Cache County Planning Commission Meeting – 04-02-2026

Ladies and gentlemen, we'd like to welcome you out tonight to the 04/02/2026, Cache County Planning and Zoning Commission. We're appreciative of your attendance and also appreciative of our commissioners being here. At this time, we are gonna open tonight's meeting with some opening remarks by Nate Dawgs who and then he will also lead us in the pledge of allegiance.

I give my remarks in the form of a prayer. And we we thank the opportunity we have to have these freedoms in this great country, in this great state. And we thank you for the moisture that we've received these last couple of days. And please bless us with continued moisture so that we'll have enough for our needs throughout the summer. And we say these things in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.

Amen.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you, Nate. I too would like to reiterate our appreciation and gratefulness for the moisture that we've received. This is everyone had the opportunity to review tonight's agenda. Connor, are we good as provided? Yep. For someone, we need to make I'll make a motion to approve the agenda. K. Second. I second the motion. Thank you. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? K. Has everybody had the opportunity to review the minutes from our March meeting? And is there any thoughts, concerns, or such from the minutes?

I didn't see anything.

I make a motion to approve the minutes. I'll second. Thank you. Thank you. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed?

All abstain. I was not in attendance.

Say that one more time. I was staying. I was not here. Okay. Thank you. We have a a manageable agenda tonight. The first two items that we have are consent items. We'll give staff the time to share whatever they'd like to on them. We I had a visit I I failed to excuse our chairman, Kurt Bankhead. He had some family stuff tonight that took precedence over the meeting, so he asked me to conduct. But in speaking with him and Chris, I just wanted the you guys' thoughts on this. We used to take a minute and acknowledge that people were here that had come for the even the consent items if they wanted to share their thoughts. And then we, for whatever reason, kinda got away from that. But are you guys okay if we moving forward, we kinda go back to that even if it's a consent item, if there's people that's taken time to come, if they so desire to share their thoughts that they're heard.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

K. Let's go ahead,

Connor then. And Yeah. So the first consent item is the EASI CUP amendment extension request. Basically, it's just a request for a six month extension of the approval that was already given. Staff's recommending approval of it. They are making progress moving forward or at least trying to make progress. So I really should give them that extension.

K. Thank you. Do you want us to do you want us just to vote on that one now, or do you wanna go ahead and talk about the second one and then do them all together? We can talk about the second one if you'd like.

So the second one is at Cherry Hill Ranch Subdivision. It's a request to create a three lot subdivision. Lot one will be 27.5 acres. Lot two will be 22 or 12.26. Lot three will be 10.1. The applicant has provided a will serve letter from Richmond City. Justin Lewis want me to emphasize the fact that this will serve is specifically just for the Brooksby Farms, not for the other two parcels. Otherwise, the applicant did provide four total water rights that were approved by the Utah Division Water Rights. They're only asking for two lots, though, so they have sufficient water for that. They also provided a septic feasibility letter. The access will come off of 11000 North, south of the subject parcels, 11000 North. It's classified as a minor collector, provides access to agricultural and residential properties, has an existing width of 21 to 22 feet, a variable right of way, a variable paved shoulder, a four foot gravel shoulder, a 10 foot clear zone, and it's paved. It's considered substandard. It's a right of way and paved shoulder. There is an unpermitted access that's on the left side of the two parcels, so between border of Lot 1 and Lot 3. There's some options that the applicant has. They can remove the access and restore the area or rework it into a shared driveway. The Cache County Fire District did have some comments on this one. They are in the wildland urban interface, so they wanted us to call out the fact that once the applicant gets towards designing and constructing this subdivision, we'll have to work with them to meet those standards. In terms of sensitive lands, there's quite a few, but the most pressing ones, it's in Source Water Protection 2. That's kinda located towards the southeast side of the parcels. Realistically, with that new condiment we just did, they can just move their septic drain fields outside of that source water two zone area, so it's nothing too crazy. Water and drainage corridors, we did call out that there's stream and drainage corridors that are present on the property. Part of their flat would be providing a hydrological report and identifying those stream corridors. There's also concern about wetlands. Any development they do that are in those wetland areas, they'll have to work with the Army Corps of Engineers and meet all their standards. In terms of noticing, everything was completed on the twentieth. The agenda was also posted to the county website on the twentieth as It is a consent item, so staff automatically recommends approval of it. So

Connor, I have one question. Mhmm. We don't have the copy of the Richmond City letter, but you clarified I just I wanted to reclarify. The city had gave their approval, but it was in relative to the 10 acre parcel on the front there. And it's my understanding that that lot due to, I believe, a water line city water line crossed that property. They made an arrangement, a prior arrangement to have a hookup to the city water. Is that correct? I'm not sure about the specifics. I just know that Justin Lewis said that they do have a hookup. So

k. Yeah. He wants me to emphasize the point very emphatically. It's just for that one lot. Just that one. K.

Commissioner, is there any other thoughts, questions?

No. I think to your point as far as, you know, how you wanna handle the consent items, I think it's fine just to ask if there's anyone in the I mean, we've obviously seen the comments that come in on this item and makes sense to ask if there's anyone here to speak on either one of those items. But and so then we would just pull them out of that consent agenda and listen to them as a regular item if that's what you choose.

So you're suggesting then that we need to pull it out of a consent if we see pull it out of the consent if people if you wanna give people the opportunity to comment about it. K. Should we ask if somebody's here for one and if they're not or wanna comment, we can take care of that. Did in the past. Yeah. Is there anyone here tonight that would that came specifically for item one, the, postponement, the six month extension of the, Mendon commercial. ASI. ASI. K.

Seeing that there is none. I'll make a motion that we, approve ASI CUP amendment for the six month extension.

I'll second it. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. So, Chris, would you be willing to make a motion then to move that? Let let's ask first, is there anyone here tonight for item two that would like to comment? K. Would you be willing to make a motion and move that out of the consent item? So moved. I'll second that. Second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? K. At this time, if you've come tonight or would like to make a comment regarding item two, the Cherry Hills. Apologize on Cherry Hill Ranch Subdivision. Thank you. The Cherry Hill Ranch Subdivision. Please come up to the pulpit, state your name, and if you get three minutes or less, just share your thoughts or concerns. Would would you be willing to go first, or do you wanna wait for the other comments?

We'll go last. Okay.

K. Go ahead then. Come up if you wanna comment.

Zane Christiansen representing the Cherry Creek Water Company, up in the top portion of that screen. I'm the secretary, water user on in our company. We have 11 shares and a couple of other, houses that come off of that from water. That chair whole Cherry Creek Watershed is a finite system. Like, whatever water comes out of the air falls into it, and that's the only place that water comes from. As you can see, over time, all of everything in red has, I don't know, come into that watershed and is now taking water. Representing the Cherry Creek Water Company, we've had two of our springs dry up west of this watershed. We have another spring that in 2022 Yes. And the Bowman Spring right there where it says Cherry Creek Water Company, lack of Because of lack of water increased usage on this watershed, we've had to go in and and lower our intake on this this spring, this point of diversion that we have right there. So our concern is, obviously, right there, we're there below our point of diversion. And what's this gonna do? Are we gonna have to go in there and lower it again? Like I say, it's a it's a finite resource out of this canyon of water. And I don't know that we've added in the past how many ever years a whole pile of houses. A ski resort. Richmond City's expanded their tank. Like, gosh, we got a fight on the bucket and we all take a cup out of it. There's only so many cups we can take. So that's my my one concern. My second concern is in this this area. Is there any and maybe more of a question. Is there, any regulations the county has of transferring water right points of diversion? I know that the state waters, they allow that. But as far as our county, I mean, gosh. Go let's go do a point of version for a 100 houses out of this canyon. All of us got a brain in our head. We know that the water isn't yeah. The state will allow us to do it, but is there any regulations the county will just say that, hey. Maybe that's not a good idea to take a 100 more houses of water out of that area? Area.

So the the county does know yeah. We don't have any co jurisdiction for that. That's all done by state water rights. And there's no

there's no laws or rules we can pass?

There's there's none currently in place. I mean, someday, something could be done, but currently, there's nothing. I would encourage to do so because I'm 37

years old and grantees say that drought. But every year, the flow out of our springs, obviously, two of them have dried right up that come out of this drainage since we've been building increasing water usage of this finite canyon. Like, I I just don't know how many more gallons of water can physically be taken out of this system. Are there any questions for me or that? Thank you. Okay. So, yeah, I would ask if the county would look into that as, like, maybe we ought to be able to transfer in water rights and points in diversion to places where finite resources are there. Thank you.

What do I do? State my name? Yep. Jana Barlow. So we just purchased this property last year, and the water ride that came with the property has been there for a hundred years. So it was just already transferred over, and then we actually purchased more water rides from a spring that was on probably the one that he was referring to, which was already there, and we just transferred it over. And instead of tapping into that spring, we're doing a well. So it's just kind of a transfer of the water rights that already exist. So and this is a 10, which means there's not gonna be a 100 houses there. We're building one.

Jenna, can I just ask a question to you? Sure. So it's my understanding, part of our part of our procedure or our responsibility here tonight, and Connor correct me if I'm wrong, prior to your purchase of this property, that was all one parcel. Mhmm. But just prior to your purchase, which would have been October 1 at twenty five or prior to that, they did a boundary split, but it wasn't officially it didn't go through the official process. Exactly. And so tonight, your goal is to get two lots on the property that you own Mhmm. And then refigure the third lot, which was the original initial lot. Right. The original owner. If you only want one home Yep. Are you okay with just one parcel or do you wanna go through at the time? Well, we're doing two just because if we ever do anything in that other one with our kids building in the future,

it has access from the the the Southeast Side to that main road. But, also, that area is in the red zone, and so it it would be tricky to build there. So we're using it all for green Belt except a a little half acre parcel for our own home for now. Cool. Mhmm. Any other questions, commissioners? K.

Okay. Thank you. Is there anybody else here tonight that came and wanted to speak further? K. We appreciate those that did speak. Commissioners, I have a little information I'd like to share, and I'm gonna recuse myself because of my relationship to those that wrote letters. But is there any comments, questions from anybody here? So I I this is this is nothing personal to the Bartos. They bought the land and they have the rights, but just some real quick history. This this property used to go from the east line right there on what they're doing is the border with the Elk Refuge or the state, and it went all the way down to 2000 East. So I think there's been seven lots broke off and now there'll be three more. And in 2014, they actually held a hearing right here in this room. I listened to it last night, February 2014 with the state when they did the the the gentleman that owns the 10 acres, he tried to develop them first for him and get the water rights. And they had six opposers to that to them water rights identifying everything that Zane brought up and that was clarified in those letters. And, just with what we've been doing recently, trying to identify areas, I would I I I think it's worth consideration because right now, Richmond City pulls the majority of their water out of that canyon. Richmond irrigation gets the excess and then you rely on there's at least two. One of the letters, I just wanna mention it or note it, that well, I also had a I had a question on and and this was recently changed, but where's the frontage for the how's the frontage taken into consideration for these two additional lots that'll be behind that 10 acres? So what they're doing is they're making a flag lot right here. So they're kicking that out,

and this just has access along them. Yeah. Right there. Oh, the top part. Okay. That makes total sense. K? So split, I think, and Janet can correct me, but it's loosely like that.

So this one will get access via their frontage via that way, and then this one has it. K. So so that does bring up another concern where we were possibly well, I I did look at the parcel map that was drawn, but there's wetlands. The the wetlands are clearly identified maybe halfway down that north section of trees from the parcel map that was provided by the Hansen engineer that's at the bottom page eight of our packet. It need it really needs to be respected, those areas, because there's a where it says Forrester and Family and Associates west of the driveway. Right there. Yep. There's three more homes that rely on surface water from them wetlands that feeds their houses. And so if roads, power lines or whatever else were to cross any of those wetlands, they've got to be taken into consideration, especially not to change the flow of the water or it could dry that well up overnight. There's actually already a culvert in place. Is there? Yeah. That's awesome to know. Yep. The only other thing that I I wanted to point out from the the research that I done was, mainly just I think, you know, if we got other sections of this valley or whatever that we I don't know what if whether it's our responsibility to work with, but septics, whatever else in proximity. I was hoping that in number 15 number 15 identifies the wetlands, but I didn't know on number three if there should be specific mention as they work with the Bear River health department on those septics that they are adequately distanced from those wetlands as to not pollute that water source of forest drains.

Yeah. The assumption is that Bear River Health Department will take that into account. Okay. Just something that's that stamp permit. K.

Is there any other comments, thoughts?

Maybe one comment is Aine's point. So the county is we've been having meetings with with the county, the county council, the water district, Bay River health department, and the state engineer on ground water policy in Cache Valley. It's a slow process because it's affects a lot of things. We're also doing a a ground water study. It's a two year study on the ground water recharge where it comes from. So we are in the process of looking at some of that. But in the in the meantime, yeah, there's just there's just nothing in in our purview that we can, you know, make any requirements to that currently. So if if they have the water right from the state, then then we we move forward with it. But we are looking at that. So we are trying to address that for future growth. I I don't I'll talk to you after you feel we have not taken any more comments at this point, I think, but happy to talk to you. Thanks for that clarification. Yeah.

At this point, if there's no further discussion amongst the commissioners, again, I'm gonna refrain from voting. But is there someone who wants to make a motion?

Mister chairman, I move that we approve the Cherry Hill Ranch subdivision with the 16 conditions and two conclusions.

Thank you. I'll second that motion.

All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Opposed. K. So one opposed and I recused myself, but motion passes four four four. So thank you. Thank you for those that attended, for your thoughts, your concerns, and for helping us. At this time, we're gonna go ahead. If if if that's all you came for, you're welcome to leave. At this point, we'll move along to our third item, which were passed, and I apologize, our public hearing for the Riverside 2 rezone.

This time, we'll turn time over to staff to present that. Yeah. So this is the Riverside 2 rezone. It's requesting rezone a total of 15.47 acres from the eight ten zones to the rule five zone. And the maximum number of potential lots is three. That's why they're allowed to apply even though they're about a mile north of Paradise. As some history, this parcel was involved in a rezone attempt in 2024 to the R U 2 zone, but it was denied. The parcel does not match the configuration ahead on 08/08/2006 as a portion was dedicated to Cache County, so it's still a legal parcel. Properties to the north and west are primary agricultural, while properties to the east and south are a mix of agricultural and residential. The nearest property that is in the county that's in the rural five zone is located about 1.64 miles to the northwest of the subject property. It's directly south of Hiram Reservoir. Of note, this parcel is never subdivided. In terms of future land use, this property is not located in the future area. Actually, it's located in Paradise. My bad on that one. It's located in the Paradise future annexation area. The general plan says it's the agriculture and ranching zone. The purpose and character of this zone is to preserve the agricultural character of most areas in the valley. Preferred land uses includes agriculture, ranching, conserve public lands, and rural residential uses. Secondary land uses includes industrial and commercial uses directly supportive of agriculture, clustered subdivision developments, and farmworker housing. And discouraged uses includes residential developments at densities of greater than one unit for 10 acres, if not clustered, and industrial and commercial uses. It is also located in the urban expansion overlay. In terms of roads, you have 7800 South to the north and east of the subject parcel. 7800 South is a county road that is classified as a minor local. It provides access to agricultural and residential properties. It has an existing width of 20 feet, a variable right of way, no paved shoulder, and a four foot gravel shoulder. 10 foot clear zone is paved. It's not considered substandard in any category. You also have 7900 South to the south of the subject parcel. It's a county road that's also classified as a minor local, provides access to agricultural and residential properties, has an existing width of 20 feet, a variable right of way, no paved shoulder, no gravel shoulder. Also, the 10 foot clear zone is gravel. It's considered substandard as the gravel shoulder and material. The Cache County Fire District had no comments. The applicant will need to work with waste management for solid waste disposal. Noticing was completed on March 20. At the time of writing the staff report, one public comment had been received from Paradisetown. Paradisetown has no issues with the rezone. No other public comments have been received either. Staff has no recommendation, but we'll help you draft the letter to county council.

Thank you, Connor. At this point, is there any questions that commissioners have prior to opening public public committee or public

In the in the future land use map, it doesn't point out the location. It's outside of that urban expansion area that we had on the on that map. Is that right, Connor? I know. It's partially inside of it.

Yeah. It is. Let's see.

All the way.

Just the hallway. Yeah. Pretty much all in it.

Just the little knob to the west. That vision's going on.

Just the part that drops off the heels, not in it. So it has it in our packet there.

Yeah. And It's old stuff has. Right? There's the that's the parcel at

at hand, and then that's the surrounding. I was just looking for that urban

I think that's this map. So if you scroll down a little more Okay. Up. Yeah. There you go. Right there.

That's yeah. You can look at this one. Okay. Thank you. Did that take care of that question? Any other questions, commissioners? This time is our motion open to public meeting.

So open the public meeting. Thank you.

Second. All in favor of open This time, we'd invite you to come up if you, are interested in commenting on or further question regarding the Riverside 2 rezone. Please state your name and share your thoughts. Try to keep it three minutes.

My name is Wayne Root, and I work on that property. And we own partials around that as well, and the Half Circle D Ranch. So our main focus on that is we raise our beef cattle there and have an agricultural business. And we want the lots for our two boys to build on there, we have our house on there already which takes one of the lots already. So there'll be two more houses for the boys. We paid and improved that road, put the 50 foot circle in there, and then give it to the county. It cost me $80,000 out of our pocket that we wasn't planning on doing. Last year, we came in to do an RU 2 zone, and we was part of that fiasco meeting that went down, and I don't think we got a fair shake at that time. But, there has been some approvals on RU 2. The Shepherd Rezone is two blocks south of us that got approved a couple of weeks ago. And then I went through the archives and found some partials that kind of match the size of ours. There's one in Cove that got changed, that got allowed to do an RU five of 32 acres. There's one in Wellsville that was 14 acres that was able to be changed. And then, there was one in College Ward that actually was a 10 and a half acre that got, it was able to change to an RU two. When we put in the road, we was told we had to put in the road because we was the first house on the county road. So, in our mind, we're thinking, okay, we're the first house, so we shouldn't have any problem building the houses for our children there. It's the original homestead of my wife's family and we put in the road and we was told we had to put it in for the services. No services come down there. We cannot get the garbage to come down. The county comes down and makes one sweep with the snow. I have to get up and move the snow with our tractors so that they can get out my wife can get out to work. It's such a mess when they come through to plow the snow. The garbage won't come down, the school bus wouldn't even come down when our daughter was going to school. And we was told that's why we had to put the road in, was for emergency services garbage. At the time when we built our houses during COVID, the county and the garbage was going through their spill about changing the garbage or whatever, now we have waste management and we've never been able to get the garbage to come down there and pick up our garbage. I gotta wheel it up clear up to 400 every Tuesday. So I don't, you know, I paid all that money for that road. It's a nice road and the county did pay their portion, but I had to pay my portion. And, it cost us a lot out of our, life savings that we saved for our house. It was about $80 out of my pocket that I had to put into that. And we was told that it was the first house on the county road. So you know again we're thinking well okay then our kids can build on there too. The Murray family will probably build on it and when, the Lucy was the attorney, he was mentioned something that whoever builds on that road would, we would get some kickback money. I don't I don't care if I get that. I really don't care if I get that. But last time on our RU2, we had a lot of comments saying that, well, we want to keep it this way and there's a there's partials to the side of you that are in are in conservation that that's what they want it. I don't care what anybody does with their land and they shouldn't care what we do with our land. We've built I'm a construction. I do general contracting. We bought land and built homes and the neighbors come and talk to us and say, well that's where our kids used to play. I said, well, then you should have bought this land and let your kids play on it. And I watch commercials of Governor Cox saying that the counties and cities need to loosen their rezoning and expedite their paperwork so we can get permits quicker for housing. So when our boys build out here, the houses that we've already built them and hire them will become available for people to buy for housing. So thanks.

Commissioners, was there any question for the applicant? K. I have I have one question. May maybe cut for him? Yes. Would you mind coming back up?

As far as Paradise is concerned, have you approached Paradise City at all about becoming part of Paradise City? Yeah. They have no intention. I begged them. I even took $50 bills.

I didn't get that feeling from it. Well, I think it's because they will eventually annex that far out, but there's a lot of other land owners that have to go in first before they can get to this. They can't jump everybody else. Okay. Yeah. And the Shepherd is just, it's just south.

The Shepherd rezone that got and I'm not saying, I don't care if he done that. I'm just saying that, you know, we've gotta be fair across the board for people. I really would rather it be an RU too, not that we're gonna build a bunch of houses on there, but so that my great grandchildren don't have to go through this if they decide they don't want to farm that anymore. And there's a lot of partials in paradise that are so small that they're not farmable, and they become best weed patches.

Thank you. Is there anybody else here tonight that would like to speak?

My name is Travis Rood. I'm the son. So I I would like to build my house on just across the street from my parents there. I work from my dad and I've run that ranch. It's been in the family since 1883. To this day, it's still farming. We've got cows, Got everything. You know, it's basically been my dream to live there. And it's kinda just up to you guys to approve it. And I'd appreciate it if you'd, you know, really look into it and approve it.

So Thank you.

I'm Cody Rood. I'm Wayne Lian's boy. I would also like to build my home next to my brothers out there just for the access of being able to farm it and use it and change water, check on cattle. And, I would like to raise my two little girls out there. I have a lot of memories of being out there with my family and my grandpa and work in the land. And I would like to, share that experience with my two younger girls. And, yeah, I would appreciate an approval for a lot out there to build my home. Appreciate it. Thank you.

Anybody else here tonight comment on the I I have one more. Just just just one second. Is there anybody else?

I think the rest of it. K. If you wouldn't mind, just come back up to him. I was gonna say, if you go another hour to get up to twelve midnight checkouts.

And you can go north. Come up to Richmond. Yeah. You're a lot better off.

Any other I move. We close the public hearing. Second.

Second. All in favor, close the public hearing. Aye. Thank you. Any opposed? Commissioners, at this time, what's your thoughts on the Riverside 2 rezone?

Well, similar to the one that came, last month, North of, Newton. Right? Similar thing. It it meets the new code that we just approved. It's three lots or less in an area that isn't gonna change that feel. Right with the R U two when it came last year. Was it gonna change that a bit different? So I think it it included that other parcel too if I remember at the time, maybe the request. And so it it could have resulted in a lot more lots, but going from one to three down that road, as you zoom out in that map that Connor had in our packet, it really doesn't change the feel of that area. And you've got one home already. So you're only Yeah. You got you're only having two. So for me, it it fits exactly what our revised county code for R U 2 and R U Fives would meet.

Mister chairman I would add that,

you know, if the context too so the average parcel size within a half mile of this property Yeah. Is around five acres. And

so it's gonna fit great. And then and when when Paradise does annex out there, that's what they want. It's five acre parcels you want in it. I I was just calling just

one second. I wasn't gonna make a motion. I was just gonna make a comment. Move on if you want.

No. I I was just gonna echo the same the same things. Attachment a, when you look at the at the lot size there, RU 5 fits in this in this area and and and given given the proposed use, it seems it seems to be to match what we're what our intentions were.

Thanks to everybody's comments. Thanks to those that participated in the public hearing. I would like, for the record, just to recognize and thank Paradise City for their thoughts. Failed to do that on Richmond City, but we always appreciate their comments when items such as this are near their borders and they respond. At this time, is there someone willing to make a motion regarding the Riverside 2 rezone?

I'd make a motion to recommend approval to the County Council of the, Riverside 2 rezone to RU 5.

The second? I second the motion. K. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? K. Thank you. I also failed tonight, sorry, to recognize Kurt Webb here here on behalf of the, county executive county executive's office. Thank you. Connor, at this time, we will, move back to item number four.

Good evening. So as you may recall, last month we had a brief discussion and introduction about Powder Mountain ordinance changes that would be coming before you, including changes to seventeen fourteen to comply with state law, and then to adopt development standards for their master plan area. Again, we wanted to just bring this as an initial public hearing tonight to get some comments from the public, because in the past, we have received a lot of public comments from concerned citizens, but I don't see any in attendance tonight. So, this could be just a very brief conversation, if you had a chance to look through all of the information. But I'm actually gonna turn it over to Powder Mountain right now, just to kinda give, let them give you a status as to where we're at and there are a lot of things working in the background on this project. So I'll just Yeah. Sure.

With the fact that there's not much public here, I'd also like to consider the county or the development services office that may be moving this back one week in April, because this is spring break.

I don't know what the commissioners think, but I've wondered about that. Yeah. Well, a lot of those citizen public comments were from people who didn't live in Cache County anyway. Yeah. Yeah. So But but yeah, again, that's why this was initial, because we thought we'd bring it again once we had a more finalized copy of some of these draft items that we're currently reviewing. So we were planning to bring it back in May, anyway, for another public hearing. But with that, I'll just turn it over to Brooke.

Just let me know when I want me to go to the next slide. Okay. Great.

Hi. Brooke Contz with Powder Mountain. You can go to the next slide. So we have some slides just so I remember all the things I wanted to cover tonight. There are four main topics. First of all, we aren't just here to talk about guidelines which are a standard required by the d r one sorry by the resort recreation zone we're two counties two different zones we're also here because all throughout the process if you remember there were notes made by the county staff that indicated your existing code didn't meet the current state standard and so everyone acknowledged after we got through master plan c u p the county and we would go back together, look at the code, and suggest the edits that would bring you into compliance. And then if there was anything else that you had discovered through the master CUP master plan CUP process, that we would also make those changes. So if we look solely at that aspect of the different things that you're talking about, we would love to see a recommendation. It doesn't necessarily need to be tonight, but it's important that that does move because I think it is the council that will make the final decision on code amendments. I think that's how your process works here because it's it's necessary. It's required by the master plan CUP findings that you made and it's also required essentially for you to come into compliance. We reviewed the comments that your staff made agreed with all of them I think it's really relatively straightforward straightforward there's there's not that many edits but the ones that existed were were good ones for example removal of the development agreement requirement. And then there were some things that you, as a planning commission, had made as a requirement or request as part of the master plan CUP that staff then incorporated into that code. So that's what we'd like to see there. We'd love to see a recommendation, a positive recommendation from the Planning Commission to council to move forward with those code amendments. Then separately at the bottom, items three and four, we have submitted we came to a work session talked about the standards and guidelines or guidelines and standards that are both for both the commercial and residential. Because we already had an extensive residential design guidelines set up in Weber County for the subdivisions that already existed there, we suggested that so that we didn't have vastly different looks and feels of subdivisions and buildings, that we utilize those with some updates to be relevant in Cache County. But in addition to that, because the resort recreation zone didn't have standards for things like setbacks and heights and so forth in Cache County, the county staff and the code required us to also create the commercial design guidelines and standards. We've done so. We've been submitted. Bless you. They're available to you to review, and, your staff has gone through and made some, edits. Also, I think, good edits and and relatively minor, and we agree with most. However, if you look at item number two, we are currently in conversation well, we are, but I think hopefully you are as well because it's an interlocal two types of interlocal or two interlocals that are available to the county right now for two different purposes. First of all, we're suggesting, like, a mini or a bridge in our local, for the parking lot project and the fire station project. And if you remember, those are two projects that are, right adjacent or cross county lines. And so, those projects, we brought them to, planning staff, and we started to apply and there was a conversation that it seemed like it was actually better suited, to a Weber County review process. And so there is a bridge interlocal that has been reviewed and I think it's been actually approved or it will be approved this week by Weber County that's going to then come to Cache County. And again, the reason why we're calling it a bridge is because it's only to for these this area, this small area and these two projects that after consideration and and us sharing the information with both counties, in conversation, it seemed like that was a the good the right direction to go for those projects. However that then opened the door and and to a larger conversation where both counties now want to have I believe a discussion and potentially an agreement for Weber County to continue to provide services such as building planning and those types of permits through through Weber County, and that's going to be a larger conversation. And so and take a a little bit more time. Why did I bring those up as part of the the guidelines? The reason why is because it actually matters when we make the edits, and I don't want to spend more of your time and your staff's time reviewing edits that won't be applicable if we're not chain if we're not adding the word and Cache County and some other things. If the permitting process and the guidelines will be reviewed by Weber. And so we like to keep this on the agenda because I still think it's valuable for you to see exactly regardless of what county this project is going to be processed through, that you know exactly what you would be getting. That's really important for us to to have that happen. And so we kept it on the agenda. We'd like to then potentially keep it on the following agenda unless or until the the council say and commission that we're that, you know, there's an interlocal at play, and then I would pause it for a couple months while you review that through the the two powers that be both counties, except for the bridge. I do want that bridge interlocal, which doesn't, I do I believe, need the guidelines or standards because we can write that into the interlocal. We'd like that to go forward on a faster track. I'd love I'm sure that was crystal clear. So any questions you might have, I'd love

to answer. I really, really appreciate you coming tonight and giving that update. I don't know obviously, planning and zoning, all we talked about is what the county tells us is code and then what you tell us you're trying to accomplish. And I'm sure we get a lot of the cream, but it's since been discovered or brought to our attention that possibly the the interlocal agreement communication either hasn't taken place or it was misunderstood Okay. Specifically in regard to budgets. And so I don't know if this is the meeting, Kurt, for you to share a synopsis of what you know or know one, or maybe you could enlighten us after Kurt. What I understand from it all go ahead, Kurt. You can present it. But what I understand from it all, my biggest concern is our tax base is only collecting one fifth of the cost of Weber's services. Weber's tax base is five times ours. And so if we're only collecting one fifth, that's a negative impact right out the gates for Cache County, but we'll leave it to Kurt. So, two things.

First, we are involved we can be in the inner local negotiation between the two counties on how you guys both counties determine they want to, address the fiscal impacts. But second, we did do and submitted a a fiscal impact study that did look at the by Lewis Young and, Birmingham, Ella they changed their names since then, but, that did analyze what would happen if, a portion of income and taxes that were received and fees and permits by cash went to Weber, and it's and it is positive. So I would have to understand what the because

trying to understand what you just said, it didn't connect for me. Well, I just said we're having the opportunity Yeah. Even with your presentation tonight because it's out of our judgment or control, but it's just something that I guess I just figured was that communication was taken place as this was all being built. But, anyhow, let's Okay. I'll let you supervisor

to say. Kurt Webb, county executive deputy. Let me address two. A, the bridge local interlocal for fire and the parking lot areas, we have that George has that on his desk. We're reviewing it currently. We won't sign it until we get approval to do so, but that's in the process. That's for the fire station that's being built and for the parking lot area. So it says that it's been circulated to cash via Weber County last week. That's true. We have it. Second of all, the county the project wide interlocal, the current revenue that we're getting off of that because there are only 12 structures on our side side currently. There's only a $150,000 worth of worth of total revenue to us. $1.53, I believe. That money, most of it goes to education, of course. So when we when we talk about there's a whole bunch of money for us to share. We don't have access to the education money. I mean, it will go to our education, but we don't have access to it for the services we're talking about. So when Brady talks about if we're gonna pay them to do these services, we're not gonna do it at a loss. Right? Well, we're really close to coming up with some some solutions to this. We've been in touch with the the attorney for the Utah Association Special Districts. He said there are two special districts over there now. There's the fire their fire district and their water and sewer district, both of of whom can annex this property. And that that would become part of their their special service district. They could collect the taxes and we wouldn't have to worry about it. And fire especially, Brady's correct. The amount of tax we collect countywide toward fire services and is isn't anywhere near what they charge. But if they can expand and annex this portion into their fire district, which we're told they can now, then they can do that taxation. We won't have to worry about it. What we haven't, what we haven't come to a conclusion on yet is law enforcement. Law enforcement, I'm told by Gage Forrest, the county commissioner down there, that the contracts that they have for law enforcement are based on population, which we hardly have any over there, and, frequency of calls. So I'm waiting for that information to come back. Once we've got that framework together, we can probably sit down and work something out. Some some of it's with MOUs, for example, health and agreements with our development services. We don't wanna lose control there. In other words, we'll let them do the work, but with, concurrence on our part. So we know what's going on and we still have our finger on it. So I I believe we're gonna get there and we're gonna get there in a manner that won't be a burden to taxpayers in Cache County. So I think it's positive.

Thank you, mister Webb. Nolan, was there anything any other information that you had that you'd like to share in regards to this information?

Well, I appreciate what Brooke said, but I would refrain from passing anything until we've had more of a until we've had more of a public discussion in front of you guys. And by that time, hopefully, Kurt and George have more information on the interlocal. That has been my concern from the get go. Is the interlocal and not having that drawn out before we move? Because I'm not of the opinion we're gonna make that much money on it if we got the services in there. So until that's considered, those are my thoughts.

You when you say

you recommend we don't pass anything, you mean specific to approvals for Powder Mountain? Right. Until there's more of a public discussion going on. And so which I'm assuming doesn't have anything to do with the development, the changes to our RR zone, which is simply bringing that ordinance into compliance with the state requirements. Right? Right. So we could that was part of my question. I mean, you you helped lead me to it, Nolan, was Like one. Like, we're we we can easily not approve any of this Power Mountain stuff, and I don't know that Brooke was even asking for that. But we could approve the code amendments because it has nothing to do with Powder Mountain, but it, is something we have to change in our ordinance

regardless. And if you recommend that and forward it on, that's great. So but

If we could, let me, address money. The education money, we will keep all of it. That is the portion that goes to Cache County. We're not giving up any of that. A portion of it goes to the state. The state will keep it, what they do. I'm verifying this for sure. But the state will keep their portion, and then if we have any any school age children in that area, they would have to be educated by Weber County, of course. But there's a formula that I believe comes out of the state portion to educate those kids. Either way, that that amount on a per student basis is paid for by education and it's not paid out of our general fund. And any expenditures out of our general fund, we would anticipate would be offset by the amount of taxes we get as it grows. So our general fund is not being depleted at all by this. There's an offset to almost every single one of the things that we're working out. Any other questions?

Well, just just for clarification. So we're talking about this recreation zone Uh-huh. But we don't have or I don't I don't see it. Do we do we have what we're what we're currently working with versus what amendments are being proposed? Or was that what this meeting was for, was to generate those changes?

Yeah. I need to let I need to let, developments.

It's in the folder for the Powder Mountain folder. If I understand what you're asking, there's the resort recreation proposed edits.

And I'm assuming that's yeah.

And I need to let, development services speak for themselves here. But when I asked about the tweaks that needed to be done to the code to make it to accommodate what's being done up there, the zoning needs to be changed a little bit as we go along. And the response was, we don't wanna create a zone, a one size fit fits all zone here. It's better to adjust it for the needs as we go along. Now I may not have understood that correctly, but that's that is what I understood that I heard.

So I I just have one question for it though. As we deal with is there ever a possibility that our resort recreation or resort recreation will combine with or border forest recreation? Or is it the resort always gonna be its own?

The intent is for it for it to be its own.

Okay. Because the occupancy

is the question there. Right. And then that we obviously need to tweak this so that occupancy is allowed because there are residences here. But that will come as we as we formulate it. Am I correct? I'm speaking for you.

We we would love to we would love to hear more from you. I just felt that at that time, in regards to those interlocal agreements that we were at least that the commissioners, if they weren't aware of that, was brought up to speed just where that process is at. Brian and Angie, that correct? Yeah. Do you wanna do you wanna clarify anything I said?

I can if you want. I mean, she she she prepared the report, but I'm happy to see under things.

We we wanna hear back from you when I'll sit down. When he's done. Are you done with me?

Good.

So the Resort Recreation Zone, which was created by this county, adopted by this county, and then this land was, rezoned into re resort recreation years ago in the early two thousands, and then you additionally had 1,620 acres, a year or a year and a half ago into Resort Recreation Zone. That zone was created specifically to do what we're doing today in terms of, make sure all of the things that we're doing currently at the resort and in the future, hotel units, condos, additional ski lifts, mountain biking are all permitted uses. Right? And so that was done as part of of all of that work. Now, what why there needs to be changes to that zone is is because over time, state law changed and some of the things that the county liked or didn't like changed. And so you've got, hopefully, because I I received a copy, I saw it online, red line version of the very few minor changes that have to occur to that zone to bring it into compliance, again, mostly with state code. It the zone other than that, I mean, you you, as the planning commission, made recommendations that you wanted to have, for example, these design guidelines and standards submitted as part of, the next set of applications. And and that's what we did. We updated the zone to say that's actually a requirement. So the zone is fine. The zone is working. And these are simply cleanup things that happen over time. I I sat through many meetings last year where you had other zones that needed to have the same work done. You shouldn't wait for public comment on that. In my opinion, I mean, other parts of the state, my my community doesn't have spring break right now. This is purely preliminary or it's cleanup that I I bores people to tears that really is incumbent on you to take. The guidelines and standards, if you wanted to hold another hearing on that, I can absolutely see that. But that, again, is something you demanded of us to do and your code requires. So I'm not asking to your point for any approvals, but I want to ask for approvals. So in order to do that, we want you to have the standards by which you can measure us. And so you're not going to be able to do that unless you review and understand whether or not what we're applying for meets the standards that you want to see. So that's why we've and so I do recommend you reviewing those because, again, whether or not Weber is the entity that's flipping through and saying, yes, this meets the standards, you wanna know what those are. Because as Kurt said, you you don't want you wanna have a finger on the pulse of what's going on up there. Then lastly, the I'm I'm sure I hope at least you have access to the drive where we submitted all of that information back in the day about the fiscal impacts. So there's a variety of ways, obviously, the county brings in money. Right? So sales tax is one, but the property tax is another, and then the fees are another. And so when you do not, because we hadn't gone through the master plan CUP to get entitled. That's why you don't have any buildings producing any sales tax or any property tax. That that changes when you do that. In order to do that, we need to pay the fees, which also would either go to you, do if you do the work, or to the other entity who's doing the work. But by state law, those fees should only cover the work that's getting done. So the real benefit here is going to be in the property tax and the sales tax, which, also, as described, is proportioned out into goes to different entities. That's all described in that report and it shows and I was trying to pull it up real quickly, but I'm not as fast as I wanna be. That there's a significant amount of impact over time that's positively fiscally regardless of who does the work based on the development happening. If the development doesn't happen and it's clear in those charts, then, of course, you don't get as much revenue, but the impact or the negative of, cost also don't incur to the county because the work isn't being asked of you. So I'm happy to I I didn't quite understand the question about if it's a a forest zone, but I'm happy to answer that if you I'm okay with that. I I had overlooked this

section, so I appreciate Chris. And I've since been able to review it. I would just ask our county staff, was was any of this adjustment made when they had help with the was it the engineer from JUB that assist with approval, or was this done all in house?

This is done all in house. Okay. Yeah. And the only thing that I would caution about advancing this without advancing the standards and that at the same time is just that we have to adopt it as an appendix to 1714. So we wanna make sure we have a clean and final copy of that before we move this forward because we do have some red lines. Staff hasn't been able to go through the entire document. We've done most of it, but there would will still be some, red lines and discussions with Powder Mountain to get those cleaned up. So I mean, I personally, like, we there hasn't been enough time

because I estimated it'd take a week to read through everything. It's so voluminous. Well, with that whole package, it's huge. No offense. Too much. Because it needs to be. It needs to be. Right? Like, I get it. I'm a planner so I I understand it. So but when I saw the edits here, other than the last bullet of appendix d, Everything else is non powder mountain related that we could potentially take action on earlier rather than later. If it would be helpful, and I was gonna ask staff if that's helpful, or if it's not, if it's just better to wait till the next meeting to do it all together or whatever.

Yeah. We may not even be able to do it at the next meeting just depending on how long all the discussions and red lines take. But, again, we could do it as one ordinance amendment with just this section without reference to appendix d, or if we or we could do, you know, two separate ordinance amendments. Why was appendix d not included? So appendix d refers to the, documents that we talked about, the review standards for the residential and the commercial. In that folder. They're also included in that folder. Again, those contain most of staff's questions and red lines for the parts that we were able to go through. But, yeah, again, that would be formalized once we get that all cleaned up, get a final document before we started taking that to council. But that's what that appendix d references. And as you can see, we just haven't put in the dates final dates on those two documents, just pending, again, all the red lines and comments.

I mean, I would I would say, Angie, if if you guys are still working through the chapter 17.14, edits or whatever, we can certainly wait. But if you're okay with the red lines in there, I don't know if the other commissioners feel like doing

things on this or that far done. It's ready.

Yeah. I guess the other thing is appendix a is also being modified with the flowchart. Mhmm. Because I think we're we're pretty good on. I my red lines on this are just mainly to provide some clarity as to what happens in between some of these steps, primarily with the infrastructure requirements. But, yeah, I I don't think you guys had any questions on that.

I would really defer to you guys and Brooke if if it's helpful to move things forward tonight or not, personally.

Well, did anybody have any questions on the ordinance? Ordinance. Yeah. So it's mainly seventeen fourteen forty. We took out out all of the development agreement language and then added development standard language. As Brooke mentioned, a lot of those come directly from the conditions of approval that we had on the master plan, requiring that each resort recreation master plan that comes through, it'll be a requirement once they get their master plan approved to come back to adopt development standards for their particular project, because again, it's difficult for a one size fits all on these types of resort recreation facilities. And then we also Because typically when we look at projects outside the RR zone, you know, we look initially at parcel legality to see if it's restricted or not, if they can even move forward. This kind of takes that out of the equation and bases everything on what the master plan is approved for for their number of density equivalent units, which will be the primary driver. And then as applications come in, we'll be tracking those units to make sure we're not exceeding what was allowed under the master plan.

Angie, I have one question. Uh-huh. On seventeen fourteen twenty d, that's on page oh, it's on the first page of the red line papers, the nineteenth. So on that 17 .14.20 d Mhmm. Properties adjacent to, recreational zone property and wishing to rezone to the recreational zone must either meet the recreational zone requirements independently or establish agreements between the property owners association and submit for amendment the master plan. How come how come that doesn't require a and a total rezone? Rezone? So if I read that correctly, could somebody in an f r 40

go ahead. No. So if they were in a f r 40 and wanted to come into the r r zone, they would have to get the rezone done, and they would also have to meet the minimum requirements of the 2,000 minimum acres. So That's the independently. It's pretty

vague in what it's describing, or what's it even describing?

Yeah. Again, property's adjacent, so if there's three parcels adjacent to the Powder Mountain Master Plan area, they total a thousand acres, and they want to rezone to RR, they either have to, one, get agreement from Powder Mountain that says they can become part of their master plan if it's rezoned to RR, or they have to meet that minimum they have to get another thousand acres in order to request that rezone, so they meet the minimum 2,000 for the RR zone.

Okay.

So I've just kinda kinda looked at it as like an annexation process,

so to speak. So to speak. Yeah. K.

But would that still come before us either way? Mhmm. K.

Yeah. It would come before you for a rezone and then for the amendment to a master plan if it amended an existing or they would come through with their own master plan.

Commissioners, so Chris, it sounds like you guys had some agreement amongst you here. Can you clarify one more time what you were proposing? Were we gonna try and approve everything in the red except for the bottom relative to Powder Mountain, or what was the thoughts there?

Exactly. Yeah. That's what I was thinking if unless somebody

sees a conflict with doing that. Nolan, what's your your thoughts on that? Are you okay with that, approving these reds, or do you still feel that we still need to wait and then other commissioners as well?

I can go with what you guys recommend. I mean, I agree with what Chris said. This is a daunting thing to read and pull it all into your mind. So

Because even if it's How about how about this side? Are you guys okay with Chris' proposal?

I think so. Yes. You ready for a motion? I think we first So far, the crowds have been pretty Do we have to stay up first, have a quick public hearing? Yeah. Point of order on that. Before we can vote, we need to so I'll make a motion to open the initial public hearing for the resort recreation zone amendment. Second the motion.

All in favor? Aye. All opposed or any opposed? Okay. The thing that caught me off guard was initial public hearing, but there we go. K. Anybody here tonight that would like to speak on the resort recreation zone amendment? Speak up or forever hold your peace.

Make a motion to raise public hearing.

Thank you. And second? Second. All in favor? Aye.

Aye. Questioners?

You know how you wanna word it, Chris. Go for it. I wanna know

if our meetings are more exciting or Weber County.

Tough call. I know. I I would like they would like some cats and dogs. I'd let them go out. I bet I bet we Oh, I don't mean to put that on Kirk. I bet I bet Weber County when

the the new city was wanting to be formed up in Ogden Valley, we're pretty heated meetings.

You're probably right. Well, then with with that, if if staff feels good about it, I'm certainly good about it. I would make a motion to recommend to the county council. Right? Because that's the it still has to go to the county council. So it's not like this is the only thing to not hire, the only approval for this. But I would make a motion to recommend the edits to chapter seventeen fourteen, resort recreation zone as shown with the exception of removing the references to the seven well, removing the section seventeen fourteen point one five zero, appendix d. On the nineteenth. Yep. Until such time as those come back to us, we can add it.

And just to clarify, seventeen fourteen one twenty should be read on here also, just adopting this new flowchart.

Okay.

And I'll make that update. I noticed I didn't have it on red on here.

K. You said 120 should be red? Yes. Mhmm. And that's on file? So because that's on file, should we exclude that also?

I think we should adopt the the new one.

Because the one that was adopted here that's on file was It's okay. A very different process. That's just the flow of approval that she shared with us last time or two times, three times. Yeah. Couple of times. K.

I'd second that one.

Second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? K. Thank you for coming in.

We see an x this much.

Redoing that. Small stuff. At this time, we'll move on to item number five, geotechnical report requirements for accessory structures.

Yeah. So this is a pretty preliminary user. Just kind of introducing to the topic. It's a two pronged thing. Pretty recently, we've been seeing a lot of accessory structures that are exempt from geotechs. Those are 200 square feet or less. What we started seeing is things like carports, sheds that are larger, things like that in the geotech requirements, which citizens complain about. I'm sure you can imagine these are expensive reports. We're just trying to get a feel on how the planning commission would feel about increasing that exemption in square footage. I'm sure Brian could come up and explain from the building side of things why that's a good idea. The second problem is also adding something to what would trigger a geotech. That's called the surface fault rupture study special sorry. Surface fault rupture hazard special study zone. That's basically something that's come out recently. It's not in an adopted thing that would trigger the geospec requirements. We're considering adding adding that as well. That's pretty much it. Like I said, this is probably gonna be a discussion item next week or next month. There may be a vote after that, kind of depending on how you feel about it. But it's just something we wanted to bring to the attention of planning commission to kind of just get your initial impressions on. You you you briefly mentioned it, Connor, but can you kinda just

specifically identify one more time what brought this to the agenda tonight? Is that you you guys is just seeing

potential issues here, or is it somebody's request specifically, or or what triggered this? It's something that we've seen a lot. So it's kind of the staff bringing this forward. Like I said, we've seen things that are kinda just clearly kind of common sense. Like, hey, this doesn't know part of geosetic.

Yeah. Under coated dust, so they have to do it. It's been one to five thousand dollars, and and it doesn't change the design of the structure.

That that was really my question was I mean, we require we require people to get a geotech report. Does it actually change anything? Maybe they If it if it doesn't have an impact on the structure, I wonder why we even are are doing that. Why we're even requiring it. What why are we putting that in the code? Yeah.

I mean, if it's yeah. Well, Valjay, we definitely wanna hear what you have to say. Just one other question that I had after receiving a phone call from a concerned citizen this afternoon. So if what whatever we do here, regardless of what we do, who does that affect? Is it only members of the county? If I live in Lewiston City or Richmond City, am I held to a different standard?

Yeah. This would just be for the unincorporated county code. Yeah. So if if outside of you where you live, if if you were in the seismic zone or fault line and you built a 300 square foot shed as it is right now, you'd have to get a geotech report for that shed. My gosh. More than the shed. More than the shed. Thousand to $5,000. Yeah. Just depends. So we're kinda we're throwing around different sizes. Like, where do we wanna draw the line? You know, obviously

20,000 square feet. 20,000.

I like it.

Why are we where does personal responsibility come into this? What which is it the county's role to protect people from themselves? This is not a structure that people are gonna be living in. Yeah. It is. It doesn't apply to houses at all. We we've seen this on some hay barns. You know, my hay doesn't get hurt if it happens to break and it falls on it. Yeah. And, you know, it would be tragic, you know, if something happened and somebody lost a life or something. I understand that. But driving home, my odds of of getting killed driving home are higher than the earthquake knocked it the liquefaction and knocked my building down. So where I mean, why we can't protect against everything. And is it the county's role to protect against

everything that could could come into place? No. That's that's why we're bringing this up. We would like to loosen that requirement up just a little bit. Well, why do we have it?

And how when was this Why do we need to have it? When was it when was it actually put into force? Yeah. I don't know. Because I I remember early two thousands coming in to the county building to apply for a hay barn, and that hay barn is 40 by eighty, thirty two hundred square feet. The only thing I had to provide was a map of the area that it was going in with proximity to the road, and there's a a a boarded canal no longer used. The the banks are still there, but there's it's not used.

If Paid $50. If that was just an ag building Yeah. Yeah. We're not we're not talking about ag buildings. We're talking about accessory structures. Ag buildings will still go on just like that. Okay.

But We required for a hay barn just in the last two years for Jody Harris Hay barn. We required a geotechnical report and he actually had to work out to get a he got a deal from somebody instead of being

6,000 on his original quote. He still spent thousands. Where was that about, Jay? Yeah. It was at Young War. Young War. But since then, and there is an exception, agriculture buildings are not required now. And so we did go before and tried to take in there, though? Yes. Yes. The agricultural's in there. No no requirement on agricultural buildings. Yeah. I I think It used to require once. Yeah. But We stopped it.

But back to back to my question, Brian.

Where do we align with the cities? So for instance, if we have a dairy located in Lewiston City proper, Are they gonna go through a different process than we have

regarding what they're gonna be forced to? They'll have their own city code. If Lewiston has their own city inspector, they'll they'll take care of all that. It has nothing to do with with us. That that even though the building inspectors might might work for a couple communities.

Yeah. Mister chairman, could I

just maybe just for clarification, could we ask staff to to get us kind of a timeline on that when this when the standard was adopted into into code because I don't remember it. Chris and I have been around a long time. It seems like the geotechnical reports were within the last Decade. Six or eight years decade for sure. It says online that it was ordinance 2014 o six.

O six. Really? Twelve years. Twenty fourteenth. Oh, twenty fourteenth. Oh, twenty fourteenth. So okay. Twelve years. Yeah. That's probably June June 20 Probably reasonable. Six. 06/10/2014.

And who who proposed that ordinance? Was it staff? I I'd have to go into CDOT to find all that, but what I can see right now, just if you go to the county code, it'll tell you the year Yeah. It's done. And the day that it was adopted.

Yeah. I think, you know, there there are a number of reasons to require a geotech report under certain conditions and circumstances. And I think they're really important, not not in all cases. And I think we're trying to Yeah. Pull it away from kind of the ridiculous application to where it's really needed.

Chris, as I had that conversation with go ahead.

It it appears to me also that the proximity to other buildings that are, like, homes and things should be taken into consideration. Because if that building falls and knocks down your house, that's a concern. But if you're, you know, half a block away from anything and it can fall down, it won't hurt anybody, maybe the tractor and a cow, then it it's not required. But proximity to other things is important, and that's why in the cities, it's got to be different than it is in the county. Because you have things a lot of things in approximation of one another.

Everything. It's blanket. Everywhere blanket. Right? And if you're if you're out in the flats Well, it's only if you're in the seismic

area that this applies to. Yeah.

Okay. But mister That's what I was gonna say. It's the whole valley. Schools, hospitals, churches. Right. Why why do we

Yeah. It falls down. It falls down. Why do we are we requiring people to accept the responsibility if they're in the area. Why are we putting this cost on them?

that's why they over 20%.

Done the study. If they hadn't done the study, who do you yeah. Yeah. But should it be somebody should it be the county's responsibility?

Let's see what Matt has to say.

So I'm gonna play devil's advocate a little bit, but one thing that I'm seeing on my end is we have to prepare a whole bunch of emergency preparedness stuff. And the county has in order to get grants and in order to get funding, Bragg prepares a lot of this for us, but the county does have an emergency plan. So in that plan, the county has said, hey, we're going to we're gonna go out and adopt these types of ordinances to reduce the risks. We're gonna look at flood plain. We're going to look at steep slopes. We're gonna look at avalanches. We're gonna look at all these things. So so part of it is not just looking at, hey, our code in these buildings, but it's it's also looking at how do we reduce emergencies, how do we protect other life, health, safety things. And that's, hey, we don't want people to try to build their house if if it it does have liquefaction. We don't want someone to build their house or their structures right at the toe of a slope so that when there is some kind of natural disaster, we're putting extra pressure on emergency services, fire, all these types of things as well. And then all those damages are coming back, and we're going to FEMA to ask for money. Hey, we we let all these homes build their house along the river. Now, they all flood it. Now, give us, you know, big money. So the county is trying to play the game a little bit with the emergency side of things and saying, hey, we're gonna have some level of of zoning ordinances and stuff to control so that we're not just creating, you know, the wildfires, all those types of things. But there is some things for geotech studies that on my end, what I'm that I'm seeing is they're coming in for review is that I think one thing instead of trying to, you know, exempt people and help speed it up is I think that we could probably do more in our code to adequately identify what we want them to study. Because I've seen some studies recently that are 15 pages of a whole bunch of stuff, and we wanted it because they were near a fault. And they said, this study doesn't include any we didn't do anything to determine where the fault line is. So they've paid 5,000 or whatever it is for this 20 page thing, and they know that the soils are sandy, and they're silty, and they they got road recommendations and footing recommendations. And alls we wanted to know is, is there a fault? Cause we don't want you to build your house. You know, 50 feet is the closest you should build for your house or a any structure from a fault line. Well so I think some of it's just cleaning things up, clearing it. Whether these are, you know, is it a house? Is it a subdivision that they're selling to other people? So I don't think we're necessarily trying to protect everyone from all the hazards. But, hey, if we're gonna allow you to go in and build houses on this property, you know, we need some professional recommendations that, hey, you shouldn't build in this area. You should hold your house back. And that does go to Brian's department to, you know, building codes are gonna directly influence on what those geotech studies are saying as far as, you know, if you got a fault going through your property valet j, you you you might wanna pay someone to come and find out where it is or if you have it so that you're not building your hay barn right on it. Granted, that's just gonna fall and there's no life or limb, but now we're talking to some type of a structure that someone's gonna live in. We probably still need to require that. But if we're not getting what we're asking for and people are spending a lot of money and going through a bunch of hoops, I I think that's so I think we need to look at what's the right property, what's the right building that we need it for, and also, how can we make sure that our code doesn't just say, hey. Go get a GeoTech study, and and they're out there spinning their wheels as as as well. Boy,

can I ask about a cost benefit on this? I mean, do we do we have we had any denied? When you say denied? Well, I mean, we have have we had one of the studies come back and said, don't bill. Don't bill. Don't bill.

So a lot of those that do come back and that they're done well, they'll have some kind of mitigation. So right if you if Chris wants to build his house in a liquefaction zone and he's dead set on it, then he then there's probably some mitigation that he could do. He's gonna have to maybe build, you know, slab on a grade, put a whole bunch of pilings down. So you you see more of recommendations for that, but I wouldn't say there's ever been one denied. There's one right now for liquefaction. And the geotech report came back and said, in an earthquake, your structure is probably gonna settle five inches. If you can live with that, we're done. If you can't live with that, come back and let's talk. So I mean, you know, maybe for your barn, if it's earthquake and it's five inches, you're fine. You know, if that's a $2,000,000 house and you don't want it to settle five inches, maybe you're not okay. But but I think that's that's not for us to decide, but as a county, we we have the best interest of someone that's just coming in off the street, buying a lot that was subdivided, and they don't know. That no one was talking about where he was trying to put a hay barn in and he was in the liquefaction zone and he had to go get a study. That's probably not I don't think that's what we're trying to protect. But so I before we just blatantly say, hey, you know, we don't need geotech reports, and we we wanna let people, you know, the stupidity thing, if they build their house in the fault, that's okay. The I think there needs to be a level there that we're approving you to develop this land. And we need to be able to have a plat, or we need to be able to have something that identifies where those hazards are, so that staff and other people aren't coming in and building their house where it's gonna require a whole bunch more, you know, emergency services, fire, any of those types of services that's putting, you know, taxes on our our emergency service people. So we're not saying you can't build there, but hey, if you're so the fault's a good example. If if we have a map that says, hey, it looks like there's a fault on the on your development, we're asking the geotech guys to go out there and identify where that is so that we can put that on a map, and then we can keep people's structures a certain distance from it. And Isn't that pretty clearly outlined where the where our faults are? No. A lot of them, we go out there and they say they can't find anything. So they they said, hey, we can't find anything. We can't find any evidence of it. The thing Connor's talking about is a rupture. That's a new thing from the the use USGS where you might have it separate. You might have it go up and down. So they're saying, hey, this instead of this 50 feet, maybe we need to start looking a little bit deeper for a few of these specific types of faults in that are in our area. Because, you know, not you mentioned hospitals and schools. I'm sure that's more of a higher priority for them to not be located in if the surface can rupture and pull apart, probably not as important for an ag structure. So right now, we don't do anything with that, but there's a study out that says we recommend that the cities, counties create some type of ordinance so that we're at least incorporating this new information into development.

So So so Matt, I think it's important. I really appreciate your comments, your your experience, and your and your advice relative to residents dwellings as well as accessories. I think it's important that we keep the discussion at hand to accessory dwellings. Yes. But but even then, and and and I don't wanna speak for the commissioners, but if if we were to take a step back and and we don't necessarily have to complete this tonight unless you wanted to, but if, if we were to say maybe let's follow our guidelines for not building on or if if there's steep slopes that, you know, it it possibly could be done, but you're gonna have to prove to us. Or if wetlands, you know, these these low areas, if they're even buildable, but I I would be in favor of just not even having a square footage ceiling if if it's accessory buildings as long as we have some, you know if if you know there's a fault line, require it. If if you know it's a steep slope, require it. But, aside from that,

it's it's it's a And I I deploy devil's advocate with you a little bit, Brady. I think the flood plain is a good example of that. The the code says that if you're developing a piece of property and you have the flood plain on it, that you need some studies. And then it says, hey, but if we can see that your house is a half a mile from that flood plain and you're still on that same property, then we have that ability to exempt them. So same thing is if if you're coming in to build an accessory structure and you're on a 50 acre piece or piece Or a high spot. Or a high spot, or there's a fault line that's potentially identified at the very other end of your property, and we know that you're 200 feet away, I think I think that's where that's some of that common sense needs come into play instead of just saying we're not we're gonna exempt every accessory structure from any geotech report. I I think that that's maybe not the right choice. Let's play playing devil's advocate. Is that maybe there's some more guidelines and we and we'd further define our code of what we're looking for to give some direction. Because again, you know, a hay barn in the liquefaction zone is probably not what we were, but we just had a code that said, you gotta do it. Now we've got rid of ag. Now we're trying to inch towards ag, you know, accessory structures. But if you use the fault, right, are we gonna allow an accessory structure on the top of a fault?

I I also add to what you said and then maybe my my my counter offer there would be where we still feel after we've done our due diligence on where we still feel it's required. And if we can agree on that, I I'm all for it. But even if we find areas where it's maybe not required, I think we should still include in our code that we highly recommend that you have this. Yeah. It's your choice if you do it or not. We're not gonna be liable if you choose not to do it. But in the areas where it is required or we feel it would be beneficial, I I don't know. Just give give the give the public a little more Yeah. Because because those costs are,

I mean, 5,000 per report doesn't tell you anything. That that's that's not that's not good. No. I think I think those numbers are a little bit high, and I hopefully, part of my speech before was that we're getting a whole bunch of information in the geotech report that these engineers are going out and getting and doing all this field research, but they're missing the whole point of why we asked for it. So if they would have had clear direction and they went out and did one thing, or they were able to confirm that, hey. They're looking for fault lines. I did my research. I did x y z. Hazards. That's but they're they're what we're getting is not what necessarily we're expecting from what we're telling people. They're they're getting

recommendations

on how to build their structure. Yeah. Yes. And all those Counting the county. Hey. There is or is not a fault. Yes. You can get all that soils information from the web soil survey. And it talks about building. Yes. It's a free it's a free online thing. Yes. But it get all of it. It's kind of the same thing with the wetlands. Right? If we're not the wetlands experts, but we have a map that says, hey. It looks like there's wetlands here. Now it's your job to go out and and and see if I'm in the wetlands. And if you're not in the wetlands, great. Hey. We we identified some hazards on your property. You know, we're we're getting those people to go try to narrow that in a little bit to have some security. But I still think too.

I I realized that the cities are independent of the counties, but it would be really interesting for me to know what is Lewiston's take on this. Otherwise, we could run into some problems if somebody's bordering the county, and we're more strict. I mean, not that we care, but it ought to be something that

I would hope should be fairly general throughout the county. There's a lot of language in our code when you search neighboring even our geotech requirements for earthquakes is almost identical to California's. So there's not when you go start looking, it's not there's not a ton of difference. No. It's like the FEMA. You're gonna find the same flood development code every city you go to that has that because that's the standard language of trying to protect things. So you might see something that's a little different, but if you go to North Logan, you're gonna have to turn in a geotech study with your plat. You're gonna have to do all that work. So I would say we're probably down on the list as far as what we're requiring as far as flow boat or big studies. But I don't think what we're requiring or how ours is worded is the general code of ours isn't different than a lot of the other ones. But I think it's worth the chance. And again, I'm playing devil's advocate. I do think there's we we need to do some things and lessen that and not try to make any things harder. You know, if if there's some common sense in that, we can use maps. We can use studies that are nearby to say, hey. Here's some faults. Try to incorporate some This property already had one done. This guy probably doesn't need one. Yeah. Probably know where it is. Yeah. So Yeah. So what what I appreciate I didn't mean to go on too strong. No. I just you know, philosophically, it's just

bigger government is not and more regulations is not always better. I I agree. I feel strongly that people need to take responsibility for their own actions. So that's where I was coming from. But I didn't mean to come on too strong. No. Can I ask a question? Yeah. As well. Maybe for for Brian.

From a from a building codes standpoint, what would we do differently if there were I mean, there there are certain things like a fault, but that's fairly clear that, yeah, there's a there's an offset where we where we have to stay away from that fault, but take liquefaction or some other some other geologic hazard like that. Is there a is there a change in the in the building code that says if you're or or is it general that if you're in in fault hazard zone?

Yeah. They would all be an engineered design regardless of The Us requiring a geostudy.

As far as the as far as what the county requires though On a on a only requiring the Yeah. On a We're not requiring them to actually build to a certain a different level of construction.

Well, their engineer would consult with findings from a geotech report, and they would they would size and spec the footings out to that. But on a on a big accessory building that's permitted, we're gonna require engineering anyway. So I and I I can see all your point of why do we even require it at all. If you drive around the county, you're gonna see some enormous accessory buildings. Two story. They're living in it most likely upstairs. It's a guest house. It's a party barn. They're having a wedding reception. So we I I I I don't know if we wanna just say

it's not ever required again. I I think we ought to have some limits. I I don't think that's that's really where we're going. I think I think my feel is the blanket.

You wanna hear the perception, not the normal.

You know, I think we really, really need to look at our our our hazard zones and say, hey. If you're if you're in a fault and and maybe those are maybe those are lines that we need to draw and say if you're in these areas,

then that would then that would be And that's what we're doing now, but we kinda wanna allow a little bigger building without it.

Brian, this afternoon, I my memory was jogged because the individual called me from Lewiston that was specifically concerned and and and heavy into agriculture. But we we witnessed over the last ten years two ag buildings that were, originated as ag applications. Well, there was more than that on the one property, but the winery and then the restaurant, the Gibbons Green Acres, you know, You know, they originated as ag permits, but then they converted them to a restaurant where people's coming in or where they're gonna have a rec or a a wedding eve whatever, that kind of event deal. And I fully I fully understand at that time, them buildings have gotta be reevaluated, either brought to code or or redone. But is is that I mean, and if down the way, if somebody tells you they're just building a a shop and then you go by a year later and they've added a a department, well, I mean, if they were dishonest or didn't have the the intent or whatever, I mean, it's it's unfortunate that we're taking the whole population and and not trusting them versus the the handful that

whether it's intent or Yeah. Change. I and we're only requiring the seismic reports in the seismic area the geotech in those areas. So yeah. Yeah. These are Well,

I I fully support me individually, staff. You're you're we couldn't have better experience than you having been on the inspection end. But maybe just tell us, what do you want out of this? What do you want tonight? Well, we mainly just a discussion to kinda start this. So if right now someone comes in with 400 square foot building in a seismic zone, they gotta get a geotech report.

We think that's a little Excessive. Excessive. So now we kinda want a square footage amount. Where do we wanna draw that line? Where they we should require one for our design standards. But but, again, tonight, we're we're not making a final decision. We're just we're just talking about it. We're just, yeah. It's a great discussion. Thank you very much. So your recommendation, though, is 2,423. We see a ton of buildings come in that are 60 by 40. Pretty pretty common pole barns, 60 by 40. We thought we'd start there to see what you thought of that. You know, do we wanna cap it at one level? Do we want if they're gonna put a Second story. Second story that they're not gonna live in up there, do does that do we want to make sure that that gets the report? Because now it's a little different than just to I I feel personally again, speaking personally,

I feel that we need more information to make this decision. Yeah. That's why we're talking. Yep. I mean but I I don't know if a 120 foot hay barn versus a 60 foot length

Yeah. And, again, like, the hay barns are out. They're ag. They're we're not gonna worry about it. They're out unless they're in RU 2. They're not an ag barn. Right? Then they may not be exempt. Or in any field. Hay barn. Yeah. This will just be for the seismic of Arizona. Mitch, Brian. Well,

let's let's just take a quick consensus here. Do we wanna keep discussing this? And if we do Carry on. But what are we Could I could I just say I think what they're looking for is what's the what is the We all want them. Appetite. And I think our appetite is clearly that we would we would increase the size of Back off. The square footage. Outside of your if you come back to us and say, you know what? These buildings, if they add a mezzanine, it's gotta go every time. This this this, you tell us. Yeah. Well,

so we're yeah. Tonight, we just kinda wanted to get a feel for what you thought. Where should we start with the square footage? Do we wanna just keep it one story?

So general consensus, do we wanna go higher than the 2,400 square feet,

or do we wanna wow that. How many buildings would that would be bigger than that that we see? Well, I mean, like you say, you drive around, there's some there's some pretty big castles out there. Hay barn, 3,200 on an 80 by 40.

Buildings out there is the biggest building, I think, in the valley now.

Yeah. So like I said It is. It's

the biggest

free it it's bigger than the indoor arena down here at the fairgrounds. But but that's a tough one too because where does that where does that fit? I that may be an ag building. So If if you have events and you bring two or 300 people, 500 people in there for a show,

that's different than a hate Oh, yeah. That's that's not even part of what this discussion. Yeah. So so does this

this fault line, the Cache County one, does that is fit on the maps that we see? Is that the same as the overlay? Because there's more on this one than the ones I've seen in the past.

these little

I'd really recommend that we you bring to us what you think needs to happen, and and then let us

mull that that over. Got it. We're just doing committee work here right now. Sure, Ed. That's why we just wanted it to be a discussion to kinda give us a good starting point, and I think we got that.

Thank you. Mister commissioner, are you good with that then? We turn it back to them and wait for further facts and figures?

You bet. Okay. Thank you.

Moving along to number six, f r 40.

So this is pretty brief. This is actually just putting this back on your radar. What we had was that big code amendment where we're talking about frontage, so depth that frontage has to go into, things like that. This was pulled out of that because it wasn't recommended for approval. So staff just wanted to bring this back and just kinda put it on your radar, mainly because the issues that brought that forward are still happening. Like I said, up there is kind of the wild west in terms of roads. So we're trying to figure out a better way to judge frontage up there and kind of just work on that. This is definitely kind of gonna be another discussion item next month. We're gonna wanna work with public works and the roads division. But, yeah, this is basically to put it back on your radar to say, hey. Expect to see this next month. So next month,

you'd possibly intend to have red pen on this one? K. Is

is there an HOA up there in that area, or It was just There's a few. I know Scare Canyon has one.

Scare Canyon. Yeah. I I've just it it seems so much like this is this is something that they really should have

worked out. We had that gentleman two years ago that probably paid $600 to come here. He was up above Avon somewhere. He was a 100% landlocked. No no no frontage whatsoever that even touched the road except for the trail into his property. Oh, is this that rezone? And he was wanting well, he I can't remember if he was seeking a rezone or what he was doing, but, I mean, they're gonna need to them people even come in here if we don't have a or if we've got a frontage agreement. Remember that one above Avon? We support bring us red pencil next month. Okay. Anything else, commissioners? K. Is there anything else, staff, anything else you want us to be aware of or not?

You wanted updates on Saddle Ridge? Just update if they have appeal to the approval of the conditions.

Okay. Can you come say that a little closer?

Yeah. You asked for updates on Saddle Ridge Ridge Subdivision. They did file an appeal on the planning commission's approval with conditions.

They filed an appeal on the conditions?

Specific ones, mainly relating to road improvements and access.

I I was up in that area this morning on a stuck vehicle right on top. On or off the record, I can't even believe that we're even considering

or considered that. Yeah. They're they're currently fighting conditions one, nine, thirteen, fourteen, and 16. So essentially the redoing the road and a second access. So I'm preparing a brief. It's due a week from tomorrow. I'm essentially arguing that it's not adequate. Residents are gonna hike in. Yeah. Essentially. Yeah. So I'm I'm preparing a brief. There'll be a there'll be a hearing with the ALJ in May.

Have fun with that. Anything else you wanna talk about? Something to draw at 08:00, ALJ? Is is is there a motion? Motion to adjourn.

Second.