Planning Commission & Land Use Authority - Regular Meeting

Welcome to the planning commission for October 15, 2025. Uh we'll start this meeting with a prayer from Commissioner Mitchell and the pledge from Commissioner Davis. Dear heavenly father, we're grateful to meet together tonight. We're grateful for the opportunity we have to serve the community. We're grateful for all those who work diligently to to serve and to work hard to make Washington City a great place to be. We pray for the help during our meeting that we can make good decisions and that all of us can share our ideas and and ideas with one another that can um all work together for the outcome. We're grateful for the moisture that we're receiving and so grateful for all that thou has given us and for all that thou does for each of us. We thank thee and this we pray and do so in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen. Amen.

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 number one on the agenda is the approval of tonight's agenda. I'll look for a motion for approval. This is Commissioner Mitchell. I move that we approve tonight's agenda. Commissioner Davis seconds. I have first and second. All in favor?

I. Uh item number two is the approval of the planning commission minutes from September 17th, 2025. Commissioner Davis, I move that we approve the minutes from September 17th. Commissioner Mitchell, I second. I have a first and a second. All in favor? I I number three is declarations of extensions or conflicts. Does anyone have any?

No. All right, we will move on to item 4 A is a consideration to amend the Washington City Code Title 9 Chapter 7 section 2A use regulations of Washington City Agricultural Zone. And we'll turn this over to Elden.

Thank you, commissioners. Just a little uh brief before we dig into this here. Um the the state um has updated their legislation through House Bill 54 which added uh two medical marijuanaarmacies to the state. Currently there are 15 throughout the state that they regulate. They've added um two licenses. So there's been some interest throughout the state. Um and those applicants have have reached out to to all the cities. Um and we reviewing our city code, we we um noticed that we were out of compliance with state law, which stemmed this application here to put us in compliance with uh state code. So, we'll dig in here and then answer any questions you may have. The purpose of this code amendment is state to stay in compliance with Utah code 4-41A-105 which states the operation of a medical cannabis pharmacy shall be a permitted use in any zone overlay or district within the municipality or county except for a residential zone. Uh so in in essence these medical cannabisarmacies um need to come into all the zones except for residential areas which is what we're asking for tonight. Washington City Code currently allows medical cannabisarmacies in the business park and industrial areas. And this amendment would allow medical cannabis to be located in agricultural zones as required by Utah State Code.

With that being said, Washington City staff is proposing to amend Washington City Code 9-7-2A as found in the Agricultural Zone use regulations to read as follows. Medical cannabis pharmacy as defined by Utah Code 26B-4-201 [Music] parentheses 33 and any amendments there too. And as such, a medical cannabis pharmacy is licensed and regulated by the state of Utah. So that last statement there would uh allow medical cannabis pharmacies into the agricultural zone.

So right now it doesn't allow it in a commercial zone. It does not and that would be the next item on the agenda. Okay. we we've split them up into two applications uh just for clerical reason reasons there. Okay. So the way our zoning code is is constructed is we list the approved uses and then the conditional uses and we assume that anything that's not in neither list is not approved. And so there's nothing that says that it's disallowed but it is the way it is constructed. It is true that there's nothing that says that it is in certain of the commercial categories. So the purpose here is just to clarify that it's distinctly stated as approved in those other two.

Okay. Yeah, that's where I was confused cuz this one was just for the agriculture. I didn't correct. Um just as a point of order. So the planning commission consists of five seats and one alternate. Um tonight we have three present. A quorum requires three members. So, we have sufficient to open the meeting, have a quorum. Uh, city code does require a favorable vote of three planning commissioners for anything to pass. So, if there were to be a motion that didn't receive three votes, that's okay. But it would it would essentially not pass on the basis of failing to receive three votes.

Okay. And uh with with respect to this matter, we were discussing it briefly, but this the purpose of this is to bring the city into compliance with the state requirements. Correct. To bring city code to consistent statements with state law. This this is a public hearing. Correct. Correct. uh state law requires that you hold a public hearing for any proposed change to land use law and so we we agree with the state law and like the contribution from the public if they want to give it.

Okay. So with that being said it this item 4A is a public comment if anyone would like to speak to item 4 A. Okay. Then I will close the public hearing portion for 4A. And if you guys have any other questions or look for a motion to a motion on this

on this one, it's a recom recommending vote. Only the only the city council can approve a code change. So yours is just a recommendation. As Commissioner Davis, I'll make a recommendation uh for forwarding on to city council consideration to amend Washington City Code Title 9, Chapter 7, Section 2A, use regulations of the Washington City Agricultural Zone. For approval, correct? Recommend for approval. And this is Commissioner Mitchell. I second by Commissioner Davis, a second by Commissioner Mitchell. Individual voting. Commissioner Davis. I. Commissioner Mitchell. I.

I'm Commissioner Bulock. I'm an I as well. We're move this on to city council. Item 4B is consideration to amend the Washington city code title 9 chapter 9 section 2A use regulations of the Washington city administration and professional AP zone. I'll turn it over to Elden. So this piggybacks that previous um item there. However, this one is for uh to include medical cannabis pharmacies in the AP zone C1, C2, and C3 zones there. and staff is proposing to amend Washington city code 9-9-2A as found in the administrative and professional zone use regulations to read as follows. medical cannabis pharmacy as defined by Utah code 26B-4-201 parentheses 33 and any amendments there too and as such a medical cannabis pharmacy is licensed and regulated by the state of Utah that board I'm happy to answer any questions you may have at this time

this is this is commission commissioner Mitchell and this is maybe more educational but uh Dad could you explain like say a city didn't conform to this what are the what are the repercussions or what what potentially could happen if something did come at us and we weren't in compliant.

Yeah. So there's, you know, theoretically or hypothetically speaking, there's probably a lot of times when cities throughout the state have codes that are not in compliance with what the state law says. Usually that happens because the state will pass a law and then the cities will learn about it a year later and finally catch up, right? Kind of like what's happening with Washington City in this instance. Sometimes there are cities that wish to be out of, you know, out of step with that, whether it's because of a preference for their locality or whatnot, and they just take that risk. So, if we create the hypothetical where, let's say we're out of compliance, um, the state doesn't usually come and pursue cities, but in this case, there was a a state employee that reached out and said, "Hey, we noticed that, you know, you haven't adopted this yet. Would you please do it?" Um, I would assume that if the city weren't to follow through on that, that individual would probably increase their pressure on the city. Um, the the one the scenario I would probably have more concern about is a potential land use applicant that says, "Hey, I have rights under the state law to to locate in a commercial area within your city, and you're not letting me do it." And so, that's probably the more concerning avenue for me. Um, I know our elected folks like to work with the state and like the state to to believe that Washington city is trying to comply with the policies that they set through their laws and legislation. But yeah, an actual land use applicant who if they read state law as it relates to their land gives them the right to operate in that zone, but then the city says, "No, you can't." That's probably the most concerning scenario.

Yeah. Thank you. All right. This is a public hearing on this item as well if anyone would like to speak to item 4B. Okay, I will close the public hearing portion for item 4B and look for a motion from someone here. All right, this is Commissioner Mitchell. I recommend approval be sent to city council uh for consideration to amend Washington City Code Title 9, Chapter 9, Section 2A. Um, use regulations Washington administration and professional AP zone as outlined by staff.

Commissioner Davis seconds the motion. I have first by Commissioner Mitchell and second by Commissioner Davis. Individual voting commissioner Davis. Commissioner Mitchell. I.

I'm Commissioner Bulock. I'm an I as well. Item 4 C uh C-25-10, a request for a conditional use permit for a new big box retail store with fueling station located at approximately 1720 East Grape Vine Crossing North and I'll turn the time over to Thank you, commissioners. I've pulled up on the screen here the location that we're looking at. Exit 13 there. And then we'll zoom in a little bit. You can see the star there. That's the approximate location. Pull up the site plan here and then I will read staff report here. The zoning designation at this location is Sienna Hills PCD. Retail stores are allowed in the Sienna Hills PCD with the requirement that any nuke commercial buildings larger than 5,000 square feet must obtain conditional use permit approval. Additional use permit applications in this regard are reviewed for any unique characteristics or potential impact they may have on the municipality, surrounding neighbors or adjacent land uses to ensure the proposed use is compatible at the desired location. In certain circumstances, there could be conditions that could be put into place to mitigate or eliminate concerns so the business can function while reducing the impact that the operation of the business has in the area. These type of situations are not common and are more often seen in redevelopment and/or existing buildings being converted to a

different type of use. The proposed site is approximately 22.8 acres in size with a building footprint of 166,000 square ft and includes a 7 bay fueling center with a small kiosk building. The proposal includes 665 parking spaces. parking is adequate and meets the requirement of one parking space for every 250 square ft of retail floor space. The proposed building will be 29 ft tall constructed with a smooth and split face CMU along with stucco material and cultured rock as shown on the plan. We can pull those up here. at the front of the building here looking in. And that is upside down. Maybe we'll look at the front here. I can fix that here in a minute. I apologize for that. The surrounding zoning is open space to the north and PCD to the east, south, and west. Proposal includes a signage plan. You see the signs here have a pylon and wayfinding sign. The pylon sign is located near the northwest corner of the property and adjacent to the freeway. The pylon sign is 50 ft tall by 13 ft wide and includes multiple panels for other businesses in the Sienna Hills development.

The wayfinding sign is located near the southwest corner of the property and is adjacent to Grapevine Crossing Road. The wayfinding sign is 16 ft tall by 25 ft wide and includes signage specific to this project. Staff has reviewed the proposal and recommends the planning commission recommend approval of C-25-10 along with the signage plan as shown in the exhibits with the findings and conditioned as outlined below. That concludes staff report. I'm happy to answer any questions here. Maybe just give me a minute. I'll flip that elevation around and we can zoom in on those different northeast, south, and west elevations. There we go. You can see the different elevations here on the sides. Split face. CMU block the stucco.

Got the gas pumps here with the canopy and the little kiosk building welldesigned site. We can pull up the landscaping plan as well. It's so large they've broken it into areas. You can see there's trees scattered throughout. And I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. Where where is the sign the 50 foot sign going to be located at? Does it show it on there on the

It is. You have to zoom in. So the the taller sign is for the pylon I15 running just adjacent here up the hill and the monuments in this corner right here.

Okay. um that the pylon sign. We don't I mean we're we're adopting this sign in with this conditional use permit and it's their sign or is it going to be I'm just wondering about because we have the sign down on the other end that we've had to move and change and and go back and do all that stuff with. Is it I I I just Well, first of all, I want to make sure it's tall enough because it's down in a hole and you're not going to be able to see it from I-15, which is probably why they want it 50 ft tall. So, that's that's what I'm wondering is is this does it need to be taller just for those reasons. I mean, when you think about it, it is a ways from the from the

Is there a better site plan that actually shows it in relationship to what's going on around Like as far as the location of the roundabout and the freeway or is this all we all that's available is the direct Oh, right there at the top. There we go. Sign is roughly in this area here. I just wondering what the like elevation just it is down like you were saying

it's down there ways and I just I just don't want to be like oh you can only get it this high and then them have problems and come back you know I want them to make sure they have what they need for this so that it's so that it's not a hassle when it comes to a sign. So part of what is at play in this area is the Sitla Sienna Hills uh restrictions. You'll notice they've got height limitations on the commercial on the on the west side of that roundabout area. And so this this pylon sign looks and feels just like the one they've got on the other side where it's kind of a right

a multi- uh multi- sign where you've got multiple different business names on there. Um this conditional use permit for the building and the use. And so, Elden, I don't know if they've planned to bring in a separate sign permit for that or if it might already be permitted through the through the Sienna Hills PCD. We'll have to double check. It may already have been permitted through that process, but

yes, s signage do require conditional use permits. We included it with this application with it being a CUP. So, um both if the sign correct, this is both as long as the signs are built out as shown in this exhibit. Right. And that's it. And so if they were to decide that they needed more elevation, they could come in and ask for that to be amended or extended, but it would we just amend this. We wouldn't have to go back through and change the building. It just be the amendment of the sign. Correct. Okay. I'm just trying to keep it simple if there's any problems in the future.

Yeah. I don't know that staff has any opinion as to how high the sign should or shouldn't be. Uh we do have heights within our sign code that are kind of maximums. Yeah. Yeah, if they if they were to go out there and start studying the location and determine that, you know, this height wasn't enough, they would be able to come back and ask for a an extension of that or an or an exception to the height. Okay, that's what I was wondering about because I just didn't want this to anything to go weird over over a stupid sign. Yeah, I think we would we would ask adjust

that you consider what they've applied for and proposed at this time and if if there is a need for that staff would allow them to come in and ask to okay to amend that mentioned on it but the CD here in this area they are maxed out at that adopted height for the signage they were allowed two signs one to the south this one is the second one to the north which is the 50 foot came in for additional height to get up and over those uh freeway sound barriers that were put in to maintain the the signage. So, that was the reason behind that additional height there.

Right. I was just assuming we'd have the same problem with this one, but hopefully not. This commissioners, I have one other question regarding the comment by the engineer too with the concern of the roundabout. I don't know how big a deal that is, but I just be curious to see what others are thinking. I mean, there has been discussion about that roundabout in the in the past of it potentially changing to a street light. I just don't remember what's involved there. Yeah. Um the roundabout, we've already begun a project for um redoing that intersection, putting in traffic signals. Um we're trying to get ahead on that project so that we have that um ready to go and operable when this store would open up. So

just to be clear, so so the proposed project would remedy the concern that you guys have identified in the in the scorecard. So, the the item that uh Paul and I were commenting on in our in our flow card is their uh their uh TIS um had a signal light at a location that um didn't fit with our access management um and didn't work with with the with the development and stuff. Um and so we had a meeting with them. We went through things and um it's actually being it'll be re-shone um and stuff back there at the 1720 east intersection which would be the west intersection into the development back to where the fuel fuel pumps and stuff are with the signal going in at where the roundabout is. Um our access management wouldn't allow for another signal there to be at that first one that goes into Chipotle and the credit union and stuff like that. The the nearest one would be that 1720 intersection. So they were they were more than happy. They were they agreed and stuff and they're already working forward with that is as the proposal on where another traffic signal would go in. So

okay, and and just so that I'm clear because that it's it's unspecified as far as a recommended location in the current conditions I believe. So should we move on and make a recommendation for approval and forwarding then we would want to include that specific They'll probably have to to have the traffic study to meet the to meet the to meet the traffic to impact. They have to put it in there or else it won't or else it doesn't pass to go. Okay. So, it wouldn't make traffic impact anyway.

Yeah. Yeah. I wouldn't say that it need to be a condition of of your approval and stuff. It's something that we already worked through. We just wanted to make sure that we were out ahead of it and and making sure that we had proper proper traffic controls throughout that area because we know the the amount of traffic that's going to be generated. studies. Is it adamant that that change to a light? Like is it required that we function the way it is with the roundabout? The roundabout um we've already made the determination that it will need a signal really. Okay.

So that's why we're already had we're going ahead and moving forward with with the design and stuff of that intersection and go ahead with the traffic signal. We're doing that as a city project just based on not only this development but additional developments that they weren't aware of doing their impact study. So

so a route that if the Northern Parkway were to ever connect would would carry even more traffic. And so I don't think the decision that's already been made that it needs to become a a signaled intersection in the future even considers the possible future traffic that would also be on an east west thorough fair if if the Northern Parkway were to ever be fully connected. Washington City has built it to its boundary up in North Green and there's continues to be political conversations about the the where and when and how it gets built going from there. But yeah, it's it's one that is is designed to carry and be an artery for a lot of traffic.

Is he going to slow me down? No. All right. Item 4C is a public hearing as well. If anyone here would like to speak on item 4 C. Okay, we'll close the public hearing portion of this meeting and if you guys have any questions for anyone.

This is uh Commissioner Mitchell. I move that we uh recommend approval of item 4 C um C-25-10, the request for a conditional use permit for the for a new big box retail store um located approximately 1720 East Grapevine Crossing North with uh as outlined staffed with the recommendations and findings and conditions. and the signal plan. And the signage plan and the signage plan.

Commissioner Davis seconds that motion. I'm first by Commissioner Mitchell and second by Commissioner Davis. Individual voting. Commissioner Davis. I. Commissioner Mitchell. I

I'm Commissioner Bulock. I am an I as well. Item 4 D is a conditional use permit. Uh C-2511, a request for a conditional use permit for a welding business located at 35 East Industrial Unit, Industrial Road, Unit F. Applicant is Kyle Bell with Apex Iron Works. We'll turn the time over to Elden. Here's the location here just off the corner of 100 East and Industrial. You can see the star there. That is unit F. Property is zoned I1 and is surrounded by I2. As you can see there, welding shops are allowed in the I1 zone with an approved conditional use permit. Staff has reviewed the proposal and finds it to be in harmony with the surrounding uses. Staff recommends the planning commission approve C-25-11 based on the following findings and conditions stated in staff report. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have at this time. I guess I'll ask one question. It's kind of funny coming from another fabricator, right? Because this maybe something I wouldn't but uh obviously that parking lot will be full. I just is there limitations on painting in and keeping it confined so that it doesn't end up on I mean most I'm I'm anticipating that this this would be a fabricator that would just fab and then take it somewhere else to have it painted but

I'm just would be a little bit cautious to make sure that you know paint doesn't end up other vehicles outside in the parking lot. Uh there's a lot of questions coming from probably both of us on this. Um there's a it it doesn't matter. I'm just worried about I guess the I started in something like that. So it's it's hard to say. I mean, he he has to store his material in in the building, but I guess the tile the countertop guys store theirs outside as well. Is that an issue with city code? I mean, that's that that'd be my only question for them. This complex appears to be built for like a more of a walk-in retail. it's being used for industrial type. You know, the countertops a good example. You know, I'm pretty sure there's granite being cut out front the bu the entryway, right? And so there's not a city code that is so precise as to say whether you can store your granite inside or outside of a commercial building in in a zone. Um the complex itself might have rules from landlord to tenant or or use there, but outside of that, there isn't a code that restricts it. Um, I believe staff see the same concerns that you see and ultimately there may be conflict between uh patrons as well as employees within the various units in that complex. And as long as they're just, you know, whether whether you can store yourself in a parking space or not, we think that those are civil between the the tenants and the landlords there. But if you have concerns that again raised to the level of conditional use

permit and the fit there, I I think those are relevant and and could motion if you have that concern. I just I I don't have a concern with it. I just worry about everyone else with it. I mean, what's the square footage of the space? Is that given? It's not. I'm not I don't have that answer in front of me today. I could try to find that out real quick here. Yeah, I'm It looks like he's just doing medical and small residential frames. That's what it says in the narrative. Yeah.

I mean, I'll for it if you can make it work in there. I have the intent to No, I was just It's like making sure that if if there is needed to be some restrictions, right? Or rules, you know, to help help prevent

overutay clean everyone's cars. Yeah, that's not fun. I think that you could say, "Look, we we're looking at your application and we're looking at your location and attached to your motion, you know, for example, conditions on those two points and and you two who have experience with that industry would probably know the conditions that are best suitable for this location." So, I I think you could attach those to your motion for sure.

Okay. This is a public hearing portion. If someone would like if anyone here would like to speak to this item 4 D. Okay, we will close the public hearing portion of item 4 D. Is the applicant here tonight? I guess not. Yeah, me too. Well, I mean for sure I feel like a condition to with the painting. I don't know how, you know, where to go with

material storage. If they're painting inside, they're painting inside. That's one thing. But yeah, they close the door, whatever, and nothing comes out. That's fine. I I don't have a problem with them painting inside by any means cuz they're spraying lacquer. There's cabinet shops. There's all that other stuff that they're doing the same thing there. I just, you know, would I don't think they would paint outside. I mean, not there. Yeah. I I say that, but I've done it. So, yeah. And if they did and they'll have either unhappy that'll be more of a civil suit than a Yeah.

So, staff just texted in and said the the record in the planning office shows about 2500 square feet in this unit. And yeah, there's I believe a welding shop in there. There's the cabinet shop in there. There's an auto there. I think there's already stuff. The one next the unit to the east has a welding shop in it, but this one doesn't. Yeah. So, yeah. Yeah. When I was standing in there, I was admitting that welding shop. There's an auto. Yeah. On the to the complex to the to the east of But there is. I I'm I'm fine with it. I don't see a problem with it. I mean, and the zone allows it. And the zone allows it. So, I mean, yeah, I'm not worried about it.

Comments? I'm fundamentally okay, but what you guys were discussing with respect is kind of in your wheelch.

Yeah, it is conditions that we've seen happen, I guess. It would just be to save them more than anything, you know, save them potentially. Yeah. Having overspray on somebody's vehicle and then having to Yeah. But I mean, but if there's no one around and they spray in the middle of the night, I don't have a problem with that either, though. You know what I mean? So, I feel like But then the landlord's going to have a problem.

But the landlord will have a problem with it. So, that's something that they could they could deal with rather than rather than us. We don't want to be in I don't I don't feel like the city needs to be in a in a position to fight o when it comes to fighting over spraying and where you can and can't if the city doesn't already have an ordinance for paint booths or anything like that. I think that we should probably for the city just stay out of it because there's no reason to involve the city over a civil is issue with something like that. I wouldn't want the city you know what I mean?

I think that that is clear. So air quality and and industries that affect the air by the state. So we just we we uphold what the state requires there. So paint booths and things like that. Um I do think it's a valid concern to say look it looks like there's industrial uses happening in parking spaces and you know does that does that impact the amount of parking available? Does that impact neighbors and nextdoor tenants? Um my my only problem sure that that's the issue.

My only problem would be is that they pay for those parking stalls. So if they want to fill them with steel, they're not having people walk in off the street. That's that that would be my issue with with attaching anything to it as far as that goes because if they don't want to have anyone there, you know, and they they meet clients or someone somewhere else and they just do the work there. There's only two guys showing up or however many. They use one of their parking stalls to stall hold material. I I don't cuz I the granite guys doing it. So I I don't we're we're going to open a can of worms. Is this goes to city council, right? So we're recommending and then they will ultimately Yeah.

So you know, maybe we can share our thoughts or ideas or whatever, but ultimately they'll be the one that Yeah. that outlines true conditions, right? Yep. So, are we okay that we I mean, we've shared our thoughts, right? And we share our concerns in making the motion, but ultimately they'll make the decision on what conditions.

All right. Mr. Mitchell. Um, I move that we recommend approval of 4D C-25-11, the request of a conditional use permit for the welding business um, located at 35 East Industrial Road, unit F. um with um if I can interrupt um sorry, pardon the interruption. Go ahead. You're good. I just seeing a text message or a chat message from staff, but I I think that you're correct. It is a recommending vote tonight.

Perfect. um with the findings and conditions, recommendations as outlined by staff. And then just consideration of some of the comments that we've made um with regards to the parking lot and you know painting and other things to be activities outside. Just to be aware of the current other tenants that are around you. Commissioner Davis collected it. All right. I have first by Commissioner Mitchell and second by Commissioner Davis. Individual voting. Commissioner Davis. I. Commissioner Mitchell. I.

I'm Commissioner Bulock. I'm an I as well. Next on the agenda, item 4, Z-25-20. request to reszone approximately 3.35 acres located 830 South Country Way from the current RA1 zoning to a proposed RA half zoning designation. The applicant is Filmore for Holdings and we'll turn this over to Elden. Thank you, commissioners. Here's the proposed property here. We're looking at the requested change is from the current zoning of RA1 to a proposed RA half zoning designation. This particular location has a general plan land use of estate which does allow for RA halfacre lot sizes. The surrounding zoning to this parcel is open space to the north and west and RA1 to the east and south. The RA half request is for the purpose of developing the land into a residential development with each lot being a minimum of 1/2 acre in size. Staff recognizes the general plan supports this zone change application with development of this land being required to meet public utility service requirements. Staff recommends that the planning commission recommend approval of Z-25-20 for the zone change request as outlined above. And this is on to city council based on the findings as stated in staff report. And I'm happy to answer any questions you have at this time.

Here's the current zoning showing RA1. And here's the exact description. 3.3. Here's Elden. It's Commissioner Davis. Just I I guess not to get ahead of ourselves, but is is the thinking from the applicant that it they're just going to create like one big culde-sac to put six or so homes back there? Is that the general thinking?

Yes. Um lot sizes obviously will need to be a half acre in size. Um this this property is unique. it it's a very pretty area open butts up to the river um and has a lot of additional land to the west um staff is requiring that um roadway be stubbed for future development to that land you know so we couldn't couldn't put a culac and uh not prepare for that growth um so there there would need to be a roadway stab to the west. Is there currently enough room with their frontage to the Oh, sorry. I don't know what that road is right there that goes to the dump country. What is their the width of that? Yeah. Access to countryway.

Pretty tight. Yeah, I don't want to get too far too far into the weeds on this um since it's just a zone change, but the um countryway um spot there um has been the position of public works clearback since when Mike was here and stuff that that point um would only be allowed um to be an access point for if the area in there was fully developed. back in as a as a second access point. It was never meant to be a primary access point. Um it'd also at this point only be a ride in right out with the median that's in there and stuff. So it was never never intended to be a primary access point.

The primary access point is to come off of Washington Dam Road. Thank you. Again, this is this is a zoning change is is what we're talking about. Six homes in there, though. That's six homes. That's six lots. Four. That half acre. No. Well, oh, and open space. Remaining open space.

Yeah. This is a public hearing. If anyone here would like to speak on this item 48,

are you the applicant? Okay. Yeah. Hold on. I'll ask we'll let you go in just a second. Okay. I'll close the public hearing portion of this. No. If the applicant would like to come up and say something, we usually just try to wait till the end after all the public comments so you can answer them. Usually,

this is my first time around here. Um, basically, we're just going to do four lots. You had said six. Um, we're going to have two homes overlooking the field where we have all of our horses and everything. There's no plan at this point to do anything with it. We want to keep it agriculture. We want everything like farming and everything. Then because the lot is so big and we can't use it, we're going to have two other lots on the other side. So that was the plan. So you won't have a road going out onto a country or will you?

Yes. So we were originally uh debating about doing it country way and then having a second access point uh to connect what the road. What is that road called, Elvin? It's not even a road. It's private drive. Yeah. So, that was going to be our second access point. So, do you have a rideway down that road? That private drive? We were just trying to get the zoning started first to move forward. So, your only legal access is off a country to that parcel.

Yeah, we were hoping to get access off country. So we have two two um access points. So country right now. How how do you access that? The back way where there's no road. Okay. So you do have access through there on the dam road. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. That that's the question. That's what I was wondering. Okay. So there's an access easement off of off of Dam Road to provide u access to that single family residence as of now. Okay. That's what I was wondering. Thank you. Thanks.

Yeah, I think I'm okay with it. This is the zone change and I see like if you halfacre halfacre lots like you're not going to see a bunch of homes crammed in there. I mean they're saying four but obviously what what would they be allowed to to do if they you know did change their mind would it be limited they could three acres would be six six if it if youly divide it and give right I mean it's a little over three mathematically up to six practically four probably yeah

my only my only concern is the access off a country that's that's my biggest concern is coming in off of countryway. I mean, and it that that that's just going to be hard. If you if it was one if it was one house, I'd understand it, but for four, it might be it might cause a lot of problems. That's that's my only concern with with the RA half though, that would be the minimum square footage of the lot. Correct. So, you can always have a larger lot than that, but yeah, half acre is the minimum size of the lot. I think I'm okay with that in that. I mean, if you go up Country Lane, that's roughly what some of those lots are, right?

That's what I was wondering. Are they half acres, right? They're on Country Way. Yeah, this this lots country way are also uniquely shaped because they were carved out of properties a lot like this one, right? But yeah, probably a good general Well, they're already one, too, I guess, though. Yeah. Yeah, it's this bigger but some that have been changed from a half or from one acre down to half. It's th this request is consistent with the neighboring zones. Yeah, I would agree.

Uh we there's generally a policy that prefers accessibility when possible. And so if there were to be a an access established on the country, it would be reviewed to see if it complies with our access management planning and all of those things. But if it were to be able to do all of that, there is a policy that prefers and favors, you know, more accessibility over less. And so if that was something they could achieve, work with them to to achieve that.

Okay, we'll make a move. Mr. Davis, I'll make a motion for approval of item Z-25-20, request to reszone approximately 3.35 acres located at 8:30 South Country Way from the current RA1 zoning to a proposed RA 1/2 zoning designation subject to findings and conditions in staff report and recommend forwarding this on to city council. This is Commissioner Mitchell. I second. I have a first from Commissioner Davis and a second from Commissioner Mitchell. Individual voting. Commissioner Davis. Commissioner Mitchell.

I Commissioner Bulock. I have an I as well. This will go to city council with a recommendation for approval. Item 4FZ-25-1. A request to reszone approximately 6.25 25 acres of RA5, RA1 and O and open space to I2 and approximately 2 acres of RA 5 to I1 located approximately 800 South and 1900 East. The applicant is Curt Curtis Rogers and we'll send this over to Elden. This property is just west of the property um that you just recommended to approve and this property has a general plan land use designation designation of industrial that was recently changed as you're aware. The surrounding zoning to this parcel is open space to the north, RA1 to the east, south and west, and industrial to the south as well. Industrial zone change request is for the purpose of developing the property into an industrial development. Staff supports the proposed change and appreciates the effort the applicant and land owner have put forth for this zone change application with development improvements of this land still needing to be completed and will be required to meet public utility service requirements prior to using the land in accordance with zoning ordinances. You know, this land here is um just got a this entire area has a lot going on with it. Uh existing uses and um some conforming, some not conforming. So, I appreciate the applicant putting

forth this effort and uh look look forward to this land developing out the city standards. Staff recommends that the planning commission recommend approval of Z-25-21 for the zone change request as outlined above onto the city council based on the findings stated in staff report. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have at this time. You can see here the existing zones and their proposed zones I1 and the I2. So most everything is industrial except for the residential that just recently went in there. Correct. Just to the east, we've got a single flag lot. We're proposing an I1, so a little bit lighter use to buffer that in. And then we've got a very large easement here to the south that helps create a buffer from that existing frontier subdivision residential development. I know I know this isn't part of the zone change request and I know we're but there's only one entrance into this place and 1900 east as you go down that road gets really really skinny with in the middle of the day with all the stuff that's on there. It was it's like Sand Hill Drive. It was poorly designed. It should have been a lot wider. Is there a way to get another I mean,

we're going to come out of this and go into a residential zone if there's another another way out of there. There's no other way out. That's that's my that is my biggest concern with it. And then maybe they can make that so it doesn't quite flood so much down there when they develop it. because there's there's no other way out, is there? Well, it's a fun area to be kind of planning. It kind of ties into a little bit of the one that we just had on our agenda and stuff. um that access easement that Elden was referencing earlier and stuff. If that's kind of always been slated to actually become a road to access back into those back properties and then from there you could begin planning to connect like 1900 east coming across and having that as a secondary access kind of a giant U-shaped loop and stuff like that. But yeah, access back in that area is extremely tough. So that's kind of kind of been some of the hindrance of any of this area really developing back there is is the access points. So that's kind of at least one thought is you could bring 1900 east back and start to try and loop it back in around to get it come back out to that other access point

with the access there. There won't be we're not pushing some of the traffic that's trying to get out of the industrial through the residential, are we? Yeah, it will. It will eventually. I mean, it's going to be the better road coming in than going down that way if you're going if you weave through the residential to get to the businesses or the industrial whatever is down there.

Yeah. I mean, it's it not the greatest, but you do have it even um on the uh other side of uh Dam Road um back over we have Denn East Industrial area and stuff like that. You get back up into the shooting star area, stuff like that. So, you you do have areas where Yeah. you can kind of move through the industrial and then into residential and vice versa. So that was poor planning on the people ahead of us. Yeah. So, do we do the same thing here or

this is kind of what I I call it the Montana planning model, which is the first roads were established by mules and miners and then everybody came and built ranches and then factories. And so now you've got big rigs and school buses all on these windy, messy roads that make no sense because they were established by mules and miners, right? And so this area isn't isn't a mining area, but a lot of what is there is following old trails for much different uses than what is happening today. And it's a it's difficult access place. Um the city does have codes uh that can limit applications for future uses. Uh we don't apply those at zone level. And so the concept here is let's at least bring this one to a zone that conforms with the actual use today.

But if there was to be an application for example to put a big industrial factory there that was going to you know include heavy traffic or heavy you know heavy equipment uh they may not get approval because of the access limitations that exist. And so and so yeah, the idea is give it a zoning that conforms and leave the access concerns to future use applications if if those were to come. Difficult part of that is the current situation doesn't have nearly as much traffic as if they build it out as I1 or I2 and have multiple tenants.

It looks like there's multiple tenants there now running I1 and I2 out of it. Yeah, multiple might not be a big enough word there as to what's actually happening. We're not quite sure. Yeah, there is. Elden, could you slide so I could see to the west just a little bit more? If you you can see there's um what we got 1775 or whatever that comes back. You could ultimately kind of loop a street back in and connect it to 1900 through there as well, but that's going to take a lot of redevelopment. You're not going to do that. So, there's a big shop right there that's not going to let that happen.

Yeah. But you can see there's there's a access road there now and stuff, but yeah, through a through a redevelopment of the entire area, you could get additional accesses back through there.

If I could just chirp in on some zoning here. you know, a lot of existing uses here. And as we grow as a city and experience those growing pains, you know, we're striving to to clean the area up and and bring quality growth and beautify as a city in in this area here. Yeah. Commissioner M. I mean, it isn't maybe I do, but it kind of fits the nature of what goes on down there. That's what's kind of interesting. like we're not doing anything that's out of what's already in that area of town.

Yeah. Like I says, I think the people ahead of us screwed up. It should have been industrial all the way out to the landfill, but we'll do what we can now to to piece them together if that's the environment you choose to live in. Yeah. I mean, I think the zoning change is relatively straightforward. It's just Yeah. What are you going to do? Yeah. I mean, like I said, I when I asked that question, I knew it was a can of worms as opening because it was just a zone change and I shouldn't have done that. It's going to come before us at some point.

Oh, yeah. This is I opened the public hearing, didn't I?

Anyway, if anyone's here want to speak to this on the public hearing. Okay. I will close the public hearing portion of this and look for a motion. I'll go. It's Commissioner Davis. I'd like to make a motion for approval of item Z-25-21, a request to reszone approximately 6.25 25 acres of RA-5 RA1 and open space to industrial 1 and approximately 2 acres of RA-5 to industrial I'm sorry the first one industrial 2 and approximately 2 acres of RA-5 to I1 located at approximately 800 South 1900 east subject to recommend recommendations and findings in staff report and Forwarding that to city council.

This is Commissioner Mitchell. I second. First by Commissioner Davis and second by Commissioner Mitchell. Uh individual voting. Commissioner Davis. Commissioner Mitchell. I. Commissioner Bulock. I'm an I as well. We will send this to city council with our recommendation for approval. Item five is an adjournment. This is Commissioner Commissioner Mitchell. I move that we adjourn. Davis seconds.

I have a first and second. All in favor? I meeting adjourned. We will start the land use in just a second. Doom. Welcome to the October 15th land use authority meeting. Item one is the approval of the agenda.

Commissioner Davis, I make a motion to approve tonight's agenda. This Commissioner Mitchell, I second. I have a first and second. All in favor? I. Item two is approval of the minutes from the September 17th, 2025 meeting. This is Commissioner Mitchell. I move that we approve the minutes from our previous meeting. Commissioner Davis second. I have a Commissioner first by Commissioner Mitchell and second by Commissioner Davis. All in favor? I. Uh item three, declaration of abstensions and conflicts. Does anyone have any with this?

Okay. Item 4 A is a preliminary plat approval for the AR Southwest Logistics Center RU1 subdivision located approximately 650 East Ara Parkway. Applicant is Brad Ross. And we will turn this over to Elden. This subdivision is proposing one large industrial lot covering 20 acres. The development will include one building approximately 304,000 square ft. The zoning is PUDC. The surrounding zoning is PUDC to the north and east, St. George, St. George City to the south, and C3 to the west. The proposed subdivision conforms to the approved zoning. The request meets the subdivision requirements and other city ordinances as it relates to this location. Staff has reviewed the request and recommends approval with conditions of the preliminary plat as outlined. Staff recommends the planning commission approve this request based on the findings and conditions stated in staff report. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have at this time. See the site plan here. A very large building. We'll blend in with the existing approved PUD plan. Again, staff supports the project and looks forward to seeing this build out. Elden, I just had one question. Hopefully, you can just help help me understand it a little better. In the conditions, it's condition 13 with respect to kind of the timing of it. It references buildings 104 106 and I was a little fuzzy on that. So, if

you could just at least for my benefit help me understand exactly what that in practice would be.

Great great question. When the original pre-plat was approved, uh council added a condition um that Washington Fields Road be extended to the south. We wanted to make sure we have connectivity to those St. George Properties and not knowing when they were going to develop or or this building here where my cursor is, those buildings 104 or 106 were to build out. Whichever comes first, that this roadway needs to to stub to the south to provide that connectivity. And it reads, I'll read that condition here. Washington Field Road south of AR Ara Parkway will be built with buildings 104 and 106 or when St. George parcels to the south stub their roads to our boundary or whichever comes first. And again, that's just a copied condition from the original pre-plat to make sure that connectivity between boundaries occurs there.

Great. Thank you. Okay, this is a public hearing as well if anyone would like to speak to item 4 A. Okay, we will close the public hearing portion for 4A. And if you guys have any more questions, it's kind of like all the other ones we've seen out there. Mhm. And it's the exact same buildings that they're building for the RS. So it's just a little bit bigger.

So ready. Yeah. Yeah. Commission Mitchell. I move that we approve item 4A, the preliminary plat approve uh for R AR Southwest Logistics Center RU1 subdivision. um with the recommendations, findings, and conditions as outlined by staff. Commissioner Davis seconds the motion. I have a first by Commissioner Mitchell and a second by Commissioner Davis. Individual voting. Commissioner Mitchell. I. Commissioner Davis. I.

Commissioner Bulock. I'm an I as well. This is approved. Item 4B is a preliminary plat approval for the Turner Turf Farm subdivision located approximately Bulock Street and 1900 1100 East. The applicant is RA Turner family in American Consulting and Engineering. We'll turn this over to Elden. Here's the location that we're looking at. Uh, if you can imagine Bulllock Street tying into 1100 East, I'll kind of round up there and tie in. It's everything north of that development. I apologize getting you dizzy there. Here we go in this area. And then I'll pull up their map which zooms in on their development if that makes sense to kind of get your groundings there. This sub this subdivision is proposing this particular subdivision is proposing two phases and includes three different product types as previously approved in the PUD zone change with an acreage being approximately 20.62. Phase one includes 27 single family lots and 17 nextgen homes. You see them identified to the left and to the north on that map. The single family homes re received approval for reduced setbacks which include 20 ft to the front of the garage and 10 ft to the front of the building including street sides, side setbacks of five and 10 ft and a rear setback of 10 ft. And that was approved with the PUD zone change. I just wanted to reiterate those in this application as well. The next

gen homes will have 12 ft of common area between the homes and include a 20ft driveway and a twocar garage as approved during the zone change. Amenities were added to this area and include a covered pavilion with benches, grass area for recreating and a hard surfaced walking path around the perimeter. Amenities for this area are adequate and these amenities are required to be completed prior to the 15th unit receiving certificate of occupancy and those amenities are located here in this orange area to the north. Phase 2 includes 135 build to rent units. This area of the development is gated and includes amenities of a dog park, putting green, clubhouse, clubhouse, outdoor area, splash pad, pool area, barbecue area, and pickle ball courts. So, a lot of different amenities coming in to serve those residents. The amenity area is adequate for the project and these amenities are required to be completed prior to the 45th unit receiving its building permit. Required parking for phase 2 is 331 spaces. We can pull up that phase 2 plan. shows the specifics here a little more detailed. Required parking for phase 2 is 331 spaces and the proposal is providing 331 spaces. Parking is adequate for the

proposal. Proposed subdivision conforms to the approved zoning. The request meets the subdivision requirements and other city ordinances as it relates to this location. Staff has reviewed the request and is concerned with the increased traffic this development will generate onto 1100 East southbound tying into Telegraph due to this roadway not being built out in its full width. If we pull up the maps here, you can see a bottlenecks here just north of Pine Valley Street. That's the concern that 1100 East isn't fully built out to the south of or connecting into Telegraph. You can see a bottleneck down in that location there. If the land use authority is considering to approve this preliminary plat application as shown and without the widening of 1100 east to telegraph staff recommends the land use authority add a condition as to when 1100 east will be built out to its full width along with the findings and conditions noted. That concludes staff report. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have at this time. So just to confirm, so the widening of that road will take place with phase one and two. No, like that last sentence, if phase one and two are allowed to proceed without a widening, an agreement for widening 1100 should be put in place as a condition of this approval. That was a recommendation in public works,

right? The recommendation is that we that it does take place. Yeah, I think the conversation is that, you know, it's, you know, up to us

if we want to include a recommendation requirement that that road be out at, you know, we could some level with phase one and two or, you know, partially that's part of our discussion. That was my take on it. And I went and I was down there today and saw went down check take another look at it and there were two cars that came whipping around into the dirt to get around another car that was contemplating making a turn in a couple minutes. It gets pretty tight down. So, the city council

required of or asked the applicant to get a traffic study and the the traffic study didn't say that this project would require that expansion, but I think everybody looks and feels like someday that that's it's not a question of if it needs to be expanded, it's when. Um, see in in areas like the fields and here at the turf farm, the city has not had a policy of requiring land owners to widen roads through their land and unless and until they develop the land that abuts that. And so that's what's happening on 1100 East is the traditional farming use is still existing there. Um, we we are aware that the this is just the first phase. there's plans to bring applica applications for the other ones and so I believe what the city members had stated is um they wanted to get it studied if the study said that it was required for this one you know they wanted to require it for this one but they do want that issue resolved if they bring any subsequent phases to the south that I think worth acknowledging here is they are building out the full bulock street significant east west connecting road for the city. And so that is a a significant road dedication and construction burden that that we are asking them to fulfill with this phase. And so I do think that that weighed in the city council's decision to not immediately require the road be widened with this one. There's there's connectivity issues east, west, and north, south around a traditional farm piece. And so trying to chip those off the best we can.

So the the road wouldn't be required on these two. And the traffic studies based on this buildout, correct? This buildout with that many additional Yeah, individuals they're they feel like it's okay.

Um I I would second my experience driving there on the south part of 1100 East is it does feel tight, right? Um you see those tea stakes in the dirt and they just feel pretty close to the lane of traffic. The thing that's unique here is you've got the parkway that's kind of a parallel road that carries a lot of the same traffic load that would be traveling here. It's also not not really a throughway to any other location. So, it's kind of a it's kind of a route that does get used, but it's not a it's not a route that's the only singular access point for where it comes in. I think that helps as long as that 1100 East is tight. I think that helps people choose which of those two routes they're going to take. But but yeah, that I think that it's it's certainly not a question of if. It's just a matter of when the landowner needs to build the the remaining portion of that road width.

Yeah. And I guess ideally the way it is, it does allow them to continue to farm and do what they're doing with the turf without interruption. I mean, not that it would interrupt it that much, but would create the the legal theory that just explains history is is not so much a question of whether it interrupts the land owner, but whether the city can exact from them a roadway when they haven't applied for onsurface changes in use. And so state law and the court cases allow a city to exact additional roadway width if they're coming in for approval for a new use or a more dense use or a change in use. Um if city were to require that from just an existing farm, typically state law says the city has to come in and purchase it and pay for the buildout themselves. if it's something that they're going to exact from a land use applicant, as long as it's associated with a development application that again changes use, changes density, those things. State law allows the city to exact that, which means require they dedicate the land to the city and build the developer portion of the improvements that you'll see this city and most cities in Utah just go ahead and wait till the land user brings their application widened. And I mean this is just a thought for me too like as the traffic if it does start to pile up along that light and obviously you got the alternate routes where people will start to take those alternate routes to avoid the backup of the light. I mean long as it's not creating any hazard to anybody else. I mean it's still it is two lanes. It would be nice if it was four, but

Oh, you're putting [Music] more homes with 200 more people going to work in the mornings. Yeah. Yeah. But that's go to four. Like currently it just is a wider two. So right now just two with the turning. The lanes and the striping are confusing mostly because it's only a halfuilt road on one half. And so right now there's really just two lanes and a whole bunch of parking on the shoulders. John, I

it's ultimately to be a five lane road, no parking. So it's a it's a minor arterial. Um 80 85 foot rideway, 65t of asphalt. Um yeah, right now it's it's just barely two lanes of paved asphalt in that in the narrow section. It's anywhere between 24 to 26 foot. Um, as I've mentioned, there's there's, you know, we already have two bus stops at the narrow section, a third one just outside as it widens out and stuff. Um, yeah, we're we're concerned about this um with the additional traffic. Um, I mean, obviously, we already had a warrant um due to traffic and stuff at 1100 Telegraph and hence the traffic signal that we put in. So, um, we were already, you know, dealing with traffic traffic there and stuff. Um I I I understand uh the developers, you know, not wanting to to put that expense up front and stuff. It has been something that council has reiterated to to staff previously on developments that come in along these major arterials and stuff to try and get those done with first phases and stuff. So, we were just we're following along with with with that kind of guidance and stuff. Um obviously, you know, our concern of if if we don't do any any type of improvement or anything, um you do phases one and two and how long how long do we wait into the future before we have additional widening of 1100 and stuff? Is it you know do we get into the other phases in two years, 5 years, 10 years? Where do we sit with that additional traffic and additional development in the area putting more traffic into that area? So that's that's our concern. Um, one option, um, whether it be a timeline or even an option that we would be open to at this point would be if the developer would even be open to the idea of at least paving one additional lane on on that area as part

of their these initial phases. So, we'd at least have enough room to have to deal with the bus bus traffic and everything else and have at least um threelane width up through there and stuff. So just different options that you know we could we could look at and stuff like that. Obviously you know we'll proceed forward with however however it goes and stuff but yeah we we wanted to get the concerns out there that we had with with traffic and timelines and where we where we end up with this road. So I mean

the concepts as they've been presented to the city so far would be additional phasing of residential to the south of the current proposed area. Then eventually you get into commercial along along the telegraph frontage. And so additional residential along there's going to going to demand the same buildout as as any other use. This is Commissioner Mitchell. I mean, here's a thought that I've got too. Like, obviously that added expense puts a burden on the developer, but once phase one is full and you're starting into phase two, have they received a return enough to then, you know, based on a percentage of completion to build it out? That's just a thought. That would be just a a condition or a recommendation.

I My problem with it is is city council's basically approved it already the way that it is. I mean, where can we stop it and ask for that? Will I have to go back to city council on something like that where it's already been done and approved? Yeah, the city council has drawn a pretty bright line that nothing beyond what you see tonight would be approved by them without further further infrastructure installations. And so and so I I think you're right in that the city council has kind of struck a deal on this one, which is they'd get this one approved, but nothing further without some progress on on 1100 East. And there was another issue out there that isn't at issue tonight, but it was related to water rights and future secondary water issues.

Right.

But yeah, I think the city council drew a very bright line with them on that. And so I you're you're accurate as to what they did, which is essentially given this their their blessing without the widening at this time. Um, in a meeting today with the development representatives, again, there was positive representations that it's not a matter of 10 years. Um, it's it's much shorter time frame than that that the city could expect to see applicants in here, at least on the residential portions that are to the south. And so with the city council's prior conditions, I understood them to mean that any further any further projects to the south must fully widen that road.

So what is our like I think our position here is exactly what city council said because if we say something it goes back to city council, correct?

Yeah. The challenge tonight is that portion of 1100 East is offsite of what's under the application tonight. And so it's a it's a connected issue. It certainly is connected. There's no question, right? But it is land that is offsite of these boundaries. Um and so so that's your difficult point tonight is it's it's offsite of it. There was a a traffic study required. I haven't read and digested the whole thing. Um, I think part of what it sees is that a lot of this traffic when it heads to work is going up to interstate and over, right? Not maybe not to the south and across Telegraph because there's more jobs and more work workplace locations the interstate than there is on Telegraph Road, right? But there's there's traffic that goes north and south from here. There there is especially with residential and the different things that residential pursues. the the traffic study didn't didn't say that, you know, full widening was required to to safely accommodate this this phase.

Well, with Sam's Club going up that way, it'll probably draw more people north and the roundabouts gone. That'll be nice. I mean, the other thought, too, is if you do go down Bulock, I mean, you can wander and weave a little bit and then get to the new interchange as well. It's a roundabout way of getting there, but yeah, through the residential Uh this is a public hearing portion of this. Is there anyone that would like to speak on the public hearing portion of this? Okay, I'll close the public hearing portion of this. Do you guys have any questions for the applicant or the applicant like to speak?

Yeah, maybe he can address some of our concerns. Matt Lou representing the Turner Farm phase one. Appreciate the discussion and appreciate the concern. I also definitely appreciate staff and what that 1100 because I think at the end of the day that's kind of the discussion for tonight. Um, we did, again, I don't want to repeat everyone that's been said, all the information said, but we kind of followed everything that was asked with a traffic study from a um, engineer. And then we also uh, accepted requirements of fulfilling the Bulock Street buildout on both sides. Um we hope that if we are uh approved to move forward that we also pay attention to the project. Uh this is going to be a little bit different I think maybe but if the project warrants you know in the future that there's some issues with traffic and traffic concerns the project success is determined by access and by safety. If it's not safe folks are not going to go and buy and live there. So we would um suggest that if there are things happening where another traffic study is required that possibly the first thing we do actually I should I'm speaking out of term the first thing the landowner would do is when it comes to the next phases to the south is build the extension first the 1100 road extension first before they develop the rest of the property and again that will be all part of a traffic study if it makes sense. If the pressure points are there, you know, let's go ahead and do that. Um, the reason why I kind of said I maybe spoke out of turn the current project that you see in front of you, uh, it's not the same owner that is that owns a property to the south. It's a

different LLC that was created for that specific project with a developer. Um, but because I work with both, um, I'm sure that the A Turner, uh, that owns the southern portion of the property would be open to, you know, looking at moving the expansion of 1100 sooner than later as, uh, safety and as uh, traffic concerns uh, pose itself. Um, city attorney is correct. The plan right now with scheduling and everything is if we are successful, we are looking at trying to move dirt on this thing probably the first or second week of November if we can pull everything off and make sure everything on our end is done well. Um we are looking at trying to build this project out in about 3 years if not sooner. So it's a pretty aggressive time frame. Um, and hopefully as we evolve and do certain things, we will move on with uh the southern portion of the property as we work closer with city staff on some of the requirements and some of the discussions that have been had regarding water and regarding uh the 1100 expansion. Any questions?

Mad Commissioner Davis, as I recall, this is a seven-phase project. Is that correct? Is that kind of where right now? Yeah, we've kind of potted into seven parcels. Um, but there also has been discussions with like a master builder to just take down all of the residential uh, and they do that pretty well and they do that pretty quickly. So, there's been some discussions to move the entire project uh, a lot quicker than maybe what market would dictate. Okay. And then that would obviously what you're discussing that would accelerate the road and everything that goes along with it. It would h it would absolutely have correct. Correct. We hope that that's

okay. And as because as I recall also I think the last time we we spoke that it sounds to me like you've been able to get the parties together because I think from those early conversations back in June or when whenever we had it everybody wasn't exactly Yeah. Yeah. I I think we are definitely on the same page to move forward. Any other questions, commissioners? Thank you so much. Thank you.

I know this doesn't have anything. My my my question is Mr. Lou is speaking is what if they just sell off the other the other partials to other owners? I mean, things happen and that goes that way. And then if they just split the lots and sell it, it's not going to come into a subdivision to sell. If they just redesign it and sell it, who's going to be in charge of putting that roadway in all the way through if it's on someone else's land if that's three different lots coming down that road?

Yeah. the the worst case scenario for the city would be one they choose to just turf farm the rest of it forever, right? Because that would not be a land use application against which the city could require road widening and road construction. Um if that were the case, the city's agreements with land owners down in the fields is that the city would build it if the city needs it sooner than they do, right? And so I think we would apply the same standard to this land owner. or if they choose to keep farming, the city would give them the same farming standard that we've given to other farmers south of the river. Um, in the scenario where they, let's say, they sold it to somebody else that just wanted a turf farm forever, we'd have the same same policy we'd apply to them that we do south of the river. Um, any other buyer that wanted to change land use, we would we would impress upon them an exaction for the road width and construction of the at least the developer improvements associated with that road.

Okay. My question is what if they sell it to three separate entities along that road and two of them are okay with just sitting on it for a few years and the middle guy wants to do it. So we're going to have a section in the middle that's just done or we going to enforce that on them to go from telegraph all the way up to to there. So typically what we'll do is we'll do in that scenario that you described what we call a pioneering agreement. um the first one to come in and trigger the exaction would would likely build and pay for the whole thing and then we'd enter into a contract imposed by the city council that requires the other two to pay their portion back when when they come. And so,

okay, that's the pioneering agreement has the concept of the first to show up in the valley that builds the road gets repaid with an interest rate um by those that then follow. Uh there are some time limitations on those by law. If it if the second and third parcels were to come 30 years later, that's probably too far under Utah law about those time frames. If it's within 20 years, uh which again 20 years is an entire generation in the how fast this area is growing, right? Uh 20 years and anything shorter, I feel confident we can grab them in with a pioneering agreement. And so we would exact the full road width from that first first parcel and then impose an agreement where the next parcels had to pay their portion back with some interest.

Okay, that's ex that's the exact answer I was and so on on parcel two and three instead of exacting a road and asphalt we would just exact a payment pursuant to the agreement the city council approved and essentially leveraged against their lots. And so they would have to their exeaction would be a cash payment for the portion of that road that benefited their lot. Oh, what's going in now? That I was talking about the the scenario you suggested for the land of the south. I see. Yeah. Okay. And then potentially worst case city gets foot with the bill to build it out if if that had to come sooner.

My feeling is if the if the decision was, hey, look, we want a turf farm forever. um the city would probably enter into negotiations with the family where let's say something like the land gets dedicated and the city constructs the road, right? Something like that. But yeah, worst case scenario, the city's going to need to get in there and widen that road sooner than later. Okay, that's what I was wondering. So, we'll look for a motion on this. All right, this Commissioner Mitchell, I move that we recommend approval. Is that recogniz It says on here that we approve

item 4 E the plumeary plan approve approval for the Turner Farm subdivision located approximately Bulock Street and 1100 East as outlined by staff with the recommendations, findings and conditions. Commissioner Davis, I second the motion uh just with a slight addition of and all the discussion that's taken place here this evening with respect to prior approvals and commentary with city council.

So we have a first and a second individual voting. Commissioner Mitchell I. Commissioner Davis I. Commissioner Bullock I'm an I as well. 4 A 4 B. That's it. Cool. Item 5 A is adjournment. Commissioner Davis makes a motion to adjourn. Commissioner Mitch, I second. I'm first and second. All in favor? I I meeting is adjourned.