Planning Commission & Land Use Authority - Regular Meeting

Ready.

All right, welcome everyone to Planning Commission for August 19th, 2026. We will start this meeting with a prayer from Commissioner Mitchell and a pledge from Commissioner Davis.

Dear Heavenly Father, we're grateful to be here this evening. We're thankful we could all gather into be involved in this planning commission and land use meeting. We pray as we go throughout the items on our agenda that we can all work together and that we can listen to the ideas that are shared and that we can all work together as a city to make good decisions that will affect our city. We're grateful for that many blessings. We're grateful for all those who serve and work diligently on behalf of Washington City. And we thank thee in this, we pray, and do so in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen. Amen.

Please rise.

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.

All right, item one on tonight's agenda is approval of tonight's agenda. I look for a motion to approve.

This is Commissioner Mitchell. I move that we approve tonight's agenda. Second.

I have a first by Commissioner Mitchell, a second by Commissioner Uyghur. All in favor? Aye. Approval of the minutes, item two is approval of the Planning Commission meeting minutes from August 5th, 2026.

Commissioner Tupou, I make a motion to approve the minutes from August 5th, 2026.

I'll second that motion. I have a first and a second. All in favor? Aye. Item three is declaration of abstentions or conflicts. Does anybody have any with two nights?

No, none.

Okay, move on to the public hearings. ITEM 4AG-26-04, A REQUEST TO ADMIN THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM LD, OS, NCOM, LD, MD, MHD, AND CCOM LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 2000 SOUTH AND 20 EAST. THE APPLICANT IS JASON WARD AND THE OWNER IS ADAMS FAMILY. WE'LL TURN THIS OVER TO ELDIN.

Thank you, commissioners. A lot of acronyms there. To be transparent, those can translate to open space, low density, and neighborhood commercial there, just so everybody knows what's going on. This map here, you can see those yellow stars. This is kind of the area. This is the area that we're looking at and discussing proposed changes. We'll scroll here to this map. You can see in the top left corner, we're concerning ourselves with four different areas, community, commercial, medium, high density, medium density, and low density. So we'll discuss these four areas as to where they apply on the map and what those interpret to. And I would just like to remind everyone that the general plan is a very high level map. No entitlements come from or with a general plan. It's just high-level planning and guidance for future development to follow. This first area here is the LD, and it concerns itself with 7.56 acres. It's got the green around the outside of it. This area is in the hillside and the top part, that upper green line is the top of hillside scarring that has occurred or been cut in the past. The applicant is proposing to grab all of that scarred area and include it in the low density development so the mitigation can occur for future development. So that's kind of the purpose behind that area. Moving on to the next item is the medium density. It concerns itself with 50.32 acres. And it's the yellow color as well. Medium density allows for single family residences with a 4.5 to six density unit per acre ratio. And as shown on the map, these areas will serve as a transition from the low density to the medium high density areas. And here is one of those areas seen in the middle here. Here is the other area concerning itself with 14.52 areas. And then the third area here is kind of a transition or buffer point between the low density to the medium high density. The next area here is the medium high density. You can see in the orange colors. The medium high density allows for attached single family residences and multifamily with a 7 to 12 density per unit acre ratio. And these are located on the corners, the busier areas on this map. This first one's 24.69 acres. And this second area next to the middle school is 17.1 0 acres. Lastly is the change to community commercial. You can see these pink areas here concerns itself with 40.6 5 acres and fronts Merrill road. and 20 east here. I would like to turn on the map here. Give me just one second. I'll pull up our aerial map. So you can see where my cursor is bouncing. This intersection here is where that proposed commercial goes. So if we pull up the transportation here, the bottom right hand screen, you can't really see it, but the top three roads are major arterial, which is a yellow roadway. It's 106 feet wide. If I zoom out, you can see where that's located in the city. The next one down from that is a minor arterial and that's an 85 foot roadway. And then the one just below that is a 66 major collector. So I'll zoom out here and you can kind of see the location placement of where those run throughout the city. Not very many of those yellow roads. Blue or purple, but that kind of gives you an idea of of the intensity of those roads and the width and the volume of traffic that has been planned and built to accommodate larger quantities of traffic. So looking at their map, the community commercial is proposed off of Merrill Road, which makes it planning. It makes sense from a planning perspective. It's on the corner of 20 East and a busy traffic Merrill Roadway. Further off of that, if we back out here, pull up the map, Merrill Road ties into Mall Drive, which I think we're all familiar with the Paseo development. That's a commercial corner there. And this commercial would feed off of that feeling there, just kind of piggyback what has and is being done in that area. The surrounding general plan land use designations for this area are open space low density very low density and neighborhood commercial staff has reviewed the requested change and is comfortable with the proposal as it incorporates land use buffering and compatibility transition. Furthermore it appropriately locates higher density residential and commercial uses along major public roadways and the intermediate school. That concludes staff report. I'm happy to answer any follow-up questions that you may have.

What is it general plan right now? What are we what is the general plan look like right now before.

So this is recently annexed land some of the some of the last lands to be annexed and so it doesn't have much history of general planning. Eldon I'll pass it back to you on that.

Is it currently county.

That's correct. This past year it was annexed into Washington City. You can see that small area of red. This is the corner of Maryland 20 East. That's about two and a half acres of commercial that has been slated and the rest is low density and then open space up in that hillside. So the majority of it is general plan low density. But speaking of a historic nature, it's been in the county and has been used as farming.

It is. It hasn't been general plan, but I feel like we probably should have had. I mean, it's not like they're going to annex into St. George. Why didn't we have some sort of idea about what we wanted there before today?

I would say that there were ideas. Until it's annexed, the city shouldn't. I wanted to say cannot, but I guess they could. It just wouldn't have a legal basis. They should not. Include a general land-use designation on that because it's subject to County land-use planning at that point And so so I'm sure that there were planning commissions and city councils and the members of those bodies that had ideas But the city never did general plan it because it was under counties land-use jurisdiction And so the challenge they had is when they wanted to convert from agricultural use to a development use and The county doesn't have the ability to serve them all the utilities and different services they need So they're their only option was to annex into Washington City at some point and that's what happened recently and so But you're right, you know that it was inevitable that at some point they would decide that farming was something they wanted to stop doing and they wanted to sell it and In this case, the farmer, Larry Adams, passed away and then it took a little while for the family to make up their mind and they made it up and that's where we're going. And so it would have been improper lawfully for the city to general plan it while it was under county's land use jurisdiction.

I have a little follow-up question. I'm sure we'll have more conversation after public comment. Is it common to address this large of. I mean we've got so many acres we're dealing with hitting on so many different neighborhoods so many different implications. This one was like hard to get my head around. Is it common to be dealing with this big of an item all at once in this process.

It is common. It's unusual for us. I think the majority of what we've seen in the past is smaller piece by piece changes. This definitely does feel large. It's 140 acres. I think they own 170 acres of land. They're asking to change 140. I like the idea of taking a big picture approach. It is a little bit harder to do and feels a little unusual with what we've seen in the past.

Yeah, there are definitely advantages to having the big picture 10,000 foot view while we're dealing with it because we can deal with it in a little bit of a more intelligent way. But at the same time, it's also difficult to think about all the implications for every single piece of those.

So in the 90s, before anything south of the river had been annexed, the city did an initial general plan at some point that was very broad stroke like this too. And so this one is unique because it's a large piece of land the city doesn't see this size of land being annexed in in the last few decades but it is it is true that general planning is broader strokes you know paint brushes with thicker thicker heads as you get to zoning and then actual permit applications we drill down we require a lot more detail we see a lot more planning and technical paperwork general planning there is no guaranteed uses there's no vested rights There's use categories that are general planned. And then the general plan also can change based on a land use applicant. So there could be somebody that buys one of those parcels someday and they want to come to the city and change the general plan. The city, the planning and zoning would accept that application and bring it to a meeting and see how it fared.

Okay. Thanks. Thank you. With those general use categorizations, I should make it known that in the CCOM areas, It's kind of a tiered approach. Just below that, we've got a neighborhood commercial or the NCOM, which is our lightest general plan designation for commercial. This falls right above that, but we need to keep in mind that this NCOM proposal allows for AP, which is administrative professional type uses, the most soft commercial type use. It allows for the C1 uses and also the C2 uses. So when we, we put a CCOM use there. We can't assume it's going to be a C2, a C1 or all AP uses that this would allow flexibility to come and really fine tune it with the zone change application. And at that point then decide if we're comfortable with a C2 use an AP or a C1 type use. So just, I wanna keep that in your mind as well.

So CCOM is like a gateway to C1, C2.

Correct. And the AP, yes. But Elden, if I'm correct in understanding that, if you provide that CCOM designation, you also lose a bit of the latitude that you may have if you push for a PUD.

So generally PUD or PCD or PCD.

When we're doing zoning.

Those would, as a matter of planning progress, that would be a more specific zoning designation than the general plan. In theory, you could general plan a planned development. The challenge is that doesn't give very much visibility as to future use categories. And so as a matter of general planning, we prefer these type of things because it at least lets people know generally the city's viewpoint as to future use categories. Now, anybody could buy that and come in and do a PCD for high density or a PCD for commercial.

And zone it according to that zone designation, but generally at the general plan we we don't do that much Okay, but just for my understanding and probably for some of the folks out there You know the conversation here if you elect to go with the CECOM Then everything needs to come back and all now that now that they put in front of us where there's a c1 or c2 At that point we could say no, I think you're better off with it with a PCD. I

Correct. So let's work on your scenario. Let's say CCOM gets approved tonight by the Planning Commission at those locations that it's shown. And then a subsequent application for a zone change would come to this body. And one of the findings that would need to be considered is, does the application conform to the general plan? So if somebody brought in industrial and tried to put it on the CCOM, the finding would be it doesn't conform to the general plan. Basis that could justify a no vote now if they came in and brought see c1 That that does fit in that category Now you might look at other uses and other other considerations But yeah, the next step is a more precise zoning designation and this body has to decide whether that application meets And conforms to the general plan If it doesn't and they still want to do it they would staff would say go back amend the general plan and then try. You don't always get guaranteed approvals for general plan amendments either. Right. But yeah so so this is setting an initial category of uses. These use labels weren't decided by staff. These were landowner and applicant driven. Now staff worked with them you saw Elden describe some of what they did to try and work on hillside just scars that exist right and other things but primarily this is an applicant from the landowner these are what they're asking this planning commission to consider for use categories for this land that's newly annexed into the city ecom the pudc is is absolutely an option to come with that so you got ap c1 c2 and a pudc option to come

So this is Commissioner Mitchell. I'll just share some of my thoughts. And obviously you're planning a city. You get a chunk of land like this that comes. What do you do with it. Right. And so I can see where they're coming forward with mixed mixed general plan to try to tap into each category that is needed within the city. So I think the decision becomes OK is that the right place to put it. And how do you make it how do you make it work with the existing surroundings.

I have one other big picture question before we jump in deeper. I'm kind of new to the board and I'm curious getting this kind of much land annexed in at once. One of the questions that came up in public comments, one of the questions that immediately came to me was about parks. And maybe it would be helpful if you described how a piece of property generally becomes a city park and where in the process that happens. And just a quick overview about that I think would be helpful for me and maybe other people.

So there's two ways that parks can come into existence. Well, there's probably more than two, but two tracks. One track are parks that have been identified on a capital facilities plan for impact fees a Lot of citizens have used at this point I think the new will and skate park that was a park that was identified as a regional park for a decade or so and Impact fees were assessed and collected and saved up and that park was largely funded by impact fee taxes or impact fees charged to development activities and so the city plans are AND ASSESSES AND COLLECTS FEES TO BUILD CERTAIN PARKS THAT ARE PROPERLY CONTAINED IN THE IMPACT CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN. THOSE ARE ALL PROCESSES AND TERMS THAT COME FROM THE STATE STATUTE THAT AUTHORIZE CITIES TO USE IMPACT FEES WITH VERY NARROW USES AND THE NARROWNESS IS AUTHORIZED USES WITHIN THE PLAN THAT THEY HIRE AN ENGINEERING FIRM TO PRODUCE. SO SEVERAL OF OUR PARKS COME ABOUT THROUGH THINGS LIKE THAT. other parks come about through developers that either want to park because they want it to be an amenity or a benefit to their facility, or they want to build a park because there's something in the city's code that has a benefit to them to do that. And so sometimes they're private parks because they don't have enough acreage. The city has a standard parks are supposed to be four acres or bigger if they're going to be dedicated as a public park. And so nothing here says there won't be parks. Any of those chunks of land could at some point have a park or have a private park that's an amenity to a private community depending on what future development ideas bring.

So parks can come about in two ways. One of them is city funded and the other one is where the developer decides this should be a park and they get some kind of a benefit for doing that a financial benefit of some kind or it accentuates their development, something like that.

Correct. And if the developer's project ends up building one of the city planned parks, that developer would qualify for what we call impact fee credits. So they would get a reduction on their fee bill equal to the expenses of what they built for the city because of the city's planning.

And as far as the city

funded parks how often does that happen how much funding does the city generally tend to have for that just like big picture dynamic there so a lot of the development community criticized the parks impact fee because it's it's not it's not nominal it's a significant fee on a building application a lot of the citizens really enjoy living in an area that has parks It's kind of this this balance there. It's common. The city at any time has anywhere from 10 to 15 projects on their parks and trails master plan. And that those that budget sorry that fund of impact fee money for parks and trails has has a lot of money that collects in it over time. It mostly got drained last year with that will spark but it'll renew and replenish and other parks will come.

And is this on the city's radar.

This one hasn't been because again it hasn't been in the city's jurisdiction to plan for enough. It might get there. The parks department may choose to plan a park within that area but it hasn't been planned for because it's been in the county's jurisdiction.

And one last question with the developer with these large of chunks. How likely is it that a developer will find it in their favor to bring parks bring a park into this.

Some of these high density higher density areas there is some incentive within our code that might persuade a developer that that park's both an amenity that your future buyers will like, but also an incentive within the code that they may wish to take advantage of. Okay. Thank you.

Question. For Merrill Road, I know the Paseo development is a St. George City development, and we share that road for a portion of it. So is there a plan to expand because I imagine there's going to be a lot of traffic right there planned to expand what the road or the road. Yeah the road.

Yeah. So so what you see today is not the finished width of that road. When the development on the south of that comes there will be an exaction from the city that requires additional space of additional asphalt lanes as well as curb gutter sidewalk. Public works in the streets department, there's essentially a calculation of the minimum asphalt that the city would reimburse a developer for because that's also a road that qualifies for impact fees. And then the rest of it, the shoulders, the curb, gutter, sidewalk are what they call developer improvements. Those would be exactions from the developer. And so, yeah, it will be widened to a larger width.

actually asked, what about 20 East? How big is that one going to end up?

That one's a fun drive today because you may end up in the hay field. You may end up in the horse corral. It kind of ebbs and flows with the historic uses, but 20 East, I don't know. Do you know offhand what its designation is, John?

It's a major collector, 66 foot right away with 46 feet of asphalt. So again, yeah, each of these roads as they're, you know, either half road or some of these we've finished as a full road. But as development comes in, then they'll be required to build, dedicate their additional right of way, build the additional lanes, curb gutters, sidewalk and stuff.

So let's To answer your one question, like this piece, the piece that's listed, go back to your other page, Helen. So the piece there on the bottom in pink that's listed as community commercial, like that portion of Merrill Road, if and when they develop this, that portion of the road will be built at the developer's expense. That's how the roads get finished, is whoever's developing that piece, they pay to put the road in. And so as pieces along that road get developed,

Right, so that's the Washington side. But prior to that portion of the road, we would have to coordinate with St. George on the roads.

St. George has theirs done. St. George's is done.

St. George's is done. When we get to the end of what Alden called out as the Paseos development, that's the border between the two. And that section from the edge of Paseos all the way to all complete and stuff. So what we see there is what we're getting. Yeah, what you see down there at the end where we connect into Washington Fields Road and then the connection with St. George, that's the ultimate road woods.

Okay, thank you.

Until this land got annexed into the city, there was nothing anybody could ever do about improving that road. And even the Paseo, when it started out, it was county land too. It wasn't part of St. George. And they had the choice whether to annex into St. George or Washington City. They annexed into St. George and then did their thing. But they went through the same process as us.

I guess I have one more question. I know Washington City has in our past made the decision to not bring commercial. And there are a lot of leaders who regret that now. because there are benefits that come with commercial. Can you just maybe describe that? What is the connection between bringing in commercial and taxes? And what are the benefits of a city like ours bringing in commercial, just from a very high level?

Well, high level commercial-based tax revenue allow the city to prolong. the inevitable property tax. It's an incentive, the more commercial tax based revenue we have, the longer we're able to go without raising property taxes as a high level comment.

So there's a direct connection between the revenue that comes in from commercial and the taxes that everybody pays in the city. Is that right? Yeah.

Here's one of the problems with that is that like, for example, St. George City. Okay. where Paseo decided to go into St. George City. And they've kind of done this historically, where they'll put their commercial right on the border with, say, Washington. And so then all the Washington residents have to drive to get there. And so all the tax revenue goes to St. George City. And so we have all the traffic, but we have no tax revenue to fix the roads and all this sort of thing. one, we get, if you have all of your, if all your commercial is in another city, you have, that's one of the biggest sources of traffic through the fields is that people have to drive to St. George to do commercial. But then if there's no tax revenue to fix it, then the only source of fixing roads and things like that is either impact fees or property taxes. And so not getting some of these pieces that are right there anyways, like if they chose, like for example, where Paseo chose to go St. George rather than Washington, We still have all the traffic from. We still have all the impact from and none of the benefit from it. Same thing with like Costco and a few other places. I mean, similar story.

So impact fees for parks or roads or sewers or any of the impact fees are restricted by the legislature. They may only be used to build new facilities that are on the capital facilities plan. And so the impact fees cannot repair the road 10 years later. That has to come from the general fund. sharing that to just show that they can get us new roads built, but impact fees don't fund the maintenance and repair of those roads.

Gotcha. And I think the director of economic development wanted to... Yeah.

Sorry, Eldon. That's probably a question for me. So just to give you a little bit of history, Washington City for the past two... You need to give your name for the record. Sorry. My name is Rusty Hughes. I'm the economic development director for Washington City. And so I've analyzed Washington City. I look at commercial development. You know, I kind of try to help bring businesses to the area to offset the tax burden, the property tax burden for residents like myself and others. So Washington City has historically been farmland. It's been a bedroom community. In fact, we are very different from St. George because we're about 98% residential by permit for the last two decades. So we have a long history of previously general planned areas becoming residential or other plans through the PUDC process. And now we have a much larger community. We have a lot of residents. And there are areas where, you know, residents complain because they have to watch their gas tank because there isn't a fuel station close by. And you're right, Commissioner Anderson, in that we see this, a big part of the traffic problem is us, is Washington City residents going in for work, for school, for groceries. People are more likely to buy groceries closer to where they work than to where they live. And so as Washington City residents do that, what they're doing is investing in the standard of living and the quality of life for St. George residents. because their tax dollars are going to the general fund in St. George. So just to put it into context, St. George is about three times the size by population, and they have about five times the budget because they are such a commercial center. Now, I understand it's a different feel in Washington City. There's a reason why a lot of us live in Washington City. It feels like home. It's our tagline. So it will never be like the boulevard or like sunset or some of these large commercial areas. But there there is a need and there there is a need for the tax base to help offset the property tax base so that we can maintain the standard of living, the trails, the parks, all the amenities we enjoy. There's also a need for residents to have jobs, services and goods close to where they live and in their own community. So it's an investment back in their community. THIS IS HIGH LEVEL AND AT A HIGH LEVEL WHEN I FIRST GOT HERE ABOUT FIVE YEARS AGO, A LOT OF THE AREAS THAT HAD BEEN GENERAL PLANNED FOR COMMERCIAL BECAUSE OF FOR ONE REASON OR ANOTHER PAST COUNCILS, PAST PLANNING COMMISSIONS HAD ALLOWED THOSE TO BE REDUCED SIGNIFICANTLY. SO NOW WE'RE AT A PLACE WHERE WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH COMMERCIAL TO SERVICE OUR RESIDENTS ESPECIALLY ON THE EAST SIDE AND TOWARDS THE FIELDS. WE HAVE I-15 THAT GOES THROUGH. THERE'S A LOT. IF ANYBODY'S BEEN AT GREEN SPRINGS, IT'S OUR MAJOR TRADE AREA. IT FAR OUT EXCEEDS THE PERFORMANCE OF ANY OTHER TRADE AREA. WE'RE GETTING A LITTLE BIT OF UPTICK ALONG BUENA VISTA. WE SEE THOSE COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES COME IN AND THEY SERVICE THE RESIDENTS ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE FREEWAY. WE'VE GOT WINCO COMING IN. THOSE ARE GREAT. BUT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S SOME AREAS OF OPPORTUNITY. where we can add a little more commercial amenities for residents. Thank you.

Thank you. One thing that people don't realize, because it's kind of counterintuitive, and we'll hear comments a lot of time, but two things. One, people will often say, oh, the city just, they just want commercial because, you know, so they can lie in their pockets. Well, the thing is, the only thing that money from commercial does is reduce the tax burden on people living in Washington City. I mean, if the money doesn't come from commercial, it's got to come from property taxes. So it doesn't go to the mysterious city. It just reduces the tax burden on people. The second thing is, contrary to what people think, small neighborhood commercial areas like this, and this is not big commercial, this is small commercial, but a small commercial like this actually reduces traffic, not increases. Everybody always thinks that it's going to increase traffic, near their home, and it's actually the opposite. The thing that increases traffic the most is when you have to drive far to get to commercial areas, and it's the driving back and forth across the fields that causes all that. And I know that's totally counterintuitive, but every single study on land planning has shown that, I mean, all the time.

All right, we'll open this up for public comment. As we get ready for the public comment, we have got the emails. They've been sent. We've all read them. We've read the one that come in through the portals, the emails. We've read all your names that you guys have sent it to us. We have it. It's on record. I know we've all read them. If you want to come up and speak to this, please do so. But try to keep it to three minutes. And don't reiterate what you've already sent to us. We've already read it. It's not that we don't want to hear it again. We don't want to be here till midnight. I mean, you start beating it in our heads, it's not the best for us. So with that. I'm not going to read all the names of assent that we've done because there's a lot here. I mean, we've read them all. But yeah, so if anyone would like to come up and speak to this, please state your name and leave it for about three minutes and we'll go from there.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Mark Stutter. I live at 2819 South Leaf Lane, in one of the neighborhoods directly affected by the proposed changes along Merrill Road. My family moved here last year from the Washington, D.C. area. We left an urban environment because we wanted a quieter, less congested residential community in which to raise our children. And we did our homework before buying our home. We knew the vacant land would eventually be developed. We reviewed the city's general plan, and much of it was designated low density residential. We expected development, but we expected it to be consistent with the city's plan. A year later, we're looking at more than 140 acres, including nearly 42 acres of medium high density residential and more than 40 acres of community commercial. This comes just five months after 11 and a half acres at 400 West Mel Road were rezoned from residential to commercial. Even after that rezoning, Strata continued advertising its low-density residential development on signage until approximately a month ago. I have a photograph documenting that signage. Taken together, we're watching Mel Road change from the predominantly residential area we understood it to be into a commercial and higher-density corridor. And there are real consequences. South 240 West already experiences heavy traffic during drop-off and pickup at Washington Fields Intermediate. The proposal places medium high density housing allowing 7 to 12 units per acre directly across from the school. Adding this density and commercial development raises serious concerns about traffic and student safety. Our children attend Riverside Elementary less than a mile from our neighborhood. Merrill Road in front of Riverside is already severely congested during drop off and pick up. There is no crossing guard between our neighborhoods and the school, so we drive our children rather than allow them to walk or ride a bike to school. Now commercial development would sit directly between our neighborhoods and their school. Finally, the surrounding neighborhoods were largely unaware that the 400 West Merrill Road rezoning was even being considered. The city's own record shows only one member of the public spoke at that planning commission hearing. Because much of the surrounding property is undeveloped, the minimum notification radius can satisfy the requirement without reaching the established neighborhoods that will actually experience the impacts. Meeting the minimum notice requirements is not the same as meaningful public engagement. So our request tonight is simple. Please do not recommend approval of G 2604 tonight. Give residents and city staff time to develop a thoughtful plan for Merrill Road. If you do make a recommendation, we respectfully ask you to reject medium high density adjacent to existing neighborhoods and schools. REJECT COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL LONG MERRILL ROAD AND LIMIT COMMERCIAL DESIGNATION TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL. WE ARE NOT OPPOSED TO DEVELOPMENT. WE EXPECT THE DEVELOPMENT. WE'RE ASKING FOR A MEANINGFUL VOICE BEFORE THE PLAN OF OUR COMMUNITY IS FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGED. THANK YOU.

Good evening, commissioners and staff. My name is Derek Hoffman. I own a lot on Leaf Lane, which is part of the Oak Grove Meadows subdivision. And some of you may recall I spoke a few months back when you were doing the rezone for the strata development, which is now, I think, the Grove and calm reason. And so it's good to see you again. So having been before you before in recent months, I'll dispense with some of the other introductory comments and just kind of cut to the chase this evening. First, you did receive a letter from the concerned citizens of thoughtful Merrill Road development. I believe you have that letter, you should. That was signed by 34 households in the neighborhood. That's a lot of names, and it shows you that the people are motivated. To get 34 households signing onto a letter, as you know, is a message in and of itself.

We're concerned.

We understand that you would like to develop property. I get that. We also understand the thinking behind tax revenue and the benefits that come with that. I get that as well. But candidly, this is just too much, too fast. Let's talk about Merrill Road a little bit more tonight, please. We've heard about several names, but let's just walk through it. You've got Lynn's. I know it's St. George. You've got Paseo. I know it's St. George. Now you've got the Grove already coming, it's rezoned, and now you're talking about more Seacom along Merrill Road and then continuing up. I echo Mr. Studdard's comments a moment ago about the concerns for traffic and safety, noise, all those things. Also, interestingly, what you have before you tonight disproportionately impacts our neighborhoods. You're surrounding us with change, and you heard that in Mr. Studdard's comments. I agree with him. We'd like to see medium residential at the most. If you're going to do commercial, please, ENCOM at the most. And I would like to ask you tonight, while you're here, explain to the public what CECOM can entail. Describe for us in understandable terms what kind of property you can put on a CECOM. Can you do a gas station? Can you do a grocery store? Talk to the public in terms they can understand so they know what is being proposed in a CCOM development. Next, I understand tonight's high level, we've heard this before, I get it, but that's not good enough. I know tonight is not about design and layout and that does come later, but you're setting yourselves on a path to those future decisions. And when you get a letter with 34 signatures, what that's telling you is we wanna know now what you have in mind. I'm trying to keep my comments brief, so I'll start wrapping up. We heard earlier that this is landowner applicant driven. That tells me that there's a reason why you have CCOM on your plan. I don't understand why you would put CCOM next to very low density. That doesn't make any sense to me. And I don't think it makes sense to a lot of others. People have invested in their homes. They want tranquility. I know I do. That's why I bought a lot. I would also add, we have in our letter that we submitted, there's a formal Public Records Act request that we've made. We'd like copies of all the correspondence, the maps, the proposals, and any other documents that were submitted by the landowner applicant or others relating to this proposal tonight. I believe that there's a reason why you have CCOM and we'd like to know what is being contemplated for the CCOM in particular, but also for the rest of the rezoned area. So I'll conclude by saying, again, I understand the desire for development. I do. Things can't stay the same forever. But we ask that you not just listen tonight and read our letters. We're asking that you respond. We're asking that you speak with us. Direct the staff to speak with us. Let us talk with you in private if we need to with the staff. You can also show us that you're listening by not recommending approval this evening and instead directing staff to talk with us. So I'll conclude by again saying I still stand by what I said a few months ago. Washington City is a beautiful place. I know you have a difficult job. I know you're trying to balance all the interests. I also know that you've got a large group of people here tonight and on the letters who are very interested in this. And so I hope you'll listen and respond accordingly. Thank you for your time and your attention. I appreciate it.

Thank you Mr. Chairman if I might just quickly The public records request regime in Utah statute is called the Government Records Access Management Act, or GRAMA request is how it's frequently referred to. Your role is to review general plan and zoning plans and development plans and sometimes approve or disapprove or recommend or not recommend. The city handles GRAMA requests entirely outside of the public process that the planning commission or city council do. I don't know for sure that that request has been received. If it has been, the city has a process. The city attorney's office oversees it. And our preference is to embrace the legislature's policy of providing records that we're allowed to provide under the statute. Certain records are private. Certain records are protected. Some are public. And so the city, what they have to do is receive a request understand what the request is asking for. Sometimes we go back and clarify what are you asking for specifically. The city then has to classify it as public private or protected and then send them a letter back with whether it's public private or protected. I'm sure a lot of these folks would probably agree that they wouldn't love their house plan to be released to any person. Right. But there are certain case decisions and laws that govern the way the city classifies certain things. And so. of that just to say that your job tonight is not to worry about records requests the city handles that through another process and we'll do that and it probably is on this exact same topic but there are two different channels within the local government processes thanks dad commissioners jeff stewart 51 east adam lane one of the homes

Probably most affected by the C column directly behind my house. It appears there has been no consideration for any buffer at all for the Adam Lane residence. And I'd like you to consider what Derek has said, work with the local landowners there and see if we can come up with a solution. When the word CCOM hit, we didn't know if it was going to be a five-story hospital or a single-story gas station with an ice cream parlor next door. We have no clue. So it scares the neighbors when we see CCOM right up against a very low-density house in our neighborhood. So we'd like to request some consideration for that. And I think I submitted it in letter most of the comments. So if you read your letters, then I won't need to duplicate that here. But I think it's going to be about a generation where our grandkids will say, Grandpa, why did they call it Washington Fields? You know, the fields are going. And we knew that was going to come. You know, with Larry's passing, we knew the family was going to do something to the property. But we'd like to make sure that it's done in a respectful and that the buffers are created so we can protect what we've built there and what we've – developed and all these neighbors who have come here today to support this I think feel the same way that we just need some recognition and some help because I think as Mr. Erie recommended that this is a lot of land to consider one time and it impacts a lot of homes and you can see all the backyards will be affected all the views will be affected all the property values that This is a serious matter for most of us, so we'd like to recommend you work with us on this and help us understand exactly what the future development could be as a CCOM or an NCOM and why we'd have to go from CCOM to a very low-density house with just a fence. That doesn't make any sense to us, so I think I speak for most of the neighbors on Adam Lane that we'd really consider a meeting of the minds so we can make sure that we are protected. So that's all I have. Thanks for your service, too.

Thank you.

and i'm um 164 east adam lane and we i'm sorry what was your name again you started talking before you got to this sorry boy ann richards and i'm not by far the brightest person in this room but we bought our property on adam lane 30 years ago and none of this was there and i understand the development i do but i'm going to raise two little kids that are in the back of the room right now who are going to be surrounded by freeways at this point between 20 east and merrill road There's 10 houses on that street that are very low density. They're gonna learn to drive pulling out into all that traffic. They don't have an interior track to play in. And having all of this development, as you said, I don't really, to be perfectly honest, care whether it's St. George or Washington. You've got the Paseo that's now gonna add to Riverside Elementary's traffic pattern. You can't even get down that road when they're dropping off or picking up. You can't get down the road when you're on the other side, when you're on the elementary school side. We're trapped in the middle of all that. These were very low density houses for a reason. And you're pulling in commercial right up to us. And it's not, and I understand that you're saying that this is a high density plan or whatever you're calling it, but this just opens the door for this just to become, for me to have to come to every single city meeting where every single person wants to have something in one of these CCOMs. And I have to be worried about what it is because it's gonna, and I'm not gonna get noticed because I didn't get noticed about this meeting because that CCOM that's that parcel four, is apparently more than 300 feet from me, but it directly affects me. So I didn't even get a notice about that, which I don't think is proper by any stretch of the imagination. And I just want to appeal to you. How many of you live in this district? How many of you will be affected by this? Any of you? I mean, any of you?

Yeah, most of us.

You live on Adam Lane?

It really doesn't matter where we live. Yeah, but it does matter where you live.

It does matter where you live.

Ma'am, you'll be removed if you start yelling at the body. You're not here to argue with them or question them. You need to calm down or I'll have law enforcement remove you.

I'm not excited.

You're yelling at them.

I'm not excited. You're yelling at them.

Calm down, calm down, calm down, everyone. Please, please, please.

We've got a big group. We want to hear from them all.

I understand. I haven't taken my three minutes yet, and I am not yelling at anyone. I am asking you as parents. Would you want this to be where you were raising your children, where you had two houses before they're in there on a freeway every single direction? Is that really what you would want? Because then you have to understand why this is what I want. I want development. I don't want to have to drive to Target where there's one target. But then again, Long Valley doesn't have any infrastructure either. So where do you think they're going to come to? They're gonna be on 20 East. They're gonna be on 2000. This morning when I drove to work, I literally had to stop because there were three joggers coming at me and a truck coming at me and there wasn't enough room for me to go through. I had to stop my car. I had to wait for the truck to pass me so I could veer around the joggers. These streets were not developed for what you're talking about here. And I understand you're gonna make them freeways and my children are gonna grow up on freeways. And I'm, I'm not, it doesn't make me happy. And that's why I'm asking you, do you, if you live in these streets, if you're raising your children on these streets, then you tell me you're okay with this. I understand how it affects everybody. I pay property taxes too, for 25 years in that house. And I've watched them double and I'm still not okay with this. Please, please, for the sake of those of us who are raising families here, consider what you're doing. Consider giving us a buffer or a park or something. that doesn't put our children in the middle of these freeways. Please.

Thank you.

Hi, thank you for what you're doing and trying to help us. I'm Jackie Corella. I back directly onto Merrill Drive 323 East Chateau Meadows. I'm looking at this just sitting here trying to process it for the first time because I couldn't understand the printout what we But I got from neighbors. I wasn't informed since I'm kitty corner and I'm across from one of the farm fields that has not been annexed yet. Anyhow, with that, looking at the picture, I think there could also be a reasonable thought process to change the CECOM where you have that medium high density. At that point, there's not many people living along that area. It's a much bigger area and roads could be created to handle traffic so much better. Right now it's land. It's a yucky smelling cow field. There's not homes yet across from it. And there's just a really large parcels that are empty. So I think you could with a lot less contention, flip-flop, Seacom to high density housing. We would welcome people. Maybe you could request developers to put on some playgrounds right there. That would be so wonderful for all of our children. And we have really, really wonderful families that contribute a lot socially, community wise. financially to your schools that live right there. So I really think there's a lot of ways that we can make things look great. I also would really, really request and beg of you that when you do start to implement commercial development, that you implement architectural controls. We could make this town look awesome, like darling, amazing. I know that we need another gas station. I am at whammer's every day on my bike and I have fun going there with my husband every day, but we can make it look cute. We can make it look inviting. We could improve the street along 2000 south. We can move all the commercial over there where there aren't homes yet. And so as people start building homes, they could know what they're walking into. Unlike everybody on leaf lane and Franklin fields who are just kind of getting bombed by this. I got into my home before Mel road was even created and I watched Mel road being built and I'm the one that implemented all those for trees if you've driven along Merrill road. It was myself and the priors that are here that helped pay for all those trees, just to give ourselves a buffer and give ourselves a chance for some noise reduction. So I think we could work together. We could try to make it look beautiful again, begging for architectural controls. I don't think that's unreasonable since you're at the very beginning of planning. Um, there's many designers here in this and construction people here in this room right now that could give you some awesome advice and would really enjoy collaborating with you on that as well. But I would propose flip flop where you have that CECOM over to where you have that medium high density proposed. It looks like it's almost just as much land and it would be so much better for everybody in this room. Thank you.

Thank you. So the city council to date has not adopted any architectural standards or codified any rules. If they were to do that, it would be considered a land use regulation according to state law, which means this board would have to hear it and consider it and recommend or not recommend it. But we don't have one of those yet.

And that's where the PUDs, where we like to see the PUDs, because we do have more control over PUDs and how they look and whatnot. But the PUDs obviously come after this.

Good evening. My name is Nate Deaver. I'm on 2768 South Leaf Lane. My wife and kids and I moved to Washington Fields about two years ago. I made a living as a personal injury attorney in Las Vegas, Nevada, Utah, and Arizona. Specializing in plaintiff's personal injury claims, traumatic injuries, things of that nature. And in the course of my career, I've had the unfortunate occasion or multiple occasions to see injuries involving pedestrians or children. And in moving here, our thinking, our logic was to be in a place that was a little bit more remote. It's been wonderful, but just in the last two years, I've been shocked at the amount of growth we've experienced. I've also lived a very wonderful life with my head in the sand, and my wife has told me since we have three kids, I can't do that. So I thank all of you for your service. You have a difficult job ahead of you in taking all of our thoughts into consideration. But I do, to the extent that you're going to do what you're going to do, ask that there is meaningful consideration for all of our kids, people that jog, enjoy the leisure outdoor activities that we enjoy here in Washington Fields, because I see the flip side of it, the danger of it. The law says we want to make people whole, and sometimes the best thing we can do is try to prevent those things. If I didn't have a job, I'd be thrilled to do something else. But I've seen it too many times, so I'd say please try to keep our kids safe out there with meaningful planning and infrastructure. Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else before we close it? Okay. If no one else wants to speak to this, we will close the public hearing portion of this. I mean, there's a lot of here if that's so once we close it, we're closed. So I will close the public hearing portion of this and back to you guys for discussion on on this.

The topic of notice has come up a couple times, so I just wanted to make a legal comment on that. The Utah Land Use and Development Management Act, called LUDMA, has a specific chapter that refers to notice for certain land use decisions. And one of those is general plans. That chapter also allows cities to install a more rigorous standard than the state law requires. This might be one of the few areas where Washington City mostly Washington City patterns the state standards when there is one on it on the same topic that the city is considering to regulate. But in this one the city has created their own regime of a of a circumference of distance from an application which is not a state requirement. The state would require that we post the notice on the Web site and on the state's public notice Web site. But there's the city has gone above and beyond that to require the applicants send notice to a certain circumference around their project site. And so in my experience, that's been the city council's desire to to require applicants to send out more notice than the state may have required. It's not it's not been perfect. Almost every single public hearing, as you as you folks know, there's somebody that didn't receive notice and felt like they should have. But Washington City has adopted a more rigorous standard and requires applicants to PERFORM NOTICE AT THEIR EXPENSE TO A BROADER SCOPE THAN THE STATE REQUIRES.

THIS IS COMMISSIONER MITCHELL. THERE WAS ANOTHER COMMENT ASKING FOR THE CLARIFICATION ON WHAT COULD GO THERE. GENERAL CECOM, ELLEN, DO YOU WANT TO BE THE ONE THAT kind of breaks that down and what can go in C1, C2, neighborhood commercial.

So one thing real quick, Eldon's got the best answer, but community commercial is, if people wanted to know what that means, city code does have that language in there and does have descriptions. Eldon, go ahead.

Yeah, there's a lot in there. Gas stations are allowed. You know, I'm happy to go through the whole slew of list, invite any community members to chat with the community development department. We put a notice or our phone number on the notice that does go out. If you want further information, details regarding the proposal, please stop in and let's have those lengthy discussions. On a high level, it says the purpose of the service commercial zone is to provide appropriate locations for the development and operation of service type commercial activities, which may be established in locations intended to provide the day to date commodities. And with that comes a list of permitted and conditional use permits.

What are just a few of the types of things that would not be permitted there.

Would not be permitted. So for that list we jump to the three the C3 zone which include auction sales mail order houses manufacturing processing creating repairing renovating, painting, cleaning, or assembling of goods, are a few of those not permitted uses?

Or industrial, any of the industrial uses are not. So the way our code's logic works is if you're in this zone, the code lists permitted uses. Those are the only permitted uses. In theory, everything else is not. And then there's conditional uses. So a permitted use in industrial by the way the codes are in is not a permitted use in CCOM, for example.

Okay. But just to continue on that thought, and again, for the folks in attendance as well as always to refresh my memory, fundamental difference, NCOM, CCOM, because I think that's really what we're talking about. At least that's one of the topics that's been raised here. What is, you know, the substantial, you know, the differences of substance that we can process here?

Give me just a sec. I have a list here. We've recently been discussing that in other applications.

So I'll read in City Code 9. While you're working on that, Eldon, I'm just going to read the definition of community commercial for you. 9-10B-1, the purpose, let me get to the right one here. The purpose of the community commercial zone is to provide appropriate locations, excuse me, 9-10A-1, I was reading when I started in service commercial. 9-10A-1 community commercial, quote, the purpose of the community commercial zone is to provide appropriate locations for the development and operation of community retail and service activities in locations intended to conveniently serve area residents. Development standards are intended to protect adjacent residential zones, promote orderly development and avoid the creation of traffic volumes which cannot be accommodated by the existing street network. So that's the two sentences in the purpose statement for that zone. Now this is general plan, but it is accurate that if that were to get approved, the zone change would need to reflect that table. Correct.

There's five uses that are allowed in the C2 and not allowed in the C1. Those five uses that are allowed in the C2 use and not allowed in the C1 under permitted uses. There's one which includes retail and or wholesale and or rental of goods, merchandise and equipment, which may include storage and display outside an enclosed building. And then under conditional use permits comes hospitals is one, hotel or motel is another, motor vehicle, trailer, camper, and recreational vehicle sales agency. And then lastly, a state approved and operated liquor stores. So those five uses would come with a C2 use outside of the C1.

Yeah, Commissioner Anderson's mentioning there is an exception in the state's law that allows cities to adopt their own zoning, and that would be any state project, like a state liquor store. And so in the recent one that they sought entitlements for in Washington City, we asked them to please run it through our process anyway. They told us that they didn't have to and then did please run it through the process anyway. So we're appreciative that they did, but yeah, are very clear that they don't have to ask Washington City for entitlement for state projects.

I feel like we need more buffering on some of these projects. The parcel eight, you know, with 17 acres with the medium density of only basically five, I think that needs to be expanded, to be honest with you. I think that needs a little more buffering around there. The medium high densities next to the school is probably, I mean, they just have to cross the street. They'll have the crosswalks there and the crossing guards. It's a decent spot for it. It really is, in my opinion. But the buffering on the two corners, I think, needs to be more. I feel like the CCOM on the south side of Merrill Road should be medium density up to Merrill Road or part of it. The Seacom below west of 20 East, I feel like that's fine because it has the medium density there. You've got the neighborhood commercial behind it. And it will be a big road. And then the medium density over on 20 East, medium high density i mean i feel like that needs to be shrunk a little bit so there's so that it's smaller those are my opinions on this and that's that's where i sit i mean the community commercial on the north side of merrill road i feel like that's a that's a great spot for it i do feel like we need some because it is backing up to those big homes and that big lot it's a big jump from one to the other you know, the landowner does have the option to come in and ask for this. We're not the ones that, we are not the ones that designed this. This was the landowners that designed it. It's not us. We're giving recommendations. I mean, we didn't hire Rosenberg to do this. The Adams family did. So I feel like it needs to change. That's my opinion on it. And what do you guys think?

I would agree with that, but also, how would you even sell homes right next to the poop farm?

It's going to be gone.

It's going to be gone?

It's all gone. All the fields are gone. The cows are gone. It's all gone. I've got to find a new place to buy hay.

It would have just made better sense and it would have been a lot less contentious, like someone said, that came up and said, if we put the commercial on the other side.

But the problem with that is 2000 East is a horrible road and then we're going to direct even more traffic down 20 East. to get back to Merrill Road to go out. So I feel like the commercial is in the right spot for traffic flow and keeping traffic down and putting it, it is a big road. I mean, we have no big roads into the fields Washington Fields Road, that's it. That's our only entrance until Merrill Road got there and George Washington. So it's a great bypass road for what we have.

I was trying to give my opinion, but I see Riverside parking lot every morning.

But I'm just saying, I think that the backing up of those homes should be a feathered effect with that. The other income on Merrill Road to the south, Is in my opinions fine it then the medium density backs up to those ones I think the medium density needs to be bigger over by the school and Then the medium density medium high density over here needs to be shrunk down Those are my opinions on it. That's how I feel I feel like And this is a big this is big. I hope I hope council takes a bite of this and choose it down more than we do because This is the last of the fields. We're not going to see it anymore. I don't want it to go. Everybody here has moved here from somewhere. Very few of us are locals here. And that's what happens because it is a nice place. And when we all come, it needs to be developed. And you can't be mad at the Adams family for wanting to capitalize on their inheritance or whatever. That's their right to do what they want with their land. And we're just guiding it for the best for our community. And that, I feel like, is the best to do what I mentioned. That's my opinions on it, whatever you guys'.

This is Commissioner Mitchell. So Commissioner Bullock, I've just, so really you take out the one section of CECOM that's up against the house, push it over, and maybe that other, because down below is commercial too, right? We just, the neighborhood commercial is below the other CECOM area. But I agree, if we can create some better buffering from residential homes to that commercial. And there is plenty of space to put that commercial in a spot that could be buffered from all current development if they would just make a slight maneuver. And obviously, they're trying to keep the commercial out on Merrill Road because that is the biggest through way. But I think they still could create some kind of other lead in to the commercial off of Merrill Road and keep it on the north side of Merrill Road.

Yeah, that's, I mean, that, in my opinion, that'd be the, that's our best. But, and even the, I feel like the medium high density is just too much. I feel like we need to shrink that down. Those are my opinions. I feel like it would be better to keep it in the medium density, less medium high. And even if we took part of that CECOM and turned it into medium density and then ENCOM right there on the corner on the southeast corner of Merrill Road and 20 East. So there is still a little portion there of commercial on the south.

Chairman Commissioner Anderson leaned over and asked me to distinguish for him the difference between CECOM and ENCOM. It's not in our code. MOSTLY BECAUSE THE GENERAL PLAN IS NOT CODIFIED AS CITY LAW. IT'S A LONG RANGE PLAN. SO THERE IS A DOCUMENT CALLED THE GENERAL PLAN WHICH INCLUDES THE MAPPING AND THE WHOLE, LET'S SEE, 66 PAGES OF TEXT. SO I'M JUST GOING TO READ FROM THAT ON PAGE 12. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL FROM THE GENERAL PLAN LABEL CORRELATES TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROFESSIONAL AND C1 ZONES AND IT'S DEFINED AS SMALL SCALE COMMERCIAL USES CATERING TO SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL AREAS. So that was neighborhood commercial community commercial correlates with the C1 C2 and C3 zones and is defined as large range of commercial uses including mixed residential above commercial. And that can be found on the city's Web site if you want to just search general plan you'll find a link on there. That's where I found it tonight.

So, yeah, that being said, putting commercial in a neighborhood that's existing, does it make more sense to keep it neighborhood commercial?

On the south side. Because the north side, no one's there yet. I mean, they'll know what they're getting into when they buy it.

Yeah, and potentially you could still take out that one section that's right up against all those really nice homes and maybe have a little We already have neighborhood commercial just below that parcel one. Parcel one could become neighborhood commercial, do away with parcel four, and then put more into partial three.

The community commercial is a higher thing, but it's lower because we have the income below that. I feel like those 13 acres are fine at the CECOM, but the community commercial, even if it moved over into the PARTIAL FOUR MOVED PART OF IT OVER INTO PARTIAL THREE AND CREATED A BUFFER FROM THIS VERY LOW DENSITY.

I THINK BOTTOM LINE IS THE WAY IT'S PRESENTED, IT NEEDS A LOT OF IMPROVEMENT. SO I'M NOT GOING TO SIT HERE AND TRY TO PLAN IT. I JUST THINK THEY NEED TO GIVE US A DIFFERENT PLAN.

I JUST WANT TO DO A CONFIRMATION OF PURPOSE HERE TONIGHT, FIRST OF ALL, AND THEN I'LL SHARE MY COMMENTS FROM A PURPOSE STANDPOINT. either this either we approve what we're looking at record we recommend recommendation to city council yeah we either recommend approving what is has been submitted, as is or we can recommend that they that they deny it and we provide. Yeah, a structure of feedback.

Correct.

Or we table it and ask them to change it.

State law says that cities may adopt zoning code on conditions. And one of the conditions is that the city establishes and impanels a planning commission that holds these type of land use regulation hearings. And so your purpose tonight is for Washington City to meet the state law that allows Washington City to designate its own zones. But part of that purpose is to hold a public hearing and let the public come and speak to you. Your action tonight is to provide your viewpoint and comments as land use Commissioners and mostly what you're saying is. Recommendations to the city council, some of who are present tonight, some are probably watching on YouTube and others who will probably watch on YouTube when they're able so so yeah a lot of what you're saying is in response to the speakers, but also. to the to the deciding body for general plan change, which is the city council. And so some of you have said, you know, I'd like to see this change or that change. I think that's very helpful feedback for city council members that are wondering, what did our planning commissioners think after they listened to the public? And so so we're here because we do this to take advantage of state law that lets us define our own zones. And your job is to recommend an approval or denial. But I I THINK THAT THE MOST HELPFUL STUFF IS THE SPECIFICS THAT SOME OF YOU GOT INTO. I THINK THAT'S REALLY WHAT INFORMS THE CITY COUNCIL AS TO HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT THIS APPLICATION.

NEW SPEAKER THEN MY SECOND POINT IS I CONCUR WITH WHAT THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS ARE SAYING WITH RESPECT TO THE COMMERCIAL AND THE DENSITY OF THE COMMERCIAL. I THINK IT NEEDS TO BE DIALED BACK A BIT. I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE MORE BUFFERING BUILT INTO THIS PROPOSAL. The medium density, high density, I do have a question. I guess that's the, what am I looking at, the southeast corner where we have, you know, that one, that medium density framing the high density. And I'm not sure exactly if we're talking about a row of town homes or duplexes and then inside it, you know, potentially, you know, I guess, you know, more dense town homes. I don't know if that's just more. for show or what have you, as far as what the applicant was proposing there. I would also ask, you know, because there's been a lot of good comments here and I don't know if the applicant is in the room, but if the applicant or the applicant's representative would like to say anything.

Yeah, I was going to ask him if he wanted to come up as soon as we were done.

Yeah, I think that would be great, just to provide a little perspective on specifically the commercial element to this. I think there's a fair amount of concern, and I think we would have some recommendations to tweak that.

Hi, Jason Smith, representing the applicant.

Michael Orton. I'm an Adams grandson.

Did you have certain questions or do you want to start with? Well, we can start with what we just get into the pink here and share, you know, the what appears to be an absence of buffering with regard and the push for CECOM versus income and all that.

Can I start by saying I think there's been some illusion or mentioned tonight that this is all disappearing overnight. There is no immediate plan. We are planning for the future. Most of these fields will be planned for the foreseeable future. you know my uncle brian he wants to continue to farm that is his desire that is his intent so i don't want anyone to think that there is a buyer that we are in deep negotiations that we have a defined plan for any of this we don't this is just us looking down the road planning for the future that's i think that's comment number one and then i'll let you address the specifics so um

Specifics, as far as the C comp to the south on Merrill Road on the curve, I believe that was maybe a little. Neighborhood commercial would be fine there. We understand that would be a seemingly reduced type commercial scenario next to the residential, where you would see something more like office buildings. You might see something on the corner there. that's a little more, that's more neighborhood commercial, that you're almost looking at professional business next to the residential. The reason that it's fully commercial and there's no residential there is because the Washington City Access Management Plan, you couldn't get a road in there. You could get driveways, but you can't get roads in before, the earliest you can get a driveway is on that property line of Adams Lane and Community Commercial. That's how far your road has to be. And so that's, So that's why we were doing that on that. The intent around over by the school was to provide single family homes there, some that are smaller but would be coincide with the medium density that would create a row of homes that are single family before they get into any type of multi-home type project or something. So those are kind of the intent. I CAN UNDERSTAND IF YOU THINK IT'S SMALL AND IT NEEDS TO CHANGE A LITTLE BIT. WE MET WITH STAFF MULTIPLE TIMES AND WE'VE MADE SOME ADJUSTMENTS.

WE'RE STILL HERE TO DISCUSS IT. WE'RE NOT. NEW SPEAKER THANK YOU FOR THAT. SO BACK TO THE C-COM THAT ABUTTS THE VERY LOW DENSITY HOMES. NOW WHAT ABOUT BUFFERING? Is there an easement?

Well, there's substantial ways. I mean, I understand a lot of us believe that homes are the greatest buffer, but in many instances, I would prefer to have commercial. If it's a dentist office, a lot of times, as opposed to higher density homes, I think that it's actually a better buffer. There may be some people that disagree with that, but I I would, me personally, I would much rather have a dentist's office behind me than a bunch of town homes. And that's just my personal opinion.

I would certainly agree.

And so I would hope that that they would see that. But yeah, we can in the design, I would anticipate that there would be some some major landscaping trees and and some things that would help that we would definitely reduce the type of commercial on the backside of there that would be more of a professional office or of that nature. And that's kind of the intent. And that's why we left a commercial. We felt that that would be better than trying to force some homes in there if we could design something that has more of a professional office type scenario on the backside of that commercial.

Can I ask a follow up to that? Is that OK?

Yeah.

So we're talking about parcel four, right? Yeah, I'm blind.

Yes, yes. Sorry, yes.

And what I heard you say is that it would be difficult to turn that into residential because of the codes that restrict driveways coming off of a busy road like that. Is that what you're saying?

Yeah, because your roadway would be almost at your property line. So you would basically just have a road. You'd have a road right on the property line. You wouldn't have lots and then a road and then lots. You'd have a road there.

It almost have to be cul-de-sac is what you're saying, off of 20 miles to make it work.

Well, it just wouldn't be. Your road would be, I don't know if I too close to establish a true residential roadway there.

So there would be a road on the back side of the lot? Yeah.

The truth is it's a really oddly shaped parcel. And it's hard to fit it all in there. It is. It's a hard parcel to imagine what that could be to have both commercial and residential in that spot. There's just not enough space. It's oddly shaped. And so we thought this was the least disruptive option.

So if you had to put the CCOM somewhere else other than where you have it, where would you put it? Other than where I have it?

Well, traffic flow definitely is, that's where it should be. Merrill Road is significantly considered an arterial compared to Sandia or is a collector. You're talking tens of thousands of trips per day. And so as far as someone that wants commercial, they will push to go to Merrill Road as opposed to Sandia or over there. So as far as commercial, that is the best place for it.

But the accesses would be easier on Sandia, right? Is that what you're saying?

Well, the access might be easier, but the commercial wouldn't be as viable there as it is on Merrill Road, because Merrill Road has significantly more traffic.

You guys have any other questions?

I mean, just just so that I'm clear, I think one of your opening comments were that we're just planning, right? You're trying to get the ball moving, but it's it's nothing is.

I wouldn't say we're getting the ball moving. We're just this was annexed. And now the next step, once it's annexed to say, what's the general plan? What does this look like in the future? The ball is not moving. It's parked. But but at least let's have a conversation of the future.

So if you can, just help me understand, because I had a question before. The lower right-hand corner where we have the you've got i think medium density and then medium high density you're is it literally you're framing it with you know i don't know if those would be small single family and then you're pushing in the middle you would do duplexes or something like that is that the concept yeah the idea there is you're near a school right and that's putting that type of housing near a school is usually preferred for a city it's it's a it's a good option it's a good place for it and so obviously we're leaving space for that in that parcel yeah

I don't think that school can even handle more students.

Quick comment before for you two. It would be amazing to put a park right there. That's awkward.

Please don't. Please.

I know you have a lot of constraints. I know there's a lot going on. But you can tell there would be a lot of support for that. It's an awkward piece. And it would be a huge benefit to the community to have that there.

Corey, do you have any questions for him? I have a few thoughts. I can just weigh in quickly.

You know, just on, I guess on a community note, there were thoughts expressed in public comment that we like to develop property. You're surrounding us with change. We want to know what you have in mind. That's not how it is. I moved here when I was 14. I think I had, I was just realizing just now, I think I had one of my first romantic moments as a teenager in one of these fields that's going goodbye. Like, it's a little sentimental. I don't like seeing those fields go. I don't like it. It doesn't feel good. It kind of, change is uncomfortable and kind of scary. And the question is, how do we, I think the key word for me tonight is intentionality. Like, we don't get to decide how people exercise their constitutional property rights all the time but we are a community and we do have some ways that we can choose to be intentional I personally wish that the city would adopt some architectural and aesthetic code I think that would be great for our community I think there are more ways that we can be intentional with this and at the same time It's a delicate balancing of all of the interests. We need more commercial. There are so many people in our community who need the ability to pay their property taxes, and it's difficult. It's not difficult for everybody here, but it is difficult for a lot of people, and that makes a big difference. And I have teenagers. I have young adults now, including some in their 20s. They can't afford to live here unless we build housing that they can afford. And that's difficult. I don't want it next to my home. I live on an acre, too. But a community recently did go in there. And that's actually why I'm on this commission now is because that came in next to my community. I was like, I don't like that. And then I came and started learning about it and was like, I kind of want to serve on that board. And I've learned a lot about that. And we do need that in our community. And all of us need to be willing to move to the center a little. We all need to be willing to do that. In this case I guess specifically for me I think that I tend to agree with Commissioner Bullock that the medium high density doesn't have enough of we need more buffering. I think in general we need more buffering. We need to figure out what to do with parcel 4 because that's awkward and it could be something amazing and beautiful if we take the time. I think in general it's hard to be intentional with this big of a play all at once. So I hope that the city council breaks this down into smaller pieces. and really ask the question, what's the most intentional way that, as a city, using our appropriate rights and honoring the rights of others, we can think about how these final fields of ours are going to get spent, so to speak. And so I just hope that we can slow it down a little, look at each parcel, really think about it, and get intentional. In general, because this is coming as a big single you know act for me I'm you know actually I don't have a vote tonight because we have a full body and I'm kind of like the last member so I'm only voting when one other person isn't here but if I were voting I would say no it's it's not quite there it's not intentional enough it doesn't actually address all the the concerns that have been brought up tonight specifically buffering is a big one and then what to do with parcel four so those are my thoughts

There are not very many of us that are original here to southern Utah. I mean, even on the commission, there are a few of us that are. I mean, if I had my preference, I would have it stay the way it always was growing up. But the problem is every single person in this room that has moved here, at any point in time, whether it was a year ago or 10 years ago or whatever, has contributed to the growth, whether you like it or not. And the problem is people move here, and then the next year, they're like, I don't want any growth. And honestly, I would prefer none of it if you could. The problem is if you don't have enough growth, then your economy crashes. I mean, look at the housing crash in 2008, and that's what happens when you have no growth. It all just collapses. But, but my preference would be any of this, you know I mean. What I said earlier about commercial reducing traffic is true if we become a suburb of St George entirely, we have all the problems and no money to fix any of the problems and that's just how it is. Unfortunately. With with that said. I, I, I personally think, I think that that corridor is where we should have some commercial and we've actually, it's been, even though it wasn't part of the city land, it's been talked about for quite a while that, Hey, this is likely going to be commercial eventually this corridor here. But I think that I think the neighborhood commercial at a minimum on parcel three and parcel four is a much better fit. And I mean, honestly, I'd rather have all three parcels be neighborhood commercial just for the simple fact that the, The sale is very close by and is the bigger commercial and so that would let this focus more on the smaller which I think blends in more to the neighborhood. I mean I think it needs to be commercial there but I think neighborhood commercial is a lot better fit. I do think that there needs to be better buffering though with those existing homes that are there. And I think you know the backside like the right side of parcel for I think you need to have maybe some, you know, low density or medium density or something, you know, between there to buffer it. It's a little hard because it's an odd shaped piece and you'll end up with space you can't really put anything on. And I get that. But I think that along all those areas, both on parcel three and parcel four, where you're butting up to very low density, I think you've got to feather it, at least with a street to, you know, houses on either side of the street worth just to Because at a minimum, whoever buys in here, they'll at least know that, hey, this is commercial. So they'll still likely not be happy with it going in when they move there. But at least there's a little bit of, like you said, intentionality, a little bit of somewhat of a notice for it. So I would say that. I would say make the commercial all be neighbor to commercial. And that does limit a little bit the type of commercial that goes in there. It gives the residents a little bit clearer picture of what could go in there, just because, you know, a CCOM is a lot more broad. And so it's harder to say what could or couldn't go in there. Add the feathering with the very low density. And then my other thing, I mean, we've got feathering here, like at the top of parcel six. You know, but it's basically one street wrapping up and around the medium high density, which I don't think that's sufficient feathering, nor do I think you've got these weird low density chunks, you know, up and around the hillside, which the way they're shaped would be hard to put much of anything there. And so. I think that low density needs to be expanded a little bit, and then the medium density also needs to be expanded a little bit so you've got more than just one street worth of feathering. It looks like we're just trying to fit a little tinny sliver just to say that we're feathering. It's the same thing on parcel eight. If you look at parcel nine, it's half a street. It's a little sliver, again, just to say that we're feathering, which it's got to be more than that. My last comment is just that I'm glad it's medium-high density as opposed to high density. We need medium-high density in the city so you can have first-time homebuyers and they can build equity and eventually sell and move up or the whole economic cycle breaks. Most of our children can't afford to get into a single-family home anymore, and so being able... So just so you know, medium high density, typically that means townhomes. That's almost always what that means. So those two spots would likely become townhomes that somebody ends up building. Again, they said they don't have a buyer or whatever, so that's likely what it would become. And then the medium density around there would be just regular single family homes. Medium density, there's not a lot of difference between medium density and low density. It sounds like a lot of difference, Most of you would never notice the difference. It just means that your backyard's a little bit smaller as well, but the house itself, I would venture to say most people would never know the difference between a medium density and a low density. But my big problem here, again, I think townhomes are much better than high density or apartment buildings, and my problem with that is that I'd rather have individual ownership where people can contribute to the community and so forth. And even if, you know, even if somebody like let's say they're a landlord and they own a few townhomes or whatever, it still tends to be more local and smaller, whereas apartment buildings tend to be owned out of town and the money doesn't stay locally. And you've got a lot more problems with the density on apartments as opposed to townhome buildings. So if if we if we need density, townhomes are a good way to go better than apartments, in my opinion. However, I don't think I don't think anybody realizes the scale of how much medium high density that is. So let me just put it into perspective for a minute. So parcel one with townhomes, if it's medium high density now, if it becomes a PUD, then that might change because of flexibility. But with medium high density, that's about 240, 250 townhomes on parcel one. Parcel two would be about 170 townhomes. So to put that into perspective, Heritage Place, which is right behind Whammer's, is 94 townhomes. Okay, so we're talking between these two parcels, you know, 420 townhomes, which is, you know, more than four times what Heritage Place is. So it's not an insignificant number of townhomes. And now granted the sale they're building a ton of townhomes right there too. So it's going to be a lot of townhomes all in one area. So I'm definitely for townhomes as opposed to apartments. But I think this is a rather large concentrated chunk of townhomes and I think it's too big. So I would say get rid of one of those entirely or maybe or at a minimum drastically increase the amount of medium density feathering around there. I mean, even, you know, I would cut it in half at a minimum, you know, the amount of medium high density. And then I would probably increase that up top just so it can kind of connect to itself and not be stranded. In answer to your question, Commissioner, you're like about a park. The most likely place a park would come would be in one of these townhome communities just because it would likely be part of the amenities that are required for that many units or whatever. So that's probably the townhomes would be the thing that brought the park in, likely. So anyway, I don't think we should approve it as is. I think it's good to plan this whole thing out because it needs to be planned now that it's newly annexed land. But I think that it's overreach as it's currently presented.

No, and again, I concur. So so I guess from a procedural standpoint, just to make sure we can we can vote on this. And so, you know, and I'm I'm not in favor of the way it's structured either. So, you know, there's a chance this thing could get turned down. It could be. And this is for for council just to make sure we're clear. We could vote on this, we could turn it down, forward it on to city council and see what happens, or I would assume that the applicant, if they wanna, we hate to table things, but they could table it and recut this and take another swing at it.

That's a question for... So I guess I'll ask the same thing of the applicant. Do you guys wanna table this and revise it, or do you wanna take a denial?

RECOMMENDATION. RECOMMENDATION.

IT'S NOT A DENIAL. THE COUNCIL GETS TO MAKE THAT FINAL DECISION.

IF THE ATTORNEY COULD COME UP AND TELL US WHAT THEY WOULD RATHER, PLEASE. DO WE HAVE TO DECIDE THAT RIGHT NOW? IT'S GOING TO BE A RECOMMENDATION FOR

So Jason Smith represented the applicant. They would like to table it. I would just request specific changes that you are looking for on this.

So I won't speak for a bit. I'll tell you my changes. I want the commercial changed to neighborhood commercial. I want there to be feathering of probably medium density between the very low density and the commercial on the parcel four and parcel three. And then I want the, I would like to see the medium high density decreased in size, possibly half as much. And then the feathering between the low density and the medium high density, that little strip up there, I think the low density needs to be extended a little bit just so it's not a weird stranded piece and just have a little more feathering rather than just one street there.

On the upper left.

The parcel seven up there rather than just having a little one street between the two just bring that down a little bit so the low density kind of flows to the other low density and then make that Expand feathering more than one street, maybe a couple streets.

So you're saying expand partial seven, expand partial five, partial seven up there, expand it west, expand it west.

We have low density here, you have low density here. I'm just saying bring this down a little bit so you, at least those two low densities are... I'd say same thing, make this feathering larger, more than just, you know, the one road here around that, where that would shrink this plus give it more feathering.

And were you saying in general cut the medium-high density in half, basically?

I'd say I would prefer to see the medium-high density cut in half, and a way to do that is you shrink this, you make the feathering around it more, you make this smaller, have a little bit more low density and then right here between the you know the commercial and the very low density on this side you know bring your medium density up a bit and then same thing with this bring it across a little bit just so you've at least completely feathered that but on these with the townhomes and everything it needs to be more than just one street of

I actually second that.

I agree with you. I don't, I wouldn't worry so much about the, for it all being in-comm instead of C-comm, but yeah, I agree with Corey. That's exactly how I pictured it. That was for, but we have to table to a date.

If it is tabled, is there a way to have some kind of, or just, I mean, can we work with the- So let me, can I just clarify, are you wanting to table the public hearing or the deliberation, or what is it that you're tabling?

Tabling the public hearing to see them present an additional plan.

Yeah, additional plan.

But outside of this meeting- You would table the public hearing and the decision, so that the applicant can do what they indicated, which is present some changes.

So they can present a different plan, and so the public can come and see what the different plan is.

Without going to waste city council's time.

That's what I would do.

If we have enough concerns about it, it's just going to be a waste. So give you a chance to go fix it.

When you do that, just in your motion, include some of those details. You're continuing the public hearing. That's just a statutory preference for my legal brain. continue the public hearing so we can reopen it at that date and let more people comment if they would like. Also continuing the decision. So there will be no decision tonight. You're continuing the recommendation decision. And then the applicant's aware that they've made a commitment on the record to bring you, I guess, some changes. Yeah. How long?

That being said, we probably should talk a little bit more about the commercial.

How long do you need? Two weeks? A month? Six weeks?

Two weeks. Weeks? That can be available. We can be ready for next meeting.

Do you have a date, Eldon? That'd be September 2nd. Correct. Do you have answers from us? Do you have any other questions for us? No, I just...

just trying to figure out how it functions long-term. So with some of those changes, but I'll look at it. I'll review it. Some of it's not overly functional, but we can look at it.

Okay.

Yeah, make a motion.

All right. Mr. Commissioner Anderson, I'll make a motion to table G-26-04, a request to amend the general plan land use map from low density open space and neighborhood commercial to low density, medium density, medium high density, and CECOM located at approximately 2,000 south and 20 east. I'm looking to table both the public hearing and decision. Public hearing and decision, yeah. THE PUBLIC HEARING AND DECISION FOR SEPTEMBER 2ND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AND SPECIFICALLY WE'RE LOOKING FOR CHANGES IN THE IN THE APPLICANTS SUBMISSION SPECIFICALLY LOOKING TO REDUCE THE MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY POSSIBLY BY UP TO HALF BETTER FEATHERING BETWEEN THE MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY AND THE NEIGHBORING COMMUNITIES AND The commercial to be neighborhood commercial as opposed to seek on with feathering between the very low density and the commercial.

Davis will second that motion.

First by Commissioner Anderson, second by Commissioner Davis for a table. Commissioner Anderson? Aye. Commissioner Davis? Aye. Commissioner Mitchell? Aye. Commissioner Tupou?

Aye.

Commissioner Bullock? Aye. And everyone in the audience, this will not be noticed. We do not notice on table so if you want to come back September 2nd is when it will be there will not be notices going out.

This is their notice yet this is your notice so it will not go out again because we are just extending it tells September 2nd it will be published on the city's Web site and on the state's public notice Web sites but the city's requirement that the applicant send out a paper notice to the radius does not apply to tables. Sir, did you have a question?

There's no, there's no, it'll be, you mean the general plan?

You don't get to see it before the Planning Commission, so no, you'll be able to come and see it on the table date. Correct. When it gets put in the packet that is posted on the website, yes. So I think that depends on staff's timing. But yeah, the goal is to usually have those done and published the weekend before the meeting arrives.

It's usually on a Friday. All right. Item 4B. Z-26-16, a request to rezone approximately 0.7 acres located at approximately 100 east and 550 north from the current R16 to a proposed PUDR zoning designation. I'm going to hold off and let these guys clear out. If we can move out so we can finish this meeting, please, everybody.

Thank you.

All right, let's try this again. Item 4BZ-26-16, I request to rezone approximately 0.71 acres located at approximately 100 east and 550 north from the current R16 to the proposed PUDR zoning designation. Brown Consulting and Engineering is the applicant, and we will turn the time over to Eldon.

Thank you, commissioners. The Utah Department of Transportation acquired the 0.71 acres here when making the Main Street connection to I-15, along with the need to relocate access to the residences located at 446 North and 456 North. I'll zoom in here. You can see these two homes. This is where the right-of-way used to be for Main Street underneath. And you can see the access there with the relocation realignment of Main Street, UDOT was required to bring their access through this alleyway here. So they had to purchase this property, which we're discussing tonight. The proposal includes, let's get this map here. Proposal includes five detached units 400 square feet in size and one managers unit 600 square feet in size Each of the five units will be provided with a 10 by 10 shed and front patio area Provided parking is two stalls for each unit with an additional two visitor parking stalls for a total of 14 spaces Parking is adequate as shown on The applicant is asking for setback relief for both covered parking structures. You see these blue areas here. This is covered parking right off that red line, which is the property line, one there. And then also here, they're asking for a zero setback on those covered parking stalls, which will need to be approved by the city. Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval as shown in the exhibits. And this will go on to City Council based on the findings and conditions stated in staff report. That concludes staff report. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

Is that zero setback just in that north west corner of the parking. Is that why the zero setback. It's not like the front. Well, I guess the front, because they have a slight approach before you get to the property line going into that covered parking off the main entrance.

Yes, this is a unique area here with UDOT providing access to those two existing homes. With that, UDOT paved roadway to them, which doesn't quite meet the 26-foot city standard. So this development would provide that asphalt in that city-owned area bring 26 feet width of asphalt and those curb approaches to the covered stalls.

It says that it's for Project Valor. So these are just rentals to veterans. Sorry, thank you. Are they rentals? Are they selling them to them?

Or is it just temporary housing to help them if they need it? So it's housing dedicated for veterans. I believe it'll be owned by a not-for-profit association that will manage kind of the tenancy.

The project dollars one, more than likely.

Correct. I do believe there is an element of renting slash tenancy between the, just because they've got to have something to define, you know, occupancy and the legality of it. But it's not your typical rental where, you know, it's got, you know, the city's trying to contribute in ways which allowing it to happen on parcels that maybe wouldn't get approved for just a single family rental right here, for example. The not-for-profits contributing in both grant funding and other donations and funds to help get the things here and get them established. But, yeah, it would be housing for veterans and, yeah, they would they would have a right to live there, a tenancy right, but it would be owned by an association, a not-for-profit organization.

I love that idea. I think it's great what they're doing. My question is if something happens to the nonprofit, does they just sell these off and then rent them to regular people?

Is that what would happen? So part of why this is running through the city's entitlement process as it is is so we can set those type of conditions. And so those could be conditions for approval that that you know remain a rental to to veterans of. Of you know the military or however you want to designate it. It's my opinion that you can do that and you should do that because you're you're identifying this as. A bit unusual from the typical process for land use entitlement. think with the detail that you see tonight it's it's not a PUD but it's it's kind of akin to that right which is a project that's getting approved on the sorry it is a PUDR and and that's the detail that you've got here tonight and so part of the PUDR condition is that it it remain as a as a housing for veterans project and if it seeks to ceases to be that then the PUDR could could be terminated by the city.

Okay.

Do you have any questions?

I mean, I love the concept and it's super tight, you know, over there, but you know what you're, you're putting, you know, I think you're putting the space to good use that, you know, one question and you see, I think we've got in the, in the diagram here, you have that third set of duplexes that's framed up that hasn't construction hasn't commenced on that on Prada. I think it's Prada lane or, I believe that's it. Prada pecan, Prada pecan. And, you know, that little cul de sac for Prada pecan is already just a complete mess from a parking standpoint. And that's before you even put those other two units in. So as long as you've got you're able to preserve the dedicated parking for this project and you're not going to be spilling over Because, again, the Prada-Picana stuff is...

There's 600 square foot homes. They're not going to have a lot of people.

Drive it at night or on the weekends. You can't get down the road.

Yeah, no, I agree.

But it's a super use of the land, I think.

Yeah, I think it's a really cool project. I love that the city is doing this with our history. with veterans in the city and how much the city like cares about that. And I think the use of those two little weird, you know, parcels right next to the freeway, I think it's cool. I love it. And I like that we're making little exceptions and finding ways to make it happen and just, you know, let it happen. I think it's cool.

So I will just add this. This will be a first instance of this type of thing in the city. And to Commissioner, your commentary We haven't done it before. We've got representatives, you know, the mayor, the mayor had a news article a month or two ago with the governor's office that talked about this. And so we've got leaders that are that are interested and open to doing something like this for a good cause. I don't think it'll crash and burn, but but I also don't know what it's going to look like in 30 years. But but, you know, we're a city. We looked really different 30 years ago than we do today. And I'm sure the same thing will happen in the next 30 years. And hopefully we remain having good leaders and people that are willing to make tough decisions. And then we'll deal with the next 30 years when they get here.

This is a public hearing. If anyone would like to get up and speak to this item 4B, now is your chance to do so.

Hi, I'm Rex Johnson. I live 75 West, 400 North, which is just down the street and across where all this extra unused property is showed up from this on ramp that we've got and that's tied in to the that's on the other end there. And let me first say I love the idea of taking care of our veterans. I don't think that there's a better idea out there, but I don't believe that this is the location to do it for two different reasons. The first one is we just had that off ramp shoved down our throat. We that lived in that area had a small, quiet neighborhood that had pretty standard property values not being depreciated. Well, a good half of our neighbors were pushed out of the way and Now we've got uncontrollable traffic right there on 400 North. It's like a stepchild, redheaded stepchild. You go down to 300. They've got crosswalks. They've got signs saying to watch for pedestrians and stuff. You get up towards the freeway on 400 there, and you've got nothing. It's a free-for-all. It's just getting busier every day. I'm a little frustrated because I feel like there wasn't a resident in that area one listened to on that side. And I believe that it benefited the city greatly by being able to promote that property that they owned and be able to sell it on the other side for a great premium. And I hope that helped my property taxes from having to go up. You go a little bit further up, and now in this new development that they're building, it's multi-million dollar homes. What about the world, Washington? We've been there since the 70s. I mean, there wasn't any other part of Washington. Why would you just spend two hours talking about? There was two people that lived out there when the people that live in this part of town you're talking about moved into town. They're not big, beautiful homes like it seems like you're really worried about, but it's what the people that live there can afford and. they're worried about their property values they're worried about what's going to happen when all of a sudden you take and make it to where you can put these little tiny homes and make it that condensed right there i think that something ought to be done right there for the community i think that maybe a dog park or something like that something a park that those houses and the neighborhood could utilize right there. I think that it ought to be utilized for something, but I don't think that this is the best process for it. And reading about the Governor's meeting with the mayor and everybody they've got pretty high ambitions to do more than just this there's five piece five places in that right well, if you read through that meeting it states that they're hoping to have eight or 10 of them in the near future. which puts them across the street also over directly across from me. And now stop and think about it, too. We're helping these guys out, but we're going to put them right on a freeway off ramp. You know, the city and the state own some pretty amazing properties around here. And I think it would be very beneficial to everybody to put them in an area that would not only support and help them out, but would give people a choice to what they wanted to build around it and what they wanted to come into it. That's how I feel about it. I've looked on the map. I know that the state owns several pieces. I know that the city owns several pieces. And like I said to begin with, I strongly believe in this idea. I just don't think that we should shoehorn them into an area that's been abused already. and anything we can fit them into so that we can pat ourselves on the back and say, we did it. Look what we did. Let's do it right. Let's take care of them. Let's treat them with the respect that they deserve. And let's give them a piece of town where they're not just being shoved into something to where they're going to be. It's going to be burdensome to them and burdensome to everybody in the area. Thank you for your time. I appreciate it.

Thank you.

Commissioners real quickly I just because of the comment which I appreciate the gentleman and his comments and also you can tell he's looked into this quite a bit There it is true that you dot so these pieces are currently owned by you dot and you dot has Presented their contribution of these to the project is one way that a state agency also participates in the concept Because the city does not own these parcels There was a time when you had asked the city if the city wanted to buy them for other purposes and the city declined to purchase them across the street to the west at the top of Main Street is another piece of land that I believe used to have nine homes on it. Eight eight or nine homes that you got you got acquired and took down as part of the interchange project that was also offered to the city for purchase. The city declined that. I just want to clarify that the city is not aware of this concept going to that side of the highway. We are aware that Project Valor and the state leaders would like more projects than just this one. But this is the extent to which the city is aware of Project Valor doing something like this in our city. And so the gentleman's feelings are, he stated them, I think they were genuine. I just want to clarify that I'm not aware and the city's not aware of other Project Valor concepts that will be coming at parcels of land in that vicinity. I believe this is the one that they propose. Sorry, sir.

So Kate Hoff. I own property at 91 East 400 North, so just down from the circle up there. Again, I think like everybody, the concept seems great and exciting to some extent to help our veterans. Two concerns I just want to bring up really quickly. One, like was mentioned previously, parking on that circle right now and for Prada-Picana is horrendous. wanted to come when they were approving the third building up there just to bring up that fact but i've actually seen times where people parked all the way across the circle kind of blocking the driveway right now so granted that's not this area's problem and i'm glad to see you guys put 14 uh parking stalls in there for that but where people are starting to park In other areas, like, around the circle, et cetera, if you do approve it, I'd make a recommendation that there'd be no parking or something. Put in that alleyway just so that parking doesn't. Start to impede with that that alleyway also when product was approved. There was a big deal made about bringing in fire trucks and access that way. So, obviously, hopefully you guys are considering that and the cities. Uh, considered that as far as that alley was concerned, the alley didn't exist when product was approved. And then the final last comment about traffic is. When they put in the freeway off round 1 of the original proposals, and I don't have it stated here, but. They stated that there needed to be a certain amount of distance from the freeway off ramp. to the home. So they're actually planning on taking the two homes that are just south of these two little homes or I think there's three homes or they're actually planning on taking those as well. somehow that changed in the plan when they kind of diverted it and they came up with this driveway plan but you're now putting not just one or two driveways that close to the freeway off-ramp but it would essentially be five homes driveways coming off of that little alleyway into that freeway off-ramp from that safety perspective so again I think it's a great concept totally want to see it in certain places. But I think those items need to be addressed either in the PUD concept or something along those lines to handle some of that traffic and stuff that way. I HAVE ONE MORE COMMENT. OH, I DID RECEIVE NOTICE, SO IT WAS KIND OF INTERESTING THAT PREVIOUS STUFF, SO I APPRECIATE THE NOTICE TO BE ABLE TO COME HERE AND DO THIS. BUT I ALSO KIND OF FOUND IT A LITTLE INTERESTING THAT TWO MONTHS AGO WE'RE ALREADY TALKING WITH THE COUNTY ALMOST, I MEAN, THE ARTICLE DID SAY, HEY, IT'S GOT TO GO THROUGH THE APPROVAL PROCESS AND THINGS THAT WAY, BUT IT DOES KIND OF GIVE A LITTLE BIT OF PERCEPTION OF, HEY, THINGS ARE HAPPENING WITHOUT THAT GOING ON THAT WAY. SO JUST KIND OF THAT COMMENT AS WELL, GOT TO BE CAREFUL.

how we communicate because it did kind of seem like it was something the city was already planning on doing so anyway just appreciate the time for the comments thank you after after after we close this I'll I'll give you the floor is there anyone else that would like to speak to this okay I'll close the public hearing

I WOULD LIKE AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK UP THE ARTICLE THAT STATED AND TALKED ABOUT THEM MOVING ACROSS THE STREET AND BUILDING MORE. IT TALKED ABOUT THE GOVERNOR. IT TALKED ABOUT THE MEETING THAT THE MAYOR AND THE GOVERNOR HAD. AND I BELIEVE YOU WERE THERE, SIR. SO I IMAGINE YOU'VE GOT THE INSIGHT ABOUT THAT ALSO. So maybe you can save me from looking that up and addressing and bringing it to the city's attention since apparently you're not aware of it. Thank you.

Thank you. We will close the public hearing portion of this and give the applicant.

Thank you very much. I appreciate it. I would like to address a couple of things. First, I'd like to express my thanks to the City of Washington, Mayor Staley, Eldon, and all the staff. We've been, everybody's been involved as we had a development meeting and so forth. All the departments came that talked about fire, UTILITIES ACCESS ALL THOSE THINGS AND IT'S BEEN A GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO WORK WITH THEM. WE HAVE OUR REPRESENTATIVE STEVE FROM WITH OUR ENGINEERING THAT'S HELPED US WITH ALL OF THIS. FIRST THING I WOULD SAY IS WE I DON'T RECALL AT ALL ANY DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THE OTHER THIRD PARCEL ACROSS THE STREET. when we were there and met with Governor Cox and his leadership team and Mayor Staley, it was at that point, we were looking for one piece and it was the smaller of the two. And Mayor Staley and Governor Cox in talking and with the UDOT representatives and everyone, they offered us those two units. It was never anything about the third.

So I don't know.

This still has to go to City Council so so so tonight's just deciding these two so you can email it to me if you want we're happy to take it if you can find it but but no other parcels are being decided tonight and so If they were to come along like you think you've read that says they will there will be another meeting like this another process where you can stand up. I just read the St. George news article and it references that the governor's hope that it happens in other places but nothing references that piece on the west side of the top of Main Street. But if you can find it, send it directly to me. Bring it in hand. We're happy to take it. I'm happy to be corrected if I should be corrected. Thank you. But if there is other pieces of land, those aren't under consideration tonight. Those would have to go through the same process and a separate and additional process.

Okay, I understand that. I think it's a little close to have that off-ramp to any residence, to be honest with you.

That's why you build commercial on other sites.

Yeah, so you're not on the microphone, and the staff are saying make sure he stands up in the microphone. So we've heard you. We've got stuff recorded. But if you find that, you're welcome to bring it to me or send it to me, and I will happily correct my statements. Thank you. Yep.

So the other thing I would address is to clarify that this is for aging veterans. They may be single individuals, they may be a couple, but that's pretty much what this is designed for. The biggest problem that exists, what the whole concept behind USA Project Valor is to help struggling and aging veterans. And one of the biggest struggles that our aging veterans have is that they are priced out of Almost any type of home rental unit or things like that. We have seen it in different areas where they may have a studio that they we've had individuals where they had a studio that was 475 a month. And it raised up to 750 that particular veteran was on a fixed income of $1,025 I mean, he couldn't do that. He had to turn it over. He had to give his notice that he was leaving and was living in his car. And this is what we found. And the VA, as we work with them, because we work with all organizations dealing with veteran support, our whole objective is for our aging veterans is to give them a place that is affordable to them. We're not looking. And that's where we reach out to our veterans Um, to the state for the help in the concept of this. And if you're living in a car, being right next to the freeway is not so bad. Being able to go in and have a kitchen and a shower and a bath, all those kind of things, it's really a big upgrade. It's a big help. It's a great opportunity. And we figure that most of these veterans, and there's some already down here in southern Utah, that qualify for a HUD voucher that is specific to veterans, which is called a VASH voucher. they are eligible for it. The problem is there is nowhere that they can find that they can rent based off what the amount that the federal government sets basically of $800 a month max for a one bedroom for a studio. Well, and so anyway, it's basically about the same. So that that's that's the problem that we were seeing. And so our objective with our senior and aging veterans was to give them a place that is affordable for them, that whatever that that bracket is, that's what it will be. And if it needs to be less to help them based on their income, those kind of things, that's what it will be for. They will be there until they need to, as long as they want to, unless they need to go to a care facility or that they pass away. It's a small number of units. The reason why we are putting a management unit there will probably be a veteran or veteran couple. And it's to basically to keep an eye on those veterans, make sure they're okay, make sure that something hasn't happened to them. We will also have the grounds all maintained by a third party company. We want this to be, a treasure for the city of Washington City, something that they can be proud of, that they participated with the community and did this and is helping these veterans, and that is a model to other cities throughout the state. Our specific focus is just on Utah veterans. There's some great national organizations out there, but I don't see them getting to Utah for several years if they do, because they're focused on the bigger cities. And we have veterans out there. We have veterans that need help. So we also just, we were asked a question here a few times over the last few weeks and so forth. Are you gonna have homeless veterans in there? Are you gonna have homeless people in these homes? No, we're not. Do we work with homeless veterans? Yes, we do. But we have partnered with, We are in the process and working with the care and iron counties care and share facility, which is a homeless shelter and a food bank. They've received a grant. They're doing an expansion. We hope to be able to help provide eight to 12 units that will help their overflow. And if we have, um, struggling homeless veterans, that is a great place to go. So we look for those that we can help. That's what we're looking to do where we would direct them to. There's a lot of veterans that try to use that facility now, but it's always full. And we're really looking at this for the aging. The other thing is, is instead of building, unlike others, Switchpoint is a great example. They deal with everybody, but it's a complex, it's a compound. Most of our veterans, if they have a place of their own where they have a little yard, it's theirs. Basically, it's like a home. One of the elderly veterans that we had, that was probably the best thing that he said, I finally got a home again. And it's not that big. 400 square feet is not that big. But it is, if you look at the pictures inside, I think we sent some of those. But it comes with all the appliances, all those things. It's high tech, modular. And that shows one of the manager's unit as a degree. And then here's the others. and those types of things. And that's what it is, is to give them a place where they can finish out their life as they can and be independent. The parking issue, until I got down here myself and realized the amount of heat that there is, I understand now why Eldon said I have to have covered parking and so forth. It gets hot here. But I think about half of the senior veterans that we work with, they don't even have vehicles. So they have rideshare, stuff like that, all the different things. And so our objective is to house aging veterans and help struggling veterans throughout the state of Utah. And we look to create small, little communities like this. And Washington City has stepped forward with Governor Cox as the first one to be the model to other cities throughout the state. We started our charity in northern Utah in Cache Valley. We did our very first home. If you look at our website, you'll see it. You'll see what happened. It tells the story of it. And we have four homes there now. And so that's what we're looking to do. We're looking to provide these things where they've got that home. And even the homes that we others that we do provide that are not long term for aging veterans, they're transitional. It's basically to get them off the street or out of their car or out of a bad situation where they may be and get them into a place that if they need to be there for a month, three months, six months, that we can, and we help them get directed to all the resources and the paperwork. It takes time. The government doesn't move that quick. It may take a month or two just to get their paperwork, their DD-214s of when they were discharged, all of that. But almost everyone we've worked with has been eligible for some type of housing assistance. And the thing is, most communities and counties, the help that they can give maybe for a three-day stay at a hotel, maybe a week. That's about the most of it. Or you can go to a warming center where you're there at night and then you have to leave in the morning. This gives them a place to get back on their feet, catch their breath, get help and guidance directed to where they need to go. and be there as long as they need to until they've got that stuff done. That's what we're trying to do is take care of our veterans. If there's any specific questions, I'll find I kind of bounce around a lot, but that's what we're trying to do for our Utah veterans.

Yeah, just to be clear, because you covered a lot of ground there. It sounds like a great organization. transition, we were going back to the beginning, we're talking about aging Utah veterans, right? So I would, you know, based on the initial comments, it sounded as though this was going to be pretty stable, not necessarily people in transitioning or transitioning back into society or coming out of a, you know, you mentioned a bad situation, but it sounds to me like the fundamental structure of this particular project are for aging Utah veterans. It's not going to be as, you're not going to be seeing U-Hauls changing people out every month.

And from our experience, the senior veterans that we've been working with, we have some that have been housed for over a year now. We did our first house in December of 2024 is when that first veteran moved in. The senior ones have been once they've been housed, they stay there and so forth. So, yes. And there's a whole different other thing. Matter of fact, in the city of St. George, we're working there for a transitional house that we'll have one unit that for a veteran that is in need or in a bad situation that they can go into there. We're working with the Southern Utah Veterans Coalition as that goes through there and so forth. But this is just for our aging veterans. It's a model to be shown to the other cities throughout the state of what they can do. And thankfully, because of price of land and everything else, the state has helped with this. And so it'll still be a great project, look fantastic, be well-maintained, and so forth.

I have a couple questions for you. Do you know how many vouchers are available per county?

I fight with the VA about that all the time, and they don't like to release much information. To answer your question, no, I don't. to take it a step further. I am working with the VA to find that out, and with state representatives. We have a situation in Cache Valley. They give five vouchers. We have five people on a waiting list, and we have five people in those homes. We've had an individual that waited over a year before he got able to use a voucher. So the question is, how come in Ogden you have 50 vouchers that are not all used? Why don't you let those extra ones come here? Well, because we give them to you, then we don't get them back. So, I mean, there's some issues there that just need to be worked out. I don't know how it is throughout the state, but I will at some on some at some day I will.

Yeah, I have that question because we were financing a transition of a hotel into that. And yes, and this other it's a major city, but it's not in Utah. They have. like eight vouchers. So I was wondering if that is a project that's possible in Utah. But it doesn't sound like we have the funding coming through the VA.

It's an interesting thing, to be honest with you. In Ogden, they built a new complex, a new apartment thing for seniors. The price tag was incredible. And that's where their vouchers are. Well, there's more than just that. But there's reasoning for it. There has to be a caseworker with certain credentials to support more because they need to work with that case worker, those types of things like that. But maybe as I find out more, as we continue to go, I can get you some answers. Because we're looking at that too. And we've raised that question and so forth.

My second question is, there's so much need. How do you choose?

That's a great question. That's a great question. The VA asked us that too. What we've done is we've not turned anyone away. Now, we are a private charity, a 501 official nonprofit charity. We've not turned anyone away. Now, we don't have the number of houses that we need, but we may put them in a hotel. We may do what we need to. How do we tell? To be honest with you, we look at every situation. And are they where they can? We have some where they could stay where they're at. Maybe they need help there. It's like homeless people in general. If you can keep them housed, it's the most cost-effective way of doing that. And so with some of our veterans, that's what we do. Or we can supplement it, things like that. We look at the need. We have aging veterans. We have female veterans. We have families and so forth. And so it's a struggle. It's a struggle because our objective is to help them. And so we hope to We have an event. We have one scheduled here for Washington City on October 17th, a fundraiser, 5K event, things like that. We've got initially great support down here. We're doing our second annual one up there, and that's to raise the money that we feel is enough to get us through the year that we can take care of whoever. And so my answer to you as best I could do is I would tell you that I've not told anybody I'm sorry I can't help you. I did have to tell my son that he's going to have to get a scholarship because I used all his college money. But other than that, we haven't turned anybody away.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

I have a question or two for you. Sorry. I like, I mean, I like the idea. I like, I like the idea of helping out, you know, and finding a unique way to, you know, and it's not just veterans that are, that are in this, this predicament too. There's lots of people that they can't afford housing at all. Um, I guess a couple of questions though, what, from what, from what you say, my, my, I see the need, but I also, I see potential problems with it too. You had mentioned veterans needing a month here, or three months, or six months, or whatever. If it becomes transient, I see that having a lot of issues. Not that transient people don't need homes. Again, I'm not trying to say they don't. But also, you said most of the people living here don't have a vehicle. But with that said, you know, how are they gonna afford, how are they gonna afford, well, I guess they get the voucher, that's how they afford the rent, but is there a path for them to be able to get where they're just, they're receiving the voucher and is the plan to try and get them to where they can get a job? I mean, and if so, how does that affect this? Then they move out. I mean, I guess how transient, Are we really talking here versus how permanent?

I see this. Great question. And maybe as I kind of mix the two types of groups we work with, I really perceive these to be long term. They will do an application. They're already on a fixed income. They're just looking for permanent housing. And typically, when they get a voucher, they sign a lease for at least one year with renewals and so forth, and they can They can, with that voucher, they can pretty much go anywhere they want. The biggest problem is finding something they can afford that's quality. And so with all our senior veterans that we've had, once they came and reached out for help and we've been able to help, we got them into places and they're still there. We really see the aging veterans are going to be here. They're not necessarily going to look for something else. This is going to be something they can afford. They're going to have a nice place, a nice community. And I would say about half of them have vehicles. Whether they should drive or not is a different story. Most of them are probably in the 60 to 80 year range. These are veterans. The ones that are close to 80 are some of the end of the Vietnam veterans. Others are the Iraqi war veterans from that situation and some of those battles from the burn pits and all that kind of stuff that they've had to go through. And so we perceive that it isn't going to be transit, that they're going to come in, they're going to be background checks, all those kind of things. And they're going to, um, reside there. They're going to sign a one year lease, that kind of stuff. And what would get them out is if their health changes or there's some issue that way where they need to go into a VA care facility. And if they, if, if, um, housing opportunities open tremendously and they could pick and choose a lot of stuff, then that would happen. But that's not something. I don't see homes being available for $600 a month or something like that, to be honest with you.

Aside from the fact of getting the land, As you did, and that's your biggest cost savings there by far. But I mean, for a one bedroom unit in Washington City, you're around $1,000 a month to $1,100. So it's not that much far out of reach of this. I guess my question would be, how affordable are they if you had to buy the land normally? Could you build them and keep them under that or not?

No, no, it wouldn't be. That's why this is a pilot. Sorry, I guess let me rephrase that.

I know you obviously couldn't with the 800 a month.

Yeah.

Could you at the, and this is, I guess, a broader question, but could you build them to where they could be rented at the $1,000 to $1,000, like the market rate or not?

First of all, 90% of the veterans that will go into this place, if not more, they only have 1,000 to about 1,200, 1,300 a month. That's all they have. And so by qualifying for the voucher, that's taking whatever their house payment is. Now they have them pay a small portion of it. If it's $800 is what it is that the HUD qualifies for, they may pay $150 of it, something like that. They have them pay a portion that they're a part of it and in the game. But no, these two parcels were appraised and they appraised it just at $490,000. I mean, there's no way in the world as a charity that we could purchase that, put the units on, and so forth. And we are working, they're modular units, they're a boxable type unit that comes folded up, we set it down, we put them on the foundations, they're a permanent structure, we do different facade, things like that. And we are working with that organization who was at attendance at that meeting as well and made a pledge for a substantial financial support to the chair.

I would just say one other thing is, is in the event that they do, like you said, half of them have cars, but they are going to have visitors, hopefully, et cetera. It was the smaller the housing, the harder the parking becomes. I mean, the community right below it is case in point, even though it met, you know, whatever the city standards for parking was, it's still obviously not enough. And that's that's the case always with every single place that's rented. I mean, I would say on this bottom parcel here, you've got room to put additional parking. I would take it. I would use it and put additional parking just so you don't have people backed up along the road. The top piece, I mean, you could maybe only add one spot, but I would definitely add some spots to that bottom piece.

We'll look at that. Certainly, there's ordinances that we had to meet. OR REQUIREMENTS, BECAUSE I THINK EACH UNIT HAS TO HAVE TWO PARKING SPACES, AND THEN WE HAD TO HAVE TWO FOR VISITORS. IS THAT RIGHT, ELDEN, I THINK? SO I THINK THE BOTTOM THING IS SIX.

AND I UNDERSTAND THAT IT MEETS CITY CODE REQUIREMENTS. I GET THAT. I'M JUST SAYING...

IF YOU HAVE THE ROOM, TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT.

EXPERIENCE WITH THIS IS ALWAYS THAT ESPECIALLY THE SMALLER THE HOUSING LIKE THIS, YOU ALWAYS NEED MORE THAN THE CITY REQUIRES. AND SO IF YOU WANT TO ALLEVIATE you know, issues, you don't want people parking on that alleyway street, you've got some land there. I would take it and add some visitor parking to help alleviate that.

We'll take that into consideration. Thank you. The other one, the manager's house will have a garage as well and some stuff there. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody, anyone else? Thank you. Thank you.

a motion yes please do all right uh you know appreciate the comments and certainly the concerns voice but i'm going to make a motion yes i do have a question before we go to motion here and it's on this alleyway i guess that's it's not really we can change but i am a little concerned when you get off the freeway there and i don't know exactly what it is but it does feel a little bit disconcerting when you get off that. It's hard to really tell what traffic is coming there. And with this alleyway being close there, I guess there's nothing we can do about it to change it. It almost gets you mistaken for the on-ramp, right? Yes. Not only that, when you're getting off the freeway coming south, it's just hard to see traffic. It's just a weird traffic spot. And I just... As that gets busier, I think it's going to be a little more complicated.

I don't own any of the land there, so I wasn't part of the UDOT discussions with the landowners, but it was the alleyway, and Mr. Hoff was accurate, those homes were originally identified by UDOT as homes that would be acquired by eminent domain or negotiation removed to make space for the ramps. Um, my understanding is you dot at the request of the land owners negotiated where they could be compensated for the impact of, of loss of access and loss of driveways and several of them lost land. And you'll notice the alleyways taken some of the front yards a little bit there. Um, and so there was a deal to compensate them for what they lost, but also allow them to essentially stay. And then a consent that this alleyway would, it would occur. IT'S NOT TECHNICALLY CITY PUBLIC ROAD BECAUSE IT DOESN'T MEET THE TECHNICAL SPECS OF THAT. AND IT'S ALSO NOT INTENDED TO CONNECT OTHER ROADS OR BECOME A PART OF THE ROADWAY NETWORK BUT IT'S CLEARLY PAVED AND INTENDED TO BE AN ACCESS FOR SOME OF THE USES UP THERE.

MY LAST THING, THIS IS JUST FOR THE RECORD TO ANSWER THE GENTLEMAN'S QUESTION. I DID READ THE ARTICLE ABOUT THAT. I LOOKED IT UP. THE GOVERNOR SAID WE HAVE We have parcels of land like this all across the state, not all across Washington City, is what he said. And I'm not trying to get any coverage. I'm just saying I read the article, and that's what he said. I read every one of them, actually. I just looked them up. There were three. So anyway.

All right, I'm going to make a motion to approve item Z dash 26 dash 16 and forward it on to city council. This is a request to rezone approximately 0.71 acres located at approximately 100 east and 550 north from the current R16 zoning to a proposed PUDR zoning designation with just a couple of points to add for city council's guidance. I wouldn't necessarily call them conditions that Number one, that these units are for aging Utah veterans. Number two, the applicant and all should pay particular attention to the parking availability, including increasing the parking within this particular project. These are not homeless shelters. We're looking for one year leases on these items.

Commissioner Anderson, I second.

I have a first by Commissioner Davis, a second by Commissioner Anderson, and a village of voting. Commissioner Anderson? Aye. Commissioner Davis? Aye. Commissioner Mitchell? Aye. Commissioner Tupou?

Aye.

Commissioner Bullock, I'm an aye as well. This will go to city council in two weeks with a recommendation of approval, or next week. Next week. Next week, sorry.

Item five is adjournment. This is Commissioner Mitchell. I move that we adjourn. Second.

I'm first by Commissioner Mitchell, second by Commissioner Davis. All in favor? Aye. We're going to take a short break before we start the land use. Welcome to land use meeting for August 19, 2026. We will start the meeting off with item one, approval of the agenda.

Commissioner Davis, I'll make a motion to approve tonight's agenda.

Commissioner Tupou, I second that.

I have a first by Commissioner Davis and second by Commissioner Tupou. All in favor? Aye. Item two, approval of the minutes from the land used from August 5th, 2026.

This is Commissioner Mitchell. I move that we approve the minutes from our previous meeting. Second.

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

Aye.

Item three, declaration of abstentions or conflicts. Does anyone have any tonight? Okay, on to public hearings. Item number 4A is a preliminary pride approval for the Red Trails at Sunrise Valley Phase 5 subdivision located approximately Birch Creek Drive and Muddy Creek Drive. We'll turn the time over to Sebastian.

Good evening. Thank you. the applicant is requesting approval of a preliminary plot for the red trails at sunrise valley phase five subdivision located at approximately birch creek drive and muddy creek drive this particular subdivision is proposing six single-family residential lots on an area covering about 1.18 acres the density at this location would be 5.08 dwelling units per acre THE ZONING DESIGNATION CURRENTLY IS PUDR WITH THE PUDR ZONE TO THE NORTH, COUNTY TO THE EAST, R18 TO THE SOUTH, AND PUDR AGAIN TO THE WEST. THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION CONFORMS TO THE APPROVED ZONING AND THE REQUEST MEETS THE SUBDIVISION REQUIREMENTS AND OTHER SEED ORDINANCES FOR THIS LOCATION. Staff has reviewed the request and recommends the Land Use Authority approve the preliminary plot based on the following findings and conditions. That concludes that report. And I'm happy to answer any additional questions you may have.

Was this the one that came in for a zone change about a month ago? The last little piece I'm not sure what to do with. Maybe more than a month ago. Yes, it was.

Just recently. Yeah, it's a PUDR. Yeah.

OK. Okay, thanks, Sebastian.

Actually, I got a question, Sebastian, sorry. The walking trail that goes behind this development, is it part of this or is it stopped before it gets to this?

The plans did not show that trail there. I believe it's not part of that. The trail will not be part of this development.

There is a trail that's in a different phase.

Okay, it's not part of the phase. I was just curious to see if that trail will continue to get developed as the developments take place up that north.

Is it just dead ends at the edge of? It will. The previous development will dead end it into the county property, which is that gravel pit property there.

Yeah, okay.

All right, this is the public hearing. I will open it up if there's anyone here that would like to speak to the public hearing. Okay, I will close the public hearing portion of this. And if you guys have any more questions or concerns or look for a motion.

Commissioner Anderson, I'll... Make a motion to approve the preliminary plat for red trails at Sunrise Valley phase five subdivision located approximately Birch Creek Drive and Muddy Creek Drive with the findings and conditions outlined by staff.

Commissioner Tupou, I second that.

First by Commissioner Anderson, second by Commissioner Tupou. Individual voting, Commissioner Anderson. Aye. Commissioner Davis. Aye. Commissioner Mitchell. Aye. Commissioner Tupou.

Aye.

Commissioner Bullock, I'm an aye as well. I will pass for approval. Item 4B is a preliminary plot approval for the Palo Medo at Alea Subdivision, located approximately Kattel Way and Luke Drive. That plans Randy Walker, and we will turn the time over to Sebastian.

THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY PLOT FOR THE POLAND BEDDOW AND ALAIA SUBDIVISION LOCATED AT CATTAIL WAY AND LUCA DRIVE, WHICH IS IN VILLAGE 12A OF THE ALAIA PCD. IT LOOKS LIKE THE MAP'S GOING TO FLIP AROUND THERE. THIS PARTICULAR SUBDIVISION IS PROPOSING 203 LOTS ON AN AREA OF ABOUT 17.1 ACRES OF LAND WITH AN OVERALL DENSITY OF 11.9 DUAL UNITS PER ACRE. This development provides 525 parking stalls, which exceeds the 520 minimum required amount. Also, it should be noted that a 0.5 acre amenity area is included to the east of this development. And that will consist of a playground, a barbecue pit, and I think an outdoor play area, like a tennis court or something. THE ZONING DESIGNATION AT THIS LOCATION IS PCD AND THE R16 ZONE IS TO THE NORTH, OPEN SPACE TO THE EAST AND PCD AGAIN TO THE SOUTH AND WEST. 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 plan for the subdivision based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions. I'm happy to answer any additional questions you may have.

What?

Is there a percentage that has to be completed before the amenities or are the amenities? Thirty-three percent, yes. Building permits or CEOs? Building permits, I reckon.

Okay. We don't like to hold up a certificate of occupancy. We'd rather hold a building permit so we aren't involved. It's just the city with the developer, the builder. It seems like it would go faster too, so.

I mean, this just appears to be a continuation of what we saw last meeting. That's exactly exactly. It's just this is the big chunk.

Yeah, it's going to fill in that parcel in there with all the rest of the development.

Yeah, right up, I guess, pushing up towards seven. And exactly are these all nightly rental or is that is that kind of the the vibe for a lot of this?

Uh, so some of those will be, I'm not totally sure if they're all in that rental zone, but the whole area is, is rightly rentals. Um, that part of the layout, but if applicants are, they can expand these are not nightly rentals. Okay. Last week.

Can you come up and talk into the microphone so we can get it on record, please?

Sorry about that. My name is Sean Colarusso. I represent the Alea Development and Ownership Group. Originally, all of 12 had a nightly rental overlay, and so there are still some old legacy maps that show that attachment, but that nightly rental overlay for 12A was moved to Village 28 with our PCD amendment, and so 12A does not have nightly rental attached. So the vision for those townhomes is that they will be built and it will be a for sale product, not a nightly rental product or long-term rentals. Some of them might end up as long-term rentals, but we're really pushing it as a for sale product.

And will they be similar design to what you have on Sunburst Court, that whole, and you're still doing that whole North Carolina vibe?

Somewhat. Those are specific to... The nightly rental vision for that parcel, so the elevations that you saw for 12 be are different from what you know what we're proposing for this year. Again, this is intended to be a for sale product, we think it's a great product for the Community and also for a layer because of the access to the amenities literally down the street. So you missed all the fun two weeks ago, but I did, and I apologize for that. We actually met with the majority of those residents this afternoon because there was some misunderstanding regarding the notices that were sent out about the drainage concerns and also the crossings to the median so we can start landscaping the area. And I think it was a really productive meeting. That's great to hear.

Have you updated the city on what the status of all that is and everything?

I have. In fact, I sent an update to Elvin and Jeremy on Tuesday, so yesterday. I talked with Jeremy several times on Friday. If that hasn't been shared with you, then we can make sure.

Out of curiosity, how are you going to deal with the drainage? Because even though it's technically their problem, their draining, that's a tall order to try and get all those people to reroute their drainage. It is. Are you going to just connect it to a... A DRAINAGE PIPE AND GET RID OF IT OR WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO?

NO, I MEAN, THE REALITY IS WE SHOULD HAVE ONLY, OUR HOA MANAGEMENT COMPANY SHOULD HAVE ONLY NOTICED THE 8 OR 10 HOMES THAT SHOWED SOME CONCERN, SOME EROSION OFF THE BACK OF THEIR LOTS INTO THAT OPEN SPACE TO BE LANDSCAPED. AND INSTEAD, THE HOA NOTICED EVERYONE, I BELIEVE, IN CROSSROADS, WHICH CREATED THE UPROAR, RIGHT? THERE WAS A LOT OF CONFUSION AND FRUSTRATION ABOUT THE MESSAGING. THAT NEEDS TO BE CLEANED UP. So we have gone out and again looked at the areas that are being channeled where the erosion is in the open space and identified that there are about six to eight homes that have drains off the back of their houses in the open space. And so we had our landscape maintenance contractor in attendance this afternoon to meet with them or at least to schedule meetings so we can go to their specific residents take a look at where the drainage issues are and talk about viable options. One option, as you know, we have riprap and we have storm under the riprap. It's not my preference. I wouldn't have done it that way. It's the way the previous development group chose to do that. And so one thought was perhaps if the drain is already in that open space, maybe we can bring it down closer to the riprap and the storm under the riprap and then have it just drain directly into that heavy rock mulch without disturbing and channeling out the new landscaping, if that makes sense. That would be pretty cost-effective. I don't know how that looks from a code standpoint, but it was a thought that we were presented with and we talked about.

That's what I was thinking would be the best solution, just because it's going to be hard to get all eight people to tear up their yard and whatever.

We don't want to tear up people's yards, and we don't want them to tear up their yards.

But if you can connect to some existing with some rip-out, that's probably the best way to do it, I would say. Yeah.

Yeah, that's the solution that we're hoping we can proceed with. The bigger issue for me and for my team hasn't necessarily been that six to eight homes have drains off the back of their lots in this space. I know we can come up with a solution for that. The bigger issue has been getting irrigation service to the two medians that we have to landscape because there are no sleeves under Washington Fields Road. And we have spent months trying to get a boring company to bore for us. And that hasn't gotten anywhere. So we've been working with Public Works on another solution. I think we're about there.

You can cut the asphalt, too, and patch it.

We can, but I know a certain individual, I won't name his name, he doesn't like it when we cut into roads. So that took us a minute. So it's all your fault, then.

We should have got you up in front of the whole crowd.

Thanks. Any other questions? I appreciate it. Thank you.

This is a public hearing as well and we'll open it up for public hearing. Okay, we will close the public hearing portion of this and someone wants to speak. And if you guys have any more questions, if not, we'll actually have a question.

I actually have a question. What's the, for this number of units, what's the fire code exit for streets coming out of this subdivision? How many exits are required?

It'd be two ingress, egress. If you look to the north, this will connect into a previous subdivision and then also to the south that we discussed and approved, yes, two weeks ago.

So it counts if they connect into a previous subdivision, even though they already have homes there as well?

You are correct.

OK. Thanks.

I'LL LOOK FOR A MOTION IF ANYBODY WANTS TO MAKE ONE.

COMMISSIONER DAVIS, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR PALMETTO AT ALAIA SUBDIVISION LOCATED APPROXIMATELY CATTAIL WAY AND LUKE DRIVE SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS AND FINDINGS CONTAINED IN STAFF'S REPORT.

THIS IS COMMISSIONER MITCHELL. I SECOND.

First by Commissioner Davis and second by Commissioner Mitchell. Individual voting. Commissioner Anderson. Aye. Commissioner Davis.

Aye.

Commissioner Mitchell.

Aye.

Commissioner Tupou.

Aye.

Commissioner Bullock. Aye. And aye as well. That one passes. Item 4C is a final plot amendment for Lot 5 at River Shadow Estates subdivision located at 1160 South Washington Fields Road. I'll turn the time over to Sebastian.

The applicant is requesting approval of a partial amendment to the final plot of the River Shadow Estates subdivision located at 1160 South Washington Fields Road. This amendment involves simply adding 4,020 square feet of adjacent common area along Washington Fields Road into Lot 5. And the homeowner owns that area that was initially common area. No other changes are being made at this time. Lastly, the applicant will be installing a block wall and landscaping along Washington Fields Road up to the wash area. And there is a trail, so there will be a gap between the wash and the wall. Staff has reviewed the proposed final plot partial amendment and finds it conforms to the PUDR zoning of this development. The subdivision also remains in compliance with the subdivision ordinance of the city. Staff recommends the Land Use Authority approve the partial plot amendment based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions. I can help answer any questions if you have any additional comments or questions.

I have a question. So the home next to the road and they would be extending their property line in the shape of that triangle?

Yes. The triangle piece will be joining the current property to the south.

And they would do a brick wall along there, and that brick wall would end at the end of their property line?

So the brick wall along the edge of the triangle piece adjacent to the sidewalk, that's where the block will extend or will be, and it will go up to the wash.

Okay. I have a few questions about this particular lot. I drive by this all the time. It's near my home, and I've thought often, like, why aren't they doing something better with that spot? It's like, it's a really visual spot because as you come around off of the bridge, you see it right away. And it's just, it's kind of awkward, Why didn't they, if it was originally part of the common space of that subdivision, why didn't they do anything?

Why isn't it grass? Why isn't it something that the kids can play in? Yeah, that's a good question. And initially they came in for a building permit actually to build a structure, but to build a structure, you have to have that house there. So that's why we're joining those parcels. And to answer a question about the grass area, quite frankly, I'm not totally sure. They weren't clear about that, but...

And is that road like I think the city made a mistake when we allowed that subdivision to be built with only literally like 12 inches of barrier between these people's backyards and the sidewalk. It does not look good driving right there. I'll probably notice that.

And the block will be placed 15 feet away from right of way. So there'll be a landscape strip as well. Okay.

They're going to give you 15 feet. And how are you going to weave that 15 feet?

I guess you'll just kind of like slope it into really to answer your question it's yeah it's up to the homeowner to accurately you know decide exactly where the 15 feet can be measured from but you know it will be measured you know from the from the back of sidewalk or outside of the sidewalk and is there trail access right there like how are people using that right now it seems

like I've seen trailers parked there. I've seen kids riding bikes over there.

Like what is kind of just a backyard space to open space for, you know, like you mentioned kids.

So if you look at the map, you'll see that light white line, their common area actually crosses. Okay. Now it's highlighted. Their common area goes into the river bottom and it actually crosses the river channel and touches the city's trail on the other side. So it's, It's the common area essentially became a little park in the center of their little circle, which is really the only thing that's been built out as a common like amenity. The rest of it is just space that they own that they called common but didn't do anything with. Mostly they didn't do anything with it because it's in the flood channel and the flood way and you're not allowed to build anything in there. But it's a it's an unusual common area and and it happened long enough ago that It's just unusual that the city parks and trails folks would like a trail through there, but they are not open to that and the city can't compel them to do that. And so there's not been any planning for a trail through there, even though the parks and trails folks would like that. But it's just that you'll notice two little driveways from their roadway that give their members access to the common area. But mostly it's a big space that was carved out of river bottom. There's some rip wrapping halfway through that. And then it also, like you see, crosses the river channel to the other side. And so it's just an unusual common area.

And I mean, the answer is probably no, but is there a better use we can put that to?

I mean, it's kind of a cool little piece of property. So without saying too much, the legal department is trying to acquire the portions that are below the rip wrapping in the river bottom so that it can be contributed to the flood control authority that the flood control authority purposes, which is to manage the river's growth and accumulations on a regional scale to help with the things that happen that then become problematic when the floods do come. And so there's efforts there. This community does have, uh, they've heard people talk about putting trails across them enough that they are gun shy and not very open to having conversations because they got tired of hearing, you know, folks say, yeah, the trail's going to go through there. And they're like, well, no, it's not because they haven't, we haven't agreed to it. Right. And so there's some there's some challenges there long term, at least between the rip wrapping and and the and the river channel. The city has an interest in trying to get that under one management. So we manage it well for the city also participates on habitat and plant revegetation of the of the invasive species to the native ones. That also has a

an endangered species element and so the city city wants to be a partner for all of those different programs that have an interest in the riverway and so the city is trying to acquire if we can a portion of that yeah that's really good to know in this case who who wants is this the property owner of that home right there that's like hey can i have this instead of it being common space can i just add to my backyard and the

He did he already purchased it from the HOA so like Sebastian said he then came in for a building permit and we're like wait a minute we haven't acknowledged this through the city process.

I mean it's I I don't know what to do about it, but I do not like the way that's going to look and feel it's right now it's like kind of a bit of an open piece and he's going to like put a fence out on this triangle. that slices that more. And if their city was going to get its hands on it, it'd be better to get his hands on it. I mean, I guess it can't now you bought it, but it's weird. I just, that's.

So with this proposal, like I think we're, We're taking a step to comply with city standards as best we can. You're absolutely right. The landscaping strip that was there is not adequate. They pulled the trees out because it's breaking the sidewalk. Very minimal. So he's going to be installing a six foot block wall 15 feet back from the sidewalk and putting live growth vegetation. So as you come across the bridge, You won't be looking into that vacant lot. Oh, really? So the wall, the wall is going to extend beyond his property.

Right. It'll go all the way through to the common area and stop just shy of the wall to help clean up the visual assets. That's better. I thought you were saying we just ended his property. That's just going to be so weird. But OK, that's good. That's I mean, best we can do with an oddity.

Yeah.

What one other thing that also with all these communities common area doesn't mean it's a park or it's improved it doesn't it's not the same as an amenity amenity is like the park or. Pickleball quarter pavilion or something you know common area just means it's not owned by anyone owner and it's usually just left as is that's how every community is so if you see something saying common area that doesn't mean oh we should have planted grass or whatever it just.

thinks. I think if we could go back to, I'm trying to see when the first, the plat was 2002, so way back. It's not that far, but you do the math, it's farther than it seems. The city should have had the developer convey portions that are down in the flood channel to the city at that time. And my guess is the developer would have been happy to, But instead they just whatever remainder of the parcel that they acquired for development just got got labeled with the common area because that's what worked for him, but I think today we'd say yeah dedicate that to the city will will will manage that you know publicly and regionally for the interest that that a river way needs to be managed for.

Which is better for the. for the community, like HOA, because they have some liability for maintaining the riverway and all that erosion, whereas if they give it to the city, they don't have any liability for that.

I mean, it's a great spot for a trail. It just is a great spot for a trail right there. But, well, that's really helpful. Thank you. Appreciate all that information.

Do we have a public hearing? Not yet, no. OK. I'LL OPEN THIS UP FOR PUBLIC HEARING. I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. I LOOK FOR A MOTION.

THIS IS COMMISSIONER MITCHELL. I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE FINAL PARTIAL AMENDMENT TO LOT 5 OF THE RIVER SHADOW ESTATE SUBDIVISION WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS AND FINDINGS CONDITIONS ESTABLISHED BY STAFF.

Commissioner Anderson, I second.

I'm first by Commissioner Mitchell, second by Commissioner Anderson, individual voting. Commissioner Anderson? Aye. Commissioner Davis? Aye. Commissioner Mitchell? Aye. Commissioner Tupou?

Aye.

Commissioner Bullock-Imon, aye as well. So that is approved. Item 4D is a final plot amendment to Phase 2 of the Sun Valley Industrial Park Subdivision located at 62 North Country Way. Turn the time over to Sebastian.

The applicant is requesting approval of a partial amendment to the final plot to the Sunrise Valley Industrial Park phase two subdivision located at 62 North Country Way. The reason for this amendment is to subdivide an existing lot, which is lot 34, into two separate lots. The rear lot, lot 34B, will be accessed via a 65 foot access and public utility easement. Additionally, all necessary utility infrastructure will be extended to the rear lot. No other changes are being proposed at this time. The staff has reviewed the proposed final plot partial amendment and finds it conforms to the industrial two zoning of this development. The subdivision will also remain in compliance with the subdivision ordinance of the city. Staff recommends the Land Use Authority approve the final plot partial amendment based on the following findings and conditions in this report. That concludes the report, and I'm happy to answer any additional questions you may have.

So the new access runs through the front lot? Yes. Where is it at? If you zoom in on it, you can see the house. So will that be, what kind of access will that be? Is that going to be a paved roadway?

Yeah. 65 feet.

Is that what it said? Yes. 50 feet.

No, 65. Oh, that's the pipeline. I just, industrially, you just want to make sure there's enough room to get vehicles down, big trucks down, and turn so you're not taking out fences that people

Well, it'll be a private drive, too, so.

Yeah. You sound like you have some experience with that.

Just this week.

Just this week. 20 plus foot . 28 foot wide load going down the road.

This is a public hearing as well. We'll open this up if anyone would like to speak to it. Do you guys have any other questions? Then I'll look for a motion.

Commissioner Tupou, I'll make a motion to recommend approval for final partial amendment to phase two of the Sunrise Valley Industrial Park subdivision located at 62 North Country Way, subject to the findings and conditions in staff report.

Second. We're not recommending approval, we are approving.

We're approving, yeah. Just so, I don't know if I need to clarify that.

I just read recommend approval. I believe this one's, I believe this one is.

It's our approval.

Okay.

So I just, make sure we noted that. So I have a recommendation for approval from Commissioner Tupou. And a second from Commissioner Davis. Individual voting. Commissioner Anderson. Aye. Commissioner Davis.

Aye.

Commissioner Mitchell.

Aye.

Commissioner Tupou.

Aye.

Commissioner Bullock. I'm an aye as well. So this item is approved.

Commissioner Tupou, I make a motion to adjourn.

This is Commissioner Mitchell. I second.

I have a person second to adjourn. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Meeting is adjourned. Thank you.