here is aware of what's what's going in there. For all we know is there's been a

proposed to make this change to community commercial which could account for a market further increase in traffic in that region. We know the back roads can't support it. They weren't able to support it during the opening couple of days of the wheels part. There were people driving all over the place. They're trying to figure out where to go, where to park, so on and so forth. So the problems the problem is only going to grow exponentially. Um those are my two concerns. It's the public safety of can the road network there sustain it? But more importantly, are we following the general plan that was published by the city of Washington that most of the residents here followed when they bought their homes uh with the understanding that it was going to be low density uh you know very low density, low density uh and then potentially neighborhood commercial. Uh making that change again to community commercial buting next right next to a residential property on Galilee is against what the general plan of the city of Washington calls for. Thank you.

Thank you. Hello. Thank you. Um, my name's Allison Shriber and I live on Rolling Ridge Lane. And my concern is um I wasn't at the first meeting and the second meeting I came to, but I watched the first meeting online and there was talk about having Rolling Ridge or Mountain Mountain Ridge um go into the commercial area cuz we're right next to where the vacant land is just um west of the proposed commercial. And I loved what Commissioner Anderson said that he wanted a reason or wanted explanation of how those streets were going to end off. And I just don't really want our streets to go into the commercial with the Wills Park opening. I love it, but there is so much more traffic. And when they can't park over there, they're parking on our streets, which is great. I love that. But there's more kids. So the more kids that there are on the streets, that's the, you know, uh, possibility for them to get hit. So I just wanted to point that out. Thank you.

Thank you.

Rolling Ridge Lane, Rolling Rock Drive, Mountain Ridge Drive. We love good confusing. all right there in the same block. Now that you've said all those, I'm trying to remember which one's mine. Mountain Ridge. I live on Mountain Ridge Road.

Mountain. I'm Carrie Boon. Uh I appreciate your clarification and comments on the process um as it does not feel very community member friendly, but um I appreciate you hearing us again. Um, I also just wanted to address I live so where the red area is the proposed commercial. I'm just to the left of that if I'm looking on that map from my view. Um, and we had talked in the first meeting about feathering and that being not just a Washington city practice but a best practice in general of development. And there really isn't any of that happening when that's budded right up next to our homes. Um, I also wanted to address the Wheels Park as um, I don't know how many of you have been there in the past few weeks, but um, the traffic um, and parking has oozed into our neighborhood, including people parking at the end of our driveway. Our teenage daughter was in unable to get her car out and hit a parked car, um, which was her fault because, um, even though the car was at the end of our driveway. So there's just a lot of commotion and um just with the wheels park which is a fantastic thing but it is super concerning to see so much coming in. Where it says existing CCOM on the other side of George Washington Boulevard that's also something that has been reszoned since our neighborhood lived here for the purpose of Star Nursery. So, we've gone from having these open areas or mystery areas to looking at suddenly being surrounded by all of this commercial development. And I think growth is great and I agree there needs to be a purpose. I just think that it's really important that our city follow best practices. And I think just like with the Wheels Park, I don't it didn't feel at least as far as

how that shook out with traffic that that was anticipated. Um there were um so I I just think there's so much more um safety concern wise, traffic wise um just with what we have going there and that following best practices and continuing to graduate that as we move toward homes is important. Thanks.

Thank you. make a short Frank Linhard uh 1168 Gather Leeway. Um I spent many years in in your seats as planning commissioner and mayor in a little town. So, I'm fully aware of how this works with it and I don't uh envy your position. You vote, you lose a friend or you gain one. So, it can be tough. Um things have changed a little bit for me ever since you open the park as mentioned. Um by adding and expanding the commercial, you're bringing even more across in the same area. Um, it's really poor planning to have commercial next to low density residential. As I'm sure you all know, that's the whole purpose of zoning is to separate the uses so they're compatible. Uh but I think this developer should be encouraged to move the whole thing all the commercial down closer to the interchange and away from the park uh and away from the from the uh uh low density neighborhood. That would be a far far better when you look at it from the use from the from the public use from the city. It would definitely be way better planning to move it over there. uh and I know you can only deal with whatever is put in front of you and you have an application but from a planning point of view is definitely would be far better to move it and definitely not expand it into the closer to the low density residential the lower density from I'm I it doesn't really matter in my opinion whether it's low

density or or medium low it's all just neighbors uh but uh I also know that proper planning against the commercial is higher density. Uh so and I don't but it's kind of scary when you see them here. Uh they're not really saying what they what they um are going to do. Uh so I've always uh I I did it. I'm a developer too. Um I've always just come in with a plan development even at the at the uh uh land use stage because then I don't have all the people around me all upset and not knowing that's the fear of the unknown. Uh I'd love for that for you to encourage them come back with a with a plan development plan for the whole thing. then it'll make everybody feel better and and you could see how it actually ends up. And as you mentioned, uh the second they get a zone change, there's a multitude of uses that are allowed and you really can't control it because if it's in that zone, they can do it even though you really don't want it there, but you can't stop it once they have their zone changed. So anyway, I encourage you to do the right thing and and I I always like to think of it if I was living next to this, how would I vote? Because if I wouldn't want it, then I wouldn't vote for it. But anyway, thank you so much.

Thank you. Hi, uh, Brandon Sigard. I just I have a question. I'm still just a little confused. Last time you said you were going to recommend not approving it. I'm wondering, did something change because they were supposed to come back with a different proposal because you didn't like how far uh the zone was reaching in. So, did they propose something? I'm confused. Like did something change or do you guys just are you just you do approve the last one now and you didn't or did something change in between? I'm I'm not clear on that.

It was tabled tabled. Waiting for them to bring something. They didn't bring anything back. They just want to talk about why they want to. So this we're just here to listen beginning of the meeting. We haven't had our conversation about this yet and we haven't called them up and grilled them and find out. So this is like public comment right now and it's important to get all all of everyone's thoughts here. But then we'll go into our debate discussion. You guys said you were all looking to approve it at this point. So at the end of the last meeting looking to approve we're not we're just you said you're all Yeah. No that's I'm confused. You said hey we're all in favor of approving this. And so I'm like what I don't understand.

There's there's two layers. Staff has a practice of coming in the presentation and telling the commissioners what staff's review is. And so you'll hear from Elden staff recommends approval. And so that might be what you're remembering. And there was some individual dialogue where some people stated their a viewpoint, but there was never a motion from this body that said anything that got approved. Okay. So nothing that's been continued this

when the staff when it says staff recommends well or does not recommend approval. The staff or the city employees like the engineers, the planners, etc. the fire chief, the you know, police chief, all those people review it all and they just review it to see does this violate any city code, yes or no. They don't say, "Do I like it or not?" They just say, "Does it violate city code in my department?" And if it doesn't, then they say, "We recommend approval." That's only like one small portion of of it.

Okay. All right. Thank you for clarifying. I was I was just really confused. I'll just add, you know, again, everyone in here for the most part doesn't like this because it seems to be just a drastic change. And if you look at the rest of all of where Washington, it seems like every place where there's low density, they're all throwing in apartments or low density. And I guess the argument is we need more affordable housing. I mean, everything north of here on Telegraph, it's like thousands and thousands of affordable housing. Yeah. I mean, it so I don't know why every neighborhood the idea let's throw in low density or or affordable housing in every single neighborhood and kind of just ruin every neighborhood. We have lots of other areas to put it. I don't see why we'd put it here. That's my only comment on top of that. Thanks.

Thank you. My name is Lisa Williams. I live at 1451. Do you need me to get close there? Yes, please. So they can get it on the record.

Lisa Williams, 1451 Majestic Drive. Um, and I I did do comments, so maybe you got a chance to read and see my picture. We did. We got this. Okay. Um, nice job on your research. Yeah, you you went deep.

It just made me more confused, honestly. So, I I did have some questions in my email, and I know you probably can't address, but I'm I'm wondering, and Chris pointed out, too, that in the general plan, um, it says that business and industrial areas should be separated from incompatible use by either a natural physical buffer or gradual transition in land use. And I'm I'm wondering how this could possibly be a gradual transition. like are there is there any sort of regulation or anything um like guidelines to know how gradual because like my house up at the top that's very low density and so it seems really extreme to go from very low density to commercial community commercial at that

that's the job of the legislative body to deter determine what the law means in light of applications. And so this board hears all of your feedback, makes some recommendations. The city council will decide whether it does conform with the standard or not. Okay? And if it doesn't get the vote to continue on, then we just keep checking to see when it comes up again. Like if if we vote to in denial, it still goes to city council. It does

for consideration, but they hear that we vote, that we recommend denial. They take that in consideration, but they still talk about it, deliberate it. They just have that as as our opinion to So, they're still the ones that have to make the decision. So, would they get like my my comments, are those forwarded to them or do I need to do again? Okay. They get everything we have as well. And and we have Councilman And there's a councilman here with us tonight. Um

there is you mentioned can they keep bringing it back? There is a code that says if you've been denied a zone change, you can't immediately bring it back, but you could bring it back in 18 months and you can bring it back every 18 months. And so the state law allows land owners, one of the rights we talk about on the 4th of July is property rights. One of those includes the right to make application to to adjust your zoning.

Okay. It just seems like it's a really big change to the zoning and what has been there and and like what was there when we bought our property or if people built seems like a really big change. Um and I'm wondering now we don't have the map with the the blue dotted line that I think is going to be a a road. Um, yeah. So, I have it here if you if you know what I'm talking about, right?

Like it seems like that would make more sense if there's a road there that that would be the the boundary. Um, and I had one last thing. Sorry. Um, that I thought of today with the Wheels Park going in. I've read um that there were accidents that like a city employee I think was hit um and they're okay. Um and like I know people that have tried to go over and almost been hit because there's no crosswalks, no lights. And I'm just thinking that kind of thing maybe needs to be implemented before there's any commercial be because there's already problems. There's already concerns about kids like in the neighborhood north of George Washington safely getting across the street. So just something else to think about. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else would like to speak to Good evening. Uh, my name is Michael Green. I live at 1395 East Sonoma Catal right along Antigua. A couple quick questions. Has anybody did a traffic study up there yet?

Traffic study that comes in later. We're This is just a zone change. Okay. And then uh anybody to address the water issue there? There's there actually is a well right up there where he's wants to build. Has that been addressed or looked at? What about that area there where there used to be appear to be a a toxic dump right up near by the road up there at one time? It been kind of covered up and carded off. Has that been looked at also? Applies to this hearing. It's in the same general area. It still doesn't apply to this. Water does. No, it doesn't. This is This is just a plan amendment. We're just changing the plan. We're just changing the general plan.

Now, is the developer told you what he wants to develop there? Utah State Engineer Office. Have you told him what you want to develop? Sir,

I thought I just asked. You told me that he was going to be here. Well, I'm just curious because we all are curious what they're going to build there. Uh, you know, I don't want to see, I hate to use this term, a lot of stop and robs. I'm an old law enforcement guy and we had places like this, people stop in and rob and take off. It's a housing area up there with especially Antiqua. You're going to give access to that housing there, especially if something takes place where somebody's hurt. And there is a crossing there for the kids and you're going to put some kind of light up there so kids can cross the street properly to go to the skate park. Those are the things are probably should be part I think the planning and but I figure just need to think about that because it uh you're going to have a high volume especially with Star Nursery being there a lot more trucks going to be coming in there and are they going to come down through the the housing area a lot of the questions people have but I hate to see anybody get hurt the main thing is I think it should be looked at especially the toxicity of the land in that area there because there were big cans that look like oil drum stuff dumped there but somebody car them away and there is water issue there because there is wells there. I've talked to Ralph Staley several times. He told me there's enough water up there for 8,000 homes. So apparently is that part of the deal if somebody gets maybe that's my nice talking to you. Take care. Thank you. I'll just say because he's raised some issues of technicality that uh I just want to identify who administers those when it comes to wells and water rights. Those are administered by the state of Utah through the Utah State Engineers Office to landfills. Washington City is not aware of a toxic landfill up there. But we do have sites within our city where in prior decades folks would just dump things. Uh those are regulated by the state of Utah through their uh department department of environmental quality that has a landfill and a landfill division. Um was there one more that he'd mentioned?

Yeah, we we regulate traffic lights. So that would be on Washington City, but those other two are state related issues. Okay, if there's no one else that wants to speak to this, we will close the public hearing portion of this and open up to conversation between us to the applicant. Yeah. I mean, do you guys any questions or do you want to ask speak with the applicant?

I want to hear from the applicant in a second, but I I wanted to just address a couple things just I in an effort to try and help those in the audience have a little more clarity at least was as far as what we're doing here. Um, so a couple this is a this is a general plan amendment. So it's not a zoning change. They're not changing zoning. They're not doing anything with the zoning currently. It's a general plan amendment. The current general plan is basically what you see on the right hand side there. Okay, that's that's what it is. That's what it's been for probably since before most of you even had your homes up there. The general plan is different than the zoning. All right, general plan says this is what the city anticipates eventually being here. All right. So, like where it says, you know, uh neighborhood commercial or community commercial or any of those things, there are certain zones that fall within that that if someone owns land and it's general planned that way, they have the right to ask for that zone um as is and that's what it's already already planned for. Same thing with low density housing, medium density housing, whatever. somebody comes in for a general plan amendment, what they're asking is to change the general plan in a particular way. So like some of you talked about, you know, does it conform with the general plan? They're specifically asking to change the general plan in a certain way and that's what they're looking at doing. So it has nothing to do with zoning has it's just general plan, which is why it's way before traffic studies or any of this stuff. It's they they want to have the right in the future to come and ask for certain zoning is what they want. So in this particular case, they what they're looking to do is have the neighborhood commercial be bigger because whatever their project is won't fit in the space they got. That's what they want it to to be larger. Right? That's the main purpose for this. The main purpose for going for adding the

medium density is because of the feathering that that is asked for. That's that's an example of feathering where you go from low density to medium density to neighborhood commercial for example. Like that's why they're asking for that is so you get a feathering effect. So that that's what they're asking for, you know, today. That doesn't mean we're going to grant it. That's just that's the process, right? And then we recommend it to city council and they either say yes or no. And then at a later date then whatever the whatever the general plan ends up being at a later date then the applicant can come in and ask for whatever zone you know that they want that falls under that general plan. That make sense? So for those of you that were worried about oh we're going to have town homes, we're going to have apartments. We're going to have all this stuff. That's not what they're asking for here at all. So, in the medium density section, medium density is what's already there actually at the end of of uh what is it? Rolling Hills Drive or whatever. Um, currently it's R110, which is medium density housing. Okay. So, what they're what they're asking for, you wouldn't even notice the difference in what's there now and and what what could be there. Um, they're not asking for for a general plan amendment that would allow town homes or apartments. Like, that's not what that is. So, as far as that goes, you probably wouldn't even notice the difference with the medium density housing versus low density. It's it's a couple thousand square feet on your law difference. Like, not not much of a difference. The biggest thing that as a commission that we had issues with before, and we'll still have to talk about today, and the applicant's going to explain their reasoning why they didn't change it, is we didn't like how far the the neighborhood commercial was pushing back into the neighborhood. thought that where it currently was drawn was a good idea because it was drawn that way before your houses were there and it's been that way for long long time and we think you know before I mean we thought that it was good the way

it was they want to present why they think it should be bigger so hopey that explains a little bit and you guys want to have questions for the applicant Yeah. So, I guess my my question then for you guys is why didn't we have any changes after our last table? So, that's our question.

So, um sorry, what? Oh, Jason Smith, I represent the applicant. Um Lance Richards is here also and he can answer any questions, too. Um in in the discussion with the with the commercial developer um who's a a region or large regional commercial developer uh he was in for what they need to do they need the nine acres um for the proposals that they have and so that's the reason that we are unable unable to change it. Um we do a couple of things that these are um we would we're willing to culde-sac the the rolling rock so that it doesn't access into it. Um the commercial is along an arterial and two arterial roads. I mean, it's a it's a difficult area to and I understand the community and and their concerns. Um, but it's it'd be difficult to to run residential in in some of those in that commercial area, too, where you're you're dealing with two arterial roads that are coming together there. That's the first that's actually the first full intersection off of the interchange. Um, proposed full interch interchain. Sorry, sorry, I'm getting my words all bumbled. That's the first full um movement off of the interchange is is the corner there. And so

to push it back, you don't have that's the first one. Um and so those are those are the concerns and that's the reason that we we are asking not to change it and to to leave that this leave it how it is. Um there are some some agreements that are are in limbo on that. So that and they would require the nine acres. Commissioner Davis, just so to expand on that. So you're telling us he needs the nine acres to do what he wants to do, correct?

But we don't know what he wants to do, which I understand that's not the fundamental purpose for this discussion, but it does help provide perspective. The other question I have just to try to look at thisly is when you look to the to the west, I believe the develop there's two parcels there. One is owned by Peas and Trees, which is right there on Washington Boulevard. And then there's the other parcel that sits above it that I believe is owned by the same group here. Correct. What's what's the forward-looking thought on that? What what are the plans? Residential in that on that area on both peas and trees. Yeah, we don't have control of peas and trees obviously, but they right. But is there

I would What's the plan? Yeah, they're I mean they're leaving it as existing low density. So it' be it would be it would conform to a low density design similar to what's the neighbor is the road that's leading into it is some more low density housing right there on Europe. Well, we don't have the we don't have the portion right against Washington. We're up. Sorry. Does your firm represent peas and trees?

No. So, I' I've had I've had communication with Peas and Trees. It's probably been 18 months now. It wasn't related to this application. Peas and Trees is is an entity owned by a local attorney. Um, his 401k as as an individual that's self-employed, he has had his 401k own peas and trees. So, he he views it as like a retirement asset. that's land uh not a not a brokerage account. And so, um I've had some correspondence there. He has not said anything about making an application anytime soon. Although, I think that when you put land in a retirement account, it indicates that he desires to appreciate that land someday with zoning and and you know, entitlements and then probably sell it to somebody that builds houses or something. And so I believe it will be developed, but it's not it's not an owner that's in a hurry to, you know, to to bring a project to the city at this point.

I mean, the question is, is it is it potentially expanded commercial or not? And logic says it may be. I think it depends on what what gets entitled to the west. Yeah. But his his conversation with me was it would be housing much like to the west of Yeah. And I can't I can't speak to that. I and I'd have to go back. I understand what you're I want to do. I don't I mean instead of instead of playing cat and mouse, I'm just looking at this saying nine acres. You want to do it because you want to do it, but we don't know what you want to do.

Well, and and I respect that, but I I mean, I have non-disclosures that I'm not allowed to I really can't tell you. I mean, I I just want to build on that and say like if everybody who had property that was designated one way in a general plan wanted it changed so that they could benefit from the change to the general plan. If that was a compelling enough case, then we'd be making changes to the general plan all the time. But there was a lot of thought that went into that general plan, a lot of planning that went into that, a lot of people building expectations around that. And just because somebody wants it to change, that to me that doesn't feel like a compelling reason to change it.

And I agree with you that um when the general plan was written, I was in your seat and I was actually on the committee that wrote the that that went through the general plan. Um the a lot of things have changed. You have you have a a freeway interchange that's not that's right there. That wasn't there. It was barely in the planning. It was there was no there wasn't an interchange there. There wasn't a there wasn't a a major road that that ran by there. Um so there were there are a lot of things that have changed that would that would make it seem that the general plan should change. I I agree with you. It's when they do a when you do a general plan, when the city goes through and does their general plan and reviews things, but I believe it was 2018. Is that in the last 2017 or 18?

Yeah. And it needs an update. So, it's so there are things that have changed and and it's obvious that traffic has changed. We've um and to their point there there's a large regional park there that's that's busy and and it needs to and things need to be accommodated there. Um there's commercial there's community commercial across the street. They know that you know that there's going to be a star nursery there. You know those are things that you know are going to be there. Um, and but I think the general plan accounts for those things. I mean, it's commercial up to where it's commercial. It's got a big old chunk

in the general plan. It it wasn't commercial there. They they came and changed that from the general plan, the original general plan, right? And well, now it is. And that's pretty well aligned even with the updates to traffic. Elden, I'd be curious. Can you pull up that one um map that shows where the new road is planned over there? And anyway, I don't have any more questions for our applicant.

I mean, of all the areas there, there are areas in Washington City that that the general plan was not updated enough and and people were already living there and it and we've had to kind of figure out how to work it around and it's been tough. But of all the areas, I mean this area and also up up at exit 13. I mean, those are the two areas that we actually look did some forward thinking. He always says, "Why don't you put your, you know, higher density housing and your and your commercial all this, you know, out where nobody lives and we've got, you know, exits and this and that." Well, these are this spot and the other places that Washington City actually did that before people lived here, you know, and so I have enough heartburn when we do general plan amendments, you know, throughout the city when you kind of have it with this one. I mean, there's these roads have been on that, you know, on that master master plan for a long time. The this general plan has been here for a long time, longer than nearly everybody here had a home. And so, I mean, granted, not everyone has has looked at the general plan and and knows what's there, but it has been there. I I just don't see any compelling reason. I mean, my guess is the only reason is that whatever you're putting on there, the building's probably too big to fit on there, I would I would assume, but I just don't see, you know, the commercial up into a low, you know, into a a neighborhood. just if commercial around there. I mean, I understand it's not the piece that your client owns, but

Yeah. And the feathering is happening above it, not to the side. I I think the feathering is probably a great idea. I mean, it doesn't matter. Like I said, all the houses that are already there are already, you know, medium density whether even though they're not general plan that way, they're zoned that way. So, they're not going to notice a difference either way. But my heartburn is regardless of what the reasons are, I just don't think it should push up anymore. I think it's in a good spot where it's at. Elden, can you put the an overlay with the general plan on this map right here that you have that we were the current general plan with the road right there like that? Yes. So that shows us

and that's what we have in the general plan right now. So that's Mhm. One one concern I would have again is the piece that you guys own and the peas and trees piece doesn't have a general plan. So, it's going to have to be general planned as something. That's for those of you in the audience, that's the gray square right there. See, it doesn't have a general plan. So, it's going to get general planned something. It gray doesn't mean open space. It just means it hasn't been designated anything yet. So like he's saying it would either be continuation of the low density or the continuation of the one or the other probably but they don't own that piece. So I I I like the way our general plan sits right now because this and leaving it with the neighborhood commercial in my opinion is going to be less heavy commercial than the than the SECOM which is going to give us

a better feathering into Yep. the sections on the other side and my and that that's my opinion on it. That's how I feel about this. Do you agree with that?

The the way it sits now is pretty good. I mean, they can complain about the low density where it is or the what is that? Low density. Is that where the yellow is? So, it's it's going to fit in there. I I like the way it is. The neighborhood commercial. I definitely think we need to have commercial on that street, but the neighborhood commercial is even better cuz when that road goes in, everyone's going to go over to that road and come down, not coming down the other one, which is going to alleviate the traffic on those interior streets. So, this is the zoning. So, you can see that section there. um from the bottom of Galloway and Rolling Hills. Rolling Ridge, I should say.

Arlington tent. You're not going to know. No, it's general land is low density. It's zoned as as medium density already. That's what those homes are already there. I'm I do have anything else you guys would like to say? If you don't have any more questions.

Okay. If you guys are any more questions, we'll look for a motion. Make a motion. I move that we recommend to the city council denying G-25-07 these requests to amend the general planned land use map um from very low density to low density and medium density and then low density to SECOM and ENCOM to SECOM located at Antigu Lane and George Washington Boulevard. Commissioner Davis seconds that motion.

First by Commissioner Yur, second by Commissioner Davis. Individual voting. Commissioner Anderson. Hi, Commissioner Davis. I. Commissioner Tupo. Commissioner Yuri.

Commissioner Bulock. I'm an I as well. This will go to city council next week with a recommendation of denial from the planning commission. So, go to planning or go to the city council meeting next week and have your voices. I don't know if they have public hearings, but we don't we don't notice it as a public hearing. It's been the practice of the mayor and the council members to allow public comment if it if those arrive and wish to do it.

Okay. So you might you might not be able to have public comment, but at least go and let them know how you show that you're there. So item 4B Z-26-08, a request to reszone approximately 43.53 acres located at approximately R Parkway and Hilton Williams Drive from the current C3 zoning designation to proposed I1. We'll turn this over to Elden. They're not going to h Yeah, let's go.

We'll continue forward here. If those conversations can head out to the hallway, that would be great. Thank you for going to the hallway and having those conversations. The surrounding zoning to this parcel is PUDC, which is the RS Southwest Logistics Center to the north and east, and St. George City Airport supporting business park to the south, west, and north. The applicant owns land in both municipalities, St. George and Washington. doesn't help. Sorry. Yeah,

they're really loud out there and we can't hear in here. We should close those doors.

I think that's what John's doing. The applicant owns land in both municipalities and intends to create and create a development that looks and feels seamless amongst both jurisdictions. The I2 request is for the purpose of creating a development that blends in with the surrounding uses which include warehousing, light manufacturing, fabrication of goods, wholesaling, service, and other similar commercial establishments. Staff has no concerns with the proposed zone change as outlined. Staff recommends the planning commission recommend approval and this will go on to city council based on the findings stated in staff report to answer any questions you may have at this time what what falls into the I1 zoning I forgot

there's quite a lengthy list there I mean I1 to I2 What's so the difference uh from I1 to I2 is um I2 includes um the process of putting goods together and and creating a product. So a heavier, dirtier, dustier type of use. It's a good way to explain that. um applicant, you know, he's asking for I1, so he's not even touching the Right. That's what I was I'm trying I'm trying to think of a place where we have I1 just so I can just for a visual for me so I can see where we have it in our

Yeah. So, let me zoom out here. Uh the applicant if if you've driven on Airport Parkway there. Yeah. To the south here, you see my cursor bouncing. This is his development as as well. Pad ready lots. Okay. Um, so, so this is kind of phase one extending to the north through here. Um, and then he owns land over here. So, just kind of a seamless development for him. Um, going through two two jurisdictions there. Okay. That's what that's what I was curious.

This is just more for my curiosity. What does Kawasaki mean down there? Do you know? Is it a parts distribution center or something? Um yeah, it'll be their wholesale um um establishment. Yeah, big really really big facility.

This is a public hearing as well. Is anyone here would like to speak to this? Are you the applicant? Are you the applicant?

Yes, Mr. Chairman. My name is Kurt Gordon. I'm with Desert Kenya's Development and uh we would appreciate your support of our proposal. Um, if you if you look at the C3 zones in the city, there's really not a whole lot of vibrant commercial activity in your existing C zones, C3 zones. And for us, um, I can just tell you we have interest and we're trying to compete with others, uh, in in in the area for I'll just I can't tell you who it is, but we have Fortune 500 companies interested in this property that would be that we're really excited about. I think the city of Washington would be really excited about. and that that type of use that we have interest just doesn't happen in the C3 zones isn't possible. So, um I'd be happy to answer any questions. Um as you are aware, uh infrastructure in this area has just recently been developed. Uh our our intent, we're on the border of St. George and Washington is to finish that our parkway out to Airport Parkway. And this is an important part of our um overall master plan for a business park in the area. I'd be happy to answer any questions you have.

Question here. The the purpose for this is is to kind of our C3 zone does not allow warehousing and that was part of our discussion is as to go this direction. The I1 would allow you to to use those C3 uses with the warehousing component. Is it is is that accurate?

That's correct. All right, cool. Awesome. Thank you, Nobody else wants to speak to this, right? Okay, I'll close the public hearing and if you guys don't have any questions or for the applicant, then we'll look for a motion on this one. Commissioner Davis, I'll make a motion uh with respect to item Z-260 or 08 rather uh to approve the request for the reszone of approximately 43.53 acres located at approximately a Parkway and Hilton Williams Drive from the current C3 zoning designation to a proposed I1 and forward on to city council.

Commissioner Anderson, I second. I have a first by Commissioner Davis and the second by Commissioner Anderson. Individual voting. Commissioner Anderson. Hi. Commissioner Davis. Hi. Commissioner Tupo. Commissioner Yur. Hi. I'm Commissioner Bulock. I am an I as well. And this will head to city council with a recommendation of approval. Thank you. Item 4 Z 4 C Z-26-07 request to reszone approximately.17 acres located at approximately 550 East Buista Boulevard from the current C2 to the proposed C3 zoning designation. The applicant is Washington City and we'll turn the time over to Elen.

Thank you, commissioners. These next two items, I just want to point out the city is the applicant here. We own this land. Uh and uh so we we as staff the city here we're we're putting these applications forward. Um the request is to change from C2 to C3. The surrounding zoning to this parcel is R3 to the north, 15 corridor to the south and C2 to the west. their billboards, which houses or this land here houses the billboards at that location require C3 zoning and as you can see it's currently C2. So we're just trying to come into conformance with those zoning requirements there. Um staff recommends the planning commission recommend approval. This will go on to city council and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have at this time. It's just because we have the sign there or you leased the property to the sign holder, right?

The next application or item on the agenda will address why we're changing the zone. Okay. Was it the sign by the storage space or the one up the road? The one up the road and that was there before. This is a vacant piece of land that's been there for forever, right? Correct. Nearly. Not quite all the way through forever, but the north side of the highway it's been there and it was just there was no zoning for it back then. I mean, is it just something that got overlooked? I'm I'm just curious why we're

So, this was this was originally a billboard constructed out of six telephone poles that blew over in the early 90s. And then in the late 1900s,

the Redlands developer and the city partnered to was the owner of the land that the telephone pole billboard was on. And so they partnered to have this one constructed. It's now, you know, enough time has passed that it's now essentially as defunct as the telephone poles one was. And so it's been on the city land. It's a city structure. And so the city's taking the application here to begin the process to allow it to be modernized. So this is a public hearing as well if anyone here would like to speak to the item 4C. Okay, we'll close the public hearing portion of this and look for a motion if you guys don't have any other. And I'll make a motion to recommend approval of Z-26-07 request to reszone approximately 0.17 acres located approximately 550 East Buista Boulevard from the current C2 to a proposed C3 designation with the findings and recommendations outlined by staff.

It's Commissioner Tupo. I second that. I have first by Commissioner Anderson, the second by Commissioner Tupo. Individual voting. Commissioner Yur. I. Commissioner Tupo I. Commissioner Davis. Commissioner Anderson. I'm Commissioner Bulock. I'm an I as well. This will go to city council with a recommendation for approval. Item 4 D. Uh C-260-03. A request to modify the existing off- premise sign location at 550 East Buista Boulevard, Washington City. Is the applicant. Elden.

Thank you. Commissioners. uh billboards require C3 zoning. That was the previous application. Um that that's going on to uh city council for approval. I did add a condition on this that this conditional use permit is contingent on that zoning be approved. Just so that's known there. Um this the city would like to monetize this billboard and and make upgrades to it. Here's currently how it sits. The southern view is in little worse shape than the north. And this is what it would end up like. You can see the Vshape transition pointing the the billboard more towards the freeway and to minimize impact there on the land. That concludes staff report and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. asked if we could get a picture of that on this billboard here and um that comes in close. I mean that's a good enough side.

This is a public hearing as well if anyone here would like to speak to item 4 D. Okay, I'll close the public hearing portion of this one and look for a motion. This is Commissioner Yur. I move that we recommend approval for C-2603 request to modify an existing off- premise sign located at 550 East Blan Vista Boulevard um with the conditions stated in the application and findings. Yes, Commissioner Tupo. I second that. Have a first from Commissioner, second from Commissioner Tupo. Individual voting. Commissioner Anderson. Hi. Commissioner Davis. Hi. Commissioner Tupole.

Hi. Commissioner your I'm Commissioner Bulock I'm an I and this will go to city council with the recommendation for approval item 4E is uh amend the city ordinances 4-6 fencing of swimming pools by Washington and the applicant is Washington city this This code amendment uh is to minimize the conflict or or get rid of the conflict between our city ordinances and state code. City staff is proposing that we change the code to mimic state code requirements. So as as that code changes um so would our code with that proposing that the fencing of swimming pools be worded as pool fencing shall be provided as per international Utah state pool and spa code and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have Commissioner Davis again just for the record here this is literally a replacement so that we

correct replacing our code to abide by with the state state code and if I'm not wrong we were more stringent than the state and now we're just relaxing it to the state's code basically there's an eb and flow with With that, yes, we're we're proposing to remove the 5-ft block wall. However, with that comes other requirements, uh, such as the pool shall be covered with an T-rated pool covering that holds up to 650 pounds. So, there's certain safety requirements which are still met, um, tested and proven to work.

And that's from the and that that's what the state requires. Awesome. Maybe a legal question at this point where we in which we have code and the state has another is the state's code meant to be sovereign over our code. Is the state's code like are we out of compliance with the state code right now or was the state's code passed in the spirit of here's a general code if you guys don't have one in your local city you can use this one or you can have your own like what what's the position we're in in relationship to the state code.

We are compliant with the state code and more restrictive. Okay. were not allowed to be less restrictive as it relates to the regulation they put into pools. So basically the the pool companies have right now been under the responsibility to comply with both the state code which would mean those covers that you just described. They're like that's already required here and now this would be um simply getting rid of some of the additional requirements that we've placed on it. Is that right? How how are you?

So, our current zoning code does not require pools to be covered if they have a 5-ft block wall. So this amendment would allow a pool builder to put in a pool block wall but state code our if this is adopted our code would require them to have a pool cover that holds up to you know meets those standards 650

pounds there it looks like they either have the fence as we the fence as as looks like it's only four feet tall here instead of 5t but the fence around it or the cover, one or the other. It doesn't you don't have to have a pool cover, but you have to have a pool cover or I mean like that's that's actually how St. George city code has been for a long time is if you had a pool cover, you don't have to have your block wall around around whereas Washington has always been just have a block wall even if you have a pool cover.

Okay. Stringent. Yes. The less stringent part the wall can be out of various materials and it only has to be four feet tall. So what's the nature of the obligation on a person who's putting in a pool right now? Sorry, I'm just like trying to wrap my head around the position we're in in relationship to the state right now and the right now. Go ahead. Sorry. These two codes, what is the relationship between the two if any? or are they both simultaneously in force? Um, but in Washington, ours is just stricter. You're

exactly right. And so, so this is coming as feedback from the pool industry. There's frustration that they will have their pool permit either, you know, tagged or flagged because they don't have the right size of a fence, which slows their project down. and they'll say, "We didn't realize your rule was different than everybody else's." And so, this is just trying to bring our rule to conform with the state rule is this the rule and all of our neighboring municipalities. We comply with the state rule and then we go a little more strict, another foot in height, and that foot is creating delay or frustration with the building community when we flag or tag them.

Got it. Thank you. It's also been an issue like like if you're building a pool and you've got a five foot block wall and your landscape inch or two of gravel and the inspector comes out and he's like, "Oh, now you're half under." And I mean, I've had I've had a pray house that that had to add an extra layer of block the day before the parade because the inch of gravel made it not anyway. Thanks, And one question here, the only I see an issue is, and again, I know this is city code, but um section 305.11 where it's requiring 4 foot construction fencing around the pool the entire time it's being built. I mean, you already have OSHA rules regarding all, you know, holes, entrances, falls,

and And this just adds a whole another thing that now the the building inspector has to now become the ocean inspector and and it not very feasible and it's really expensive to have temporary fencing around the entire thing because the minute you have someone coming to work on the pool, all they're going to do is throw the temporary fencing away and then you're going to be spending every single day fencing. It's just that would be the only thing I I think we should exclude that. I don't think it's I think that's a huge nuisance and every contractor is already shift regulations to meet safety regulations as it is. I don't think we need another layer of that. Isn't that the state code though? We can't be less stringent than the state code. We have to have the state code is the bare minimum. So if that's the if that's in there, we have to see because it is the state code. there's a preeemption application that's unique. So in this case, the state didn't write their own code. They said we adopt the international building code for pools and spas, which says the wall needs to be 4 ft high. And Washington City chose to go beyond that. And so we didn't preempt it because what Washington City did did not lessen what they required. Now, if we if we changed it to another example where the state says you cannot charge more than $4 for a permit and the city says we're going to do five, you'll see that that one the way it's written. So, they the state said you need a wall up to four feet and we said well we want one up to five. So, we we satisfied them and added some more. But if the state law said your wall can't be any taller than 4 feet, we then would have we our our code would be ineffective and preempted by a state code. And so the

preeemption question really depends on the language of the state law. And so in this case, we were compliant and just a little more strict. Uh does the international building code require that or is that something that it says? It says state requirements regarding pools are as follows, right?

Yes. while we're looking at that just out of cur the a point of grandfathering as far as I'm assuming this is all going forward and if somebody is in the process they would not they would or do you kind of go back to square one if

say someone needs a pool inspection tomorrow though we've had this discussion and staff's reviewed it for a couple weeks and and provided recommendation the code that they would have to comply with tomorrow is the current city code or the 5 foot um council were to approve it today a a precedent as to the effective date usually Usually it goes into effect like 30 days later. Sometimes they can specifically say this one goes into effect immediately because of some public reason that justifies that. And so on this one I I think the grandfathering question would be let's say Thaad's pool got approved in January with a five- foot wall. City changed to a 4ft wall. I'm grandfathered in at a five- foot wall, but I don't know if there's really any right that I possess because of that grandfathering. Right now, if previously it said, and again, the city law would have been uh preempted had it said this, the city said only three feet is what we require and I got approved with that, I would be grandfathered there, but the state law preeemption would overcome that grandfathering anyway. Yes, Commissioner Tupo. I have a question. Um, so is this final approval? It's not a recommendation recommendation.

And that's where, you know, Cory's comments also, if there's things that you have that are from your perspective and your experience, I think those are very helpful to the city council. So, I'm looking here at the international building code. International Building Code does not require temporary construction fencing on pools. That's part of the Utah, right?

Utah says it follows the International Building Code. However, the International Swimming Pool Code requires construction fencing the site, not the pool, but the site if you're building a pool. for example, the sides of the house or whatever, you know, some sort of construction entrance. But it says it says the international building code does not or I think that's what

site saying that's in there. I just know the practical application of this is going to be non-existent and you're going to have building inspectors trying to enforce something be next to impossible to enforce. So I I would just say this there's I think there's some confusion here. So if you look at page one proposal is to remove everything that's crossed out and replace it with the red language that says pool fencing shall be as Utah code. That's the only law change that Elden has recommended.

Okay. So, it does say you're you're referencing the international pool and spot code, not the international building code. So, you international pool and spot the state has adopted. Okay. So, that one then would So, then the summary where you see state requirements are as follows. That isformational. That is not code that's proposed to go to the city council. That's justformational to you as to what that So the information on that the only change requested is to cross everything out that's crossed out and add the red language that says from here on out we follow the stage rule whatever that might be one is not in the code. That's that's the pool and swap code. Yeah. However, the pool spot code does say you have to have fencing on the side but around the entire which is

around your around your whole house so no one can walk in during construction which is makes sense easier to do and if that's what he's don't start sending building inspectors out there and making you put you know thousand dollars worth temporary fencing around the pool you know and then you've got it out there for a year I mean you're going to be a fortune in temporary fencing sense. Yeah. So, this proposal just removes removes those four section specific rules just just wipes them out of the code and references everything now just to the state pool and spot code which is the international pool and Scott spot code. Have we public hearing?

No, this is public hearing. If anyone would like to speak to this item, please do so. Okay, we'll close the public hearing portion of this and look for a recommendation. As Commissioner Davis, I will make a recommendation for approval of the action to amend city ordinance 4-6 for fencing of swimming pools and pass it along to city council. I understand. I'll second, but I just want to clarify that we're not approving the uh exhibits.

The exhibits, just the just the proposed uh ordinance change. Okay. I'm first from Commissioner Davis, second from Commissioner Anderson. Individual voting. Commissioner Anderson. I. Commissioner Davis. I. Commissioner Tupo. Hi. Commissioner Yur. Hi, I'm

Commissioner Bulock. I'm an I as well. This will move forward to city council item 4F. It's amend city ordinances 9-8 A-9 and 9-B 9-8 B-8 internal accessory dwelling unit. Nice job,

commissioners. I gave a a pretty in-depth e explanation in your packets there. I'm happy to go through this line by line if you'd like. Um I can read those bullet point items. Ask how you'd like me to proceed on this. How do you guys The bullet points maybe. Yeah.

High level hookup. Currently IADUs, internal accessory dwelling units are only allowed on 6,000 square foot lots. We're proposing to remove that requirement um knowing that the IAU would be required to meet setback requirements for the zone and fall under the roof line of the existing house. Other changes definition oriented to create a concise understanding of these type of units. For example, replacing the word dwelling to residents to avoid confusion when speaking about internal accessory dwelling units. Lastly, the code currently does not incorporate the needed verbiage prohibiting the units to be used as nightly rentals. This verbiage is being proposed and um recommended from city council that we exclude the verbiage from um the nightly overlay rental zone which I've included in this updated exhibit here. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have at this time.

Quick question on the second bullet point. the clerical and definitionoriented shifts and um changes. These coming from staff or these coming from legal? I I can um speak on the staff side of point of view. Um that coming from staff I would let that speak on the legal side of things. So the process that we follow between staff and legal or the city code changes that govern the department is the departments they decide when they want to change and to the first draft and then I will consult and discuss with them. Okay.

And so the goal is to give it legal review, legal contribution. Um, I view my job as helping the city and its folks interpret the law, but it's the city council that gets to decide what the law says, not me. And so I I'll contribute in the law writing process, but I I don't view my my bar license as saying I get to decide how exactly it should be written. So I contribute, I help, but yeah, it's okay.

It's a legal process that I think is something I I contribute in, but don't determine. helpful. I just wanted to know what process went behind this because I know often once you start changing the code and definitions in code, there's a trickle down process where it can get like complex complicated pretty quickly and then you forget to update this whole other body and then it has to come back and so like legal people are annoying but then they remember to do all those kinds of things. So I just wanted to make sure that it had kind of had that process to it.

Yep. Elden and I have have discussed these changes several times. We've also or Elden's brought them to the weekly staff meeting of the department heads and discussed them there. And so yeah, they've they've had some work and some collaboration. That sounds legal person so I can say that we're annoying.

And this is a public hearing as well. If anyone would like to speak to this, we'll close the public hearing portion of this and look for a motion.

Elden, I just got a question for you just to make sure I'm understanding this correctly. It would be C paragraph C2 where we're talking about access to the unit. Uh I think it's exterior doors uh to the internal accessory dwellings unit shall be located on the primary residence. So as to avoid the street appearance of multiple unit entry door basically multiple doors you know from the frontage. So literally if somebody's was I mean they'll come in from the front door through the residence to get to the there would certainly there's obviously you know there's back door. This is just just to give the appearance of that you're not an apartment building back there.

Yeah great comments. So, we want to avoid the confusion of someone walking up to a single family residence and not knowing which door is to the primary residence. We wouldn't want two grand entrances, one to the IDU and one to the the residence. We would want a smaller entrance into the IADU, which is in essence, you know, downscaled and doesn't attention to it. Side door, the side of the house, the back door crack. Yeah. to drive.

Yeah. Something like I guess. Um, so here's my question though is in I guess this is C2. Um, what we're talking about. So it also says that it shall not be located in detached structures connected only by a roof passage separate building such as a breezeway. The thing is, let's say you have a house and you have a a call it cassita guest house mother. It's still attached roof line wise, but there's a you know breezy between them. So technically it's still you know it's it's detached. Would that So would that just be a a uh a detached essentially dwelling unit that I'm just making sure like we can still do those. Yes, that's cuz a lot of times we'll, you know, we'll have them they'll they'll just be in the back. You won't see a second entrance. It's not like you you're going to have two grand entrances. One's way in the back, but you could still have a breezeway connecting the two or we just calling that one's that one a detach as opposed to

shared wall base. Question. No, it's not a shared wall. It's a shared roof. No, I mean the other are you saying you're mandating shared wall? I just asked for clarification on this as I understand your question correctly. Yes, we are not prohibiting these type of units to be attached or you cannot attach them with the breezeway. If there was a breezeway there, if you chose to do the breezeway, it would just be classified as a detached accessory. So, just one of the detach rules though. That's I just want to make sure

brings up another thing for me. Um there are a lot of homes that have cassitas. Those cassitas I think would be good. you know, I do use and have a separate door on the front often. So, this would make it so none of these homes that already have these units built in that are cassitas would qualify, right? That seems like a mistake. The idea of this is to have the door on the side, correct? As opposed to the front.

A lot of them, the home is on it is on the front. Why Why should that disqualify them from running out that cassita? It it doesn't say you cannot have a a internal accessory dwelling unit door face the street. It says to avoid the appearance of of two try not to make town home building or duplex.

Correct. Yeah. The intent here is to Yes. Uh Mr. Applicant, your door faces the road. Can you can we relocate this road to the side so it's obscured and not known? located on the primary residence so as to avoid the street appearance of multiple unit entry doors on the primary dwellings resident street frontage. It's kind of confusing. Ex let me just read that again. Exterior doors to the internal accessory dwelling units shall be located on the primary residence so as to avoid the street appearance of multiple unit entry doors on the primary residents street frontage. So, what does that mean for a cassita with the door that's in the front yard?

So, to avoid the appearance of of uh like I stated before, the the primary residence usually has a little grander entry, a gable, some timbers, whatever it may be to set off, hey, this is how you access. Okay. So, as long as that's happening, correct? Okay. We would want the IA unit to be less grand on scaled from entrance. So every home's going to be different as Cassita. You're you're good. To avoid the appearance of

Got it. Thanks. So I my only question would be what if the plan reviewer I mean it's it's very much up to the discretion of whoever views the plans. You know I mean it could be totally different one person's opinion from another. It's very gray. I mean, I I've had I've had times where I've, you know, been building a house and and just because there was a door out to a patio, it it didn't even have a kitchenet or anything, it wasn't even it wasn't an an ADU and and my client had to go and sign the whole deed wave and everything for an ADU even just because it had a door out to the patio and it wasn't an ADU. So, I mean, again, it just comes out of whoever's reviewing. And so I just want to be careful we don't have language in there that suddenly above and beyond what the spirit of this is supposed to be

proposing to to change the spirit. Um you know holding my first comment there it's to avoid the appearance of entrances. Um have have you had any problem with plan reviewers here in Washington city? It's a very issue and again it just depends on who's reviewing the plans. Some people I've had zero problems and other people I have had problems. It's the joy of

when you when you when you have a vague description that's what you get different opinions. So my my only other thing I I I just think where it said what it talks about the breezeway and everything that whole sentence doesn't even need to be there. just say something like, you know, if it's a detached structure connected by a breezeway, it shall follow the detached accessory dwelling unit rules because the way it's written, it almost sounds like you're not allowing that. I mean, it just needs to say, hey, if it's got a breezeway, it's a detached unit. I think that would be great comments, notes taken on that. I mean, yeah, I think you could edit that last sentence too to something like internal accessory dwelling units shall avoid the street appearance of

just main multiple main entry door primary entry door.

Yeah, because it that that took me three or four times through that to like see what you were trying to say. So, I kind of think that last sentence there needs to be reworked. No, it's taken great comments. We want to make motion on this. Right. I'll make I'll make a motion uh to approve and forward on to city council the amending of city ordinance 9- 9-8A-9 and 9-8-8 internal accessory dwelling units subject to the revised language proposed by staff uh incorporating the additional edits as discussed. Commissioner Anderson, I second. I

have first by Commissioner Davis and second by Commissioner Anderson, individual. Commissioner Anderson, I. Commissioner Davis, I. Commissioner Tupo, I. Commissioner Yur, I. Commissioner Bulock, I'm an I as well. Item 4F will go to city council with a recommendation for approval. Item 4G, amending city ordinance 9-7-6 and 9-8 A-6 and 9-8B-6 modifying regulations. We'll send this over to Elden again.

Thank you, commissioners. Uh, with your approval, maybe I'll just hit the high level bullet point items and then we can dig into discussion here. Uh so we're amending or proposing to amend three codes here. We've got the A zone, the RA which is the residential A and then the R1 zone which is includes the R16, R18, R110 and up. We'll start with the A zone here. Uh the modifying regulations for the A zone have not been updated for some time. While they have been updated in the other areas, the proposed changes are intended to better align with the changes that have been made in the RA and R1 or one zone. Proposed changes are intended intended to better define the height of accessory structures and the three-foot from property lines. And lastly, the proposed changes include removing the 10-ft separation requirement from the main residence RA and R1 zone. again um trying to better understand the ordinance and and clean the language up a little bit. Remove the 10-ft separation requirement from the existing house. And the current code prohibits detached structures from being taller than the main residence. The proposed changes would allow detached structures to be 25 foot tall and or no taller than the existing residence. That's a little bit confusing. So, so they could max out at 25 ft there, regardless how tall the primary dwelling unit is. Proposed changes include removing the requirement that the detached structure be set back 10 ft from the front corner of the main residence in the given sideyard. This would allow detached structures closer to the front property line while still maintaining the setback requirement in that given zone.

and also proposing to remove the limitation that the structure be a maximum of 50% of the main residence. This was updated in the R1 zone a few years back and um just trying to mirror that change. Lastly, proposed changes are to increase the percentage of the backyard area that be can be covered in the R1 zone. And that came from the council work session a few weeks ago. Uh the specifics of that. Maybe I'll start and pull that exhibit up here. You can see the details on that. This is where a lot of the discussion came from. That council work session. It's recommended that we bump the R110 zone up into this top tier here and increase the percentage to 50% coverage of the backyard area. And then the awning combined total coverage up to 70%. We then bumped the R112 and R115 up into the 30% backyards coverage area. And with a shade cover, it would then go to 40%. And again, those came from council's recommendation and happy to hear your thoughts on those as well and um ask any other clarifying questions you may have. So with that, we're allowing more structure into the backyard area. We're increasing that percentage. makes sense to do the similar thing on this particular section that allows people whose yards are bigger than

the standard for their zone who qualify for the higher tier. and comment to that. It's based off a backyard area. I don't know if the zone is applicable. Have a bigger lot, you automatically have a bigger backyard area. Oh, I see. Um I thought it was just going off the zoning designations on the left.

It It is there. It's a dual approach. If you have The bigger the backyard you have, the more percentage you're allowed regardless. Oh, I can see. Yeah. You know, the See, I mean, I I think it could make sense, but it might not be worth the the gymnastics to make it all work. And in conflict with that before, just see that bigger lots have bigger more yard area.

Okay. Thanks, It's another quick question. So, like this came out of a a work session gist like what are what's the city council after? What are they what are they trying to accomplish with this? Like what's the purpose behind this? What's creating the impetus here? Well, city city council didn't ask to bring this forward. This again, this was staff's recommendation to clean up the codeal definitions um and just be more co more co coherent between the three zones. And with that process, council said, "Hey, we we should look at increasing these percentages here." And so that's where this this portion came up from.

It's probably just all part of we're doing ADUs. We want to increase density. We made a bunch of changes to the code around that. There's been a trickle down to like it's spilling down into the other structures in the yard as well. Let's just get everything lined up and do a refresh on it. Yeah. changes were made to the detached accessory dwelling unit that kind of started things. So we we want to match the code. I think

this is the public hearing as well. We'll open this to a public hearing if anyone would like to speak on it. Okay, we will close the public hearing portion of this and if you guys have any other questions or concerns. If not, let's look for a motion. It's Commissioner Tupo. I'll make a motion um for item 4G, amend city ordinance 9-7-6, 9-8A-6, and 9-8b-6 modifying regulations um for city code and pass it on to city. Commissioner Yur, I'll second

first by Commissioner Tupole, second by Commissioner. Individual voting. Commissioner Anderson. I. Commissioner Davis. I. Commissioner Tupo. Hi. Commissioner Yur. Hi.

And Commissioner Bulock. I'm in I as well. On to the next item 4. Right. Repeal. The action is to repeal city ordinance titled 9 chapter 14 section 8 area of accessory dwelling accessory buildings and section 10 maximum height of accessory buildings. We'll let Elden go. Commissioners, you've heard a lot from me tonight. This is my last item here. Um, on the planning commission, we're asking to repeal both of these sections here as they're outdated and create conflict from the codes that we just discussed. Staff supports repealing these and avoiding conflict in the future. Happy to answer any question have at this time.

This is a public hearing as well. We will open this up to public hearing. Okay, we will close the public hearing portion of this and if you guys have any questions or concerns or what was that about your last night? What what were you saying just now? It's the last item on planning commission. Oh, okay. This is my last night on planning with the planning commission and I was like, what's your plan, bro? What's happening here? My last item on the planning commission agenda. That is not an offer to been talking a lot. Okay. What's going on? All right. For the record, I love my job.

Commissioner Anderson, I'll recommend approval of the repeal of city ordinance title 9 se chapter 14 sections 8 and section 10 as outlined by staff. Commissioner Tupo. I second that. I have first by Commissioner Ander and a second by Commissioner Tupo. Individual voting. Commissioner Anderson. I. Commissioner Davis. I. Commissioner Tupo I. Commissioner Yur I. Commissioner Bullock I'm an I as well. This will be passed to city council with a recommendation of approval. And the last item five is adjournment for city council. Motion to adjurnn. I'll second.

First by Commissioner Davis, the second by Commissioner Yur. All in favor? I meeting is adjourned. Give it a second and then we'll go to land You see?

to the land use meeting for April 15, 2025. Uh item one is approval of the agenda for tonight. Uh Commissioner Davis, and I make a motion to approve tonight's agenda. Second. First by Commissioner Davis, the second by Commissioner Tupo. All in favor? I. Item two is approval of the minutes from the March 18th, 2026 meeting. As Commissioner Yur, I move that we approve the minutes from the March 18th, 2026 uh land use authority meeting. First by Commissioner Yur, second by Commissioner Davis. All in favor? I uh declaration of abstensions and conflicts. Does anyone have any with this?

Nope. All right. Item four, public hearings. Item 4 A is a final plat partial amendment B to the Lion's Head Hilltop Estates at Green Springs Cove subdivision located at 1202 West Crest Road. We'll turn this over to Sebastian.

All right. Good evening. Um, the applicant is requesting approval of a partial amendment to the final plat of the Lion's Head at Hilltop Estates at Green Spring Cove subdivision located at 122 West Crest Road. The reason for this amendment is to simply combine lots 164 and 165 into one lot. So that's the original um plaid and if you Yeah, that's the newer lot. It's just one lot into 1.68 acre lot. The easement vacation between lots 164 and 165 were approved last council meeting. Staff has reviewed the proposed final plot partial amendment and finds it conforms to the PUDR zoning of this development. The subdivision also is in compliance with the subdivision ordinance of the city. Staff recommends the lenus authority approve the partial uh amendment B to the Lion's Head Hilltop Estates at the Green Spring Cove subdivision based on the findings and condition in this report. Uh that's that's that's it. If you have any question, you know, answer them. Um thanks.

Do you guys have any questions? Just just a couple of questions and and I guess one is maybe more of a process question as this is a gated community. Is there a way if you know when we want to put our eyes on it for us to kind of get the gate code or you or do you just kind of have to lurk and wait for somebody to That is a good question. Um yeah, the applicant didn't provide much information on that at this point. This is just to simply combine the two lots in terms of Yeah. I mean, it's there's a home on one and the there's a vacant lot on the other. I'm assuming they're just want to combine it to

Yeah, correct. There's So, there's one owner owns both lots. The the lot to the south, 164, is is an is a lot with a house on it. 16 um I guess 165 on the original lot. Um Yeah, that's that's just a vacant lot. So, it's just going to essentially extend probably make their backyard bigger something. Yeah. Yep. Yeah. Why? Just so you can get the gate code from the utility office if you want to.

Okay. This is a public hearing as well if anyone would like to speak on this item. Okay, we'll close the public hearing portion of this and look for a motion. Make a motion to approve the final plat partial amendment B to the Lion's Head Hilltop Estates at Green Spring Cove subdivision located at 1202 West Crest Road. subject to the findings and conditions contained staff report. Second

first by Commissioner Davis, second by Commissioner your uh individual voting commissioner Anderson. I Commissioner Davis I Commissioner Tupo. Commissioner Yur

I Commissioner Bullock I am an I as well. This will this passes doesn't go anywhere. Item 4B is a final plat amendment for Majestic Court located at Donis Court and High Descent Drive. We'll turn this over to Sebastian. All right. So, the applicant is requesting approval of a partial amendment to the final plat of the Majestic Court subdivision located at Donna's Court and High Descent Drive. The reason for this amendment is to extend lots two and three north uh to the subdivision boundary line, change the layout of lots six and seven, and add an additional lot number eight uh to the west of that common area. Moreover, the layout of the common area and the storm water detention area has been changed to accommodate the increase in lot sizes. Uh this change will maintain the required capacity as per the storm motor note noted on the exhibit. Staff has reviewed the proposed final partial plan 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 approval of the Majestic Court partial plot amendment based on the conditions this report. I can answer any additional questions and the applicants also here so they can uh answer any questions as well. Thanks.

Sebastian, I guess the only question I had it it looks like it's under control. There there was comment voiced by the engineer about site concerns over water detention and then it looks like public works is pretty much on it. I'm assuming This is a public hearing as well. We'll open this up to a public hearing if anyone would like to speak on it. Okay, we will close the public portion of this and do you guys have any questions for the applicant or anything else? Not look for a motion. Year. I'll move that we approve final plat partial amendment for Majestic Court located Donisc Court and High Descent Drive with the conditions and findings in the application.

It's Commissioner Tupo. I second that. First by Commissioner Y, second by Commissioner Tupo. Individual voting. Commissioner Anderson. I. Commissioner Davis I. Commissioner Tupo I. Commissioner Yur I. Mr. Bulock, I'm an I as well. So, item 4B passes. Item 4 C. This is a preliminary plat approval for the Stone Haven residential subdivision located at approximately 2000 South and 20 East. Applicant is Bill Cox. Turn this over to Sebastian.

All right. The applicant applicant is requesting approval of a preliminary plot for the Stone Haven subdivision located at approximately 2000 South 20 East. Uh this particular subdivision is proposing 26 residential lots on an area covering 7.21 acres of land. Uh the landscape strip along east 200 South or 2000 South uh would be 10 ft wide which is allowed per the updated um width requirement from last council meeting. The current zoning is R18 with the R18 zone to the north, PUDR to the west and east and an unincorporate area to the south. Uh the proposed subdivision remains in compliance with the zoning and the request meets the subdivision requirements and other city ordinances for this location. Staff has reviewed the request and recommends approval of the pre preliminary plat for the Stone Haven subdivision based on the following findings and conditions in this report. Uh that that is all I have. That is also here to answer any uh you know anything else. Thanks. If I could just piggyback that that couple meetings ago we had a landscape discussion. This subdivision is kind of what sparked that landscape discussion. we're now circling back to, hey, let's develop the land and they've accommodated, reduce that landscape down and and basically given it back to the to these future homeowners. So, just wanted to make you aware on your work on that is the what's the distance I mean because you're coming off of Sandia 2000 South right there to that first that first one. Is that I I know it's not a very busy road on 20 East, but it's pretty is that And that's the only way to get something in there.

Is that Is that code or is it Do we fudging it for code? Yes. Right there. We're fudging it a little bit. Okay. Okay, that's that's that's what I was wondering. This is a public hearing, too. I forgot to open that. If anyone would like to speak to this, please do so. If not, I'll close it. Okay, I'll close the public hearing portion of this if you guys have any questions for the applicant or or move it forward.

I'm good. And I'm just looking for a motion. Anderson, I'll motion to approve the preliminary plat for Stone Haven Residential Subdivision located approximately 2,000 South 20 East with the findings and conditions outlined by staff. Commissioner Tupo. I second that. First by Commissioner Anderson, second by Commissioner Tupo. Individual voting. Commissioner Anderson. I Commissioner Davis. Commissioner Tupo. I. Commissioner Yur. I Commissioner Bul, I'm an I as well. That one is approved. And item five is adjournment. Commissioner Tupo. I motion to adjourn. Second.

First by Commissioner Tupo. Second by Commissioner Davis. All in favor. Meeting is adjourned. Thanks everyone.