Planning Commission & Land Use Authority - Regular Meeting

Planning Commission for July 15th, 2026.

We will start the meeting off with a prayer from Eldon, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance by Commissioner Davis.

Our Father in heaven, Glad to be here tonight and discuss city applications, permits, concerns, development within the area. We ask that we collaborate and communicate in a clear, concise manner and effective in our decisions tonight. We're grateful for the moisture that we're receiving today asked to send more our way in the future here. We say these things in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all Item 1 on tonight's agenda is the approval of the agenda for tonight. Does anybody have any problems with it?

Commissioner Davis, I move that we approve tonight's agenda for July 15th, 2026. Commissioner, you're second.

I have a first by Commissioner Davis and a second by Commissioner. You're all in favor? Aye. Approval of the minutes from the July 1st, 2026 meeting.

I move that we approve the minutes for the Planning Commission on July 1, 2026, as there stated. Mr. Davis seconds the motion.

I have a first from Commissioner Urien, a second from Commissioner Davis. All in favor? Aye. A declaration of abstentions or conflicts. Does anyone have any with tonight's? No. Okay. We'll jump right in. Item 4A. C-2605, A REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO REDEVELOP THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 910 WEST AND 912 WEST RED CLIFF STRIVE. WE'LL TURN THE TIME OVER TO ELDEN.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONERS. THIS PROJECT IS A LITTLE BIT UNIQUE HERE. IT'S A REDEVELOPMENT. YOU CAN SEE ON THE MAPS THERE THAT THERE ARE EXISTING BUILDINGS THERE. the applicant has submitted a demolition permit and that was just approved today. So that building will be removed and they'll work through the development. Let's dig into the specifics here of this proposal. This site is zone C2 and I-15s to the north and C2 to the east, south and west. The applicant is proposing two new retail buildings. We can pull up the site plan here. Down at the bottom of the screen, those two buildings. And a larger building, 13,500 square feet in the upper right-hand corner. These uses are permitted in the C2 zoning designation. However, buildings larger than 5,000 square feet require conditional use permit approval. As shown on the site plan, the larger retail building is situated on the north end and is 26 feet tall and includes building segmentation along with a variety of exterior colors. This building meets the required 20 foot street side and 10 foot side property setbacks. Turning our attention to these, the restaurant and retail uses here. They are approximately 3,000 square feet and are shown adjacent to Red Cliffs Drive. These buildings are 27 feet tall, include building segmentation, and were designed to match the existing development, which is on the corner of Red Cliffs Drive and Green Springs Drive. As you can see here, we'll take this aerial image, and the proposed buildings This building will be removed and the two proposed buildings will look very similar to that corner building there to create more of a cohesive feel between the two. The required setbacks adjacent to Red Cliffs Drive is 20 feet. The applicant is encroaching this setback, which needs to be approved by the city. The property line is angled at this location with the closest part of the building being 11 feet. And I'll zoom in here. You can see where we're discussing this 11 foot here is the closest point to the back of sidewalk and then five foot two inches from the property line. So we'll be able to maintain that required 10 foot landscaping there. And then over on the right hand side, you can see it's a proposed 16 foot five inches. The required side yard setback is also 10 feet. And as you can see on the left-hand screen where my cursor is bouncing, they're proposing a zero lot line in that location as well, which will need to be approved by the city. The proposed buildings, I'll zoom out here. We can look at the parking. More of the site layout here. The proposed buildings require a total of 87 parking spaces. Proposal providing 117, 16 of which are for compact cars. The proposed parking is providing 30 parking spaces. The applicant is working on and will be required to provide a shared access agreement from this proposed development through the property just to the left, which is where the Costa Vida is currently located. And this will allow better vehicular access from Red Cliffs Drive to the proposed development. Staff has reviewed the proposal and recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of C-26-05 as shown in the exhibits with the findings and condition as outlined below. We can pull up the building elevations here as to what these will look like. This building here is the larger 13,500 square foot in the back corner, the northeast area. You can see the segmentation, kind of some pillars there, attractive building. And then the restaurant and retail building here, just kind of hard to see those specifics, but it will look like that existing building on the corner, which we showed. As you can see, there's currently, this access will remain. There's a shared access easement in place for this. This access here will be removed and the building will sit right here on this property line. That concludes staff report. I'm happy to answer any further questions you may have.

ELDEN, THIS IS COMMISSIONER DAVIS. WITH RESPECT TO THE ACCESS FOR THE INGRESS-EGRESS, CONCERNS WITH, I MEAN, WE'RE ADDING IN ESSENCE THREE BUILDINGS OR, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE THREE DIFFERENT TYPES OF BUSINESSES THERE AND THAT ONE DRIVEWAY. HAS THAT RAISED CONCERNS, YOU KNOW, FROM MANAGING THE TRAFFIC? BECAUSE I KNOW THE OTHER SIDE WHERE YOU'VE GOT THE COSA VIDA, YOU KNOW, THAT PARKING LOT CAN BE A LITTLE BIT OF A CHALLENGE AT TIMES WITH CHARGING STATIONS AND STUFF LIKE THAT IN THE MIDDLE.

Yeah, great question. This is a very, very busy corner. We've been looking at this as staff for quite some time. We're in the process of providing a stoplight off of Red Cliffs Drive just west of the current Costa Vida to control traffic there and allow access, vehicular access to flow between the uses much better here. So that's the reason for the need to provide the access easement through the Costa Vida site so that traffic can get to and from this site and directly down to that future stoplight.

There is a written agreement that details these terms and the city's commitment to participate on those. In addition to the traffic light, there will be some installation of certain What's the name of the concrete things we put in the middle? Median islands that'll help control the left hand attempts and left hand turns. Mostly what those do is help just kind of channel traffic into the best intersection opportunities so that we move a little quicker and more efficiently through those places.

Will this be a right in, right out, right there by the Starbucks and all that? Correct. Okay. That would make the most sense.

Good. Thank you.

So being a conditional use permit, really the question tonight is the structure that's over 5,000 square feet. Ellen's come prepared to show you everything, but that's really the question on the agenda tonight for the conditional use permit.

When you say the question, what do you mean by that?

Right, so the question is what is the conditional use that you're permitting tonight? And this one is before you because it proposes a building in this zone that's larger than 5,000 square feet and the city code says any building larger than 5,000 square feet in this zone requires conditional use permit approval. And so really it's the size of the building that brings it before you today.

Along with those setback requests as well.

Commissioner, you're trying to wrap my head around. I mean, it's a big jump from 5,000 to 13,000. I'm fairly new to the commission. Can you help me understand what the purpose is of the 5,000 square foot limitation in this zone? Why do we have that?

That came from future council, and Thad may have more insight on this than I do. But The city just wanted to be that involved with commercial development at that time that the code was approved.

Essentially, the policy behind it, and it's a bit of a relic in our code. It's been there for a while. There are trends to increase those thresholds. The concept is essentially that a city council or a planning commission desires to have at least some degree of input on the largest buildings that will be installed in the city. And so that's probably the best policy statement I can give you behind that element.

And are there similar exceptions that we've made in our recent history?

I'm not aware that we've ever denied a conditional use permit on building size in the commercial zones. I think the City Council or Planning Commission have always been in favor of those.

And we will also see them on everything on Telegraph, Green Springs, and am I correct? Those are the ones, those main thoroughfares are where we'll see them. We won't see them in the industrial units areas very often unless it's not a permitted use, correct?

Just to make sure I understood on the traffic flow, there's going to be an easement where the traffic can turn right in here by Starbucks, and then flow down to the Costa Vida egress where there will be a light. Correct. Until we are going to have a light there. It'll be in by the time this is done.

Correct. The agreement calls for that to be installed and functional before they open for business. And so it's a critical element for this to function if there's going to be invitees and traffic going on that needs to be installed and ready to go.

Yeah, I mean, I'm probably generally in favor of it, but my concern is just that that intersection is already the worst and it already gets backed up so hard right there in another light. can help in some ways, but that's also going to back it up even further in a lot of ways. And now you're going to bump into that twice. And that intersection is also, I mean, that's also tricky because it's locked in by I-15. So that's like it. You're building into a cul-de-sac basically up in there. So increasing the size of the buildings, pushing it all the way to the property line, it's a lot in a heavily taxed corner. So maybe the light will help with that. I'm curious, are there any other remedial plans in place for that corner?

So there's the light. There's the island medians. There will be the closure of certain driveways that exist currently. And so we will reduce the amount of motion opportunities along that stretch. Anything else, John, amongst the three? Those are the three tools we're deploying right now.

Yeah, like I said, between the traffic signal, that will obviously be working to time that with the green spring signal. With the traffic medians, that will eliminate a lot of left-hand turn movements so you lose dark clear crossed from one side to the other. So those are those are the big ones there. Obviously we've seen some some minor reduction in traffic with the main street interchange opening up and stuff. We're seeing traffic go go that way and stuff and we suspect that as we continue to improve Main Street to the south and stuff we'll see additional reductions in traffic over there.

Any other questions for staff? Okay, this is a public hearing. We will open this up for the public if anyone would like to speak to item 4A. Okay, we will close the public hearing portion of this and if you guys have questions for the applicant or Eldon.

Probably just again, Commissioner Davis, We're here for the purpose of the exception due to the size of the 13,000 square feet. Have we got a general idea of what we're talking about? You're asking the use? Yes.

Yeah, do we know on the use? I actually had that same question.

Jim, or is it going to be a trade of Joe's?

It's a retailer. I'm not aware of what type or end user will come, but it's known as a retailer for the 13,500 square feet. That's all I'm aware of at this point.

Commissioner Davis was asking to just have some idea on the end use, and there haven't been any announcements, but it's a very popular grocer that you've probably heard the name before.

Which is cool, and also it's going to get so much traffic into the worst spot in Washington City that's already backed up a bunch.

I feel like most of our traffic is trying to get on and off the freeway. I don't feel like, I mean, it's going to be hard, but it's going to shuffle most of that traffic to the west. and then come back through. I think it's going to push it that way eventually because it's not going to, you're not going to want to fight that traffic and it's the natural flow of things that they'll just go the other way, I feel like.

I liken it to, I think it's Orem Center Street. There's a couple places in Utah County where there's a couple miles of just stoplight after stoplight full of commercial and You only go there if you are shopping. And when you're there, you're happy to abide it because you're there for that purpose. But you also never intentionally pass through if you just need to get somewhere either. And so that area seems to just be expanding in that type of kind of destination traffic. I think the locals learn to avoid it when they can. And those that want to shop there will probably be happy to deal with whatever the process it takes to get to where they're going.

Yeah, I mean, I actually like the idea of bringing down that hotel and modernizing it, getting, I mean, it's such prominent, it's got such a prominent footprint right off the freeway for us, and I like where it's going. It's just unfortunate that it's, you know, traffic stuff, but, yeah.

Eldon, Commissioner, just one other question with respect to the setbacks. Anything, I mean, it seems workable from what I'm reading here. Is anything we should be, you know, ADDITIONALLY CONCERNED ABOUT WITH MAKING THAT EXCEPTION OR RECOMMENDING THAT EXCEPTION TO CITY COUNCIL?

NO. MOST IMPORTANTLY IS MEETING THE REQUIREMENT OF THE 10-FOOT LANDSCAPE STRIP, JUST THAT BUFFER ZONE WHICH IS BEING MET. WE'RE USED TO SEEING A 10-FOOT SETBACK, SO IT'S NOT UNUSUAL. IT WILL BE LANDSCAPED AND LIFE GROWTH. I DON'T THINK WE'LL EVEN BAT AN EYE ONCE IT'S ALL BUILT AND DONE.

SIDEWALKS WILL BE FINE.

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

Does Commissioner Davis make a motion for the approval and forwarding to City Council of item C-26-05, the request for a conditional use permit to redevelop the commercial property located at 910 West and 912 West. West Redcliffe Drive, subject to the findings and conditions in staff report.

Second. I'm first by Commissioner Davis and second by Commissioner Year. Individual voting, Commissioner Davis.

Aye.

Commissioner Mitchell. Aye. Commissioner Year.

Aye.

Commissioner Bullock. I'm an aye as well. So this will go to City Council next week, right? Item 4B is a conditional use permit to develop the commercial property located at 1309 East Twin Rocks Cove. I'll turn the time over to Eldon.

This property is zoned commercial with the surrounding zoning of open space I-15 to the north and commercial to the east, south, and west. It is in the Siena Hills PCD. That's the planned community development. The proposed uses are permitted at this location. However, due to the building, again, being over the 5,000 square foot, conditional use permit is needed. The applicant is proposing a 5,886 hundred square foot building that will provide space for three tenants. with both end units utilizing a drive-through window with indoor and outdoor seating for patrons to utilize. The building incorporates a variety of exterior building material to aesthetically improve the look and feel of the building. Building height is showing 21 feet tall. The left tenant is a Huey Magoos, approximately 2,800 square feet. This is a quick-serve chicken restaurant expanding its franchise into Utah, Nevada, and Arizona. The plan is showing drive-through stacking at 14 vehicles for this tenant. The right tenant is shown as Fizz and is approximately 1,500 square feet with drive-through stacking capacity at 14 as well. The middle tenant is unknown at this time and also approximately 1,500 square feet. The applicant for this proposal also developed and owns the property to the east where Culver's is located. The applicant is proposing to reconfigure parking on the Culver's site and will provide a shared parking agreement for the proposed development for a total of 55 parking spaces designated for this new development Required parking for the two known tenants is 29. This leaves 26 parking spaces for the middle tenant, which is more than enough for either or uses retail or a quick serve restaurant. Required parking for the Culver site is 38. And if all of the proposed 32 shared parking spaces were allocated to the new development, the remaining Parking spaces on the Culver's site is 45, which meets the minimum requirement of 38. Staff has no concerns with this shared parking agreement. Staff has reviewed the proposal and recommends the planning commission recommend approval of C-26-06 with the findings and conditions as below. And this goes on to city council as well. We can pull up those renderings and take a look at the proposal here. You can see the variety of material, the segmentation, shared outdoor seating. And I'm happy to answer any further questions you may have.

I have and I mean my only question I don't have any concerns about this one. My only question is whether we want to consider adding a recommendation that city council revisit the 5000 square foot requirement. If that's really if we're just tending to send that on through every single time. What's the point. Why are we doing this. I know it's like we wanted to have the ability in the future to question bigger buildings. But I feel like we've outgrown that. So maybe we can raise that. I mean, the amount of time that's going into us assessing all of this just because it's 80 or 800 square feet bigger than the 5,000 or whatever, it just seems like maybe we should revisit that. And I'm wondering if we should attach a recommendation around that.

That's a great comment. Just curious, what do you think that threshold should be? I don't know.

That's what I was going to ask the council who's got a lot more experience than me.

I agree with what you're saying, but certain areas are going to still require it. So it wouldn't have mattered if it was a 2,000 square foot building going in on Green Springs Drive. We would still get a conditional use permit for it. And I don't know if this falls under that category where it's a PUD. I think we would still see it, right? for conditional use? Or if it was under 5,000 would we not see it? This one's just based off the square foot. This one's totally based off square foot. And do we approve this one or does this go to council as well? Okay. No.

I agree with you on that. So I'll read the code language. There's a little more than just the 5,000 square foot total. I'm reading in city code 9-10B-2. This is the conditional use section for C2 commercial. And it says, Conditional uses and then this I'm going to read one of the one of the just sentences in there Development of any parcel of land for any of the principal uses listed in subsection a of this section if said development exceeds 5,000 square feet of total building floor area or of any parcel of land adjacent to Buena Vista Boulevard Telegraph Road Washington Parkway 300 Easter Washington Fields Road and 3650 South and And so this one includes kind of the size, the size concern, but also the location concern on certain roadways. Uh, I certainly think the question of, is that the size we want to review? Is there a different size? Is it really helpful recommendation? If the, if the commission feels like you've got a, got a recommendation, I would suggest you pass it on.

I mean, I think it's healthy to have the speed bump in there from a process standpoint, but maybe 7,500 square feet or something like that could be a little more logical. But I don't have a fundamental problem with the process given that it's located to particular sites and particular areas.

Yeah, well, I mean, the way I read it, What Thad just shared from the code is it's an either or. So if either of those conditions are true, it's either over 5,000 or it's in any of those locations, then the city has to give a conditional use permit. So, I mean, my big concern was just like along the big thoroughfares and main roads. Like, yeah, we want to kind of have a say about what's going in there and how it looks and all that. But we already have that through the condition B. Like, why not just get rid of that A one?

Good, or reduce the size. Or increase the size rather. Yeah. Yeah. I don't have a good sense of how often they fall into each of those buckets, if that's the appropriate range or not.

We could also just recommend that the city council take a fresh look at that and they can use their discretion to decide what to do with it, but that we just didn't notice.

Exactly. They'd have a better sense of the history of how often they come up.

We're just wondering what the use is of that.

I mean, 13,000 square feet is pretty significant.

Yeah, that big one. That's worth talking about. But that one would have been triggered by the other requirement anyway because it's a long telegraph. Yeah, so we would have still been having the conversation for that one. Yeah. I don't know, Commissioner Bullock. I just wanted to raise the question and see if there's enough juice to send that on.

I think that it's... probably look at i don't see a problem with it but like i i agree with it though i mean it's kind of nice to know what's coming in and know what's going on in our city just not only for us but for everybody that watches these and pays attention yeah this commission ritual i was just thinking it's not that often that we see it come through right so it's not like it

It's been terrible. I'm okay to have it looked at, but I was just thinking over the past history, I don't know that we've seen an excessive amount of businesses come through with that requirement.

And the other thing is, though, We've got to remember, though, is if this changes owners, it still doesn't come back for a conditional use permit if they're using it for the same type of business. We would never see it again just because it's already approved. So it stays with the lot, not with the applicant. It doesn't stay with Huey McGee. It could turn into another chicken place or something else. Once we've approved it, it's approved forever. So there's that too. So we're also approving it for that type of use in that area. So, I mean, I understand where everybody's coming from. I think I wouldn't go much bigger, but I mean, that's me. I don't have a problem with them coming into us for the most part, but I understand what you're saying. If we can fast track it to help the applicant get through it faster, it'd be better for them.

Yeah. And I think it's just an efficiency play. Like I'm always looking at, you know, I'm just thinking about how much time, you know, the staff spent on this. And if it's taking extra hours and hours of their time, to me, it's just a question of cumulative drag. That's if we can eliminate some cumulative drag, let's eliminate it. But It sounds to me like what you're saying is you actually find that there's some pretty good use to seeing. It puts things on your agenda that you wouldn't otherwise have there and maybe that's actually helpful because it keeps our community informed about what's coming in, gives us a chance to weigh in more.

I think so.

I mean.

Yeah. Well, I do too. I think it puts a few more eyes on the project, which I believe is helpful. And it also streamlines it for the city council. Yeah.

Okay.

So, oh, this is a public hearing. If anyone here would like to speak on item 4B, this is a public hearing. Now I'll open up a public hearing. Okay, no one wants to speak on 4B. I'll close the public hearing and look for a motion.

Commissioner, I'll move that we. Approve C-2606, request for conditional use permit to develop the commercial property located at 1309 East Twin Rocks Cove, subject to the stipulations, whatever we call them at the end here, the findings and recommendations and conditions stated.

This is Commissioner Mitchell, I second. I'm first by Commissioner Uren and second by Commissioner Mitchell. Individual voting, Commissioner Davis. Commissioner Mitchell, aye. Commissioner Ury, aye. Commissioner Bullock, aye. And I as well. And this will go to city council on the next agenda. Item 4C, G-26-02, a request to amend the general plan land use from low density to non-com located at 362 west and 3650 south. I'll turn the time over to Eldon.

With the realignment of George Washington Boulevard here, this parcel has become isolated from the other residential lots and is next to the LDS church with street frontage on both sides there as shown. With that being said, the applicant is proposing to change the general plan land use map from low density to income for the purpose of developing the site into administrative professional type uses. The income designation allows for two types of zoning designation, which include administrative professional and see one. Staff supports the AP type uses at this location. And to give the city reassurance of what the end use could be, the applicant has submitted a zone change application asking for the administrative professional zoning designation, which we will discuss. I believe it's the next agenda item. Access for this parcel is not allowed from George Washington Boulevard due to the access management plan. Access will come from 3650 South, which the applicant is aware of. Staff has reviewed the requested change and is comfortable with the proposal due to the location, double street frontage, and the ability to conveniently serve area residents with AP type uses. Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of G-26-02 as outlined above and shown in the exhibits. And this goes on to City Council as well. That concludes staff report. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

I think it's a great spot for an administrative professional. I mean, it's not going to be busy at night. It's next to a church. I mean, just like the one we have on Merrill Road, if it was something like that, I think it's going to be an amazing spot for it. So those are my opinions on it. If you guys have any other questions.

No, I tend to agree. If you're going to make an amendment to the general plan on a case that warrants it, it's an orphaned parcel at this point. Nobody's going to want to put a home there.

Yeah, I agree. It would be difficult to be there. I think it makes sense to have it, some type of commercial. Same.

Okay, this is a public hearing. If anyone here would like to speak to item 4C. Okay, we will close the public hearing portion of this and look for a motion if you guys don't have any other questions.

This is Commissioner Mitchell. I make a motion that we, this goes on to City Council, right? Recommend approval of G-26-02, request to amend the general plan land use map from LD to NCOM1. Located at 36, 362 West, 3650 South. With the recommendations and findings outlined by staff. Is there anything in addition to this where it becomes a zone and a general all-in-one?

This is just the general plan.

Okay.

Commissioner Davis seconds that motion.

First by Commissioner Mitchell, second by Commissioner Davis, individual voting. Commissioner Davis? Aye. Commissioner Mitchell? Aye. Commissioner Geer? Aye. Commissioner Bullock, I'm an aye as well. This will go on to next week's agenda for City Council. Item 4D, Z-26-13, a request to rezone approximately 0.76 acres located at 362 West 3670 South from the current R112 to a proposed AP zoning designation. We'll turn the time over to Eldon.

So this is the same parcel we just discussed here. I don't know if we need much of an introduction. The basics here is it's currently zoned R 112 and they are proposing to go to the administrative professional. It was just recommended to City Council to approve the general plan. We're now moving forward with the zoning here. We are required to separate each land use decision. the general plan from the zoning. So each item was sent out its own notice to the surrounding neighbors here, letting them know the general plan and the zoning is proposing to be changed. Staff supports this AP type use here. And with that, Being said, staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of this zone change from R1-12 to administrative professional. And I'm happy to answer any questions you may have at this time.

Elton, I do have a question. It was on, I should have asked it on the last one. But where they can't access in off of George Washington Boulevard, is there the ability to have a write-in, write-only offer there? Okay, it was too close, okay. That's what I was curious about.

But there's space when you go around the corner.

Yeah, okay. So this is a public hearing and we will open item 4D up if anyone here would like to speak on the public hearing portion of this. Okay, we will close the public hearing portion on 4D, and we'll look for a motion.

Elvin, real quick, just you said this at the beginning, and this goes back to the public hearing piece, but you said there were separate notices sent out for this being two distinct items, correct?

There was, yes. We set the minimum requirement that our 300-foot radius and a minimum of 300 notices for the general plan and the zone change, so each resident would have received two notices.

Thank you. Okay, with that, Commissioner Davis, I'll make a motion for approval of item Z-26-13, the request to rezone approximately .76 acres located at 362 West, 3650 South from the current R1-12 to a proposed administrative professional zoning designation subject to recommendations and findings in the report and for the Saunders City Council.

Second.

I'm first by Commissioner Davis and second by Commissioner Yerr. Individual voting. Commissioner Davis.

Aye.

Commissioner Mitchell. Aye. Commissioner Yerr.

Aye.

Commissioner Bullock. Aye. And I as well. This will move on to City Council next week. Item five is an adjournment. Unless you guys have anything else you want to talk about in the Planning Commission.

This is Commissioner Mitchell. I move that we adjourn. Second.

I have a first by Commissioner Mitchell and second by Commissioner Eer. All in favor? Aye. Meeting is adjourned. We will start land use in just a second.

Authority meeting for July 15th, 2026.

Item one on tonight's agenda is the approval of tonight's agenda.

Commissioner Davis, I approve that we approve. Let's try that again. You approve. I move that we approve tonight's agenda for July 15th, 2026 for land use.

This is a commission by July 2nd. I have a first by Commissioner Davis and a second by Commissioner Mitchell to approve tonight's agenda. All in favor? Aye. Item two is approval of the minutes from the July 1st, 2026 meeting.

Commissioner, I move that we approve the minutes from the Land Use Authority from July 1st, 2026 as stated. Second.

I have a first by Commissioner Uren and a second by Commissioner Davis. All in favor?

Aye.

Item three is declaration of abstentions and conflicts. Does anyone have any with tonight?

Okay, cool.

Item 4A is a preliminary plat approval for the Sunrise Valley industrial phase three through five sub, industrial phases three through five subdivision located at approximately East Country Way and Smelter Drive. The applicant is Ryan Lay and we'll turn the time over to Sebastian.

Good evening. The applicant is requesting approval of a preliminary plot for the Sunrise Valley Industrial Phase 3-5 subdivision located approximately east of Country Way and Smelter Drive. This particular subdivision is proposing 17 lots in an area covering 80.1 acres of land. The zoning designation at this location is industrial two and open space. The surrounding zoning is I2 and open space to the north and east, I2 to the west, and lastly county regulated to the south. The lots would range in size from the smallest lot being 0.8 acres to the largest lot at 15.1 acres, or about 15.1 acres, with most between one to two acres in size. A portion of this subdivision was previously in the hillside protection zone. However, the boundaries of the zone has been modified to allow for the proposed development per the December 4th and December 20th hillside meetings. The proposed 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 land use authority approve the preliminary plat based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions. That concludes that report. I can answer the additional questions you may have. And the applicant is here as well, so they can help as well. Thanks.

Do you guys have any questions on this?

Commissioner Davis I just a question with respect to the hillside committees there, I guess there are two there two meetings and the subsequent decision. I assume they just push the boundaries back and can you just give us a little a little texture of what kind of went on and what the give and take and why they were.

They did, yeah. In agreement to do that?

Yeah.

So they did, to answer your question, yes, they did push the boundaries back. I did look at the prominence of the hill ridge, how far back they could go and still safely develop the land and reduce the impact from an aesthetic standpoint. But to answer your question, yeah, they pushed it back. That's pretty much all there is to it.

So I'm assuming it had been like that forever, and then now everybody took a closer look.

Yes. As Applin came in and applied for the project, they had to remove the hillside because their hillside.

If I remember right, this is a smaller portion of a great big huge when they came in and asked for the mass grading and all of that back. That was like 100 or 200 acres. I can't remember. It was fairly large. And it was JP originally. correct? And they talked with it because there was already some scarring there from previous that had happened and this was just kind of the best way to let them change the hillside and it's an industrial area by the dump so I mean it's a great spot for the way it is.

Am I wrong? Just to add on to what Sebastian was saying was the existing scar there to try to salvage that just didn't make sense. So adjusting those boundaries, as Sebastian mentioned, made most sense just to clean it up and get a clean cut face scar through there. And Sebastian added condition. Maybe it's 14 that came from the hillside that this cut needs to be done to the IBC standards, which came from Hillside Committee. So all of those

Conditions of approval have transferred to this proposed pre plat and is in line with hillside recommendations Another element that was discussed the the site was going to have the removal of bill regardless of What was determined to be done with it? if there wasn't a change in the hillside boundary, they would need to export about twice as much as And there was some consideration at the city council of just the number of truck trips through that community nearby. And so there was a finding that if they did adjust the hillside boundary to accommodate the scar and just historical impact that was obvious, that would allow them to keep more of the cut and fill on site and reduce the amount of offsite trips. And so that was also an element there that was considered and was persuasive.

So this is a public hearing as well. Does anyone here would like to speak to this? Okay, we will close the public hearing portion of this. Do you guys have any other questions for the applicant or for? So the road below, this is just going to, is that cul-de-sac, is that foundry drive right up on top?

Is that foundry drive? Correct, yes. Foundry drive will continue east and cul-de-sac dead end.

It'll go there? Does it go? Purgatory road. Does it go further back? That's not purgatory road.

No, the bottom left one is.

But it'll just dead end right there? Or eventually will it go further back? Okay, so for now, that's just going to stop right there. Okay.

And then they'll just drop the two other roads in as the project continues. Quarry and Harlow, I believe. Yeah.

So Foundry Drive will cul-de-sac right at the... The steep grade change up into that, up into that.

Okay, so there's not, they can't go up it anyway. Correct. Okay. That makes sense. Not until hillside changes, right? So, okay. I'm good with it if you guys are.

This is just for approval, right?

No, we approve it.

It doesn't go to city council. This is it. Commissioner Mitchell, I move that we approve the preliminary plot approval for Sunrise Valley Industrial Phase 3 through 5 subdivision with staff's recommendations and conditions and findings.

Davis I second the motion I have first by Commissioner Mitchell in the second by Commissioner Davis individual voting Commissioner Davis all right Commissioner Mitchell I sure you're Commissioner Bullock I'm an eye as well item 5 is a German unless you guys have anything else you want to talk about Commissioner Davis I move that we adjourn First by Commissioner Davis, second by Commissioner Mitchell. All in favor? Aye. Meeting is adjourned. Thank you, everyone.