Planning Commission & Land Use Authority - Regular Meeting

We will start off our meeting with with a prayer by Commissioner Mitchell and and a pledge by myself. Dear heavenly father, we're very grateful that we can be here this evening. We're thankful that we can gather together for the items that are on the agenda. We pray as we go throughout our meeting that everyone can um share their ideas and and concerns or um on each item and that we can all do so on in a friendly manner. We're grateful for staff of our city. We're thankful for all those who serve in our communities. Pray thou continue to bless them. I pray thou please help us all to continue to help Washington be a great place to live and to thrive as well. And we thank thee in this we pray and do so in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen. Please rise [sighs] to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Item one on our agenda is the approval of tonight's agenda. If I can [clears throat] get a motion for that.

This is Commissioner Mitchell. I move that we approve tonight's agenda for November 5th. Planning Commission.

Second. Have first by Commissioner Michel, second by Commissioner Anderson. All in favor? I I. Item number two is the approval of the planning commission minute meetings from October 15, 2025. This is Commissioner Mitchell. I move that we approve our minutes from our previous meeting. [music and bell] Yeah, someone's got to [clears throat] Yeah, but Second. I have it first by Commissioner Mitchell, second by Commissioner Anderson. All in favor? I I.

All right. Declar item number three is declaration of of abstensions and conflicts. Does anyone have any? [clears throat]

All right. Item 4 A is a request for a conditional use permit for an existing commercial development located at 720 West Telegraph Street. The application is Ryan Morrison. And we'll turn the time over to Elden. Thank you, commissioners. This exhibit on the screen um shows the existing building on the top and then what they're proposing down below to give you a visual there. The applicant is requesting approval of conditional use permit to modify the exterior building material of the existing building located at 720 West Telegraph. The new exterior finishes are located on the front of the building and include updating the pitched roof line with a flat roof and adding lighter stucco to the entrance way as shown. Staff has reviewed the proposed project and finds that it meets the requirement of the C2 use regulations and as found in the zoning ordinance. Staff has no concerns with proposal. Staff recommends the planning commission recommend approval onto city council with the findings and condition as outlined below. That concludes staff report. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have at this time. Oh, it doesn't look like it's getting any taller, right? [clears throat] The peak the peaks are the same.

I mean, it didn't really call it out. I don't. It's still under the height.

Correct. Yeah, they meet the height requirement. It's It'll be pretty close to the same height of that pitched roof. This You guys have any questions? This is a public hearing. If anyone would like to speak to item 4 A, please come up and do so. Okay, I will close the public meeting portion for item 4A. And if you guys have any other questions or concerns on this, if not, I'll look for a motion.

I'll make a motion [clears throat] unless there's anyone have any comments. Um, make a motion to recommend approval of C-25-12 request for a conditional use permit for an existing commercial development located at 720 West Telegraph Street subject to the conditions and findings in the staff report. Commissioner Anderson, a second. I have first by Commissioner Anderson, the second by Commissioner Tupole. Sorry. First by Commissioner Tupo. Second by Commissioner Anderson. Individual voting. Commissioner Anderson. I. Commissioner Mitchell. I. Commissioner Tupo. I.

I'm Commissioner Bulock. I'm an I as well. So we will Does this go to back to city council or is this just approved? It says recommend.

Okay. So it'll go to council on the next one. Awesome. Item 4B C is a conditional use permit. C-25-09, a request for conditional use permit for a child care facility located at 562 East Day Springs Lane. The applicant is New Awakenings 2. And we will turn this over to Elden. The childc care facility will run from 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. The applicant [clears throat] is requesting the maximum number of children, which is 16, to be approved for this child care facility. If the number of children exceeds eight, a second caregiver is required to be on premise at all times. The home will be required to be inspected by both the building and fire departments and given approval for the proposed use. A drop off and pickup plan will need to remain in place to mitigate traffic congestion in the area. The child care facility will be held in the basement of the home in the designated areas as shown in the exhibits. We can pull those up here. This is the floor plan of the basement. The backyard area will be used for outdoor recreation and is fenced with block material.

Those highlighted areas in 15 are the backyard play areas. Staff did notice the home is a walkout basement and that the fence is not installed along both of the sides of the home where the front of the home transitions to the backyard area. Staff is concerned that children could get out of the backyard area with there being no fence installed in these sideyard areas. Condition number eight was added to this staff report addressing this concern for fencing to be installed in both of these sideyard areas. If the condition stated in staff report can be met, staff feels comfortable recommending the planning commission approve the proposed child care facility. based on the following findings and subject to the conditions stated in staff report. That concludes staff report. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have at this time. Can throw slide through these photos here of of the proposed child care facility. How many um how many I I guess I'm looking at the plans. One Oh, I guess there's two full bathrooms now. 16. Who is there? Um for like a preschool type setting, is there any regulation? Does someone oversee that? The the board of education oversee that or like not for private Commissioner, was your question whether there's a preschool regul regulation

buddy? There [clears throat] there is a state um board that oversees and regulates essentially licenses daycarees and preschools at homes. And so Washington City doesn't have a regulatory body or authority that does that, but the state level does. And so most commonly they come to the city for approval within the zoning that the city has adopted or within, you know, other code that the city may have. One of the requirements as staff administers is have they been licensed by the state as well

and have they obtained a license already to do that? like what are the credentials for someone who are teaching these kids? The the state often requires city approval before they'll issue that license. Kind of which one goes first. Um and it's the Utah Health and Human Services Department that oversees that child daycare facility. Thank you. Does the applicant own the home?

I am not sure. That's a great question. The applicant could clear up for us. Okay. Just because um it looks like a fire hazard on the side of the house. So, Elden, I'm assuming those are typos where it says the retaining wall is about 25 ft high and the other one's 18. There's no way it's that high. Yeah, I would assume those those came from the applicant. Um, yeah, could could be inches maybe. Yeah, [clears throat]

it's there. I mean the first one looks like about 10 ft high and the other one looks like maybe so so the reason for putting the walls in the concern is the kids will climb up the rocks right above the above [clears throat] the rocks. Repeat that with the mic on. I think the state when they have to get their license with the state, the state is also going to weigh in on where that wall goes and how high it is and how it's constructed.

I assume being an HOA, they probably have regulations there as well. A fence has to be. Commissioner Tupel, you asked earlier about whether the regulatory look looks at credentials of the of the operators. I know that there's background checks and things that look at kind of history. Uh, but I don't know if they're looking at, you know, do they have a PhD versus, you know, some other I don't know if there's any sort of credential that's required to do this as much as they're checking to make sure there's not any red flags that would would cause concern with with children.

Thank you. Um, I think I the question stems from the only thing that I saw in the packet was a food handlers permit.

About as much credentials the state requires. I might direct your attention to the staff report condition number five. Um, it's in your packet. Elden might be able to bring it up to for the gallery. Uh, that's the condition that I'll just read it here because it's a sentence. quote, "A copy of the approved state of Utah license for the child care facility will be kept current and on file with the community development community development department and offices." And so the city essentially manages that like like they would with, you know, a business license or any other type of license. Um the city's got a role in helping them obtain that. Once they've obtained it, they've got to have it and display it at the at the location of operation. Thank you.

I pulled up the the requirements that come from the Utah Health and Human Services. It's quite lengthy the checklist there. Um [clears throat] I didn't dig in too deep, but I know they go through a rigorous background checks. They come out, look at the facility requirements, um the ratios and group size of the rooms, the bathrooms per ratio per student, uh supervision, security, um you know, locking the doors, child safety, injury prevention such as fences, uh emergency preparedness items, you know, having a smoke alarms intact. So there's there's a slew of items that the state requires to issue that license.

So I'm wondering you guys have any other questions or concerns? Maybe chairman, can I take a moment for training with commissioner year?

Yes, please. It's just a few minutes. Um, Commissioner Year was recently appointed to the planning commission by the city council. Um, the way the city c the planning commission is organized is there are five seats and then a sixth what we call an alternate. Um, the reason for that is we we try not to have a land use application be delayed because folks are out of town or something. And so the alternate um exists as a as a bonafide and authorized member of the of the commission. The training tonight commissioner year is even though you are you were appointed to the alternate position tonight Davis is not present and so you're you're always able to participate in discussion and questions and all of the commentary. And the only difference on the alternate position is if there were five here, you would would not vote. But most most commonly there's seems to always be some somebody out. And so tonight you would both participate fully and also vote

training. Also, [clears throat] sorry I was late. I thought I was an hour early. [laughter] Yeah, the clocks have been funny lately. And congratulations.

Excited to be here. All right, we will open up item 4B for the public hearing portion of this. If you would like to come up and speak to this, please do. Please state your name into the mic and try to keep it as on point and best you can. Hello.

What should I say? My name is Duly Sanchez and I'm the person planning to have the get the license for the childcare. Are you the applicant? Mhm. Okay. We will let you speak after all the public hearing after [clears throat] everyone else talks. That way if there's anything we need to ask new questions on we will do that afterwards. Oh okay. So we will sorry we'll ask No, you're fine. Yeah. Whoever uh to the mic please introduce myself. My name is Paul.

Please speak into the mic so we can get this on the record. Amazon. I'm the president of the um assoc homeowners association in that um vicinity. Um there's over 88 homes. Um uh my uh friend with me um is my neighbor. He's also um the vice president of the board. And I do have a document that I'd like to for you folks to see. It's a brief copy of just a paragraph of the uh um CCNR regulations. It clearly states that um no commercial trade or business may be conducted in or from any any lot unless a the existing or operation of the business activity is not apparent to detectable by sight, sound, smell or from outside the lot. The business activities conforms to all zoning requirements for the project. The business activities does not involve persons coming onto the project who do not reside in the project or door-to-door solicitation of residents of the project and the business activities of consistent with the residential character of the project and does not constitute a nuisance or a hazard or offensive use or any threat to the security and safety of others of the residents. project as may be determined in the sole direction of the declarant and or the association. So I'm here on behalf of the association are it clearly states that we're not allowed to run businesses from our homes. Um right now she is running a daycare which um is a business and second of all she's approached our HOA um two times. We have a company that we've hired, Community Association

Management, that handles all those things. We do have an attorney on board with them. Um they're a very large um property management company, probably one of the biggest in the area. And uh she's applied twice and been denied twice. And here we are. Now, that's all I've got to say is because our CCNR strictly say, you know, if there's one business, then there's going to be two, then there's going to be three, then there's going to be four. We have a lot of contractors in our neighborhood, a lot of them. I know quite a few of them, and they do not conduct their businesses from their homes. They're not allowed to. So I don't you know my perspective is there's an issue I was very concerned about is if they're using the downstairs basement there is a gate there is block wall on three sides there's a big huge gate that you can drive a car into um adjacent that is Tortoise Rock Road. Uh you can see that on the map uh where that white car is parked. Tortoise Rock Road is a very very busy active um avenue right now because they are building a 21,000 square foot on 4 and 1/2 acre LDS church. There's a lot of semi-truckss coming in and out. They're just about finished with that project, but they're not quite done. We have cement trucks coming in. We've got dumpers. You excavating equipment. We've got a lot of stuff. And that road, Tortoise Rock Road, really is only got enough room for two cars to pass each other. So, if you got parked cars along the curbing there, it's going to be a safety issue. Uh cuz then somebody's going to have to drive into the dirt. If there's a car parked there and then another one's coming this direction and one's going

that direction, one's going to end up driving into the dirt cuz that's open property right now. It's uh from what I understand has been purchased uh from a company out of Las Vegas that wants to develop all that land. It's 35 acres. Um I didn't I didn't uh wasn't able to attend that um zoning commission meeting. I haven't we haven't heard I don't know if we've even heard of it. Yeah.

Yeah. Well, there's going to be a hotel on right off of Buen a Vista in the corner of Washington Parkway and the 15 [clears throat] uh southbound in that corner there. That's part of that land. And then right across the street on Tortois on Buenav Vista is 35 acres. And that is supposed to be from what I've seen. I don't know if it's been approved or gone through you folks yet, but it's uh I've what I've seen was the hotels phase one, phase two commercial property, phase three commercial property, phase four is going to be homes all along Tortois Rock Road. So, there's going to be a lot of activity on that street. Now, I don't know if they plan on having these children coming in and out of the um front of their house, which I've talked to adjacent neighbors. They've actually came to me when they heard about this and they've all said, "We don't want that. We don't want a bunch of, you know, possibly endangering children." And we do have a lot of um senior citizens in our track. probably 85% of them are retirees or approaching that age. And I've seen very very a lot of u very close calls with children cuz on the corner of uh inside our track it's kind of a blind corner and kids used to play basketball right there and I can see that from my uh garage and I'm like oh god that kid's going to get hit. So people sometimes don't look around that corner and then that street comes and then it makes a left or a right. It curves to the right. Lot of activity right there. I've seen where kids are riding their bikes or skateboarding or scooters or and cars come around the

corner and they don't have a lot of time to see what's going on in front of them. [clears throat] So that's my concerns. All right. Thank you. All right. You're welcome.

[clears throat]

Good evening. Uh my name is Ralph Bobick. I live just down the street from there. Um I really don't have a problem, I guess, with the idea of a daycare, but I really have a problem with the traffic that Paul was talking about. If you look right here, this is Ruby here. People are going to assuming that they're not going to open it. There's a gate here now. And there's a big but they drive trucks in here. I don't know if they're supposed to. This is I'm pretty sure that most of the people are going to be driving through here and coming here traffic. Did you say 16?

Can you Can you please So we're trying to record this and they're going to be able to hear you. Very good. I'm sorry. Did you say 16 children maximum? Is that what it was? Was hard to hear. That would be the max.

Okay. So, imagine being a neighbor and having cars backed up on that flow of traffic. I mean, why would you want to live in a neighborhood where you've got business with cars backed up when it's time for moms and dads to come home from school or from work to pick up their kids after daycare? It just seems like in a residential neighborhood to have that kind of a a flow is not something that people expect or anticipate or or pay their money to buy a house for. And I will say that on the corner there, there's two little girls that live in that house and they're out on their bicycles and scooters and stuff. And if you have people come in and off Ruby and then taking a left and going across [clears throat] there, there's not much time for them to see what's going on. just seems like it's an accident waiting to happen. And that's all I got to say. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak to item 4B? Okay, I will close the public hearing portion of item 4B. Did you want to Did you want to speak the applicant? Please come and [clears throat] Okay. Um I know that 16 kids can sounds like a U. Please state your name again for the

My name is Dulce Sanchez. Um and um I have more over 25 years of experience doing this a child home child care and um 16 [clears throat] kids with two providers is the minimum of the state required. I always have a two more people working with me and then um and the kids are always supervised. I never let the kids go out to the street or anywhere, you know. uh they always play inside and in a in a yard and it's always you know they always supervise for us. So when when we finish this process is when the state come and supervise everything about toys and and if we have enough space and enough people there and we have like you said you know all the background check for each person that is close to the kids. Um I need to have we need to have all the trainings like a first day CPR and food handler and um you know taking training about child development and um [clears throat] just all that they require and I just go you know a few steps more. Um and um we had the the gate and the in the side of the the well was the front yard for the for the the apartment. And then they told us that they prefer to to have the pick up and drop off front for from the front to the main entrance. And um this is what the city thinks is is better way to do. We're going to do it. We're going to follow the rules for us and our you know experiences. We think that the gate is easier for the parents go there, but they don't want the car just turning around, you know, for the safety of the kids, but my kids in the child care, they will never play on the street or, you know, out of the area. So, um, I

would love to have my child care back again. And, uh, and I'm the person that I follow all the rules possible, you know, that they tell me the city or the state. And I don't know if you have any question about it. Are you the owner of the home or is it a rental? Yes, you are the owner. Mhm. You got you guys have any other questions for Miss [clears throat] Sanchez? Hey, I do. Um, where did you run your daycare before? And Salt Lake and Jordan. West Jordan. Okay. And when did you move here? In 2019.

In 2019. Um the the gentleman before you mentioned that you're running it right now out of the home. Is that true? We have I have five kids because the state let you have six kids without license. Um but uh because those kids were I've been working with this process for a long time but I stopped I don't receive more kids until everything is you know until I have my license because um most of the family they have the the state assistance and I require both licenses for that. So I just have those kids there because you know I just waiting for the process. Okay. So, you have the five children that you're running the daycare with right now?

Yes. Um, prior to approval from the city,

I I had the license before the for this city, but uh then the pandemic came and then I closed everything and then uh we bought another first house, but my husband built a carport on the side and we didn't qualify for the license. So we bought this house and we were sure to have all the space we need for the child care and then started the process but it's was really you know slow because everything changed the way to to apply and then um I just kept those kids because I thought that everything will go you know quick but uh no okay thank you

commissioners during the discussion here I did uh pull up the recorded documents of record for the lot identified here and I have found that there are CCNRs uh that have been in place since 2014 and paragraph 21 of those I'll just read it briefly. It's a few lines but I think it might help the commissioners as you're considering it just says paragraph 21 business use. No commercial trade or business may be conducted in or from any lot unless A the existence or operation of the business activity is not apparent or detectable by sight, sound, or smell from outside the lot. B the business activity conforms to all zoning requirements for the project. C. The business activity does not involve persons coming onto the project who do not reside in the project or door-to-door solicitation of residents of the project. and D, the business activity is consistent with the residential character of the project and does not constitute a nuisance or a hazardous or offensive use or threaten the security of safety of other residents of the project. Washington City does not have jurisdiction or authority to to interpret the meaning of CCNRs or tell or tell HOAs and associations what they mean. HOAs in theory can change their CCNRs at any given time, but it does appear uh from from the opinion of the city attorney that there is CCNRs in place that do restrict business use at this location.

Mr. Mitchell, what effect does that have on the city and because HOAs are outside of city restrictions? So, I I think in your deliberation tonight, I think that's a very relevant fact. that you can consider when deciding whether the city should issue a permit to permit this use at this location.

Thank you.

Close. Yeah, close the public hearing. Thoughts? We've had something similar to this, right? Where there was some CCNRs and they all do, right? But from our we can't can't really involved in that.

Everyone that we've ruled that if they have an issue with the HOA, they have to take it up to the HOA and that's between them and the HOA. I mean, CCNRs are deed restrictions. They're not they're not city law or they're not state law or city code. It's a deed restriction between them and the HOA. But we've always looked at state requirements. Do they make the city requirements? And if they do have an issue with the HOA, we recommend they figure it out with the HOA. That's how we've always handled it.

I think I think bigger issue here would be I mean the traffic pattern is the same as every other one we've ever dealt with. I mean, every single daycare is in a residential area. I mean, [clears throat] it's just what they are. It's just the nature of them. Um like the gate at the bottom, which is most likely not a legal entrance. Um, that wouldn't be very safe coming off of off of that main road there, which [clears throat] I think is interesting, right? Cuz they're saying that they don't have a wall or a fence back there. So, how do you have there's a there's a wall there. It's got a gate there. There's no walls in the side of the property above the retaining wall.

Okay. That that we'll have to go in. That's my second thing that I I think needs to be addressed is because I'm looking at it here, you know, on on Google Maps and from the street view because it's a walkout lot and it's a corner lot. It's not as simple as just putting a a wall across the top of the of the retaining wall because you got an adjoining property that comes in at a diagonal on both sides. And so you can still climb over climb up on the the boulders, you know, the the rock retaining wall. You can climb into the neighbor's yard. You can climb. So I mean, you're going to have to have a block wall at the top of the retaining wall that's coat is 5T, you know, to keep kids out of stuff. I mean, I would assume at least a 5ft block wall at the top, but that that 5ft block wall is going to have to wrap back a little bit to where it's still 5T when you're standing on one of those three tiers of the of the rock wall because otherwise they can still climb up and over neighbor's house. I mean, maybe a neighbor builds a pool and they don't have one right now, but they could. So, that would I mean, you can address it. You just have to build those sidewalls a little taller for

[clears throat] five or six feet. But I think that needs to be addressed, not just the sidewalls. And this is on both sides of the property as well. But if the if the wall was down at the bottom, it would do the same thing as what you're saying. It doesn't have to be at the top. They can fence off the bottom. That might be easier. That's going to be the easiest. That' be way easier than That's what I'm saying. Rather than doing it up here at the top because of all those things, you can fence it off down at the bottom and then you're done. And then you don't have to worry about it. I agree 100%. and then and then lock the back gate. I would be curious what kind of gate it I mean if we're doing a child care

I think you probably should put some perforated you know screening or whatever behind it just so you don't have seems like that would make it a lot safer and and make sure it has an actual good locking mechanism. I mean well I'm sure the state has to approve it too. They're going to have to approve the play area and saying you guys make gates. You know how for kids to pop the latch and go out of gate. So you'd have to really make sure you had a good locking mechanism that kids couldn't unlock on that road. Can it with a paddle lock? Yeah.

So those would be my main things is I would I would perforate the gate, you know, or put a privacy screen on the gate with a padlock on that gate and then put the privacy walls below the retaining wall on the sideyards so that way the kids stay in the backyard. say they navigate theirelves upstairs and then come out the front. I mean, there's there's nothing to contain them. But that's the same that's the same with every daycare. I mean, yeah, go out on the front yard. So, responsibility to keep them in the house, right?

So, every time that that [clears throat] this board has faced this issue where the CC and our say one thing and we're looking at code body has done historically is just assess the code and homeowner and the you know whoever's managing CCRs association kind of battle that out.

Every single HOA in town is going to say the same thing. They're all going to say you can't operate a business. I mean 90% of them say they're all just boiler plate. They say the same thing. doesn't mean the HOA can't, you know, have an issue with her and she has to deal with a deed restriction or whatever, you know, however they decide to handle that, but that's not what we're addressing. We're addressing does this meet a city code or not and then and then saying, hey, if you've got CCNR issues, you should deal with it.

So, yeah, we we don't spend time in the CCNRs interpreting what they mean or say to the residents. I do think though that knowledge that there's a CCNR in place that says business use is not allowed um is certainly the basis to for let's say a vote to say you know we the motion is to decline on the basis of blank blank and also that it appears that they're going to enter into a an HOA conflict if they if the city licenses this. In other words, you know, get your HOA to change their CCNRs and then then bring back your application when that's that's there. And so, we don't get involved in the business of running the association, voting on the boards or interpreting that. But if if if you feel that there's plain language that says this isn't allowed, I think that that's that's that's a very fair reason to consider as you make a motion or consider how to vote on a motion. Well, you said earlier that they can vote to change CCNRs.

They can. And if they my my problem with getting involved with that is if they if we approve something and then they further on down the line and then they they decide to change their CCNRs because we approve something to say they can't have it, then they're going to come back to us and say, "Well, our CCNRs don't say that." Correct. So there's I feel like I feel like we would be getting into a more into the like you're saying worrying about what CCNRs are saying.

Correct. So there there's two layers that that precede this meeting on that application. The first one is the staff desk that accepts applications and at that level there is an application. There is a a measure of compliance that has to be met to make an application, but it's things like name, address, contact, you know, location within the city. Uh they're not difficult things, but they are things that, you know, if you don't meet them, they don't even accept your application. At the application acceptance step, they don't judge its success or failure. Their job is to let any land land use applicant that can can qualify to submit an application um staff then has a review and if there's a serious code issue, staff could in theory deny that application on a serious code issue. Um and that happens. Sometimes that happens. Sometimes there's a sewer, sometimes there's just stuff that's not known that that very plainly makes it a problematic application. If staff doesn't throw it out on a on a known technicality, it comes to this board because that's this board's role for the city. They are the administrative board on land use applications like this. And so nowhere in the staff level do they say check for CCNRs and verify whether there's a restriction. And so this this public hearing where someone could show up and say, "Hey, there's a CCNR that that is a problem is the place and time for that." And so I don't think we're interpreting it. Um I think a public comment has said it exists. I went to look and see and I did verify that that does exist. I read the language of it for you and I think that uh that's that's a fact that the public provided that you can very much weigh in a in a decision on a motion or a vote on a motion.

So, this Commissioner Mitchell, I'll just kind of share my thoughts. Like, one, I want to be mindful of the residents because I I personally feel like it would affect, you know, them and having the traffic in and out of there. So, that's one. But two, obviously, if you're a parent or and need somewhere for your kids to go, that is a need um to have an an inexpensive option for someone to watch your kids. So, I get both sides. Um, personally, I like the idea that I mean, there are daycarees all over town that are in a in a commercial setting. versus in a residential setting. So, I know it's possible, but so kind of a mixed like mixed Yeah. feelings. So, I have a question for you that you have a daycare right down the street right from your house and it's been there for years. And I mean, I've never seen any problems with any residents for any of it. And it's same exact thing as this, you know? I mean, everybody that we ever somebody comes in for one of these, all the neighbors are upset. Everybody's mad. Everybody has an HOA that that that denies it. And you never hear a single complaint after that. I mean, it's just if if we denied every one of these because an HOA had restrictions on it, which they all do, we wouldn't have any daycare

except for a couple of of them that can afford a commercial place, which is few and far between, you know, and and and not to mention, you know, people are trying to to run a business. I mean, allows this type of of thing. Yes, CCNRs don't, but it's not our place. We It's our place to recognize that, yeah, they've got CCNRs, and that's fine. I don't think it's

our place to try and interpret them either. You know, we acknowledge it and and she has an issue that she's going to have to deal with, you know, on that basis. But that doesn't that that shouldn't affect the way we you know decide does this meet city code and state code yes or no you know and that's what we're here to do. Yeah. Would be more to address safety concerns or does the need Yeah. need adjustments to accommodate that type of practice for the safety of the kids that are going to attend?

Yeah. We're not here to to to solve disputes between HOAs and and and homeowners. We're not here to to say whether it's a good business decision or not. We're here to say does it does it meet state code? Does it meet city code? And are there safety concerns, you know, for the kids? And that's what we're looking at. In some ways though, I still do feel as like a body that we are mindful of other residents as well and the affected [clears throat]

Commissioner Tupo, I I would agree with what you're saying. Um, Commissioner Mitchell, I I could see with um 16 students that there would be significant stacking

um drop off pickup flow. And I don't think the the rock the retaining wall in the back is safe for children um even without with or without a fence. Um, I think six I think 16 children is too much for this neighborhood. I would be okay. Probably eight. But I think anything more than eight belongs in a commercial area. I don't think this this setup is actually conducive for 16 children either. Commissioner, you're do you have any thoughts? I mean, I see Miss Sanchez and all the work that she's done. I see all all the time and energy that staff has put into this going through all of the various elements that need to be complied with. I know there's further due process from the state to ensure that the gate is and and the the block wall is all up to code um for them. And I also can see that these CCNRs have been in place for years and that it's a community where all the neighbors are part of it and they how they all think and feel matters and these are like the shared understanding of what we're doing in this neighborhood are the CCNRs. Um, and so I I I think there's for me there's not like a one clear answer. I think it's kind of like a balancing of the of the interests. Um,

and so yeah, I'm I'm still kind of feeling into it. It it it's and I'm also getting used to what our role is. So, baptism by fire. Um, I'm just so those CCNRs are saying that you can't even run a construction company out of your house.

Well, yeah, let let me entertain, you know, the old the old hypothetical. Let's say that we had an application for a welding shop, right? Uh, the city issues bu business licenses for welders, too. And um the first problem that one would have is that our city requires that that come to a location located in the right zone. So a commercial zone. So that one probably wouldn't get past the staff level because this is a residential zone and that's a commercial use. Um, but in theory, somebody could weld on a lot and, you know, weld and and I'm sure there's a lot of residential houses where there is some welding that happens inside a garage or or or a building and and you know, nobody complains, so it it happens. Um, the question really is does the city council take the comment, acknowledge it, make sure it's known to the applicant, and then say, "Look, as far as the city goes, you're good. But, you know, we've got some red flags about your HOA, and you better be ready for, you know, whatever enforcement the HOA chooses to do." Which is what has been our traditional history, which is we don't take the HOA issues and try to apply them or enforce them, but but certainly acknowledge them if we hear about them. and you know discuss them through if we need to discuss them through um or do you say look we're going to deny you so that you don't have to have an HOA fighting right um I don't know that either side of those is a perfect solution for us um a denial on that basis could trigger an appeal and then we'd have to follow it through our appeal process um but but yeah it's certainly a we in Washington city know that HOAs exist CCNRs exist and there's court filings at the district court every day between HOAs and their members members and compliance with those CCNR and so they are they are valid and and the members who and them

uh another thought too and I know we've had these before we had a lot more public come and share you know if there was a a neighborhood that was concerned that it was going there was a lot more public attendance to share their concerns tonight you know it's the HOA president and the vice president too So, are we worried about residents that may not even care that it's there or otherwise would they be here to voice concern? I I I feel like it's an HOA fight that we should stay out of. Yeah.

In my personal opinion, um I understand [clears throat] HOAs have it, but in the same sense, you know, there could be a guy that's running a construction company, his office is in his house. I mean, they they say you can't run an office in your house, but or work from home if if that's the case. And so that's maybe a better example than my welding example. Um I mean there you could Yeah, the city has a license

most likely most likely in that neighborhood. And I don't think it's our place to get in to start picking and choosing which businesses can or can't or say oh we're going to like you said I don't think it's a good idea to say well we're going to deny her so we stop them from having a problem. I mean, she's the one that chooses to to, you know, apply for a license, which she can legally apply for. And if it has an issue with the CCNRs, that's between her and the and the HOA. If they have a problem that I mean, she's choosing to accept whatever consequences that is. But if we start picking and choosing who's the winner and who's the loser. Exactly.

Then you've got a whole arms with people that are operating businesses in that HOA that that they're not getting, you know, in trouble for or whatever. and suddenly you got lawsuits. I mean, it's it's not jurisdiction. Maybe it would be [clears throat] maybe it would be appropriate to send it to city council with our concern that and that's what we've always done. We've always just acknowledge, hey, we acknowledge that they I think this is ours, guys. But this is ours. This doesn't go to city council. This stops with us. Yeah. So, permit's yours.

Oh, yeah. This is how we've always done it. I mean, We've now made it very public that she has an issue with the HOA. She's going to have to deal with that. The the only thing that I know that we've done before is when we do a conditional use permit, it stays with that with that lot forever. And I like I liked on these I liked on these daycarees where we tied them to the applicant. Yes. As long as the applicant

kept it up and kept the standings and then it stayed that way. So, so that it was that way. I I thought when we did that with the with the daycarees, that was a better way of doing it than just a blanket statement for if they that way they can't necessarily sell it as a hey, you have a daycare here. Market it that way because it's already got a conditional use. The conditional use is with the person running it at that facility, which we have the ability to do. Correct. Correct. Um there's the city would distinguish between an athome daycare and a commercial daycare. And so an athome daycare is is very personal to the operator as well as the property. Yeah. A

lot of we have quite a few in neighborhoods that were zoned and built out before kind of modern zones and CCNRs. You know, the neighborhood where I live has has many uh because there aren't CCNRs, right? And so those ones there is no discussion at the city about CCNRs anyway, but also there are no CCNRs. And so those ones tend to lend themselves to these type of uses. Um and so so yeah, the the question is how how deep do we get involved with interpreting the meaning of the CCNRs? And the next question is do we ever enforce them? And the answer is no, we never enforce them. We try not to be ever be involved with interpreting the meaning of them. Regulatory scheme. The only time we ever ask about CCNRs and verify their existence is when plats come through that have common area or private roads. We verify that there's a legal entity that will own those and and have the responsibility towards the city for keeping and maintaining them. Outside of plat of of developments, we don't ever ask questions about the existence of CCNRs. Um, we recognize they're there, that they come and go, they change and modify as as boards of associations wish to do so, but we don't administer those in the city's administration.

And as you said right there, they will they they can change them. So, if someone does have a conditional use permit for that and then they decide to change it, they could say, "Well, that doesn't meet our CCNRs now. Therefore, I don't think we should be involved with saying yes, the CCNRs or no, the CCNRs don't because we could approve it and then, you know, so and then the CCNRs would change and say, "Oh, no, you can't have you can't have whatever it is." I feel like that's a CCNR battle that we like you're saying, we we don't really need to be involved in with our one attorney.

We take away the CCNRs. I don't think that's a concern. And I know in the past two we have limited the number. We've made that adjustment in the past. So maybe that's the discussion is 16 or less and what effect does the traffic have on the residents more than worrying about CCNRs and getting involved in that?

Yeah, I would I'll [clears throat] add to that. I think for me after, you know, continuing to deliberate here, I think what matters is that the public knows what's up that either CCNRs are part of our conversation or they're not. I think given our history of them not being part of the conversation, I would just say let's keep doing that. Um, and and let that be part of a private conversation. I think it's relevant. It can come up. Um, but kind of in favor of just, you know, looking at this from city code and moving on.

Maybe another way to describe what you're saying is policy is not to interject itself into community associations when it's not already there. And nothing about what the city is saying means that we think the HOA shouldn't find somebody every day for a violation and file an action with the district court to enjoin a use. And so he's not getting involved with telling them what their and restrictions mean or say or limiting their ability to enforce them. Exactly. And so

an HOA person might feel well gosh that sure sure would be nice for you to tell us what to do there. Um the challenge is when you invite the government to tell you what to do with your private stuff, you also open the Pandora's box of

created when the government tells you what to do what to do with your private stuff. And so the city's stayed out of it. I think the applicants heard enough to know that there's an CCNR and a potential challenge. Uh you know, the the the CC the HOA folks have advised her of that publicly in this public hearing, which is why we have these. We had enough time. I verified that that does exist. She's now going to weigh her her options and and make decisions there. Um and and so will you. and and so we're operating in the same city in the same space but on on different planes of decision and and and and pursuit there and

we won't pursue the CCNR's their meaning or their enforcement but we acknowledge they're there and the contract law than than public policy CCR so let it stay there restrictions yeah this commissioner Anderson I'll make a motion to approve C-25-09, a request for conditional use permit for a child care facility located at 562 East Springs Lane with the four findings and nine conditions outlined by staff. And I'll add um onto

eight that it that it be blockall fencing to match the existing block wall fencing at the bottom. Why were you doing that at the bottom? They can do they can do a rod iron fence at the bottom and keep it that way too. Just a fence. Sure. Do they have a they have a fence um at the bottom of the retaining wall as opposed to the top on both sides? Um and also that they have a a secure padlock on that gate. Um so there's no use of the of the off street road at the bottom of the property. Are you tying it to the individual person

and adding a Bonnie adding a 10th condition that that the conditional use permit is tied to the applicant with her not the property as long as she owns the property not as long as she has her license as long as she meets conditions. I'll second the motion. I have a first by Commissioner Anderson, second by Commissioner Yor. Individual voting. Commissioner Anderson. Hi. Commissioner Mitchell I. Commissioner Tupo I. Commissioner Yor I. I'm Commissioner Bulock. I'm in I as well. And item number five is adjournment.

This is Commissioner Mitchell. I move that we adjourn. Mr. Tupo. I second that. I have a first and a second. All in favor? I we will take a short break before we start the land Peace.

All

[sighs] right, welcome to the land use authority meeting for November 5th, 2025. Item one on our agenda is the approval of the agenda. I'll look for a motion to approve tonight's agenda. Yes, Commissioner Mitchell. I move that we approve tonight's agenda. Commissioner, I'll second. I have a first by Commissioner Mitchell and second by Commissioner Yur. All in favor? I. Item number two, approval of the minute of the land use authority minutes from October 15th, 2025.

This Commissioner Mitchell, I move that we approve the minutes from our previous uh meeting. Commissioner Yur and I'll second. First by Commissioner Mitchell, second by Commissioner Yur. All in favor? I item three, declaration of abstensions or conflicts. Does anyone have anything with this agenda? No.

All right. Item 4 A is a preliminary plat approval for the Hartwood Farms subdivision located at approximately 14 10 South Heritage Fields Drive. [sighs and gasps] We will turn this over to Elden. This particular subdivision is proposing two lots on an area covering 13.69 acres. Pull up the plat map here. We can dig into the specifics. Lot one is 5.44 acres and lot 2 is 1.19 acres and the area left for future development is 7.06 acres. Designation at this location is open space RA1 and agricultural 5. The surrounding zoning is PUDR to the north, A20 to the east, R110 to the south, and agricultural 20 to the proposed subdivision conforms to the approved zoning. There is a master plan trail running adjacent to the river and is shown next to the rip wrap armor burm that this development will provide trail easement for and as shown on the plan. The request meets the subdivision requirements and other city ordinances as it relates to this location. I just want to reiterate that the development here will be required to put that rip wrap in on their expense. Um, and the city's planning to build that master plan trail when other easements are obtained in that area. Um, we want to avoid peacemealing trail together. Just just doesn't make sense to maintain a small piece of trail

there. And then the block wall that comes will be the applicants or the developers responsibility if if they so wish. Staff has reviewed the request and recommends the land use authority approve the preliminary plat for Hart Hartwood Farms subdivision based on the findings and conditions stated in staff report. And I'm happy to answer any questions you may have at this time. Thanks, Elden. Elden. So, I mean, it says it's a two lot subdivision, but it's sort of a three lot subdivision right now, right? Cuz the the third chunk is just not labeled, but it's still technically its own lot, right?

Correct.

Yes. Yeah. Two lots will bring residential units. The third will remain a use. Okay. My my my question, Elden, it [clears throat] says they'll the north side of 1410 South will will be improved with future developments of Hartwood. [sighs] How long is that future development going to be? I mean, I feel like it's I I I understand holding off for a little bit, but it's I'm just curious. I mean, if they only put one lot in there, if somebody buys that whole lot and decides that's what they want, do they have to put that in or should we be doing it or should we be doing it now instead of later? That's that would be my only concern with with that is I mean, I don't know what holds up later on. but in order to get it done.

So, this application essentially seeks to have that parcel remain in the historic use that it is in today. And the city does not typically require installation improvements on lands that have not that are not changing from a prior historic use to a new uh permitted use. And so in this situation, staff has admitted this administered this to not require that. Um acknowledge that if that portion were to become developed, that that would be required. I do see where the planning commission might determine that there are issues of that not being required with these two phases that you know a portion of that parcel being built out is sufficient to require the whole thing. And that would be within your discretion to decide if that's what you think is right for the health, safety, and welfare of the community or the circulation of traffic or whatever the whatever the concern is that you might connect to that needing to be required at this time.

That that's the main commissioner here. That's the main concern I have about this too. Just having that one point of entry at the end of 1410. It is such an awkward little street. It's like I mean I drive down that street regularly and it is so narrow. if there's a car parked on the road, you have to slow down in order to be able to get around it. And so it's it's it's an awkward situation and to add another point of entry right there without correcting that, I I think I don't know. It it gives me a little bit of heartburn. Um, you know, and it's also difficult because we can't see how those other seven acres are going to be used. It'd be nice if we could kind of like see the whole plan and then kind of like understand how it's all going to be used, but because we can't and they just want to develop that side of it, like I I wonder if they'd be open to developing 1410. It needs to be done.

I agree. I think it needs to be added because it's such a small piece. It's not like it's acres and it's like phase six down the road or whatever. I mean, it's just Well, the utilities are already in right there, right? on whatever utilities are in on that 1410 are already there. They'd basically just be paving it. Is that is that correct? Yes. I I think we should be added,

but the city's looking at doing it, not putting it on the developer. So, they'd put it in and then you'd come and rip it out. Okay. Just like the rest of them. I felt like we could he were to come in and rip it out like like in all other roads, they rebuild it back to the state it was in. So,

no, I I understand that. That's But I'm just I'm just saying if we could come to an agreement that once the city put that storm drain through there that they paid for the paving. I mean, I don't know if that's something we could do, but it it seems like it would help both parties, the city and that rather than paving it and then ripping it all out whenever that time comes or if that gets developed then put it in. I feel like it'd be a better mix for all involved in my opinion. Well, the

because it's [clears throat] just adding two homes right now and it'd be nice to have it in, but either we either have when the next seven acres, whatever gets developed, have that have it do it then and then the city will just have to rip it out and put it back in like they always do. Or if they when the city decides to put that in, take those funds and put it into that to do it then. Yeah. There's also the chance that the next seven acres never get developed and so you've got a forever, you know, issue until the city has to come and just widen it at their own expense. And so

roads are are extracted from development and the land underneath them is extracted because uh as a matter of public policy, folks that take land that's not developed and then subdivide it and invite more people to it. the policy presumes that there's a duty to provide roadways and spaces for for for ingress and egress. And so if you feel like that road needs to be completed, um this is the land owner and this is the application that that you could attach that to if you wanted to. Or if you feel like, you know what, it's serviceable. You could wait and say we'll attach it to the next seven acres. for a decade or two or three now, that road has been sitting there unfinished, waiting for this land user to come with an application. Uh the the developer built it up to the property line. And so this is the this is the applicant that we've been waiting to show up if if we were in fact hoping that that road would get

Well, will that storm drain go in regardless? Well, what is the storm service? And why why are [clears throat] they not putting the storm drain in? high is the city putting in the storm the storm drain project that we're looking at is a master plan storm drain for it's an upgrade for the entire city system. So we're talking like a 60-inch pipe that we're looking to bring down through there and stuff. So it's not a it's not a project that isn't tied to the this development at all. So and when John says down through there, John's saying through the public road right away.

Yeah. Right. You can see you can see past that southern boundary. We called out the ex there's an existing storm drain easement and then we also called out the proposed storm drain easement that we'll be working with the property owner on on acquiring and stuff um for this storm drain project. Is that to help with the property that is east side of Washington fields road to some degree? Okay. It's a bigger trunk line that goes on across up through the alleyway up there tied into Washington Dam Road and all those storm drains all up along the other side of Washington Fields Road and Dam Road and stuff. So,

yeah, it's a pretty major project. Um, in regards to 1410, this was an item that I had a conversation with with the owner and stuff with because I it was a concern of ours in regards to when this might develop. Um, I had them put the note on there so it was very blatant for for you and for for everybody else to know that that's kind of where we settle on is if we were looking at a a a bigger development where it's we had more than two lots. I would definitely have been pushing for 1410 to be expanded. Whereas we have two lots and 1410 isn't the main route that you would probably take in and out of there and stuff. I aired to the side of going with de finishing that up in in a future phase. So that's kind of where we landed as as staff in reviewing that.

When when do you foresee that line coming through? We have it in we have it in our master plan. They are working there in the beginning phases of design. Um there's some stuff that we have to work out with uh St. George in regards to the upper portion of the project um because we're going to be utilizing some infrastructure that they had in place for some old old water man and stuff like that major transmission line and stuff that we'll be using. So we're trying to get that all buttoned up. It could be a year, it could be two years. Okay. [clears throat] And John, I I have a question. Sure. just with

size of the of the storm drain easement. If you're talking a 60inch pipe, I mean, I just barely put in a 48 a 48 inch storm drain and we had [clears throat] a 25

25 foot easement and thought it was enough and we couldn't we couldn't do it with with the equipment and the pipe and everything else just trying to get access and we ended up having to get a 35 foot easement for that. So I mean you're talking I mean in total you're talking a 17 ft easement on that. So I mean you're going to rip out the other side where you got the other 14 ft of the existing there. Pretty big pipe. I guess my question is two questions. One, is the easement big enough? And two, shouldn't it include the back of the of the gutter to where be running, you know, inlets and stuff? I mean, right now, the way it's drawn, it's it's not including that. It's as you

briefly and and then let John finish everything I miss. Um, so there's easements for the perennial use, which is, you know, the space within which the pipe sits and the maintenance trucks will run. And then frequently when there's a project like of the scope that John's described, one of the steps will be to go obtain construction easements, which is additional width so that you have room to stack dirt and move pipes. It's just a whole lot easier to have an ement that's big enough to work in before rather than after somebody's put something on there.

Absolutely is. The challenge is it's also a lot more expensive to buy easements the width of the construction easement. And so usually we we pay the construction easement price which is for a limited time um and then then you no longer have a right to use it. So that makes it a cheaper acquisition. Say be at least to the back of the inlet boxes. I mean it's not drawn that way currently. So yes, I think I think because those would have to be in the easement, right?

The easement that's being shown is is basically an easement that Paul was working on with with Rick and stuff for this. Ultimately, they would be, you know, when phase the future phase came along, they would have to dedicate the full additional ride ofway, which would be sure the additional 25 feet for the additional 50 foot rideway for that street. Then behind that, we would have our 10-ft pee typical for a subdivision for putting in the dry utilities and stuff like that. So, but yeah, like that was referencing, we would have our our permanent easement and then during construction, we'd also have a temporary construction easement. So,

I guess the point I'm getting to is I would like to see I I don't care if we don't finish that road right now, but when that after you put that pipeline in, it makes the most sense just to finish it right then. That way, it's done. And if that never cuz if that never gets done, I'd hate to put it in now, have you come back, rip out the road in a year and then that and then that never get built or however I just assume if it's not going to get built after you rip it out then put the road in. Are you saying something like assess the land the applicant for the cost of building that road today just put it in the bank and then use that whenever the project along

or if they [clears throat] and then have the city build the road.

Oh, have the developer I I can't I'm along those same lines that that's thinking like I don't like the idea of the road going in then getting ripped out then have a patched road for the rest of its existence. But could we structure it so that we place the burden I mean the burden place the expense of that road on the developer but have it go in after the pipe is in place. So, so one of one of the things that that Utah law permits to be exacted is the land underneath the road and and and we get a lot of comments from developers, usually not very happy comments about they don't get paid for the land under the road and the state of Utah allows cities to exact that land ownership with the same policy of public roads allow public movement and and and are good for communities. The city also can exact roads, sorry, also exacts the cost of installation and construction of the road, the first the first version that gets accepted and then from there the city takes it, maintains it forever and replaces it and all of that. But but there's an exaction both in the land underneath it as well as the the the the project, the actual construction of the road. city then would inspect and accept and then they dedicate it to the city. They're forever released from any more duties or obligations or liabilities associated with the roadway. Their their duty of exaction that comes with development. This one's unique because they're not trying to break it up into the smallest lots and the greatest density like is the most common thing we get. And so the ones with super high density, there's rarely any debate about the road and when it needs to happen because it's so much traffic. This one's unique because it's trying to preserve significant acres of historic

use as well as, you know, get get approval so they can, you know, convert some of it from a agricultural use to a residential use. the the idea of the road going in even rather it go in now or immediately after the pipe is there just so that it's yeah clean cleaner developed.

Yeah. I I [clears throat] feel similarly you know that road 1410 it needs to be finished. It is it is just it's it it doesn't make sense in the neighborhood the way it is currently configured. And when you drive down it, it just feels weird. And I don't see how cars are going to be going down any other road than 1410 because they're going to come in off 300. They're going to turn right and that road actually bends and turns into 1410. That's going to be the access point. And so now there's going to be more cars going down that awkward little road to get in. Even if it's just two more houses. Right now there's like five or six houses on there. But when you walk down the road, it's like every single person who's on that house right now, if they have a truck that's parked on the street, if they have a trailer, if they have a car that even like is on the road a little bit, it's so weird. It's so pinchy. It's just awkward. It needs to be fixed. Um, I I think for me that knowing that there's a big storm drain that's going in there kind of shifts it. I don't know if it makes sense to tear it to to put it all in now and then tear it out, but whatever the appropriate process is for ensuring that as soon as that storm drain is in, that full thing gets developed. So, it's like as soon as possible, you know, I I think whatever that appropriate process is is maybe what we should do.

I have another question for you, John. maybe helps with I'm assuming your your storm drain's going in the middle of the street, but where where is is the storm drain going the street that's currently not paved or it's going right in the middle and so you're going to be ripping out both sides anyways? It'll be under the the new section completely. Mhm. Okay. We have our water and sewer already underneath the That was my Yeah, our our existing utilities are under that existing section. So it'll be fully on that north north a there's been times where I've seen, you know, middle grounds where where you would say something like, you know, finish the full width of the roadway and put a curb on it, but you know, allow the sidewalk and other things to to wait until the

Yeah. There's other middle grounds there. [clears throat] Connect to where you're There's no reason to do sidewalk definitely. I mean, well, we don't know how the layout's going to be either if that's the backup. It's mainly it's mainly because if the problem is is like you were saying it's just that it forms a weird axis where they come out of this community and I mean if they go straight it's not an issue but if they turn they're kind of zigzagging in and dodging people's cars and everything else but but we also have that in other places of the city too. So,

I live not far from this and but I'm on Heritage Fields Drive and I'm into the neighborhood. I could go straight and then go right and then go left and then go right. I don't do that. I go right and then I take the road right before this that goes down to my road. And everybody who lives on this road, they turn right and they go down that road. So, I think that's like the flow. They're going to come in off 300 and go right down that awkward road. So even if it's two or three more houses, it's [clears throat] it needs needs to be done so that I like what I like what you're saying. I like the idea of, you know, just doing the cheap asphalt, push the asphalt out, push it into the fence, create an actual road there without investing too much infrastructure this time since we're going to have to just pull it all up. But if it's if it's not very expensive, I think that's a really good middle ground.

Are you shaking your head? No, John. Yes. Want to tell us why? I say my recommendation if you if you're really wanting to push to have this street put in at some point in time.

Can you speak into the mic so we can get that on the recording? [clears throat] If you're wanting to to make as part of your motion the installation of that street, my recommendation would be that it comes after any installation of that storm drain. Anything that you put in there ahead of time will just be a waste and actually increase the overall cost of our project to come in. So, my recommendation would be to not do anything until if you're if [clears throat] that's what you want to do is is force the issue of that street going in at this point in time. At least wait until after we're done with that storm drain project.

That's exactly what I was thinking. Wait till that storm drain goes through and then work with it. It should save both parties money by putting it in after the storm drain goes in. I mean, you put it I don't know. That's a thing. mean something. Do you have any good ideas on how to how to phase this? I'm going to I'm going to open up the public hearing portion of this real quick since I haven't done that.

I think this gentleman We're going to open up the public hearing portion of this. Would anyone like to speak to it? Um I've I've spoken to all the residents. I've I've been there since that subdivision's almost been built. I've been there for two decades. He said, "How long is Dennis Bailey?" Sorry. And we don't oppose this. The only thing that we that live in that neighborhood need is the street. Um, you have one car on there. Try getting a fire engine through there or the garbage truck. He's really I got to give him credit, but he drives at one mile an hour trying to get through that road. That road is a significant issue. when we built there, um Dan Hoop said, "Yeah, it's an understanding that it'll be finished when they start developing this property over here." And I even came to the city and spoke to a gentleman here. I wish I would have wrote it down. I don't know who. And I asked him about that and he goes, "Yeah, someday that road will be finished when they start developing that property. It'll be a key element in that development." And I understand that this piece isn't being developed, but the other half is. And it's all part of one big project. And I understand the storm drain. And I understand that they're not building on that historical part that's remaining agricultural. But we've waited 20 years for something to happen on that. And we've been patient and understanding [clears throat] and we knew it was there and that's what we had to deal with. But now something is happening and we would just like to see something with our road to happen. Like you say, you've driven down it. Most of you know what that road is like. Um so we're only asking for something to help us out with that road. Um and then the only other thing we had a concern about was um you know we've

got that 80 80 unit piece to the west of us, you know, the heritage subdivision and that's and I didn't oppose that at all. It is what it is. Um but we're going to have we've got all that traffic coming through our subdivision or going further to the south and hitting Sandia 2000 South. Um and there's no entrance onto Washington Fields Road um planned on this. Um, so we're concerned about is there going to be an entry someday onto Washington Fields Road for this particular subdivision that will one day go in or is that something that has to be addressed later? I don't know. But that was something that came up in our neighborhood about the egress ingress of that subdivision. It's already harder than heck to get on to Washington Fields Road from our subdivision. It's you got to be really patient and sometimes cross your fingers.

So in a traditional development scenario, the city's window to require the installation of a road starts at preliminary plat application and then the city can refuse approval of a final plat until that's been built and installed. And so one of the challenges we have here as a public works representative is saying, "Look, it would sure be cheaper and better for the city to not have to tear out a road when we do our pipeline." But there is not a mechanism that's in place outside of a separate contract um that would allow the city to exact a roadway if the city were to approve a final plat on this preliminary plat or 10 months, for example. Right. And so I think that's part of what perhaps the engineer for the applicant might help us understand better or propose. But but yeah, would essentially be a contract of some terms that would need to be acceptable to the to the decision makers. But yeah, the window to get roads built is traditionally the window between the the preliminary plat, which is what we're looking at today, and then the final plat, which allows them to sell lots and change ownership and all of that stuff.

So there could one day be an entry into that subdivision off of Washington Fields Road. That's a good question. I don't know. Um, appears that way. The way that they've designed it in the roundabout, it has the branch that looks like it's going to extend up to Washington Fields Road, but that's not there's no guarantees there. And and the timing of that happening. [clears throat]

Washington Fields Road is a is rated as a large arterial and there's standards that limit the the proximity between different driveways and there's not a driveway very far away from that one. And so they would have to they would have to come and get approval from the city for a new access point off of Fields Road. And it would have to meet the distancing both on on the side of the road that it's using as well as um line line up with other access points on the other side of the road. And so and so I don't know that there's enough distance for that. That's part of why you don't see many more driveways along Fields Road than what's already there is the city's regulated those into certain points of of turning. And so, um, I think the best answer today is that they probably don't have enough space to put a driveway in there. Um, but the codes exist. They could try and and see if they could fit one in somehow,

but yeah, I don't think right now that that's the reality. The reality is that they would come out those roads that are already there. That wasn't as significant a big deal as getting 14 10 finished. Yeah. And and we could still be another five. We you know it's on the master plan. What's the master plan? Five years 10 years. We're [clears throat] back to square one again. So that you bring up a concern of mine. I guess looking at the existing roads and the distance between them. Why could there not be another road tying into Washington Fields Road? And maybe John can help us answer. John will know those numbers better than me.

I mean, the distance from Washington Dam Road to that first entrance and same thing going to uh River Shadow or whatever. The distance to that road is significantly different.

Yeah, I took a look at this earlier just in case this came up. Um there would be there would be room from say Rancho Vista um up um it's distance of 660 ft. It's a major major reflector major arterial um so there could be um unsalized um intersection on coming out of this parcel. Um there's clear distance 660 from the north and from the south from the streets that are there. under our under our rules, under our code, yes, an an access point could be granted if they so requested with a part of their development. Um,

I'll let them speak as to what their plan is for future there, though. I just have a little comment about that, which is every car that gets added to whatever lots end up in this subdivision, if there's not an access point already coming out of that neighborhood, the the light from Washington Dam Road backs up and it's a real problem. It's it it can take five minutes to make a left-hand turn there. There's no lights and getting so actually there was another access point over there. I think the neighborhood would love that. And even if they add more lots over there, I think that would make a huge difference to how people feel about that. Um because it would alleviate some of the stress and pressure that that neighborhood is already feeling, especially with all those other lots that just got added. There's a lot of congestion pressure going on right there. So, um I'm not sure what you know that was another concern I had about this from the beginning was it's difficult to make decisions about this because we can't see the grand vision. We don't know what's happening with those other

but and sounds like okay yeah they're they're not you know they're ultimately you know it is all public roads down there so they they can access and use those those roads and stuff. Um I don't have a mechanism in which to currently in you know require them to make an access point on to Fields Road. So it's kind of one of those where we have to work with the developer to try and try and if they were doing something that was of much higher density.

Yes. Then I would have more of a mechanism in which to force additional access points because typically what um our our code and stuff reads is when I hit the magic number of 30 I have to have two access points. I'm at two with this at least what they're proposing and stuff. So I'm kind of tied at this point in time with that. I I definitely understand what you're saying. We see the traffic pattern and and everything. So, no, I appreciate it.

I don't know about you, but I usually turn right and go down and make a U-turn at the churches and come back. That's about the only way you can get back onto Washington Fields Road out of that subdivision during certain times of the day. It is crazy. Um, again, that wasn't as big an issue with us as 1410 South. Um, having something done with that. So, we would appreciate your consideration. Thank you. Thank you. I'll let the [clears throat] applicant speak in a second, but is there any more people that have any more public hearings? Oh, I'm not

I I was going to just add one thing. I just added up what it would cost. And I think this is significant reason to not pave it. Although I understand why the good reasons to pay it. But in terms of cost, it cost them $41,000 to pave it now. And the city cost about 60,000 or so to rip it out and and repave it. So you're looking at $100,000, you know. Yeah. Which is not insignificant burden to put on somebody. All right. I will close the public hearing portion of this. Now, would the applicant like to speak to us? [clears throat]

First of all, we're really not developers. We're a family. And this property has been in our family for probably a hundred years plus. And our goal is to build a home for my husband and I and my son and his family. Um and then keep the other um pasture land and farmland for cows and horses. Um the easement for a road along 1410 we're not against. It's more a money issue. We're not making money on this. We're putting money into it. Um so basically it's the cost really. So, we would we just wanted to go in, have a circle big enough for a fire truck to turn around. We don't go up 1410. We go out. My husband works um down and out that way. Um we go out and go out the main way. We do not even go up and down 1410. So, um you know, basically

that is

Yeah, we It's too small. It's like a little lane. It's kind of like a little lane. Don't you look kind of like a little private lane, but we would if if you make us go and come off of Washington Fields Road, we will just scrap it and keep it all farmland forever. We don't want to do that. We want it to be private. We want it to be be intimate. Um, and that's our goal. It's just ending up costing us a fortune. can't afford to put 1410 in right now. So, we are at the point of retirement and we're on a budget. So, there you have it. [laughter] So, uh, Corey, your estimation of 40,000 that would be

out like say we wait and put that asphalt uh that's house asphalt curb getter and that's actually check so I don't know if the [clears throat] city wants to put any money into it if they want to give us permits or whatever do a tra I you know we're we're workable there. Yeah, I'm just thinking in my mind, yeah, 40,000 is not significant. I mean, a 20,000 to each owner of the one in lot one and lot two. It's not a huge burden, but then would definitely help out that your neighbors.

Here's my thought on this. I think the idea the idea of of taking [snorts] the land and and and forcing the street to be put on, you know, to be to be paid for by development, is with the understanding that that they're bringing on additional burden to the city and they're bringing on additional people that are living there, paying their driving there, etc. But where they're not planning on doing that, um, you know, they own the property. I mean, they they have the right to to do what with their property what they want and and and that doesn't mean we have to say, "Hey, you have to put this road in as if it were a 100 unit development. So, I don't think that's particularly fair." Now, at the same time, nice for these other homeowners if that ever gets done, but it's, you know, it's just, I mean, when their houses went in, their development went, that's just what it was. You do half the road and it is what it is. I mean, I don't know if they if if the plan is to leave it leave it pasture land, I don't know. I mean, I I don't think it's quite fair to say, "Hey, you have to pave this at some point in time because they're not going to develop it, there's no any any cause to to say that. I mean, if they decide to sell it or develop it, then sure. But if not,

yeah, I agree with that. This I don't think we have the right to say, hey, you have to pave this road here, you know, alongside your farm, you know. I mean, we haven't done that with Staley Farms or any of these other farms around town, you know, made them put in curb and gutter and everything else. I mean, it's like it's like going to your house, Dad, and saying, "You have to put in curbon gutter alongside just because I mean, begging and pleading for somebody to

I know. My my point is is that if they're not if they're leaving at farmland, I think as is what it is, but I I also think maybe I maybe they could maybe they could could give the city the land for that half the road and let the city decide what to do with that when you put in your storm drain." Else, I know. So, so we will exact the land. They are giving. They must give the land with their platting. Um, and they may never develop that part. That's all I'm saying. And, and so all I'm saying is they may never do anything with it. If that's the case, I mean, you put your storm drain in and at one point in time, maybe the city wants to finish it or maybe they don't. I mean, I don't know. I'm not saying the city has to. I'm just saying we'll have the land. And

feel like though this is the opportunity to get the road finished. I mean, you got a new owner that's coming in and wanting to improve their property. Improve it to accommodate the rest of the neighborhood. It's not a new owner. It's an original owner that's had the land in the family forever. That's that's a good point. So, we actually deeded the other half of the road to to I believe it was Staly's that put that neighborhood in. We deeded that property to them so they could even have a Can you speak into the mic, please? We deeded that half of the road that's in there 1410 to the developer previously. Um, so I so that they could have that road. Then

I might correct a little bit. So this is a family that's sold the land for Walmart and Home Depot. So you're a developing family. We we can't hide from that because the legal owner of this land we didn't own the land Walmart's on. legal owner of this land is the same entity that's developing land across from Costco, right? And so, and so I'm not trying to say you're not farmers because you are. And your family has defended farming with as much strength and vigor as any family I know. My brother still farms that land. He's crying because I'm building a house on Yeah. It's also a family that's done well developing farmland in the area, right? And so,

um, before this application, the city hasn't had ownership of that second half of the land. And so, one thing that we gained with an application is is they would dedicate to the city with this plat that that roadway. Is that correct, Rick? Are you not showing that as dedicated? Are you talking about the north half of 1410? Uhhuh. No. Oh, so we're not even getting an easement for the storm drain, but not the roadway. Correct. Okay.

Yeah. Yeah. And I just want to point out also there's 16 ft of pavement on 1410. I think that is kind of the the heart of what the issue is. The city requires when we go put a a roadway in or something is like at least 25 if not 30 ft, right? 26 26. Yeah. Okay. 27 minimum of asphalt if we do a half road or something like that. And Susan did not create this issue. It was the developer before that did the

the subdivision there. So, I don't know why she is responsible for fixing that problem now when it's not she didn't even make the problem. You know what I mean? And she's not going to be using that road. It's those people that live there that use the road. She doesn't need to fix a problem somebody else created. So when the easement was provided for that road, was enough property given to allow that 25 foot of road was that part of I wasn't around for that those decisions or whatever went past the pavement currently as shown on his map. They could have paid it.

They they had the right to have extended over into their property that much further. Okay. be something that you you ask for just to help accomplish where you hope the city eventually gets, which is at least at least dedicate the next the next bit for the city to build a roadway someday when it's ready. That would align with what public works wants to do with drainage, but not require people to spend money building something today that's going to be torn up. because it sounds like way it's presented you tonight is if the city ever wants that road to be widened before they develop the seven acres the city's going to have to come buy an easement from or a roadway from them as well.

Yeah. I mean to me I understand the desire to build a little family sanctuary back there and I love it. I'm really glad to hear that. I think everybody in the neighborhood will like that um for several reasons. Um, I I do think that building that and and getting that access point and putting in, you know, that little mini culde-sac, you know, that road 1410, it's got to be fixed. We're going to the city's going to have to get that property one way or another. I'll tell you what, she'll give you the property and you guys can do whatever you want with it.

I think should be done. You guys can put a road base down to widen out the drivable surface if you want or pave it or whatever you want to do. She'll give you the property. Has the city I I appreciate that. Has the city ever done something in this situation where they share the costs like at some kind of a split? Is it either one or the other? [laughter] City taxes people. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. Let the city said deal with it. I like that, but I don't know if we I don't know if we're the body that makes that decision. I don't know. If you dedicate the land over the city or the road, but you can also say you also put an exception, hey, if you ever change your mind, turn all that land into a development or whatever.

Susan, you're okay to build that part of the road later, right? when you develop that portion of the subdivision. You won't have to. I just I mean if we don't if we leave a pasture land I don't want to end up paving it. Can you Can you I'm sorry. They're just trying to record. Please speak into the mic. What we're saying what we're saying is just deed that property over to the city. Yeah. I don't know whatever whatever whatever they need to make the road 11t full 50 foot ride to make it a full make it a full road. So is that is that showing where the turn is? Is that the where it will go? It's like a foot past the sidewalk.

Okay. And so then but if you if you guys develop it then you have to put it in. Yeah, we [clears throat] understand. if we develop and if not you just give it to the city and if that way they don't have that way you guys don't have to buy buy if they never get to it. So do you think the city will end up putting it in if I deed the property now? Do you think they will end up putting it in soon? No. No. Yeah. What the public works representative has said is they they public works doesn't view that as a roadway that is a priority to build unless and until more density comes on the land adjacent to it. Well, it but when they put the when they put the storm drain down the road possibly that maybe one or two of our other kids will come and build by us

then they [clears throat] will put that in and at that point that's when they would that's when we would pay. So then maybe the better thing maybe instead of giving the land away because then the city's stuck with land that they don't want to to pave maybe the better way is to include the full rightway uh easement on here so that way it's already there. You don't ever have to worry about getting an ement or this or that. The easement is there, but you know, at any point in time, if you guys decide to develop that land, then you come back and you you pay for the road. Yeah. But we also don't have to argue about getting easements or this or that. If if it never gets It sounds like the neighborhood wants it now. So, what do you do? Well, from they they don't have any say that it's not

try to force it. You're not going to do it. But, um either way, it's not going to happen right now. Okay. Can we negotiate about Can the neighborhood go in together and build it? Do they want to special? They don't own the property. They can't do it. Special tax assessment. I can pay you to build it. Oh, I see. I just want to go home. Just I [laughter] So this Mr. Mel, I mean, I'm still a little bit hung up on this is $40,000. This is Well, we don't know what it is. I don't know what that's just that's just what that's just what he's saying. I don't know.

That's a ballpark. And then and then a [clears throat] fence, you know, a new fence on the side of it. It adds up without without having an actual bid. I mean, Corey, you're good. But I mean, my point though is whether it's $40,000 or $40, it's not if they're not going to develop it. Yeah. It's it's not our responsibility to put that burden on them, even if the neighbors across the street want it. That's just not correct. That's not right. buy at the same time if this but they're not developing that portion. That's not how they are developing that portion because it was all one portion to begin with. Yeah, but they're putting two lots over here. I mean, we're not talking 20 lots. We're talking two.

If we talking be like, okay, I get it. You'd have a significant number of people coming out there, but with two people, it's not going to change the the traffic on that street as it currently is in its existing state because it's being changed being this is a to make it right. Talk into your mic. Sorry. I do feel like though that the with the making the change, this is an opportunity to make it right. Yeah. Partially. Yeah. Partially developing that. Wrong. Are we What wrong are we trying to make right? that [clears throat] she that she

well she hasn't no she hasn't done it but she is wanting to make an improvement right on her property so why not make the full improvement why only do a partial improvement I kind of see what you're saying because they're not improving I mean they're not improving that side they're improving the access into where those two lots are but that is a third lot so it is you know I understand I understand [clears throat] that too it's a third lot Say that again. You can sell that you can sell that third lot to someone else cuz now there's three there's three different partial ID numbers on that now. Not one, three. So therefore, it is three lots. They could sell that lot tomorrow if they felt like it.

That would be the if they sold it undeveloped then then it might not ever get developed again or however they came into. And if somebody came in for a building permit on that third lot, the city would say, "No, you have to put the street frontage in." You still [snorts] have a chance to say what needs to happen at that time. So, let me let me throw this out there. Okay. We're putting all the all the burden on that lot, too, instead of all. [clears throat] Yep. They own the property. They can sell it and recoup that money when they sell it. So, part of the challenge with tonight is the history that some at some point in the past only a partial road And a full one probably should have been I think is what Rick is saying. At least a half. At least the full half. Yeah.

It was.

Yeah. At some point in the past the mistake of not requiring the full thing is haunting us tonight and it's a difficult element for this applicant. Um I think you're wrestling with it as good as you can wrestle with it. I don't know that there is a perfect answer. Um, one idea that has come to me is, you know, let's at least get the city ownership of the roadway there, the land, so that when and if that becomes such a necessity that the city can then go fund it or the city can keep waiting for the next next application that would build it out, right? And that's at least more progress than than we've met so far, right? That farther down the road than we've ever been before. That also addresses this question of, you know, should we make and build something that we're just going to tear out at some point? Now, the challenge is that project that we're talking about for storm drain, it's not in this year's budget. It's not going to be in next year's budget probably either, right? Like it's somewhere in the future, but it's not immediately in the future either. And so, we're balance trying to balance all of those balls and come up with a rational reasonable solution. And and so I don't know that it's going to be perfect, but but there might be something that that that can work still.

Well, so here's my next question. If we if they deed it over to the city now, do they have to put it in later? Do they have to put it in where they don't own the property?

My suggestion would be because public works is saying, "Please don't put that in yet because it'll make it more expensive for our future project." Because that's what I hear them saying is it's going to cost them more to dig up roadway and sidewalk and install a storm drain than if it was just raw land. That's what I hear. Um that we might traditionally we would say you don't dedicate us a road until there's a a road improvement finished on it with the right width of asphalt and the right shape and size of curbing until all of that meets city standard. They don't accept it as public. So we would be essentially creating an exception where we say look at least just give us the full width for city for for public for a public road and then we would acknowledge that in light of these circumstances um the roadway won't be required to be built at this time. Now that's that's just the the kind of middle ground suggestion. This group can say build it all build it all with this one too if if that's how you how the how you want to do it. I don't think we need to build it all if it's going to cost the city more to rip it out to put that storm drain in. Unless they decide to develop it before the storm drain goes in.

That's that's my thing. I'm I'm fine with that. I don't think it need to be built now. I mean, it'd be nice if you could run a grater and throw something on it so they could get around, but I understand you can't. Dad, what do you um there was an an option brought up about granting an access easement right now for the rest of that 50 foot rideaway. Is that a an alternative that there's been some concern also if we grant the rideway itself then there might be some complication with making the developer pay for the improvements later if the city already owns the land. But if we grant an easement right now,

just an easement, they can still sell the property. At any time the city can come in and say like if we want to add some more road base out there to make a a bypass for fire trucks or whatever, you know, to go around park cars or whatnot, you know, that would be that solution also helps the city not have to split their policy in half about public road dedications, right? And so that would that would allow the solution for for a wider width of of ingress and egress without public works having to, you know, cut their baby in the half on the on the road road acceptance policy.

That's yeah, I like that idea. We'll do it that way. And so I think what the proposal would mean is you there's an amended plat or at least a condition that says the the final preliminary plat that gets approved by staff would show additional uh public public roadway easement. Um that would then you know allow allow those type of installations to help improve that the width of that passageway and that that goes to the back sidewalk. That's us. Well, I mean, so it gives road, curb, gutter, sidewalk. So, it gives the city the rights, but then they don't contribute at all to the cost.

Yes. The city can they can upgrade if they want with gravel or whatever or just have access or or nothing. But it just makes sure they the city always has the easement. This happens all the time. This is way better because then like if they sell the property, they can still sell that property including the ement. If someone develop it, develops it or if they develop it, that person has to put the next the next development. We'll take care of way to do it. I think my my ideal solution would be that combined with whenever that gets developed, they pay for a percentage of the of the development as well. Well, the people the people that develop it will put will pay they'll pay for all of it. They'll pay for all of it. Comes in and later develops.

Leaving an easement that means that whoever developed it pays for all of it. I see. If the city, if they were to give it to the city, then it's on the city's dime 100%. Okay. Commissioner Anderson, I'll make a motion to approve. Why do we never have numbers on these?

What is it anyway? to to approve the preliminary plat for Hartwood Hartwood Farm subdivision located approximately 1410 South Heritage Fields Drive with the findings and conditions outlined staff plus an extra condition number 15 that at the recording of the final plat a full width uh public rightaway easement will be um granted dedicated the right word no it's noted I I would have that be shown on the on the final plat. Yeah, the final plat will show the the conveyance of a of a right ofway conveyance. That's the right word I was looking for. Thank you.

Commissioner Tupo, I second that. I'm first by Commissioner Anderson, second by Commissioner Tupo. Individual voting. Commissioner Anderson. Commissioner Mitchell. Hi. Commissioner Tupo. I. Commissioner Yor I. I'm Commissioner Bulock. I'm an I as well. Thanks. Item adjournment item five. Right. This Commissioner Mitchell. I move that we adjourn. Second. Have a first and a second for adjournment. All in favor? I. All right. Thanks, guys. Good night.