Planning Commission & Land Use Authority - Regular Meeting

for the June 17th 2026 meeting um tonight we're going to start our meeting off with a prayer from Jax the poor guy that got suckered into it for tonight we appreciate that and then the pledge will be followed by Commissioner Davis

Dear Lord, thank you for this day. Thank you for your protection, for your grace, and for your love and your mercy, Lord. I pray that you just watch over this meeting, Lord. I understand that no action is taken, no choice is made, no plan is carried out with it not being in your will, Lord. So I pray that as we discuss and we present and we go through the agenda today, Lord, I pray that you just reveal that will to us, Lord. I pray that you just lead this meeting and lead our speakers with your guidance, Lord, and just give us all the peace in whatever decision that's made, Lord, and Once again, Lord, I just thank you for bringing us all here together. In Jesus' name I pray. Amen. Thank you.

All right, item one for tonight is the approval of tonight's agenda. I'll look for a motion.

Ms. Commissioner Davis, I move that we approve tonight's agenda for Planning Commission.

Commissioner Tupou, I second that.

I have a first by Commissioner Davis and a second by Commissioner Tupou. All in favor? Aye. Approval of the minutes from the June 3rd, 2026 meeting.

Commissioner Tupou, I make a motion to approve the minutes from June 3rd, 2026. Second that motion.

I'm the first by Commissioner Tupou second by Commissioner Dick first by Commissioner Tupou second by Commissioner Davis all in favor Declaration of abstentions and conflicts does anyone have any with tonight? All right jump right in Item for a Z dash 26 dash 12 a request to update the existing PUD our zoning and for a proposed new building located at 3585 South Camino Real. The applicant is Dan Cox, and we will turn the time over to Eldon.

Thank you, commissioners. This is the site that we're looking at here. You can see that star there is over a blank pad with nothing on there. This site is 3.63 acres and when this was originally approved, it was slated that the building just to the south of that star would be mirrored and built where that star is located at a future date. Since that approval, which was back in 2016, the plan has changed and the applicant is asking to build A CLASSROOM ADMINISTRATIVE TYPE SETTING BUILDING TO SUPPORT THOSE ACTIVITIES FOR SUNRISE ACADEMY'S EXISTING BUILDINGS THAT ARE THERE SEEN HERE IN THE PHOTO. YOU CAN SEE THE ZONING IS PUDR. AND THIS IS THE LOCATION OF THE NEW BUILDING, WHICH WILL LOOK AS SUCH IN THIS PHOTO HERE. The conditions of the original approval, which are Z-16-04, have been carried over to this amended plan and the conditions being added by staff. The surrounding zoning to this parcel is RA-1 with bonus density to the north, R-115 to the east, R-18 to the south, and PUDC to the west. staff has reviewed the requested zone change and finds it conforms to the zoning ordinance and recommends the planning commission recommend approval which will go on to city council with the findings and conditions as stated in staff report we can look at these other photos here we've got a landscape plan between buildings there and then more renderings of what this building will look like. This concludes staff report. I'm happy to answer any additional questions you may have at this time.

Eldon, maybe just a process question. You know, frequently with these type of facilities, the question is how many folks will be there, how many residential people will be there. This one is a use on the site within the approved PUD plan, but it doesn't add any occupants. What it's proposing is to add an additional building for use of the existing occupants.

Is that correct? Yeah, great question. No, they're not asking for an increase in residents or occupants there the original approval Was that there would be no more than 60 residents at this location and With them not duplicating that building to the south which is the residential Building I don't think will come anywhere near close to to 60, but that's a question I would defer to the applicant as to how many are on site. That original condition did transfer over and states there will be no more than 60 residents allowed.

This is Dan Cox for the record. And just to answer that question, currently we're licensed for 44 residents and we'll just maintain that count. And this new building will just be supporting that count of residents for our operations. So we don't plan to increase that number from 44 up at this time.

Dan, this is Commissioner Bullock. So right now you have 44 residents or...

you're going to or you're licensed for that yeah thank you for the question yeah dan cox again uh for the record we we only are licensed for 44. uh currently we we have roughly about 12 residents at the facility uh so our license allows for that that uh capacity but we're not at it right now

How is that? So are you transforming more beds somewhere else to pick up the 44? Or how are you getting the 40? If you only have 12 now, I don't understand. I know, but if it's, but what I'm wondering though, is if it's, or is he transfer. Is he moving something else that's classrooms that in the. Wherever into other things and just using this for classrooms. This is what I'm asking.

Are you asking. Are you asking sorry?

Go ahead. Go ahead. Mr. Cox.

Yeah, I was going to say, I can't answer that. Um. Just, yeah, just right now, this new proposed building is just allowing us to have additional programming spaces, what we refer to it as, and classroom, mainly the academic classroom. We're a fully accredited academic program, we can help those that come to get our services to earn their high school degree. And so currently we're running those academic operations and services in Luburkin, Utah, and we want to eliminate traveling there. So the new proposed building just allows us to consolidate our operations and provide those academic services in this building.

Mr Cox, this is that segment of the city attorney. Is there any plan for students that are not residents at this location to be to attend services at this building? Is that what you're asking?

Oh, I'm just trying to figure out if he has 12 now that are residents, how are we. And we can go up to 44, whereas is there 44 beds there now? Or is he just to go up to 44 so he can stuff to bring it in? I'm just I'm confused. Yeah.

I apologize. Yeah, we, yeah. I apologize. Yeah, we're licensed to go up to 44. We flex up and down just based on census and where we're at operationally. So we're licensed to go up to 44. We just currently have 12 residents. That's just a current decision of ours as we plan and get this new building in place for us to grow. Currently at that site, we've gone from 35, 36 kids to 20 to, you know, it just kind of moves based on what our current goals are. And so currently we've held us at a lower census to allow, you know, lower residents to allow us to, make this move and to put in this new building um but yeah we're licensed to go up to 44 the academic services in this new building would only be serving the residents that are enrolled in our program we wouldn't allow any um any community-based uh adolescents to enroll in that academic program okay thank you thank you mr cox i think as a summary from my understanding the city entitlement

would allow up to 60 residents. The state license, which is really the license to operate, the city entitles the use, the state licenses the function essentially is how these work, allows up to the 44. They have not maxed that out and it's been confirmed that this building would not add any additional outside users on top of that.

And it's just classrooms, there's no beds, no residents sleeping in it.

Eldon is Commissioner Davis just to confirm a couple things it appears, but I want to Again validate that this is a one-story building Is that correct? That's that's what the plan show is a one-story building okay, and the the report the staff report does state that I think it says that Some additional requirements had been had been added by staff and If I've got the right one. I just wondered if there was something that I should, you know, that we should point out. But I may have the wrong, I may be referencing the wrong write-up. Because this did, I guess the initial approval occurred back in 2016. Correct.

Those initial conditions transferred over and then the additional condition number 13 was that exterior lighting will be directed inward to the property.

Got it all right, so you augmented the requirements by with by adding the lighting got it, thank you.

Commissioner to bow i'm just concerned. At the the building looks out of place it doesn't match the existing buildings. So I think architecturally it's an eyesore.

It appears to me that it's just modulars that are coming in, is what it looks like to me. I could be wrong, but that's my look of it. It looks like construction trailers or modular buildings.

Are we okay with that? Is what I'm wondering.

Well, I mean, we've seen them in the schools, but I mean. This is a big one. It's only 60 by 100, right?

What was that? Yeah, Dan Cox here. Yeah, these are basically just coming from a school district. So they're used in a school district setting and we're just picking them up because they've discontinued use.

I don't blame them for getting rid of them.

My concern is a little bit with Commissioner Tupou's. I mean, I know they can be made to look nice, and if these are going to be permanent, I feel like that they should at least be stuck out or something to match the existing buildings so that it somewhat blends in with the homes that are already there and in a PUD, don't they? I mean, it was approved for one that was a mirrored image of it, and I assume that was the aesthetics with it as well from the original. My recommendation would be to stuck on doing something so that they match and look a little bit like the other ones in there. But that's that's my opinion. That's what I would recommend to city council.

Right. Commissioner Davis and I concur with the other two commissioners. You know with this observation they look like old school portables.

And that's exactly what they are. And I feel like they'll serve the purpose exactly for what it needs to be served. But let's just, I mean, because you're altering the PUD that was something that was changed. So if we're going to alter it, let's get the best of both worlds and give them this and just have them kind of match the outside with the other one.

Am I wrong to say that? Not at all. That's one of the benefits of a PUD is you can talk about look and style and other elements of fit within the community.

So this is, I'm sorry, do you guys have any other questions for the applicant?

No.

Uh, Mr Cox, do you have anything that you would like to say to us?

I don't have this time.

Okay, we're gonna, we're gonna open this up to the public hearing portion of this. And then if we need to ask you any more questions, Mr Cox, we will ask you then. So, if anyone here would like to speak on this. Please do so now please come up and state your name.

We are 924 East.

I'm sorry, one more time into the mic so we can get it on the record.

Eldon Copier. We are directly behind, so 924 East there. That would be our backyard. So I'm in agreement with her. That looks like a terrible eyesore to me. That's something we're gonna be looking at every day. I like the fact that it's just one level, but that looks pretty tall. Our fence is only five feet, so am I going to be staring at that? So I'm totally agreeing with that. That looks like an eyesore to me. That's really all I had to say.

Thank you. Anyone else like to speak to this? Okay, I'll close the public portion, the public hearing portion of this item. And if you guys have any more questions.

Commissioner Davis, just one comment. I believe in the conditions it does state that it's requiring a six foot block wall on the eastern side, which I believe that would be on the residential side. No, that's on the north and on the east, so. So they would have to bump that up to six feet. But I guess at this point, I would ask Mr. Cox if he has any comments with respect to the aesthetics of the building.

Yeah, Dan Cox for the record. I don't have necessarily any direct questions. I do hear the feedback and understand the sentiment of it. And definitely as I work towards the city council and with the different vendors that we're working with can start to consider options and different solutions that can help to maybe find that common ground that was mentioned by one of the commissioners.

I think we can add a condition that it, the aesthetics. At least stuck on it and send it to city council and then it's up to then it's up to city council to make that decision final. But, I mean, please let city council know what we think about it.

So, yeah. if uh dan just talks again if i can i mean as as maybe just a more generalized aesthetic condition uh there's there's a number of ways to kind of approach maybe an exterior uh uplift of that and i just want to have a bit more flexibility on working with vendors on options i'm not you know i'm not sure how the stucco option would look and so just taking more of a general recommendation or condition that the aesthetics need to be considered and improved would would help me to have more flexibility

Well, I think that's something that city council is going to actually change. Not us.

Okay, understood that correct this, this proceeding tonight is. With a recommendation to the council, so there will be no approval or denial and certainly the city council observes these meetings and we'll pay attention to what the, what the commission decides to recommend.

So, I'll look for a motion from somebody.

Commissioner to make a motion to. Recommend approval. To the city council Z dash 26 dash 12 request to update the existing beauty our zoning for proposed new building located at 3585 South Camino real with the findings and conditions and staff report and with an additional. Condition that. the exterior of the building is uplifted to blend in with the current existing building.

Commissioner Davis seconds that motion.

I'm first by Commissioner Tupou, second by Commissioner Davis. Individual voting, Commissioner Davis.

Aye.

Commissioner Tupou. Aye. Commissioner Bullock. Aye. And an aye as well. So this will go to City Council next week. Okay.

Commissioner Tupou, I motion to adjourn.

Commissioner Davis seconds. I have a first and second for adjournment. All in favor?

Aye.

All right, meeting adjourned. We will start the Land Use Authority meeting in just a second. Land use meeting for June 17th, 2026. Item one on tonight's agenda is the approval of the agenda. If we can look for a motion for that.

Mr. Commissioner Davis, I move that we approve the agenda for land use committee for tonight, June 17th.

Mr. Commissioner Tupou, I second that.

First by Commissioner Davis, second by Commissioner Tupou. All in favor?

Aye.

Approval of the minutes from the June 3rd, 2026 meeting.

Commissioner Tupou, I make a motion to approve the minutes from June 3rd, 2026. Davis seconds.

I'm first and second. All in favor?

Aye.

Declaration of extension or complex?

No.

Alrighty. Item 4A is a final plat approval for the Crimson Sky Estates minor subdivision located at approximately 20 East and 3090 South. We'll turn the time over to Sebastian.

All right. Good evening. The applicant is requesting approval of the Crimson Sky Estates minor subdivision located at approximately 20 East and 390 South. This minor subdivision would create eight single-family lots ranging on an existing 9.27-acre parcel. The lots would range in size from 0.98 acres to 1.06 acres. There is additionally a landscaping along 20 east and 30 south and will be maintained by either the homeowners or the homeowners association. The current zoning at this location is or a half with the or a half zone to the north east south and the or a one zone directly to the West. Staff has reviewed the proposal and finds it conforms to the standards as set forth in the zoning regulations of the city. Staff recommends the Land Use Authority approve the Crimson Sky Estates minor subdivision based on the following findings and conditions in this report. That concludes the report. I can answer any questions you guys may have. Thank you.

I have a question. Sure. Does this not need a detention pond? How do they retain?

Yeah, I'm not sure. The engineer would have put that on the map. If it's not on the map, then it's most likely not needed at this moment. Do we not need that retention?

Okay, that's what I was wondering. It just said easement, so I wasn't sure if it, or it says Dixie Power easement. I didn't know if you could put a detention base in there. Okay, cool. Okay, that was all I was curious about.

Sebastian, just a quick question. This is Commissioner Davis. I assume it's not gated.

for those that is correct so originally it was gated but it's no longer gated because that would not allow for a public access the gates removed now it's up up it's uh it's still getting now it is gated oh it will be gated yeah okay all right so then uh yes but I guess they removed it but it looks like it still is uh gated as far as I can tell yeah

Okay, so it will be gated. Therefore, Crimson Sky Circle will be maintained by the HOA. Private, yes. No city. Right. It's all on them. You can talk to them.

Yeah, it's a private street. It's maintained by the HOA. We just have the utilities meant for covering all of that for our maintenance of the utilities.

Thank you.

Do you guys have any questions? This is a public hearing. If anyone here would like to speak to this item, please come forward and do so. Okay, we'll close the public hearing portion of this and look for a motion.

Commissioner Davis, I'll make a motion to approve the final plat for the Crimson Sky State's minor subdivision located at approximately 20 east and 30 90 south. Subject to the findings and conditions in staff report.

Commissioner Tupou, I second that.

I'm the first by Commissioner Davis and the second by Commissioner Tupou. Individual voting, Commissioner Davis. Aye. Commissioner Tupou. Aye. I'm Commissioner Bullock. I'm an aye as well. This is approved. Item 5A is a preliminary plot approval for the CARMEL AND ALAIA SUBDIVISION LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY WATERS EDGE AND RED SLOPES PARKWAY. APPLICANT IS BRANDY WALKER. WE'LL TURN THE TIME OVER TO SEBASTIAN.

THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY PLOT FOR THE CARMEL AND ALAIA SUBDIVISION WITHIN THE ALAIA PCD LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY WATERS EDGE AND RED SLOPES PARKWAY. Development is proposing 51 single-family lots on an area covering about 10.4 acres. This subdivision is located within Village 8 of the LA PCD. And as such, the proposed lots would fall under the medium density category with a density of about 4.9 dwelling units per acre. Lastly, the zoning of this project is PCD with the PCD zone surrounding the site. SUBDIVISION CONFORMS TO THE APPROVED ZONING AND THE REQUEST MEETS THE SUBDIVISION REQUIREMENTS AND OTHER CITY ORDINANCES FOR THIS LOCATION STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE REQUEST AND RECOMMENDS THE ELLENIUS AUTHORITY APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLOT FOR THE CARMEL AT ALAIA SUBDIVISION BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS THAT CONCLUDES STAFF REPORT I CAN YOU KNOW HELP ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AND IT APPEARS THE APPLICANTS HERE AS WELL SO THEY CAN HELP WITH THAT TOO

Commissioner Davis, just a couple quick questions.

I see that they're going to create some common area that's coming out of the 10 acres, correct? Got to be the 10.4. It's part of the 10.4, so they're going to erect the structures on roughly a little over nine acres, about a fifth of an acre apiece. I think that's what the lots are generally going to be. Are they going to be two-story or two, three-story with a garage underneath? I'm looking at, I'm just looking at 51 units. I'm looking at, I'm thinking parking.

It would be multi-story. I would say the applicant could speak more on that, but as far as I can tell, it's assembly multi-story.

I skipped it. If I'm looking at the exhibit, Commissioner, I see 10 stalls within that common area on the left side. So I assume there must be some narrative as to parking stalls within each of the lots. But I'm sure the applicant can give us detail on that. It's also private streets within there. And so the ability to park on those and how and where will be governed by private covenants, if any.

Also, just on that common area corner, if you remember, the evaporation pond was approved and they reallocated some common area space, which is why this corner here is larger. This is where they moved that common open area space to maintain that open space requirement within the PCD.

All right, this is a public hearing. If anyone would like to speak, please do so now. Okay. I will close the public hearing portion of this, and then I guess you have questions for Brandy?

Yeah, yeah, Brandy, if you would, please. Just so that I can understand.

Yeah, good evening. Brandy Walker representing the applicant tonight with civil, I'm civil science applicants here as well. So these are single family lots, so we are not required to provide additional parking, but to the point.

I'm curious within what you're visualizing, basically.

Yeah. I am 100% not sure what the end builder is going to be constructing. Maybe Sean can speak to that. But I mean, these lots are fairly decently sized in depth. I do believe they will be two story. Yeah.

So you can put a garage underneath, basically.

Yeah, they're deep lots. They're narrow, but they're deep. So each lot will have driveway space. Our houses are 10 feet setback. We have the ability to go to 10 feet. However, garages will maintain the 20. So there will be two parking stalls outside of the garage on each lot. But then these are private streets internally, so they did provide additional parking just to allow parking. But there's plenty of space on the single-family lots.

Yeah, I saw that, and that's great. that you had the additional 10 spots or what have you.

OK.

Thank you.

If you guys don't have any more questions, I'll look for a motion.

Commissioner Davis, I'll make a motion to approve the preliminary plat. for Carmel at Alaya Subdivision, located approximately Water's Edge and Red Slopes Parkway, subject to the findings and conditions contained in the staff report.

Commissioner Tupou, I second that.

I'm first by Commissioner Davis and second by Commissioner Tupou. Individual voting. Commissioner Davis? Aye. Commissioner Tupou? Aye. Commissioner Bullock, I'm an aye as well. Item 5B is a preliminary plat approval for the Salente Village 1. LaPierre Villa, subdivision located approximately north of Quamia Road, east of Alta Zona Road. Afghans Craig Coates and I'll turn the time over to Sebastian.

you thank you all right so the applicant is requesting approval of a preliminary plot for the solente village one la perea via subdivision located approximately north of kalima road and east of altazano road within the green springs pcd the parcel is owned pcd with the pcd zone surrounding the site furthermore this particular subdivision is proposing 35 via lots which are your typical pad lots and two non-paddlots for a total of 37 acres, covering an area of 10.69 acres. The construction of this development will occur in four phases, with the initial development towards the west and ending up towards the east near Altozano Road, or beginning of Altozano Road and ending towards the east. Each unit will consist of a two-car garage, which would provide adequate parking for this development, AND ADDITIONAL GUEST PARKING STALLS ARE ALSO PROVIDED, WHICH ARE NOT REQUIRED, BUT THEY PROVIDE GUEST PARKING STALLS. THIS SUBDIVISION IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE APPROVED ZONING AND THE REQUEST MEETS THE SUBDIVISION REQUIREMENTS AND OTHER CITY ORDINANCES FOR THIS LOCATION. STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE REQUEST AND RECOMMENDS THE LAND USE AUTHORITY APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLATFORM FOR THE LA PEREA VIA LOT SUBDIVISION BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS. THAT CONCLUDES STAFF REPORT AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU GUYS MAY HAVE AT THIS TIME.

SEBASTIAN, IF I'M READING THIS EXHIBIT, WELL, I'M MOSTLY TRYING TO FOLLOW THE PHASING. PHASE ONE IS THAT LARGE GROUP ON THE LEFT SIDE THERE.

YES. PHASE ONE BEGINS THERE.

PHASE TWO HOPPS.

CORRECT. Jots up a bit to the board.

Phase three is just five lots there in between phase one and phase two? Yes. Or is there more than that?

An applicant probably. Craig Coates with Alliance Consulting. Yeah, so phase three, there's the eight lots. Oh, there's two more in there. So it's lot 100 to 120 is the first phase. Phase two would be the remainder of that, the La Perea Alley all the way up. And then phase three is just kind of the north corner there. The whole site will be masqueraded at one time to make a balanced site. And then it's just kind of like they'll build it and take it down. The first they have 20 lots planned, but the builders plan in the first 13 lots in the first year kind of do these bill a lot. And then the phase four, I don't know if any of you remember, but when we plotted phase two of the subdivision, this was plot as large parcel parcels. And now we're coming back with the bill a lot. But when we looked at those 216 and 217, which is in phase four, those are They just didn't really work very well, so we just turned them into traditional single-family units to match what's across the street. That's why they go 16, 17. It goes with that 2. It's at Village 1, Phase 2B plat. It's 211, 214, and 15 on the south side of Kalima Road.

Thank you, Craig. There's really no legal concern with the order. I think I was mostly just hoping to get your explanation so people understand the what and why. Thank you.

Yeah. My question is, is a 26 foot wide alleyway, isn't that kind of narrow?

That's actually a large alleyway. So the reason why we chose 26 is because a fire code requires a minimum of 26 for fire apparatuses. And we met with the fire department and went over that. Usually alleys are between 20 feet and 26. We chose to do 26 on all these. And then you have your five foot setback for your building. But on these units, they have a 20-foot driveway as well. And I can show you this map, but they actually are planning three-car garages for most of these units too. So they'll have three-car garages plus the 20-foot drive approach. Just the building on that third-car garage, the side of it will go up to that five-foot setback. And they're actually probably going to set them closer to 10-foot setback on those ones.

Okay.

Just a clarifying question here. Is this private alley the only access to the water tank there?

No, it is not. So that's a great question. So the water tank access is actually to the right. Can you go to the next sheet? And if you zoom up between lot 216 and 207, there's a water tank access right off Kalima. So there'll be a little access road right there. That's where the existing tank access is. There's the old dirt road that's right off that road. And that's where we'll maintain that access. Those are just dead end alleys. And they will never go anywhere because that's hillside above it, hillside protected area. So there's nothing up there above them.

Thank you.

Any other questions? I don't think so. Thanks, Greg.

We'll look for a motion if you guys don't have any questions. Yeah, I did the public hearing.

This is Commissioner Tupou. I'll make a motion to recommend, this is final approval, right? Because it says recommend approval. Yeah. To approve preliminary plat for the Salente Village 1 Subdivision located approximately north of Kalima Road, east of Altozano Road, with the recommendations and findings and conditions in staff report.

Commissioner Davis seconds that motion.

First by Commissioner Tupou, second by Commissioner Davis. Individual voting, Commissioner Davis?

Aye.

Commissioner Tupou? Aye. Commissioner Bullock, I'm an aye as well. It is approved. Item 5C is a final plat amendment to the Bridger Lane subdivision located at 191 West Bridger Lane. The applicant is Cody Arnoldson. And we'll turn the time over to Sebastian.

Thank you. The applicant is requesting approval of a partial amendment to the final plat of the Bridger Lane subdivision located at 191 West Bridger Lane. The reason for this amendment is to adjust the easterly lot line of lot 11, shown on the screen, which is adjacent to the farmland estate subdivision to the right, as a new public utility and drainage easement will be created along the new lot line. Currently, the line directly to the east of lot 11, that small sliver there in blue, is a separate parcel, and the applicant seeks to combine this parcel into lot 11, NO OTHER CHANGES ARE BEING MADE AT THIS TIME. STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE PROPOSED FINAL PARTIAL AMENDMENT AND FINDS IT CONFORMS TO THE R1-15 ZONING OF THIS DEVELOPMENT. THE SUBDIVISION WOULD ALSO REMAIN IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE OF THE CITY. STAFF RECOMMENDS THE LANE USE AUTHORITY APPROVE THE BRIDGER LANE SUBDIVISION PARTIAL AMENDMENT A BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING ORIGINAL CONDITIONS. THAT CONCLUDES THAT REPORT AND I CAN HAPPEN TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

NEW SPEAKER SOMEBODY ASKED ME A QUALIFIED QUESTION. I ASSUME THE APPLICANT OWNS BOTH PARCELS?

NEW SPEAKER YES. SO THE NEXT ITEM THAT WILL BE DISCUSSED INVOLVES THAT PARCEL TO THE RIGHT. TWO SEPARATE APPLICATIONS. NEW SPEAKER BUT FOR THIS PIECE? NEW SPEAKER THEY NOW DO, YES. NEW SPEAKER THANK YOU.

They now do, or they always have? Because there looks like a driveway right in the middle of it. OK. This is a public hearing. If anyone would like to come and speak to the public hearing portion of this, please do so.

So I'm Brett Barron. I'm the owner of that house. And we bought this property, half acre, four years ago. We built three years ago. And on our title, when we bought, it said that all of this was recorded and our seller followed all the guidelines and did all the amendments. So we built our house. We were going to build a shop in the back section. And it was actually, if you see where my boat is, it's kind of like right at the back, a line through it. There's a 30 by 50 shop that we were going to build. But the cost of building a house three years ago was ridiculous. And so we couldn't afford it. But it was approved for us to do so. And then now we've come back and we're trying to do it. And they're like, no, you have to amend the law. And then our neighbors tied into the sewer, our sewer line across the, and they were supposed to handle everything. I'm guessing they wouldn't have been able to do that since this amendment never happened. Am I correct? That I don't know. Yeah. And I don't know, maybe I'm asking the wrong question at the wrong meeting, but it's been a confusing, expensive, time-consuming process of all of this. And so I'm kind of wondering if you guys have any insight since you deal with this kind of stuff more.

Yeah, so that would be a sewer department question. The planning commission's role is to review land use applications and either make a decision or recommend them to the city council. So this group spends very little time talking about the sewer, and they don't They don't know much about where it connects or how.

Yeah, but the amendment should have been done when we first purchased the property and stuff.

Is that correct? So you bought a house in one subdivision and then you bought land from a lot owner in another subdivision? No, so this lot, we bought this half acre lot. Correct. Lot 11 is one subdivision?

Yeah.

Lot 6 is in a separate subdivision. Yep. So subdivision grassy acres, subdivision bushy acres are different subdivisions. And so because of that, they have different plots. And so when you bought land from lot six, you needed to then, if you wanted to have an entitlement to use that lot, you needed to come in and amend it so that you didn't have a building application. that sat on two different portions of two different subdivisions. And so that's the amendment that from a land use planning standpoint is needed is we just need you to make a lot out of the original lot and the piece you bought.

Okay. So technically we shouldn't have been able to do our driveway then since it's over.

Yeah. Yeah. It doesn't matter what time you bought it. What you bought was two separate pieces of Two different subdivisions, yeah. So I'm not referring to the time at which you bought it as much as I'm referring to you've got two separate pieces of lots in different subdivisions.

You just need to amend it to make it.

So had you come in to seek a permit for that driveway, you would have probably been told, hey, let's get this amended, right? Let's get it corrected. And so, yeah, the best way to do it, and the reason why you do it is because it benefits you. It helps you be able to use your land, right? Yeah. is you have them combined into one lot, you amend the subdivision that you bought into, amend the subdivision of the raw land that you bought so that you now have one lot and then you can use that lot within the, land use rules of the city.

Okay. So it just got overlooked is really what it comes down to.

That's probably how I describe it. I don't know. I wasn't there, but yeah, it's probably something that probably a detail that was the last detail you were worried about as you were doing all the stuff that you do when you buy land and build and do all that. Yeah.

Or the previous one just sold it to him and then recorded it with the county and not the city. And then the county doesn't tell the city what's going on. So it's probably recorded with the county, but not the city.

Yeah, there's no requirement to record deeds with the city. The city of Pentagon found that to look it up. And so yeah, that's probably what happened is your land transaction was recorded at the county like they all are. And it was a lawful transaction. But as far as cleaning up lot lines and subdivision lines, I think that's what we're doing here tonight.

Yeah, pretty much. So really, ultimately, is it both of our responsibilities To do that. I'm just kind of trying to figure out.

So you own the land now. So I would say when they sold it to you, you bought into the obligation and responsibility. If you wanted to build on it, you bought into that. And so I would say it's your responsibility because you're the landowner. Yeah. The owner of lot six doesn't have authority to bring this type of an application for land that they don't own. And so you're the owner. It's your benefit, but also your responsibility. Yeah.

So the sewer line that goes across that, yeah.

Now, if I was a buyer, you might have had a contract that said, hey, you guys will help us take care of this right up front.

Yeah. And in our contract and stuff, it does. It states that it will be amended. So it's just... We're trying to do everything the right way because we don't want to have issues. And unfortunately, it's time consuming and expensive. But that pretty much answers my questions. I appreciate you guys. Thank you. Thank you.

Anyone else like to speak to this? Okay, we'll close the public. hearing portion of this and look for a motion. Do you guys have any other questions? To me it looks like it's just got recorded and then whatever happened with the subers, that's on someone else, not us. John?

Yeah, and transactions like this are fairly common. The most common one is within the same subdivision, so they just have to amend one plat. This one is kind of doubled up because you've got to amend two plats. And so that adds to the engineering expense and the cost that they're going to incur from whoever they hire to do that. But yeah, that's the way to do it when you've got a piece of land that's outside of your subdivision and you want to get things cleaned up for a few guys.

And if they bought it this way, it was whoever had it before them didn't do it. And so now they're having to clean it up because whoever you bought it from was the one that dropped the ball and should have done this correctly through the city. They just recorded it through the county and

was done with it so that you know the legal description from the county and the bank and everything probably has all of that in it would be my guess yeah possibly i i can't fault the sellers because nobody made them buy it like this is what they chose to buy right diligence is when you figure things out like this and so so it is what it is but that's partially why it's a little more expensive a little more complicated is most of our lots where we add space is just PEOPLE WITHIN THE SAME PHASE OF THE SAME SUBDIVISION, CHANGING LINES A LITTLE BIT, AND THIS ONE IS COMPLICATED BECAUSE IT'S DIFFERENT SUBDIVISIONS TOO.

COMMISSIONER DAVIS, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE FINAL PARTIAL AMENDMENT TO THE BRIDGER LANE SUBDIVISION LOCATED AT 191 WEST BRIDGER LANE SUBJECT TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS, FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS CONTAINED IN STAFF'S REPORT.

Commissioner Tupou, and I second that.

First by Commissioner Davis and second by Commissioner Tupou. Individual voting, Commissioner Davis.

Aye.

Commissioner Tupou. Aye. Aye, Commissioner Bullock. I'm an aye as well. So that is approved. Item 5D is a final plot amendment to amend for the farmland estates.

This is just the other subdivision of the same topic.

Yeah, located at 2114 South Log Lane. And we'll turn the time over to Sebastian.

Yes, so as I was just mentioned, this is just the second final plot amendment because it's because it's two separate subdivisions. So in this case, the applicant is requesting approval of a partial amendment to the final plot of the Farmland Estates subdivision located at 2114 South Log Lane. The reason for this amendment is to adjust the westerly line of lot 6, as shown in the exhibit there, as the lot owners of lot 6 sold the western portion of their property to the lot owners of lot 11, which was just discussed. No other changes are proposed at this time. Staff has reviewed the proposed final plot partial amendment and finds it conforms to the RA half zoning of this development. THE SUBDIVISION WOULD ALSO REMAIN IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE OF THE CITY. THE STAFF RECOMMENDS THE L.A. NEWS AUTHORITY APPROVE THE PARTIAL PLOT AMENDMENT A FOR THE FARLAND ESTATES SUBDIVISION BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS. THAT CONCLUDES STAFF REPORT. I CANNOT ANSWER ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE BUT SEEMS LIKE WE COVERED MOST OF IT. THANKS.

This is a public hearing as well, so I have to open this for the public hearing. If anyone here would like to speak to item 5D. Okay, we'll close the public hearing portion of this and look for a motion or if you guys have any other questions.

I'll make a motion. This is Commissioner Tupou to recommend approval for final partial amendment A for the farmland and state subdivision located at 211 for South log Lane with the findings and conditions in staff report Can you make sure Davis seconds that motion?

I'm first by Commissioner Chippewa and second by Commissioner Davis individual voting Commissioner Davis. Hi Commissioner Chippewa. I'm Commissioner Bullock. I'm an eye as well. So that was approved and Final item is adjournment Commissioner Davis. I make a motion to adjourn Commissioner Tupou. I second all in favor. I Meeting is adjourned