Cache County Planning Commission Meeting 11-06-2025

Prayer. Our father in heaven, we're grateful for the opportunity to live in this great country. We're grateful for the chance to exercise our freedoms and have this election time this season. We give you thanks for those who serve and bless our lives and do their community service. We pray for guidance and wisdom this evening. We pray that we can plan for the future and be understanding and listen appropriately. We pray for this guidance and blessings this night in the name of thy son, Jesus Christ. Amen. I pledge allegiance to

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

Thank you very much. Alright. To begin tonight, we have an agenda and minutes. Any any last minute changes to the agenda or it stands as is? And did everyone have an opportunity to review the minutes? Are there any additions or corrections?

Yes. If you're aware,

Do we have a motion? We have a second.

Any update on that? No. So they sent us in a legal description that works. Essentially, the situation that happened was it's located in this area, and a bearing essentially kicked it out this way instead of having it go that way. And so that was enough of an issue to send it back down to planning commission or the county council decided it was. Staff's recommendation is still for approval. We don't have any real changes on anything else. That's just kinda going through the process. We did we did recommend to the county council this the

the last the last time. So any discussion on this item or I'll or I'll accept a

motion. I'll make a motion to open a public hearing for SBA We do. Two four one three eight dash BP Paradise Rezone.

We have a motion. Do we have a second?

Second.

All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay. The public hearing is open. Anybody who came to speak on this item, please come to the microphone over here and state your name for for the record. Anyone? Motion to close the public hearing. We have a motion. Do we have a second?

Second.

Motion to second. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay. Any discussion on this, or do we have a motion?

Is the is the applicant here by chance?

No. They had a prior commitment.

I just I appreciated not much yeah. I appreciated the the letter from from Paradise, you know, just addressing that this isn't within our annexation zone. If this kind of use was in our city, this is the requirements it would be today. So as we know, it'll come back for CUP at some point. But because Paradise Town was forthcoming and and helped us understand what their concerns or requirements are, I would

expect us to

try and incorporate those standards in our decision making. Just just comment. Yeah. Great.

And definitely something that we have encouraged the municipalities to to give us their input. And so so you're

That's why I wanted to say something. Yeah.

Any other discussion? I'll entertain a motion.

I'll make a motion to recommend approval of the, SBA Paradise rezone, the county council.

Okay. We have a motion. I'll second. And a second. Any discussion on the motion? All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay. Moving on. Our second item of of discussion tonight is the Powder Mountain Master Plan discussion of conditions of approval and development review process. Connor?

So, Powder Mountain here is gonna give a presentation on all that, basically. That's pretty much it. Okay.

Good evening. Brooke Consford, Powder Mountain. I thought Angie was gonna give a a preview, so that's why I was waiting for a second. But I'm gonna hand something out because I don't trust tech either. So while I'm walking, I might as well talk. But idea tonight was to review the conditions of approval that you may have for the December public hearing and hopefully where we would be considered for a decision making, hopefully, a positive decision to approve the master plan CUP. So I heard you loud and clear at the last meeting where you'd like some time to review the conditions before then you had to make a decision on them. And so what we did is we put together, I believe there are eight conditions. Actually, do you mind going to the first slide? Thank you. Yes, please. And some of them had been written and provided previously and had been presented from JUB, your third party, consultant to the master plan. And so numbers one through five, which are the, interlocal agreements for one and two, UDOT, density tracking, and soil testing, those all had been in one shape or form provided to you before. We did a little bit of tweaking, after our last conversation to try to make these, match some of the pieces of information that you were looking for. I haven't had a chance to talk to your legal counsel yet, but one of the things that we struggle with the most that we hear over and over again from both counsel as in county counsel, not just legal counsel, but also from the planning commission is that you're focused and you're would like to have interlocals in place. That and I haven't had an opportunity yet to speak to legal counsel. However, one of the challenges is that I we can't demand I don't believe the county can demand of the two parties to make an agreement. So we had written it in a way that didn't prohibit the master plan from moving forward, but it did give some incentive or some time clock on both Weber and Cash Fire SAR and EMT and Sheriff to come to some sort of agreement. As you all know, the services are already being provided by the only place that there is a road and by the Weber County. And so the services are in play and in place, and they would continue operating until such time an agreement is entered into. So I think maybe your attorney could speak to maybe other ways that would be encouraging but yet not limiting to have that get done. But we have still provided language that that doesn't demand, but it gives them a time clock to try to encourage them along. So those are the first two in your list, regarding the interlocal. The third one, the u dot, requirement. Simply what that does is it matches the language already existing per the, the development agreement because in Weber County, back when that got approved, development agreements were, legislatively allowed by the, by the state. And so, at that time, Powder Mountain agreed to this close to this language. Obviously, this has been adapted to mention Cache County, but but what it says says is at a certain threshold of 1,477 units, you're doing a new traffic study because one's already been provided. And it would then determine at that point if additional recommendations needed to be implemented. And then UDOT, because it is, at least for today, State Highway 158, a UDOT Road, and they therefore control whether or not those can occur. But it's a it is a good condition to address a threshold of units that already matches, what the requirement is in, in Weber County. So that's condition number three. Condition number, thank you so much, four, five, and six, which are on the next slide. JUB had mentioned, and I believe Angie, had talked about, a way to density track so that every time an application comes in and it's requesting density, it would be able to be tracked by the county against the density that you end up approving as part of the master plan. And so that would be applied to the development so that you would, in the future, you know, a planning commission ten years from now could easily see what was asked for and then where we stood in the in the process of development at every single stage. Soil Soil testing is a is a good one. Although we've peppered the mountain with, geological and soils reports, making sure that those are submitted as part of, subdivisions is just makes a lot of sense. And so we've suggested that as a in language at number five. And then the sixth, this is new. It hadn't been listed in the, the JUB report. Currently, we've agreed to, on the Weber County side, to follow the standard as written as, on the sheet in front of you and on the screen. I'm also happy to but it references a Weber County code. And is what I saw, I couldn't find a Cache County code that worked for Dark Sky. So we could either keep it, to match the code that is applicable on the Weber County side, which is a Dark Sky code. Or if that made you uncomfortable, my suggestion is that we cite the International Dark Sky Ordinance, which, I've done before. Happy to live by it. It's a it's a great ordinance. And then commit that we will change the Weber County side to that all lighting on the project would follow that same standard and we would put that into our design guidelines. So I'm also happy to amend that if you don't like the reference to the Weber County code. So then the last two things on your sheet, number seven and number eight, these were just cleanup items that the Planning Commission had mentioned. Yes. Thank you. That also match. So this is language that we're trying to identify things that, whether it was JUB or the planning commission said these are things that we'd like to see in conditions. And so, if you read the RR zone, tedious process, but, it references in the zoning that, within the master plan area, you you, the applicant or the developer, is supposed to adopt a set of standards. And an agricultural zoning setback. Instead, and we have supplied these to staff, there is a set of guidelines that is required for every single subdivision that comes through through the process here. So therefore, let's say we come through with a single family subdivision and they're they're big lots. They would have a they would follow the design guidelines that you would have a copy of that show that each one of them, the lots has to have a site notebook, which simply outlines where the buildable area is, where the unbuildable area is, if there's a height restriction, and all of that information is contained in the design guidelines. What that does is it takes the pressure off of trying to come up with a, one size fits all strategy for how homes have to sit on a property and instead are, catered and site specific to the property itself. And so if you'd like to see that, maybe staff may have provided that already, but that would be something that in terms of management, the, the the project, the developer, the owner manages those guidelines. And then when an application comes in, for subdivision and then for building permit, your building department would reference that section and your planning department would say, yep. This matches exactly what the design guidelines mandate in terms of height, massing, setbacks. And then the ZCA process, it's unclear in the way that the, our zone is written if you have to follow the ZCA process. So if you go to the next slide, we wanted to, in conjunction with meeting with JUB and staff, we wanted to say when that yes. That does happen and when. As I understand it, your process for ZCAs is actually being amended right now so that it potentially may be a little bit more streamlined. So it's not so much paperwork for staff, but it gets at the same answers that and concerns that the the staff is looking at. If you look at this screen, and it's the second sheet in your packet, on the left hand side, this is where we are today. So we're in the master plan CUP process. If we were to receive approval, at that point, what happens? And that that what happens is you move, you know, towards the right hand side of the page. So if we were, let's say, looking to, build a new ski lodge, we would probably come in and want to plat or subdivide out the parcel that that building was sitting on. Instead of sitting on a, you know, a thousand acre parcel, we would identify boundaries for that parcel. And we could, per this development process chart, come in at the same time with the development plan application. And so that what that would mean is it would define the legal description and so the actual plat, which you guys see all the time. And then on top of that, you would also get all of the details, some architectural renderings, some massing, some of the, any of the square footage, any of the details still at concept level, but enough for you to understand what the lodge is looking like and what it's supposed to be with that subdivision plat. We could also, the way that it's described, you could subdivide parcels without having the understanding of what you're building yet if you're trying to, you know, move through the process maybe in a different way. Because first, do you want to subdivide and then think about or take a little bit longer to work on, your development plan. So single family homes, for example, they would go through the subdivision plat, which is on the bottom part of the screen, but they wouldn't need to come up through the development plan. So only things like multifamily, commercial, hotel, they would go through both the subdivision and the development plan process. But, either raw land that just is going to stay that way, but for whatever reason needs a subdivision plat or single family would come through the subdivision plat process, which matches exactly what the state law has set up and what you currently go through right now. So preliminary and then final through staff. We would then record a subdivision plat. That's when you then can come in at any time and go through the Zoning, the ZCA, ZCA, the zoning clearance application just for single family homes. And then if that were to receive approval, it could go back over to the building department and the owner of that property could seek the permit. If you are in the top part of the screen and you are a commercial building or the lodge, like I was explaining, after you would go through the subdivision and development plan process, you would go right to building permit. Because if you look at your ZCA, I don't know if you've looked at them recently, all of the all of the questions are answered through the development plan process. So it would be redundant to, go through that again. But you do, you get all your answers, early on in the development plan process. And then you can see it continues to the right, construction and And then you can see it continues to the right construction and certificate of occupancy. So the the only slight difference, to other projects that you see coming through Cache County is that development plan process, which is, detailed out in the RR zoning, and it has all of the requirements for what needs to be submitted, and it's quite detailed. So it is it goes to you. You'll see the the purple, diamond is the planning commission's responsibility. So you will have multiple looks at So you will have multiple looks at at things, if they are anything other than single family. And even single family, you will get to see through subdivisions. And so this, we hope, makes a lot of sense and is clear on how future applications would go. The master plan basically is just the start of all of the time we get to spend together. So do you have any questions about the the conditions of approval or the development process chart? K. I if you do, I would oh, sorry.

If it gets to a point where we're to approve something Mhmm. And our regulations are different than weaver's regulations, then we have to follow ours.

Is that correct? So On our side.

Pardon? On our side.

Yes. All of the so everything on Cache County, I'm suggesting, and by law, should follow the Cache County, ordinances. The only question or up for debate is that dark sky piece because you don't have a dark sky and we want to I've heard everyone well, we want it too, but I've heard it said that you want it. So I'm trying to come up with a solution for that. And so I'm happy to do that. Like I said, two ways, reference the the Weber County. You could even add, and Andrew probably has ideas, you could add a clause until such time where the Cache County adopts one, some language like that, or you can go with a third thing, which is that we reference the International Dark Sky Code and I amend the design guidelines to reference that. I'm happy to do it whatever way you want. So the the intention though is that by before December 4, which would be the next time that we would see each other regarding this and and would be up hopefully for approval, that any questions or things that you'd like to see differently in the conditions are addressed and written to your satisfaction so that we're not trying to, edit on the fly or, you know, like, if there's some conversation to be had, I'd love to have that ahead of time.

I was gonna say one thing I'd like to point out and appreciate you bringing up Brooke on the first two conditions within local I did have some concerns I expressed to staff as well. I think it would be worth having that conversation beforehand as well to iron out exactly how what we think the best way would be going forward to make sure those services are provided and that everyone's on the same page. Right. That we we all agree that the services have to be provided and that,

we would prefer an interlocal to be in place very soon. And so I'd love to hear what the suggestions from your attorney how to not just incentivize, but protect the county and putting that language. Yeah.

So the Ogden Valley City that is gonna start, does the boundaries come up to where your building is, not up on a ski reserve that the other one

do You know how that's going to affect anything in Weber County, where we're gonna be doing? Wow. That's a good question because I I would love to have a crystal ball and tell you what I think is going to happen. We're excited for the the new city to exist, and it does impact our HQ. So the headquarters, two of our buildings, and some of our property in the very low in the valley portion of the the area are within the new city. And we don't intend on amending those or or adding to those very much. So the we're not sure of what the impacts of that will look like. Although, because they're brand new and they don't have, you know, active an active way to take permits or to plow roads or to do to supply any services yet, there will likely be a delay in any of the work, if we had any, like the parking lot that we're looking at, if we try to do something through the city between now and probably the next two years. But the all of what, you know, obviously, is in Cache County and then the adjacent piece on mountain has remained in the county. And so all of the mountain land, the entire master plan, all of the skiing takes place outside of the city jurisdiction. But for anything which is very minor but is some of our land in the in the on the valley, it probably will be again, if we have an application and we needed to put something in to build, it will likely take some time to get through a process since they're just getting started.

Thank you.

Any questions for the applicant? Had a couple of questions for council. Just those you you brought up the first and it's really the first three. This body doesn't have any way to

to That's my part. Make sure that the bonding commission can't make

We can't. Right. So that's why I need to I want to treat that language and just do something along lines. Hey. We need to make sure This doesn't seem like something we put in a condition because if it doesn't happen, well, that could I think that would be bad for the applicant because if it doesn't happen, that's part of you know, that that can cause their conditional use to to be to be void. I would see that this would be more of a as a condition, it would be prior to recording or prior to development. This needs to be in place. I know that's not what the applicant is seeking. They they don't definitely don't want that to impede that. But in that seems what the what the condition should probably be.

Yeah. I think it's like I said, I need to work on how we wanna Make sure we're on the same page with everybody. Right? What makes most sense? It's just something along the lines that Charter Mountain will work with the county to ensure that adequate services are provided and that the county is okay with whatever that looks like, and those details need to be flushed out. Right? But as written, like you said, to those same con those same concerns. I I don't think that necessarily should be a condition. I think that's probably more of an impediment to to moving it forward. Yeah.

But there should be something, and maybe it maybe it's at the maybe it's at the county council level that they they have, you know, give that direction that that we should work in good faith or whatever. Let's see. I thought I had one more. Any other questions about this?

The only other question, mister chairman, that I would have or statement is when she was referring to the conditions, if there was conditions and such before December 4, we don't really have any say or knowledge of that till just before the meeting. So

unless we could get them sooner, when might you guys have those conditions? Just as soon as possible. There's a couple things we wanna walk through. We have a meeting with the applicant next week. I imagine the legal wants to meet with us at some point. But, hopefully, yeah, just soon as possible so you guys can have plenty of time to look them over. So do you have a timeline that would work for you where you'd feel comfortable with it? Well, the sooner, the better we're supposed to be

prepared if there's any differences.

My my other question for counsel was in our conditions, you know, we have this master plan. We can condition and say, shall meet the conditions of the of the master plan? You know, we do something similar to that. But, you know, as I look through look through the master plan and the design specifications and all of that, it's like, they're they've gone over and above what we would normally do in in most situations.

That seems that seems more than adequate. Do we have that ability to If I understand the question right, it's more or less, hey, you need to abide by all the conditions in the letter of intent or estimated or something along those lines if that's where you're getting out of your pocket.

And I think that's that's standard practice for us. How how in detail does that I mean, is that down to chapter and verse in every one of those things if there are deviations or anyway, the point is Yeah. Is that going to be adequate if we if we say you've got it you'd have to abide by

Well, it's been said reference of standard. Yeah. Because, yeah, the way the master plan is, the master plan is you're looking at it as to for approval and it follows the CP process. So you put whatever conditions you deem fit to mitigate whatever concerns you have. K.

K. Alright. Thanks, Powder Mountain, for for the update. Appreciate that. Alright. Moving on, Item number three, WMCD upper canal pipeline project CUP.

Okay.

What do we have on this one?

One sec. Here is the staff report for that. So the WMCD upper canal pipeline project is a request by the Wellsville Mending Conservation District to pipe the existing open canals. Basically, it runs from here all the way up. So because it's agricultural, the only the parcels, even if they're restricted, we wouldn't necessarily cause an issue with the project. So the parcel legality wasn't checked. The one concern we did have was, this is federal government land right here, Bureau of Reclamation. So the approval that we're gonna give today or at least that we're gonna recommend doesn't apply to that, but everything else just just you can kinda focus on this area here. Essentially, their whole goal is to pipe it and pressurize it with the kind of standard condition of trying to con conserve water, improve deliverability of the water itself, things like that. So it's gonna be 1.79 miles of pipe. 260 feet of that's gonna be 36 inch pipe. 9,200 feet of that's gonna be 24 inch pipe. There will be two structures. There'll be a regulating tank and a pump station and a couple of turnouts. In terms of canal coverage between two thousand four hundred West and three thousand two hundred West, the overlying land will just be farmed. Then from twenty four hundred west to the pump station, it'll be gravel road based so they can access the pump station itself. There are a few road crossings, twenty 4 hundred west and sorry. One second. Twenty four hundred West and thirty two hundred West. And so for that, I'm just going to provide basic information to Matt. So improvement plans, right away, dedication, things like that. Past that, there's nothing too crazy about it. Because it's it's exempt from a parking analysis. Basically, the request that we have for the applicant during application is just make sure during construction, parking doesn't interfere interfere with surrounding property owners. And then after construction, just make sure anything that's going on on that site is well contained. The fire district didn't have any comments or concerns about the project. The applicant is remove responsible for the removal of any solid waste generated by the project. They said there shouldn't be any just because they'll only ever be out there temporarily. But, otherwise, that's something they need to take care of. In terms of stormwater, that is one of the bigger concerns that we had. So it'll just have to provide a stormwater analysis to us. Noxious weeds, as always, that's a concern. So they'll have to work with the vegetation management division to provide a, noxious weed management plan. I imagine they already have one in place. They'll just have to provide us with a copy of that. Past that, it's just kinda general, air quality, so limit, the amount of dust that gets kicked up as part of the project. There's no sensitive lands. The noticing was completed on the twenty fourth. At the time of writing the staff report, we hadn't received a comment. Now we've received a comment from Hirend City just expressing kind of a basic, hey, if you're gonna work with our electrical company, please work with us in advance. But past that, we are recommending approval with the 16 conditions and three conclusions.

Referring to the needs for power.

Yes. So there's the the spillway, basically, that might cause an issue with getting power down there. So

Alright. Thank you. Thank you very much. Is the applicant here to speak to this? You can just state your name and and then maybe give us anything that that we missed in the overview. K.

I'm Curt Lindley, and, actually, I'm the water master for the Canal Company. And, basically, all we're doing is just trying to fill a canal and we a year ago, we filled the back half in. And so this year, we're just trying to complete the project.

K.

That's what's held it out so far. That's what we're waiting on to to finish the process.

Any questions? I have one question for the applicant. Sometimes the our canal systems become the de facto stormwater system in an area. Have you taken a look at that and and any impacts that may happen by putting a pipe in the ground and and not having that ditch to carry away stormwater?

Really, there is only one spot that it might impact. And when they build the subdivision, they were required to put a settling pond or a holding pond in. Everything else basically just runs out through the fields. Okay.

Kurt, did you sleep? Go ahead. According to that, Dan,

that. No. In fact in fact, if we catch stormwater coming into the canals, we make them diverted. So the the good thing about this canal system is is the canal company actually owns the property that the canal is on. So the so it's not an easement.

It's actually ownership of the of the property. Yeah. It's the same in that one, but they they literally get a fee from them to maintain that as a now I was wondering if you're eventually going to do that if needed.

No. Right now, no. Hopefully, no.

Okay. Kurt, have you read through or the your people read through and agree with all the conditions,

K. Thank you very much. Commissioners? Any discussion on this

proposal? I'm ready to make a motion.

Okay.

Mister chairman, I move that we approve the WMCD upper canal pipeline project additional use for that for the 16 conditions.

We have a motion. Do we have a second?

Second.

Motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay. Motion carries.

Moving on.

Next item is the item number four, Lauer Foods, South Road Extension Conditional Use Permit. A re request to create and operate a general manufacturing use type 2,100 facility on 7.8 o acres located about 9400 North US 89 in Richmond in the industrial zone.

Chris is handing out some staff reports. We can just wait a second if you want a copy. Perfect. Alright. So this is a request to operate a transport services. Use type, 3,500 on 7.8 acres, located just south of the Lauer's food plant. A little bit of history, this parcel is rezoned from the A 10 zone to the industrial zone in 2025. It was recommended for approval on August 7, and then it was approved by council on September 23. The parcel status, it has changed size and configuration since 2006, but it is still legal. The purpose of this project is basically to enhance safety. Essentially, my understanding, if you look at the letter of intent, which should be in that packet, this area here has caused a problem over the years where trying to access onto the actual site itself has caused, just unsafe conditions. So this is trying to solve that by giving kind of a dedicated area, for them to stage and just perform general transportation logistics. In terms of operation, logistics. In terms of operation, no employees will be part of this. They'll just be part of semi truck usage only. Hours of operation, it's Monday through Saturday, 7AM to 7PM. Parking, it's not meant to serve customers or employees. In terms of waste, anything that's generated will be disposed of by the applicant. Equipment will be limited to just semi trucks and the occasional light utility vehicle. Lighting. There will be light poles installed along the area, just to help provide a little bit more safety in low light conditions. Signage. Same thing. Basic signage. Just wayfinding and safety signage. Past that, the big concern is roads. So minimum lot for the industrial zone is a 150 feet. They meet that. There's two things happening here. We have a minor collector and a major local. So the primary access for the project is gonna come off of Highway 91. At least on the county side, there's a little bit more up there, and I believe that's come off of Highway 91 as well. That's a UDOT Road. It's classified as a principal arterial. It's meant to kind of serve as a high speed transportation route through Smithfield and Richmond. It provides access to multiple agricultural and residential properties, and I believe is the main access for Lauer Foods. Is that correct? One of three. Okay. And then past that, there's an access spacing, 550 feet in or a 500 feet, then a minimum street spacing of 660 feet. As part of this, UDOT will have to provide approval on that. The second is State Street, which borders on the backside of the parcel. This is classified as a minor collector. It's meant to service smaller communities and link important traffic generators. In this case, the road is paved, has a width of 22 feet, a planned width of 30 feet, and provides access to multiple dwellings, agricultural uses, and is the main route for buses to North Cache Junior High. And then there is a third road that isn't seen on here. Basically, I have 9400 North right here, and it cuts across if the CP goes forward, it'll cut across all the way to State Street. In that case, it'll have to meet a major local standard. It's shown on the Richmond City master plan. It aligns with the county grid and which basically just be a continuation of 9400 North on the other side. As part of this, the site developer will have to build that out. And there's kind of just the standard roadway conditions in that they'll have to submit roadway improvement plans, dedicate right away, provide you approval from UDOT, things like that. Past that, in terms of parking, they will have to provide a parking analysis. And then performance standards, this one is a bit interesting. Basically, because it ties onto it's kind of tied together to a certain extent, it has to provide in a way that just doesn't impact surrounding streets. Past that, there's also a screening requirement. Since this is an industrial parcel and it connects on the A-ten parcels, they have to provide a certain level of screening. That's just outlined in seventeen ten zero three zero a. Past that fire control, the county fire district didn't have any comments. Basically, they said when they come in for development, they'll just take a look at their application and go from there. Solid waste disposal, it is on the applicant to take care of that. In their letter of intent, they said they'll take care of it. Anything past that? Not really. In terms of stormwater site development, just standard conditions, provide a stormwater report, make any improvements as necessary. Lighting, we did have concerns with those lighting poles. We just asked that they're dark sky compliant. Past that, it is in the agricultural protection areas within 300 feet of one, but it's not in one. So we don't have any major concerns there. Noticing was completed on the twenty fourth. And at this time, we have not had any public comments, but we do recommend approval with 16 conditions and two conclusions.

One quick question on that. So just just to clarify the use. So these are these trucks are outside trucks coming in to haul bring in just bring in raw materials and take away finished product, but they're just staging staging there to to, await loading or unloading. Yes, ma'am. Is that accurate? K.

Mister Jones? Yes. I have a I have a question on this. So, honestly, I I have a question or concern. I could see if if applicant was developing this property, putting in a bunch of homes, what have you, to have to to put that road in. But have have we even run any cost estimates on what it's gonna cost White if he's only wanting to use an access point? And keep in mind that that parking lot on the city side is already pretty much to grade. It's not complete, but that's why they're doing this, is trying to be compliant. Why are we requiring them to build a road up to State Street when we're only 285 feet in the county?

Alright. I think Matt could probably answer that better than I could. I

think it's easy.

Matt Phillips, public works director. I'm sure there's gonna be a lot more road questions, so maybe we get them all out, and then we'll try to answer them all in one fell swoop. But I was gonna see if you might change

change this because I think it will help for discussion purposes.

So that we can all see what's I'll give us a better idea of what's going on there with the parking and stuff. But

So I can answer now or I'm happy to like I said, maybe the applicant, I know he has some concerns with the road as well. So if we wanna try to answer them all or if we wanna piecemeal them. But

A question I have is, the trucks are parked there, and they have to get from there up to the warehouses. Do they have to use the roads, the main roads, or is there going to be a road from there up to their property?

The the applicant can probably address that as well, but all the area that you see gentleman pool, all the area that you see over there that's in that lighter color, that's all the that's the parking area. So once once they're off the state road, then they'd be able to travel up and down on their private property to the plant and back and forth and do what they needed to do. So the lighter color, that's that's already

that that has

gravel or or some hard surface harder surface that it That was That's part of the proposed project. They said move dirt to

the Oh. The county line. Okay. I

Yeah. Good. Perfect.

Jake Latham, Sunrise Engineering, representing Lauer Foods.

Steve Wood with Sunrise Engineering, Lauer Family Foods engineer. If you guys could just speak up, we'll Absolutely. Sorry. So we've got a a handout here as well as Connor. We got the the staff report a little bit later on Tuesday, so I didn't have much time, but I did email you a PDF if you'd like. So just so you know that there you do have a digital copy of this handout. I think the best place to start is actually a little bit of a history. On the very last page of this handout that Jake is handing out, there's a little bit of a timeline lay down. And I I know it's on the last page, but I kinda wanna start there to be a little reverse. Yes. You're gonna take it? Yeah. That'd be alright. So back in so the first date, if you wanna think about in the very beginning of 2023, our discussions with Lauer Family Foods and looking at our facility and looking at what needs to happen, we're having a a difficult time with the arriving trucks and the departing trucks, both with navigate Insight navigation as well as meeting certain UDOT weight limits. There are for larger trucks, there's certain weight limits that they have to meet and frozen beef hits it pretty quick. So there is a scale that has been utilized, but it's over on 200 North LW Miller's location. So trucks may be overweighted. They have to drive over there. They get weighed. They're too heavy. They gotta come back. They gotta reload. So there becomes a little bit of a logistic nightmare as that as well as there was a significant concern with some staging and we'll get to some imagery of that here in a minute, but we've had continual issues with trucks parking in the median on the highway. We've had trucks parking on the shoulder. We've had trucks backing down the middle of the road because they missed a turn. We've had trucks run over a three foot boulder and drag it into the road. We've had quite the assortment of mishaps with semis and their individual abilities to navigate. So it's been a concern within the within the company of Lauer Family Foods to help mitigate this problem. So we, knowing this was a UDOT road and we've had other UDOT permits, we approached UDOT in establishing this access onto their road and we made that application in May 2023. During that pre application meeting both Richmond City and Cache County were invited as participants, which is a standard practice within those pre application meetings to notify the local jurisdictions of those meetings. And during that time, this particular site layout was discussed and the connection possibility of 9400 North. That was actually a discussion item that has been back from 2023. And during that time, Lowers have indicated that they know they don't want that public road and it wasn't required by UDOT and they had two avenues of permitting for us. One was either we dedicate that as a public road or we can move as a private access, and the private access is far more expensive because we got our application submitted in July 2023, and then they let us know in August 2024 that there was a significant roadblock to that application. That was a limited access line. That limited access line runs parallel to the highway and ends at the county Richmond City boundary, which is now the same boundary as parcel ending in 008. What that limited access line means is that the property owners along the highway south of that location no longer have the right for property access beyond their current land use. It was purchased when the road is widened some ten, fifteen years ago. And so we don't technically, in UDOT's eyes, we didn't have the legal right to access the highway at that location regardless of a conditional use access permit. So we started the process of actually purchasing that access right back from UDOT, which is, as you can see, over a year long process and working on that documentation. And they gave us again two options at that time. One, we could either declare this access as a public road and dedicate the whole right away as a public road, and they would waive all of the fees associated with that acquisition of that access. Or we could proceed as a public or as a private entity requesting access to the road and have to pay the value of that access, which actually got valued at about a $120,000. We actually have to have a special appraisal come out and value that access, and we're closing one access and opening this one, and the closure of that access and the one that we're opening is about worth about a $120,000 from that appraisal. We have got to purchase that right back from UDOT, so so fun. In discussions with Lauer Family Foods and how their business model and the product that they operate, it was some pretty heavy discussions on whether we make this a public road and avoid that cost or do we incur that cost and keep it private. And one of the primary issues is is as all of us know here as we've live in Cache Valley is you've got your dairymen that's been there for some generations. Development has encroached on them and people complain about the smell and the traffic and eventually the dairymen has run out of the expanding town. This has been a concern for the operations of the Lauer Family Foods operation concerning their cooking and delivery of meat. Once sometimes it smells great, and at the back end of the waste stream, it doesn't smell so good sometimes. It's just a matter of cooking with meat. So, but they've realized that this is a risk to their business. And so they've actually put it as part of their business plan is to create a development buffer around their facility. By doing so, they've purchased ground as it's been available, not for developing rights or anything of that nature, but just to protect their buffer so that they can continue to operate. It's actually really fun if you get on Google Earth and you look at the historic imagery of this site. It's incredible the growth that Lauer Family Foods has experienced over the past four generations. And they wanna maintain that and make sure that, one, they're being good neighbors, and one of the best ways for them to be good neighbors is to keep that development buffer around them. And so we discussed that pretty heavily with this public access road, and they determined that it was in their best interest to pay the 120 or to negotiate with UDOT in that value and to keep this Southern Road a private access and not connect 90 State Street with the UDOT line. And that was a discussion that was made a year ago and we've moved forward with that discussion, with UDOT. Again, it's been a long legal discussion of this breaking this limited access line, but we're on the tail end of it. We're pretty excited about that piece. It's been two years ongoing. So things that would continue, we continued to go through the UDOT process. In 2025, we began work on the property that was located in Richmond City and we did continue to work and this, at that time, that was all one parcel. As was mentioned by Connor, there was some boundary line adjustments. The Lauer Parcel actually was about 80% in Richmond City and about 20% in Cache County. Got split by the county line. And there was a we were continuing to work on our scale in this access road that we had permitted and we crossed over the county line without realizing it, just we're on the same parcel and just didn't We were notified by Cache County that we had crossed the county line and we didn't have approved plans. So as you notice in that timeline, we did get a notice of violation just saying, hey, you've got you're working in the county. So we stopped work as soon as we got that notification and we contacted the development services. Alright. We understand. We've crossed the line. We just were working within our parcel boundaries on yeah. We made a mistake. Let's fix it. How do we go about it? We were directed that we need to rezone or actually we needed to reshape the parcels so that we had one parcel in the county and one in Richmond, so there was no longer a split between the two. So we reshaped the parcels and then we submitted a rezone on the parcel that was now in the county so that it could meet the uses for the parking and the arrival of these trucks. And as was mentioned, that rezoning came before this meeting, back in August and we had it approved by the Cache County in September and now we're here before you again for the next step, which is the conditional use permit. So just to give a little bit of history, I know that it was long, but I feel it's important to understand kind of where we're getting there. And so with the staff report, we would at the front page and now we gotta jump to the first page of the packet, we would like to request that of the 16 conditions, that condition number nine be altered to remove discussion of 9400 South and that the area dedicated for State Street, and my understanding is that it's a 66 foot right of way, be measured from the center of asphalt. So my understanding, if you zoom into the State Street on our side, you can see there is that jog in that property line. Part of it is in that jog actually occurs inside the county. The width of the right away north of that jog is about 80 to 90 feet. South of it, it's about 55 feet. And so, yeah, we're willing to look at the center line of the asphalt and measure out 33 feet or half of the right of way and make sure that the county has the dedicated right of way. But we would ask that we not dedicate anything to 9400 South and that that road not be built. And so that would be altering condition number nine so that we only dedicate the part to State Street. Nothing for 9400 South and that that consequently condition number 11 would be removed. And that is the primary effect of that would be condition number 11 being removed would be that 9400 South would not be built. And that on State Street, presently, the the ongoing asphalt I was looking at and I need to double check this, but I was looking at a 24 required asphalt width and there was a 20 tube available. And so just looking at in order to extend extend it an extra two feet for the only frontage of 300 feet, it would be actually potentially more damaging to the asphalt because you'd have to cut into it, narrowing it, and then you'd only have a two to three foot wide piece of asphalt on the edge, which doesn't adhere well and can break off easily with your freeze thaw cycles. And so then later in this document, and we can go through them, there's just a couple of bullet points that I wanted to provide as to why we'd be requesting these alteration and removal of these conditions. The first being on that second page, grid alignment with the topography. We totally understand that looking at the grid and the transportation of the public throughout the grid system is important. And then and your public works director actually does a fantastic job of looking at that and and that's why the condition is here is he's looking at that grid. We were looking at it as well, and that next sheet just shows the the impact that that would be to the property owners if they had to build that. On the lower section, you can see our current design for our access onto the right of way, and you can see those grade percentages range between three to 7% as you come off that. If it were to be built to Cache County standards, it requires that everything within 50 feet is 4%, which would actually create a significant cut into the property that then we would have to make up. So it's a very significant and costly impact. Whereas this type of access, we're just fine navigating it with our semis. If you ever had the pleasure of walking the the lower sites, we often deal with 1310% grades with semis, so this is actually a dream come true to deal with something at 6%. But if we were to develop this according to the Cache County standards of making this a public road, it would be a significantly cost difference in excavation and road alignment if we were to be held to that standard as a public road. And looking at also carrying that road on to connecting on the other side of 9400 South, you have 12% and up to a max of 23% slopes separating those two areas. And so it just doesn't seem very feasible to connect that grid at that location as a complete section. I'll I'll as a two d aerial, it makes complete sense to bring it up as a comment. But looking into the actual topography of the land as a connective route going east west, it just doesn't pencil out in terms of earth movement and alternative routing. The next point that we wanted to bring up is Lauer Family Foods actually is a very large consumer of water. And historically, they were hooked up to Richmond City, and they were Richmond City's single largest water user. And if you've ever panicked on your summer water bill, their water bill was in the hundreds of thousands a month. And so we had decided back in 2017 that we were actually going to develop our own water system. And so just if you wouldn't mind, Connor, panning to the east a little bit, that property right there that kind of looks like a giant flag lot is we have a concrete water tank at that location and a well that is pulling out culinary grade water that we have developed our own water system so that we are no longer a burden to Richmond City and it's cheaper for us to operate our own water system than it is to purchase it from the culinary network. So we've got it all to USDA approval for the food parameters and that water system actually has a major trunk line that runs down that flag lot and then continues to run due west at that location underneath the corridor for this proposed 9400 South and then makes a bend right at that center gray line right to the lot up to the primary facility. So we've got some critical utilities underneath this proposed 9400 South corridor that we don't want under asphalt. We don't want under a public road. Additionally, that is also our high voltage power supply that we are working on with Utah or not Utah, Rocky Mountain Power. There's presently high voltage in that alignment as well, and there's ongoing discussions of enhancing that to reduce our power draw as well. Because again, we suck a lot of power and we're trying to reduce that. And ironically, purchasing electricity at a high voltage helps reduce voltage loss and helps reduce our total energy consumption and so that's a big project we're looking at and that is our primary route for this high voltage lines. So one condition is that we don't want this road there is because we've got it's a major utility corridor for our private systems to maintain the facility. Additionally, right, if you can kind of see it actually in this imagery, there's a gray asphalted, the the well road, if you will. This is a temporary access as we are presently drilling an a well, if you pan to the west a little bit, to replace our current well. The current well is able to provide our water needs, but if it were to fail or go down for a significant period of time, it's a significant risk to the business. And it's either one, do we shut down until the well gets repaired or replaced? Or two, do we build a new well for that eventuality? So presently, we're drilling a well right there. We're down to about 640 feet, and we just got good news that we are just changing geology. We're pretty excited. We're getting through all the clay muck and we're getting into some good finds and gravels. So, but that well ill building and content location is also in the potential impact zone of that road corridor. Yes. The road could be bent around it to some degree. It could be artistically drawn appropriately so, but it's just another area that this is a high utility corridor providing for Lauer Family Foods in our operations. The third item that I wanted to bring out kinda leads to the whole purpose of this, why we're here is the safety. These next couple images just show images that Lee Lauer has taken from his office or as he's been working around the site of semis parked on the highway, going backwards on the highway, parked in the shoulder, parking on the shoulder as the bus goes by, drivers drivers getting out of their bus and parking it as they try to walk across the highway. And our greatest one that occurred was someone decided to run over one of our three foot landscape boulders and drag it down the highway that we had to get a loader out there and lift up the truck and it completely ripped out all of the undercarriage of that semi. So again, our biggest reason for this project was to pull these semis off of the highway and provide a proper staging location for them. And so we feel that a public road connecting to our access degrades the whole goal of the project. We're trying to eliminate the interactions of the public and public's accessible areas with these semis and having a local road that people are traversing on the south side of our facility right where our semis, where we want them to come in off of the highway are just isn't in line with the goal of the project.

And vice versa, keeping the trucks out of the

We want the trucks outside of people's windshields. So more we can do that. The fourth identify the fourth reason is we're looking at the the proposed road and our biggest question is is this road, although it does line up very well with the county grid, it's just who is the intended purpose that this road may serve. And so we were just looking at the the current zoning of it is there is a significant large large parcel that kind of surrounds our current well house. If you wouldn't mind zooming out again to the to the east to that big red area. It's right here. Down a little bit. So that red area we're looking at, oh yeah, that's a good good area for development. Well, that's actually a conservation easement and that has been deeded as undevelopable, And so we're looking at just the other land in the area that could develop that would be a reason for increased traffic or a need for this road. A lot of the property is ironically owned by Lauer Family Foods as they try to protect that development buffer. The largest property to the south that connects onto 9000 South onto the highway is owned by Utah State and is a research facility. There are some internal ones and we've talked to with a lot of the neighbors and a lot of the neighbors don't have any plans of development. So we're just questioning what is the purpose of the road if it's a public road? What public is it going to serve? And does the county really want additional road that they now need to maintain that doesn't increase the level of service being delivered to the county members? Then our final item that we wanted to talk about was it was up that the current school buses are having difficulty with their routing. We have heard that the school buses have actually rerouted some of their buses. But the biggest complaint was what's affectionately known as Whiskey Lane, which is if you pan a little bit south there, Connor, right there where State Street makes that bend into 9000 North, it is a very Skalampos y area, but it's that is the area of complaint for the school buses. It is narrow, narrow and we totally get it. That's a valid complaint for school buses to be traveling through there. Our biggest question is is is it our job to solve that existing problem to some degree? Where there is property there that that road could be expanded on Cache County's property there, and there's some maintenance that could be done there to make it a better road. Additionally, Lowers have actually worked with the school district if you pan to the very north end up to 600 South. A little more. And if you zoom in on that northwest corner of Lauer's facility. The Northwest side of it. A little bit more north? Keep going right there. Right there. Board of Education, Cache County, that parcel right there. So Lauer Family Foods actually developed that for the buses, and they actually have an agreement that allows the buses to come in through their facility at gentle grades to come into that bus parking zone that's actually they've fenced off and put in electric gates for the, the Board of Education. And so they've worked really closely with helping mitigate the bus traffic, and so they kinda felt that the bus is really having a hard time. It's like, let's fix the actual problem rather than making a whole new road to help navigate those buses. So I guess I just wanted to present those reasons as to our request to strike condition 11 and to alter condition nine so that it only requires the dedication of this missing State Street right of way and no longer pursue the dedication of 9400 South. Sorry for being long winded, but I wanted to provide those provide that request and that explanation on behalf of Lauer Family Foods. If there's any

questions from Any questions for the applicant?

I guess I I'm still not clear in my mind. 9400 South, if it were developed, would be a a normal way that I can put it. Normal traffic could go in and out of that. If it were a public pub public road, yes. Yeah. If it's just a private, then there is access there for trucks or not access? There would be access for trucks, but we wouldn't somehow be designated so that we weren't creating There wouldn't be a physical connection up to State Street.

We'd be coming off of the highway up into our parking lot, and there would be no parking lot, and there would be no physical connection up to State Street. The what you see on the aerial right now is a temporary road for the well drilling. Once the well drill is drilled and it's functional, that gravel road is actually gonna be abandoned and refarmed over. Right. And so our current plan and request would be to not have it be a public right of way, and it would mean that there would be no traversable connection between our parking facilities off of the highway and State Street. So

And my point is to get off the highway, the truck's gonna have to turn there and everything. Yes. There's gotta be some easy access then. Oh, yeah. I assume that's what you're constructing is Yep. Access big enough. So this is the proposed access. And if And will

the signage such that people won't keep turning in there and creating problems for you? Yep. That is part of the the letter of intent provided is that we provide proper signage for navigation as well as, like, this is a flower family food packaging and receiving entrance only type signage and Okay. Putting that up. Yes. Sorry for misunderstanding.

Any other questions? Okay.

Thank you. Well, feel free to call us up for any questions, but we're just Alright.

Talk to Matt now.

Any more questions come from that? I just want to say I think Steven did a great job of speaking for on behalf of Lauer's and kind of making sure that we're all on the same page. We all kind of know what's going on. And so, you know, there these kind of decisions are not always easy. You know, there's land use. There's private property rights. There's, you know, trying to find the happy medium between development and road networks. So there's a lot there's a lot going on. Connor, if you wanna so one of the things that I look at from an engineering standpoint is and one of the things that's tasked to me of these conditional use permits is, do these developments have adequate access? Is there is there a development taking planned or platted roads? Or how does this, you know, as the development progresses, whether it be a subdivision, whether it be a single lot, we're always looking at what are the roads? How do we wanna develop our roads? And if you look at this particular case, as you guys have this decision before you, is you have a half a mile spacing between what's up there in Richmond Six Hundred South. Between 600 South and 9400 North, you have a half a mile where there is really no east west connections that go into Richmond. And the next road below that is another half a mile. So right now, on that side of the road where Lowers is, you have one mile where there is no there is no connection that goes east off of that state road that's a that's a public road. So when we look at what the county code is saying for grid spacing and where we should be trying to get these future roads for development and transportation and all that, this 9500 North fits every one of those definitions as far as grid where UDOT would want one. It's on the Richmond City's master plan. So while I I understand that there's a lot of hardships, there's been a lot of planning and and resources spent into the utilities and all that. As it sits right now, engineering wise and county code would say that that is a that is a prime spot for public road to connect from State Street to the highway to provide that spacing. If we you know, if you we're not trying to do quarter, you know, blocks or blocks. Right? We're looking at a half mile spacing. It lines up with the current 9400 North on the other side. So from an engineering standpoint and, you know, for discussion at this, that's why that condition's in there. Is this a place where we can, you know, find another alternate? We can move 9400 North, but if this development moves forward and that's a private private access there, that that public access and that opportunity to line those intersections up is is is gone. So

Matt, question for you for the requirement for that. So this is similar to to if a single single homeowner wants to build a house and either the road's not there or it's inadequate and they develop it. Right? Building a home or in this case, building an access counts as that development. We make that homeowner bring that road up to standard or build that road if it doesn't exist. If this was a single family home,

these conditions would be the exact same. And Brady, to your question about, hey, this seems like maybe this is not fair to make a business or commercial business or a single family home do all this work, that's exaction laws and the ombudsman gets involved, right? The code says one thing, how much can we exact? How much can the one single family have to pay and to put that into infrastructure and resources. And typically, there's some kind of a happy balance at that point, right? During that condition, a lot of times with the attorneys and everyone else, what that implication is and what that actual the homeowner has to pay or the developer at that point gets solved as part of that condition going forward,

if that helps. Doc, do you mind if I ask a couple of questions? Go ahead. So living there in Richmond, this is pretty passionate for me. And I know in the last couple of meetings, I brought up the flour mill on the North End. Yep. And so I'm very appreciative, especially for the ag in the valley, that we've got flour mill. But we're lucky we had killed somebody out there. I don't know if any of the county reps, you're including yourself, were out there this spring for this through the summer. But at daylight, it was nothing to have five or six trains, trucking pups lined up on the West side of highway with nowhere to go. We built a monstrosity on a postage staff, and they've got nowhere to move. I I agree with you. So Lowers, I admire their planning out here, their organization, their responsibility in trying to take care of that. And also living in Richmond, we've got a serious problem on the North Side, Main Street North, which isn't the county's problem, but we've got two roads that service the whole North Side Of Richmond. We've got Main Street. We've got 1st North. They've added, I would bet to the tune of 250 residential homes, plus we've added the ski resort traffic, and and we haven't changed a thing to get them people in and out of Richmond. You start from Main Street. You come south towards Flowers. You've got an outlet every block. And I realized that Richmond City could expand. Richmond City has not been contacted regarding annexing the parcel and would not consider annexation of the parcel without an application. The city does not have any concern regarding their request to rezone the parcel from Ag. And so I I'm respectful of our ordinances, and I want what's best for everybody. And I agree with the engineering that it makes sense. But 9400 North from highway to the railroad tracks isn't even maintained in the winter. And if it is, it might be one in six snowstorms. That road, most of the time, is blown over, and the only way you'll go down is in a portable drive. Do you agree or disagree? I agree. K? So if a person owns 250 feet of property, why are they responsible in the county to disperse Richmond's traffic?

I guess I'm not sure what you mean by disperse the Richmond's traffic.

Well, right now, that's primarily I mean, with the funk property being agricultural and I mean, anything could change. All you gotta do is have a a family member die or something else. We definitely have a lot of property on that end. But I just I guess the cost is as as a citizen, has anybody even put a pencil to what this road would cost to build? Nope. I mean, we think in 3 to 5,000,000. No. After they move their

Again, those those are a lot of things that we don't know. Even their application just shows their their proposed there. So a lot of these things that that they're bringing up, those are not known. Right? That wasn't this this so going back a little bit further, but first on the funk, and I think he's in the audience, but I think that's the funk property. I think that's an an ag protection, not a conservation. But I think he's here. He can answer that. But that means he could take that out at any point in time. I don't think that's a conservation easement. I think it's an ag protection. But but that aside, right, this is why, you know, proper planning, you know, no offense to the Lowers, but, right, they've been having this plan. They've been doing a lot of these improvements. This is the first time they've came for any land use decisions or anything other than the rezone, you know, last month. This is the first time that they've ever came. So you think we're coming for a CEP. We're trying to protect health and safety. We're trying to analyze all those intersections in a very short time. But they they haven't came any of the other previous stuff that they've been doing with those utilities, they maybe they did, but but this is the first time that they've came to the to get land use authority for that piece of property. So a lot of these plans and stuff they've been doing necessarily, you know, with their engineer on their own, we're not aware of all their proposed plans, their future stuff. Right now, what's what's been presented to us is that portion of the parking lot, right? So, you know, this is I'm not trying to say one way or another, if the planning commission sees fit to take this commission out, you're based on the information that we've been presented, based on the location, great. Right? But as putting this condition forward and looking at the grid spacing and looking at development going forward, we don't know what's gonna the Bowens could come in next week and improve that, and now you're you have more traffic. They could come in for commercial. So I don't think it's fair to to try to plan twenty years, thirty years, or forever in the future based on plan twenty years, thirty years or forever in the future based on, hey, what's that road doing today and it's not getting maintenance? And so I think the biggest factor in all of this is the transportation network, the grid system, those types of things. Hey, if we can find another way to create a grid system there and move 9,400 on the other side down south so that it's off that property and different things. But as it sits right now, that is the most efficient the way that the code is saying, you should make things line up. You should have connections between two. If there's an accident in this place, where do people go? If there's road construction, how do they get around this? You know, if Flowers wants to shut down part of State Street and or whatever, or you not doing things, we you you have to go all the way to Whiskey Lane, and Whiskey Lane is not appropriate for different types of traffic. So we're trying to create a network to give people alternates of ways to access it for health and safety, emergencies, flooding, all those types of things. So at least in my my opinion, if we're basing it on, hey, what's that road over there doing now? I I think we're looking little longer term in the future of how do we want to establish what kind of pattern of development do we wanna see, where do we want these roads, and it and it fits all of those. Now is there alternate solutions? Do we know what the the archerbalds are gonna do? Do we know what Bowen's gonna do? Do we know what Funk's gonna do? Do we know what we we don't. So we try to make our best guess of where we need these things, and we we hope that we're making good decisions and

so if that helps at all. Just while you're up here, do you mind if I ask one other question? So when the Hansons on 4th West in Smithfield North of Smithfield, give them lots that they've done, we require them to develop their side of the road. Yep. So, I mean, as a member of this group, I'm I'm I'm still against having to do this altogether. But if if the rest is in favor of it or the county is not gonna get over it, why does a 100% of it have to fall on louders?

So the applicant and their engineer, we had this discussion earlier today. And in most cities, you would do half your road. Right? So if you go back to the Hansen's, the county's road standards are such that they're already half. Right? You can't get any smaller than 20 feet wide for emergency services and two cars to pass each other. So a lot of times, we have this half road discussion come up and this land developer should pay half and this guy should pay half. But in the county, you can't build 10 foot. So the minimum width of a road, say in North Logan, is 26 feet. That's about their half, right? The curb, the gutter, the sidewalk you all put in, you don't put the curb and gutter and sidewalk on the other side, but you still have to build a road that meets the minimum health and safety standards. And the county's standards for most of our roads, we can't get any smaller. So you call it a half road, call it a full road, whatever you want. I don't think Lauer should should have to dedicate all all that road either. But if you look on the map up there and and not knowing what their future plans are and not having a full perspective, it looks like right now they have a road there. As you heard from them, that was a temporary access to get into their their well drilling facility.

Right?

But it's private property? It is private property. Right? They still should have came in and got a permit to access off the county road. Maybe that we would have known at that point. But the point I guess where I'm going with this is the way the county set up for if they wanna use or that we wanted to have public access along that portion right there, we could have that as they dedicated for future right away and at what point that that needed to be used. That's a happy medium, right? Instead of making them build it off, they don't need it. A lot of times, you know, Nolan and and some of the people we've talked about in other meetings, they might have a 100 acres and they wanna build one house. Right? Is it fair for that they build all those roads around there? A lot of times, we're able to have them build and improve the part that's necessary at that point. So I think there's ways that we could you know, mitigate the whole road. There's ways we could mitigate the amount of right away that they need to do. There's other things, but the point is, is if, does the county think that this is a good place for a public road? And if it is, then I think we need to pursue that even if we need to go back and have more discussions and work those details out. But a lot of times, those details aren't worked out before you get to the CUP because they take time. They take engineering. They take money. So, you know, I don't know what the Reed's gonna do on that other side, but it's gonna be very difficult to move that other road to line up with this. And we know that split intersections, if there becomes a street light in this or whatever happens in the future, the best place for that intersection to lie if we're going to a public road would be crisscross. You're not making them line their access up with it, right? So if it stays public, there might be a streetlight there and it's one side's public, one side's private, so be it. So I I and I talked to the applicant and their engineer earlier, and I feel like I've done my due diligence as the county engineer to put this before and have a discussion about it. Right? Based on all the engineering, based on this county code, based on the planning, I think there's discretion for anyone to decide, leave the condition or don't leave the condition, but I put it in there giving you guys my best engineering judgment on the grids and and all that. So

Yeah. But when when's the last time we said to a a applicant that comes before us, oh, don't worry about the standards that apply to this project, will just ignore them or whatever. Like, I don't recall we've ever done that. Everybody has to do their part, and I'm not aware that we've told anybody they don't have to build their portion of a road or that sort of thing. No.

Normally, we don't.

You know, it'd be my biggest concern. What sort of precedence is that gonna set for everybody else that comes before us and says, why are you making me add to the feet of asphalt

Yeah. I I think you're right.

Other other than, I think the way they're going about it right now, UDOT is gonna classify that as a private access. So there may be I don't know what UDOT's requirement is at some point to switch that back to public. So that would be one question I think I would all answer if if we went that route.

So so Nate and then their engineer, you know, mentioned this a lot, right? I can't remember the exact timeline, but I think Steve was saying they've been discussing this with UNOT for quite some time, right? This goes back to, you know, maybe defending County staff just a little bit is, if UDOT comes to us, we don't really know what's going on with development. There's no land use actions on the table. And UDOT is saying, what are you guys going to require for this? We do we don't know, right? So we can't give UDOT a yes, no, always answer. It's like, well, that's gonna depend on what they're doing when they're coming in, how they're gonna develop, is it a subdivision, is it not a subdivision. So I think the county's at fault by not being able to give them an answer a year and a half ago of, we're going all public, right? Because we're still trying to discuss this. There's no way we could have had this discussion or known this eighteen months ago. So part of our planning and part of some of the stuff that the county needs to do is make sure that these things are very well known so that at that time, eighteen months ago or a year ago, we don't have to guess or we don't have to go through, you know, this, hey, we wanna follow the grid and some of those maybe, you know, we don't know because that would have solved them problems. Like you said, it would have saved them money. It might have changed where they drilled their well. It might have changed a lot of those things. So

And I guess, did you say, Matt, so we may not be able to approve this condition tonight, it sounds like. There might be a little more discussion that needs to happen. But one thing it sounded like they could do is yeah. They're gonna build this first part of it anyways. And and I'm with you that we've always required something significant, generally, if there's a development, whether it's a single home or not. But if we lose that easement for that corridor, whether they have to build the road now or not, you know, with current grid and and code, I think at least getting that easement because if you don't get that now, you never get it. And then we don't know what we don't know what it looks like in forty years or fifty years. And if you go to Weber County or Salt Lake, any of those counties and you see where that development happened like that, and now it's all developed. Right? Some of those roads are are hard to come by. So, yeah, I I think there needs to be some negotiation. You said that could happen with the applicant and the ombudsman's office. I think it could happen without them I agree. To start with and come up with maybe a a solution that doesn't require the full build out of that road. That that yeah. It doesn't make sense at this time. But at least that corridor being protected. And

to that effect, right, Nate, we have some subdivisions that have that you know, at the very back of their lot, there's a railroad track, right? And and our code says that those types of developments should provide some kind of a futures for frontage roads or access along the railroads. We have a lot of people that dedicate us, you know, a right of way back there. You know, it may be fifty years before we ever use it, but at least we're able to get the buildings out of that. We're able to hold setbacks. We're able to do some of those things to that. And I think that's kind of a a happy medium of protection from, you know, development and county and stuff that we're trying to preserve. Right? There's some other language in the code that talks about trying to preserve and protect some of these corridors and right of ways. So

What I I guess okay. I I what you're saying though is that there's a big difference between providing some future access and some future corridors and building a complete road that goes from Highway 91 to State Street. That that's a big gap we're talking because, it seems to me like we're encouraging development if we require if we to put in a road, then and we just talked about that, you know, everybody else up above, there isn't a demand right now. So if we're gonna build a road, but there's no demand to use, that's just maybe we ought to hold off on building.

So that's, I guess, that's one of the things with the county code is that if you read the code, it just says if these guys are building and it's part of a future planned road, that developer needs to bear that a lot of that burden. But the whole road?

All the way? Again, you go back to the half road thing. Right? We don't Well, I'm I'm talking length from the beginning the first parcel because it changed. If you looked at that earlier, the that parcel changed earlier,

front part with a different parcel. Yeah. They brought they brought that up today too and said, hey. You at your recommendation, you we switched our parcel, and now I just added a whole bunch of code to us. And,

you know,

thing. We we have code, and we have Yeah. Common sense. It's true. Isn't there a They don't go together. Is there, Matt,

you know, just if they were to dedicate that in so that in the future, you know, not even have to necessarily pay you, there there's a lot of little things that we could do there. Again, it comes down to does the county wanna protect that as a public thoroughfare long term? If they if they do, I think there's some ways to work with the applicant. If we feel like that's we don't, you know, because of the situation that There's

some possibility. Yeah. I I just don't I don't see how we get out of it. Right? It's in the master plan. We're supposed to follow the master plan. And if we start giving exceptions, you know, we're gonna get a lot of folks who want the same exception.

There's more to the story.

Yeah. I'm sure there is. But I'm just saying, we have to have common sense. It's gotta it's gotta make sense.

So Is it needed? I guess I guess just to answer that so we don't go off too far on a tangent, there was a platted road that went there. So even as early as of today, when this Josh Gunnell came in to develop, there was a platted road that went just right in front of his house. This was platted in the 1860s. So so the discussion there is is the same thing that they had in nineteen eighteen sixty, and is there a platted road there? So we were looking at platted roads and current county right of way dedications versus more of a planned road. So a little different.

K. Any other questions for Matt? Oh, he's grilling pretty good. Yeah. Thank you. He still got to come back up We'll still work you over a little more, I'm sure. This is a this is a conditional use. We don't have a requirement to to have a public hearing on these, but traditionally, we've allowed comment from the from the public. Is there anyone here commissioners, are you okay with that? I was gonna ask for that. K. Is there anyone anyone here from the public that would like to to make comment on this? And if you would, come up to the We we do ask you to keep your comments to, three minutes and state your name for the record. Okay.

My name is, Kurt Ander, and so the Whiskey Lane thing is mine. Okay. I own the house on the corner. If you go and you can scratch down into that thing, you'll see that I have a rather encroached upon piece of property that I sometimes wonder why I have it. If you go down a little bit further, you'll see the one under Nolan Curt that's right on the corner there. It's 0014. As a result, you know, and I'm and I'll ask for your help on there. Any way you can get those school buses to go another way, I'd be real happy. I don't have a problem with that. It makes me wonder why they have to squeeze up through State Street to get there when it slows them down when they can just go right to Main Street up two blocks and then head south and drop off anybody they want to. That road is built for the school buses to travel on. And I don't understand why they feel like they have to turn early and just wander up through there. The other side is the county hasn't done a very good job of maintaining the safety associated with that road at all, ever. This year, I expect between 120 people will take that corner too fast and will end up pulling them off. Except this year, I've decided to be nice and just call 911 every time they do that. So it'll be on their dime, and you'll get some kind of a record of the number of people who drive too fast on that corner. Speed limit is 20 miles an hour. I have never seen anyone drive 20 miles an hour. I will tell you one thing though. Between the hours of six and 08:00 in the morning, there is between one hundred and fifty and two hundred cars that travel that road down Whiskey Lane to the highway. Now they pass up seven access points to the highway that they don't take because I have followed them. I've gotten up early in the morning, and I've stayed at the bank, and I have followed people. And they just fly 45 miles an hour all the way along State Street, all the way down to the corner and down to the highway. So they're not even using the access roads that would be there, or they're not being regulated to do that. It seems to me that that's an issue in in and of itself. But the concern that I have is is the amount of traffic that is associated with that. Putting more trucks up on that thing or making it that way is not necessarily the right thing to do. I also know that we have eight, there's eight pipes underneath that road. It's never been weight tested. If you're gonna bring equipment and stuff up there, that road needs to be weight tested for that purpose. Otherwise, we're gonna end up with more trouble associated with that. Associated with that. That road was never built for that reason. And if you scroll back a little bit further, this is just my last comment on here, you'll notice that it's Whiskey Lane because it has a band in it. For those that are that are my age, we recognize that they had a row of Lombardi Poplar trees that ran down that way. And when half of the trees died, they built the road. And when the other half died, they built the rest of the road. And that's why it's halfway is because they just went around the trees. The road has never really been what it's supposed to be. I've got a picture to take you back to 1947 in which you can see that it never made it to the highway back then. That was just coming out of the city going down there. I still have a state add or a city address, although I've been ostracized from the city when they put up the limits and stuff, but I still have an address there. I'm a little concerned, you know, when we talk about the traffic that's associated with that because it is one the the smallest point between those two marks up in there is 14 feet. Just don't think that a 30 foot road is going to hit the 14 feet without encroaching onto my property. And I've had my property designated since 1884. So I will I'll stand on that one. Anyway, that's just my concern like that.

Any other comments?

My name is Matthew Funk. I'm a resident in this area. Can we go back to the to the proposed loosely proposed 9400? I think Brady Christiansen makes an excellent point. West here where where we've got 9400, that's just that's a a gravel road into agricultural fields. And in the winter, it's it's it's as Brady points out, it's it's rarely used. Going east to past mister mister Lauer's, parking lot, which I support. Good for him. Right there. Perfect. Drill in on that, on this road that you wanna you wanna put in, and it's right gonna t bone right into Terry Holden's front front front row, right past, Bob Pointer's backyard. I and there's no traffic, I think, no pressure coming in from the East now. I just think that this is putting a road here on State Street is is not warranted at this point, and I don't think it's gonna be warranted in the future. I think it's a bad idea. Mister mister Lauer just wants to build a parking lot here, to his point. And I think, frankly, the county's overreaching. Let's just let him build his parking lot. This road is is road to nowhere. Thank

you. Mister chairman. Yes. Whitey's coming up. I had one quick question. So I thought the county since Matt brought that up, I thought the county had an ordinance that you couldn't put a driveway within a 150 feet of another driveway. I anticipate speed limits, but when they honed in on that intersection, you've got three driveways right there. What's this gonna do for safety? And then and do we have a 150 foot, range foot?

Alan Lauer. So this is my project, and I'm just trying to get a spot to pull trucks off the road. I have no intentions of having a a public road through our property. It would hurt our future. We've invested greatly to have a buffer and to have a future spot for expansion. I've been thinking about, you know, people who would have businesses on the scale that we have. Incentives from the government. They give them You know, I was reading about Pepperidge Farms. They get, $160,000,000 their expansion. They get with if they do what they're supposed to do, they get 20%. Everybody, in the meat business, that would do a project like we're doing, they'll get millions of dollars of incentives and property tax abatements. My personal property tax for our business last year was a quarter million dollars. You know, our property tax on our business this year is gonna be 300 and something thousand dollars. We are always asked to donate, to give. We're part of the community. I don't think anybody did any more for the Cache County Fair than our business did. I don't think so. If you go add up what we donated to it. But these other people who've got accesses and all whatever they do, they're not businesses who are from our community, and they're faceless. And they're not donating. They're not, you know we're right on the highway, and nobody's shy to ask us for help. And all I'm asking for is a driveway to park trucks. Please help me. Please help me.

Anyone else?

My name is Cherry Holden. And that road, that proposed road, would end up the headlights would be right in my front room window. And that road's only like 20 feet wide. It's it's no more than a sheep trail with asphalt on it. And on the sides, it's always broken up because there's moisture here and there. And when I go down straight street, I usually have to stop and let somebody go on the side. So it is it can't stand much more traffic than it's already on there. And all that would do is be would people from the city would come down to State Street, they would turn south, and then they would go and turn down 9400, this new road you're proposing. That would just be more traffic on State Street. And I know it's this man's responsibility to look into the future, to find out where roads can go, and and logically looking at that, it looks pretty good, you know. But if you think on the other side, where Lauer's have have already made an asphalt road better than State Street up to his well, which quarter of a mile. Yeah. Quarter of a mile up there. So the next logical place would well, let's just take over that road and just continue it on till we get to the mountain up there. You know? That's what the logical conclusion would be. But, Lowers are a very good neighbor. They're very good for our community. They support us in every way. And all he wants to do is get the dang truck off the road so it's not a hazard. And it it's it's pretty plain and that that's all he needs. Thank you.

On that road that was just mentioned going up to the well house, that was actually part of a 2017 conditional use permit that came before this board. And the right of way for 9400 North was not requested at that time to be preserved. So, Connor, if you wouldn't mind, just pan

to the east.

That asphalt road right there going up to the lower facilities is where we house our tank and our well. That asphalt corridor would have been right in line with the proposed 9400 North right of way in in 2017. It was not requested to finish this road nor preserve any type of right away when we came before the board. That road on the master plan? It's not on the the road that you're speak On the master plan. But the road that's being asked for isn't on the county master plan either. It's on Richmond City's master plan, which is outside of Richmond City's Richmond City's boundary. So it seems a little ironic that Richmond City has written a letter saying that they don't have any intention of annexing our property unless we ask for it, but they want a road on our property that they're requiring in our in their master plan, but it's not in the county master plan. That seems a little strange to me.

So does arguing that we didn't require you to do one east of there, like, it's not contemplated?

It would be even the same jurisdiction of the it's continuing the grid, but the same body didn't want it in 2017. I was so just clarifying this.

Dave Erickson. I don't know whether we'll hear this or not later, but I had a question. It's kind of hit me several times in listening to all of this discussion, is, I'm worried that we do have a master plan. I'm very much aware of that. But a lot of these master plans, actually even showed trails through places. And they kept saying that's part of the master plan. So if you develop anywhere, you're going to have to establish those plan. So if you develop anywhere, you're gonna have to establish those trails. You're gonna have to give those give those. In some ways, that hit that still it's always hit me quite wrong that, here we have it's because it's on the master plan that goes through there. He decides to put a a parking areas a staging area right there. And because he is doing that, he is almost I won't don't say the word blackmailed. But it's almost like it's a takings of a section of land because it's on the master plan. And so I I worry that our own statutes that we have and our own code is, you know, is if that is for the betterment of the community and you're going to require somebody, it shouldn't be the burden of everybody of that one person that's doing something. And the old adage, if you build it, they will come. And that's exactly what will happen in situations like this. If there's a right away required, a given or something like that, but he is only developing the one end. And you guys commented earlier that we require this of everybody that when, for example, I think Nate or Commissioner Dowges, you said that if a guy comes in and puts a home on a piece of on a piece of land that we require that he dedicates and he builds a road, you know, at that much in front of in front of that property. He happens to have two ends that join, you know, a state and then a county highway. And he's only developing one end, but you're making him do something way at the other end that just doesn't make sense to me either. You know, it's kind of like you're again, well that's a way that we can get him. You know, or we can way we can kind of get what we want. Maybe it's the county done versus what is necessary, what's needed at the time. You know, yes, maybe if he comes in and starts maybe putting some other developments in there where it's required and needed. Say he expands back over into that area, and then he meet and that frontage needs to be built up. Okay. Then you'd probably require it because if he needs another egress or ingress on that east side. But I just don't I'm having a hard time really there's there's a lot of little things that just doesn't make a whole lot of sense and we're requiring some things that I'm really worried about our statute in some way that we are applying some takings by telling everybody that if you're going to do something, then you're gonna give us all of this. It just doesn't doesn't quite hold right to me. And like I said, I'm not sure if we'll listen to this later when it comes to council, but we'll probably doesn't come to council on a CUP. So I so I I thought I'd get up here and speak and and share that just that there's something about it, you know, that just isn't quite making sense there. So and that's one thing is basically because he's doing something the county wants to take. I know there's established right aways of the 33 feet from the center line on all county property, you know, from county roads. And that's that's been there established by, I think, at the time George Daines, when he was the county attorney, he found that law, went back to Brigham Young. But, everything else, you know, with all these others, I guess, we've just put it in statute that we can just take these properties.

So as I look at this, I see Just state your name for the Oh, my name's Lee Lauer. My dad's Alan. So I would be the fourth generation to operate this business. You know, and as we go through this, I'm looking at my future, my kids' future, and I'm trying to decide if we wanna continue. You know, a lot of family businesses have been pushed out. You guys gotta decide if you're gonna push us out. If we're gonna be treated poorly, we have other options. We can go to other places. We can go to other towns. There's other places where they'll give you the fire hydrant. They'll give you the curb and gutter. They'll give you incentives to come. Our family has done nothing to but give to the county and to the community, but we get bullied. And this is a land grab. Our frontage is with UDOT. We've been working for two years to meet their requirements for that frontage. Our battle's with them. I thought you guys were our friends. You know, I thought this would be easy. And now you guys are seeing you can make a land grab by writing some fine print in here. Our frontage is with UDOT. We've been working on that. We're meeting their requirements. This requirement you guys are riding, our frontage isn't with you. Our partner on the land is UDOT. Our partner with you guys is on State Street. We'll meet those requirements. We'll give you the 33 feet, whatever we gotta do. We can add asphalt. Where we're joining with your property as your neighbors, we'll do what we need to do there. With UDOT, on the other side, on the west boundary, we'll meet their requirements. But for you guys to see, hey, we're working with u dot, and then you're gonna come in here and land grab us and force a road. That's evil. That's that's not right. And you guys know that. So as a business, we're we pay taxes. If this was if we wanna build housing in here, I would want the road. I would say, yeah. Let's put a road in. Let's develop. We're not developers. We got a family business. We've almost been in business for a hundred years. We wanna continue, but we gotta decide where we're gonna continue. We could go to Preston. I mean, we got options. So we gotta decide how we're gonna be treated, if you guys are gonna be a good partner to us or not. But if you push us out, I mean, there's a lot of corporations. They won't work with you like we do. Or maybe you come in, you guys roll out the red carpet, but we haven't got that treatment. We've never been treated well. So and that's my words. Thanks.

Anyone else? Alright. Thank you very much.

Can can I just say something real quick just to address some of this that we lay some stuff out? If I understand things correctly, it's we're just here on a CEP. Right? Mhmm. And so it's a CEP at Central Parkland next to the Edot Road. Road. And so the under state code, where the mid where the anticipated detrimental effects we wanna mitigate here, and you can put conditions on there to mitigate those anticipated detrimental effects. I don't see what the nexus is. And if I miss them, I mean, no. But I also know what the nexus is to require road dedication from Highway 91 over to the State Street Century when we're talking about parking lot over here. So if you can find what that nexus is put on the record, guess, have that conversation. But for right now, those are the concerns that I have legally here by imposing the conditions of that road dedication. Now if we're talking a subdivision subdivision application, we're putting in houses, I can see what that nexus is. You want those transportation quarters, etcetera. But for just this purpose right here, where it's a parking lot, I don't see what that nexus is. And if they wanna come in, do something else in the future for development or whatever, they're gonna have to come in, have a lot of that conversation. We can have have this conversation about potential road mitigation future. I'm just not seeing it right now. And so that's the legal concern I have based on these conversations. And, like, again, I've just seen this for the first time. I'm happy to have a conversation with Matt about what those concerns are. But the proposal that they and what how they recommend altering the conditions initially seems to make sense to me. But, again, I just wanna lay out those concerns that I have right now and see if that helps answer any of these questions based on the discussion we've been having. Will you just state that just a little clearer one more time? So are you saying I mean, I think all of your You want me to just lay it out? I I think you're gonna have a legal problem with the condition as imposed right now for them to take care of road based on this project as I understand it. You think that this is not right? Correct. K. It's all I needed.

K.

Now if I'm misunderstanding facts on something after that conversation, but as I understand right now, that's where I'm at. Now your master plan would be considered a guiding document. Correct? More or less, yes, at this point. Now there's But to show that we've heard code running around the lot. Right. So and and that's why I said I wanna So I don't know if that if that raises more questions. And I yeah. I was trying to help clarify some things, but if you have questions, I'll have to talk through that. So Let let me just let let me throw out this question in in response to that. You know, we're we're currently considering

some subdivisions where we're where we're looking at secondary access requiring an an additional road Right. And dedication there.

How does that Yeah. Subdivision is different from the CUP in my mind. Mhmm. Right? Because this is CUP. They're actually for a conditional use. The conditional use is loud. Okay. Under state code, if this if they meet go through the wickets, you can look at, okay, what are the detrimental effects for this subdivision for this CUP that they're trying to apply for here. Right? Mhmm. Which essentially is just a parking lot. Yeah. K. So what are you trying what detrimental effects to that application that they're used that they wanna do here, do you wanna try to impose? Now subdivision is a different question in my mind because you have traffic, you have houses, everything else. And I think we're fine to have those conversations for but I think it's apples and oranges when you're talking about the CP versus subdivision

about currently. Mister chairman, you ready?

on this, or are you ready to make a motion? I I think it probably probably merits a little bit more discussion, maybe. Yeah. That's what I was I was gonna say, I might either at least want Matt and the attorney and the applicant to talk a little more on that before I was ready to make a decision. But

So some we were directed to change the parcel, so it's this way.

Again, I think a good reason to sit down with the county attorneys and have that discussion.

Yeah. But we advise that all of what you're talking about, we still have millions of dollars of infrastructure in Okay.

I think all the more reason to to wait a month on our at least for me, to wait a month to make that decision. Okay.

K. Alright. That's cool. Additional discussion from the One more thing.

The the people who would drive on that road are residents of Richmond City. They're not the county is gonna go down. There's three or four people that can go to Whiskey Lane.

Great. Thanks. And and the discussion is with is at the at the commission level now. Thank you. I appreciate appreciate the comments. I I guess I I've been quiet on on this one. I think I'm more torn on this specific discussion because of all the things that we've that we've said here. My my take on this was this is industrial, and access is important for industrial. And that was that was you know, I I really get the the property rights. I I get all the arguments. They're all very, very compelling. I, you know, don't like some of the language that that we've we've used. You know, we're in here trying to work through a process, and and I don't appreciate that, but we're trying to we're trying to make this work out. Here's my, my my initial concern with that is we have an industrial, you know, we rezoned it to industrial. We're doing a CUP on an industrial parcel, And I think access is the crit is is one of those critical things for this. And and that's been that was my major concern on this. I think I I think council's guidance is is really important trail, forcing a trail, I I've been torn on all of these things. But I I think we have I think we have something to look at. Providing adequate access there, I think, is is the the critical thing to do what you said. We've gotta address the impacts that we that we are seeing here, and those conditions should be around that. Does that mean it's a road all the way through there? I I I don't know that that we have, that we have that. I mean, I think somebody could definitely make an argument that for fire access, there should be an an additional access point to get there. There there there are a number of things there, but I but I would also think that we could we could get there with with the conditions that we have without requiring a road through there. That's my opinion. That, any other comments, questions? Okay.

and Minus.

15.

because it it's no roadway improvements. Yeah. Yeah. I think, Vijay, you're revising number nine. Right? Revising number nine. So it stays. It stays. Taking one. Only taking one out.

So your your motion

Alright. We really need to I was an appreciation to Oh.

These are hard decisions and they're they're challenging for us. So we will move on to item number five, Edge Estates parcel two thirds, CUP.

This is a request by Edge Estates to operate a storage and warehousing slash storage yard, facility on the subject properties. The subject properties were rezoned in 2021 from the agricultural a 10 zone to the industrial. This rezone was requested in order to expand the existing operation to the parcel to the, along the highway. As you may recall last month, the new operator of that property, Sunrock, came in for a conditional use permit, because they were the subject of a code enforcement action, but that was separate from this request and this is not an amendment of the original CUP on the 10th West facing property but is a new conditional use permit. This CUP will also help, the op owner operator get into compliance, with the ongoing code enforcement case. The applicant is proposing to develop the subject properties in phases. It is subject to a clearance from the United States Army Corps of Engineer for potential wetlands located on the property. That was one of the issues that was part of a 2021 CUP request on these properties, to expand the existing use, but the wetland delineation process, was an issue and so that approval was voided after a year. Again, the phasing on this will allow them to continue to work with the Army Corps, as well as come into compliance with code enforcement. So the phase one is what's currently operating on the property. It's providing a location for the placement, storage, and processing of construction materials, both new and salvaged from construction demolition projects, construction transport equipment, including both wheeled vehicles and trailers, and then storage containers slash job site offices and related items. The second phase would be to install 2200 North with the subject utility utilities per the improvement plans that they're working with, Cash County Public Works in the city of Logan on. Constructing, intersection at 1200 West and 2200 North. And materials for the that road construction are already on-site, as the project was, ready to be constructed prior to notification of the Army Corps that there was a study that was had been started by them. Phase three and phase four will require amendments to the conditional use permit. So it's it's included in this request just to give you a broader scope, but because there wasn't enough detailed information to review or determine possible negative impacts nor to craft conditions to address those. It is going to be required that phase three, which is preparing a location on the west side of the property, for Suncor to relocate their operations from that front facing 10th West parcel to bring it back and then also add, I think a fuel station, a scale, and some other improvements. And then phase four was just simply stated in their letter of intent as prepare for future development of the eastern portion of the subject parcel. So there wasn't a lot of information on that. One of the conditions, if you look to the north, the parcel that ends in 23, if I can read that right, that is currently owned by Edge, but it was never part of the rezone, so it is a 10. Part of the code enforcement action was that they had some storage on there, that has since been relocated off that property. But, one again, one of the conditions of approval is that they not utilize that for any of their storage yard, storage and warehousing use. Potential negative impacts for this project include, potential lighting nuisance, primarily for the airport, if there's any exterior lighting, proposed. Currently, the site plan does not show anything, but we would condition it that any outdoor lighting must be dark sky compliant, and any locations of potential outdoor light standards be shown on the revised plan. Stormwater concerns about stormwater going into those wetland areas, which is part of what the Army Corps is studying. So prior to recording this permit, they would need to submit a stormwater report to the county engineer for review and approval and install any necessary infrastructure for that. And then at each of the following phases, that would need to be reevaluated and resubmitted. And then finally, there is the impact to the wetlands. Again, the condition is that the applicant must continue to work with the Army Corps, to study the area and mitigate any impacts per their determination. And again, phase two through four cannot move forward until the Army Corps has provided clearance. Noticing was sent out, but we have not received any public comments. So staff is recommending approval with the 19 conditions and to conclusions.

Okay.

So I just wanna be make sure I'm clear. So this is just for the 002, or is it for 00 parcel 001 And 002?

It's for 002 And 003. 002 And 0 So 001 is the one that we looked at last month where they expanded it to add a vehicle repair shop, but it is separate from parcels 02 And 3, which is part of the reason for the title of this application. But those are the two that they'll be utilizing under this.

K. Any other questions for Angie?

We have required best practices. But, yeah, I don't think we've ever specifically required something like that. I don't know if you remember, Matt. I think we did on some of the gravel pits. Yeah. I think yeah. It comes up generally with the gravel pits. But

Kinda just, you know, when we have those storms as you drive by there, there's a lot of dust coming off. And

Yeah. I do drive by there daily. So yeah. That can definitely be a condition to be added.

And so the language of that would be meet the requirements of the fugitive dust? That they have a fugitive dust control plan on

It's no cost. They just should have a plan. Okay. And you would want that prior to recording the permit.

Okay. Any other questions for Angie? If Not we can hear from the applicant. The applicant here.

Justin Robinson, Vagis States. I'm fine with adding that fugitive dust control issue. It's it's not a big deal. I do have one question on condition three, Angie. We've got enough no part of the proposed facility or no part of our phasing is allowed on the Parcel 23. When we come down to build that intersection at 2212th yeah, 12th West, we need to extend that intersection onto 23 in order to put everything in. Is that a problem? I don't think so. I think this is referring to your

operational facility now. So

k. I mean, historically, going back to all the maps I can find back into the historical stuff, that Corel area had had storage in it for forever, so that's why we went ahead and utilized it for storage. But anyway, that's not a big deal. We can move that stuff back here to the West, which we've done. It's the only thing remaining is there is a if you zoom in on it, there is a an ag building that was built in, like, let's see, nineteen eighty something. No. You gotta go to the car. There you go. Go north. Whoops.

Go back up to the corrals. Which area we're going? Right in that corner.

The triangle. There's section. 12 To 22.

And the 22 is the corner from the north? The west. Right there. Right there where your mouse is. Zoom in on that.

That building's there. It was built in the eighties, obviously, long before we ever acquired the property. But all the rest of that stuff's all been moved south of the property line down onto Parcel 2. And so that's the the first thing is just simply to allow us to have some place to be able to store those. And clarification on the condition condition is it? None of the structures per county code, short of the ag building that's there, nothing is a structure. I guess there's some definition of, you know, we have some office trailers that are connexus that have been built out for construction offices that are on skids that we come in and we pick up and we pack them, you know, throw them on a trailer and take them, like, out to Sam Patch where we're building the grocery store in Wells Ville. When that's done, that office tray that will be picked back up and taken back, and I've gotta store it somewhere for a minute until the next job. And so we've got some of that type of stuff back there. The other question I have is on seven. We can put an if that's required, because I have no garbage generating anything back there. Like, there's something we have our other dumpsters that we take that stuff to. This is simply a place to store trailers, pickups. There's some concrete blankets in one of the the mobile storage deals, that kind of thing. So if we were to put in a If

there was activity there. Yeah. If you're, in your lettering 10, it says we do maintain a self handled dumpster.

So that was the reason I had to Oh, okay. Alright. And then on 15, where it's if apple if applicable, that's if we have permanent employees on the site. Correct? Yeah. Yeah. They're permanent. Which would come later on in when we'd have to come file the amended CUP for phases three and four.

So, chair, can I ask a question? Yes.

Yep.

K. So Jerald still running these cows on there too.

And so there's a couple other guys out there that we lead we've had cows out on it. Hey, Justin. Just real quick on that fugitive

test. I really appreciate LJ bringing that up. With this facility here, I know a gravel gets under the Utah division of air quality. Is this identified as such, and do you guys deal with the division of air quality and all this? And I've had permits all the way right up to the point I sold it to Sunrock.

And so that that's obviously still in place today. It's still in place. It just it says if it's sites greater than a quarter acre in size or there's demolition activities, either one of those

Yeah. I'll make that motion. How many more items? We got five more items, Connor. Oh. We we it's a lot of discussion and the two at the end, we've already decided on. So

That's when I look at it. Who's not here, so we know Yeah. So

My fault. I told my wife, I'll walk the other way. Yeah.

So five with lots of discussion. So I have, like, eight hours, man. It's here all night. Well, that's it. Yeah.

I'd I'd make an emotion to extend it to 09:00.

K. We have a motion? Just a second. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed?

I wanna do It's at 08:30. I would have gone 08:30. I would get into 08:32, but I know we'd be extending it again at 08:27.

I'm okay for the second motion. Is there anyone who wants to come in on this comments on this from the public?

K. Hearing none, we will move forward. Commissioners, what do we wanna do on this one? I have one question for staff. Yeah. On the definition of structures. Right? He he brought up so I think we should clarify that. So one, we know and one, the applicant knows what qualifies because I know in the county, other people have put in those Connex trailers or or Should be And they're counted as structures, and they have to keep them out of the setback. So is his storage trailers or those Connex structures or or containers? I just wanna make sure we have that clear for this item so that neither of us are in disagreement later on. Yeah.

So it would so the setback definition requires it to be clear free and clear of any obstruction. Okay. So this would be an obstruction. But you will recall that we did eighteen months ago, change the setbacks for industrial. So they are a lot more reduced. It's primarily gonna be the front yard setback that would be impacted.

K. Alright. You Ready to take action? Any discussion on this?

For what it's worth, I have a personal business relationship with the applicant and so I will understand because it doesn't have anything to do with this project.

K. We noted. Do we have a motion?

I'll make a motion to approve the Edgestates. Edgestates, partial two and three conditional use permit with the 19 conditions and two conclusions.

And with the changes?

And with the with the addition of the fugitive dust permit.

Well, and the and the couple chromatic layer changes or Which which items Good evening. I did and that would change

for that would change records. Yeah. That would change the number of conditions. Right? That's what I'm gonna add it to 20 if we had the fugitive dust.

20 conditions. And then what were the

Did you Yeah. He just talked about another one if we need He was talking about the parking, but that already hasn't if applicable. Yeah. And he was ask he would it was about the structures on Number 8. So we've got that definition now. So they're they would have qualified. And then just the intersection, they'll have out on Yep. Number three. The the number three didn't yeah. Didn't apply. Okay. Condition number three doesn't apply to the intersection. Road. So I I will restate that. So recommend approval with the 20 conditions, the addition of the fugitive dust, adding if on item number seven. And that item three does not pertain to the intersection that must be constructed on a portion of Parcel 0023. And the two conclusions.

Okay. We have we have a motion on the floor. Any any second? Second. Have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed?

Okay.

And one abstention. Thank you. Okay. Next item is a discussion. Amending Cache County code 17 Dot 10 dot 050 a three wastewater system permissions.

Yeah. So a little bit of history on this one. This is a request from a third party applicant. Essentially, they're trying to rebuild a church up in Cove, and that church is located entirely inside of a source water two protection zone. As part of that meeting, we essentially said, hey. Unfortunately, the way code is written right now. You would not be able to proceed on this project, and we recommend that they submit a code amendment. That's kinda how we got here. It's almost weird how well it dovetails into our discussion about septic systems and subdivisions. And thank you for the Bay Area Health Department for being here so I don't sound too uneducated. But the general gist is code will be amended to allow for these alternate septic systems or alternative on-site wastewater systems to be placed in these areas. If you turn to page four, you'll see the amended code. Everything in purple text is added by either staff or the recommendation of the Barriere Health Department, and everything in red is what the applicant has proposed. And so that's typically it. If anybody from, like, Barriga would like to elaborate on that. No? Okay.

Sorry. You had to sit through all of that. Yeah. That's really.

K. And I know we we received some public comment on this. We did. We received quite a bit.

Funnily enough, we received one during the meeting before this evening got here. Essentially, yeah, there is a significant amount of public interest. I know one person here from the public who has quite a stake in it in the sense that their property is almost worthless if they can't develop, or in the case of, that church, they can't develop in a way they want to develop. So even though these systems aren't necessarily unusual, there are are alternatives that exist, and that's what this would permit. Essentially, it was kinda completely hamstrung. And this is relatively common to see in my time at cash.

We've seen quite a few projects just get torpedoed entirely. In essence, we're we're expanding people's ability to develop some property that would not otherwise because of new technologies that Pretty much. Yeah. Okay. It doesn't doesn't actually impede the process. It doesn't change what we've done in the past. It just adds additional options. Is that accurate?

And what is it that makes it undevelopable?

That source water two zone, just the way codes are written right now, you wouldn't be able to develop in it. But if you had one of these alternative systems, you theoretically could.

Okay.

Is this the same type of alternative system that's being talked in Wellsville Canyon that is under a state or has to be under municipality? So what's the difference between the two?

I honestly couldn't tell you.

Hopefully, one of those guys can so that we know what we're getting into on this.

So the the one up in Wellsville Could you state your name just for the record? Richard Worley, Bear River Health.

Micah. Yeah.

The one up in Wellsville Canyon is an alternative system, but it's not treating the, septic effluent to a higher level compared to what would be going into the Zone 2 protection areas. So it's it's a step above conventional septic systems throughout the valley, but these that would be going into Zone 2 would be treating it to a very high level. That's does that help?

Richard again. Would did you address us or educate us a couple months ago at the joint meeting? Were you the one who told us that the septics right now for a household or kinda designed for an acre and a half? Yes. K. So these are going to more of a holding facility and then pumping them? Or

No. These systems would be think of it as a mini like a sewer treatment plant. You're really treating that waste water to a very high level where your nitrates and the pollutants are lower than a conventional septic system doesn't treat as well because it's just it's more passive. It's going into a septic tank, and then draining into the soil and being treated at the soil level. This is where you're actually treating it with specialized media. You're recirculating. You've got some technology involved. And so before it actually gets to the soil, it's it's a lot cleaner, effluent.

Was this the first time we've allowed or looked at this in Cass County?

Yeah. Yeah. This is this would be a first. Do you see it being used more? We've had quite a few requests over the years. It's different situations.

So I I guess I'd ask besides request or something that the health department could ask for request that we improve it? It seems like it would be something that would be good for what we're talking about as far as groundwater improvement and everything else. If you're saying it's a higher degree, that's all I'm searching for. Yes. Yes.

Yes. Okay. Yeah.

And I think the the the thing the direction that you're going is we're we're looking at increasing densities, you know, some some of these larger developments and putting a lot of septic systems in a given area is is something that that could be beneficial in in that type of a of a situation where where instead of putting a bunch of traditional systems there, we could put this in and maybe be able to increase density in a in an area. Would it improve improve treatment or not?

Yes.

K. But it would That's my point is for changing code, just like on the Honey Solar thing, we're drafting a code for one situation or one group, and here we're doing it again. And the council is, okay, this needs to have a more penetrating area so that it affects and helps others. Yeah. There's my question is, if this is the first, do we see it going more and whatever else is going on there?

And and and this is more of a, you know, we're allowing this as an as an option. But maybe going forward, we would look at it at a certain threshold where we would say this is required I'm hoping that. Based on based on

geology, based on based on density, or something like that. My question is is, I assume it takes more maintenance to maintain well. And the cost is And the cost is And more cost. Absolutely. So therefore, there should be somebody that is serving what is happening and when they are serviced and how they are serviced. That was So there should be some rules there that help us to maintain these septic systems better than they've been maintained in the past. Yes. And and that's part of what's

written into this regulation. And and it's it's naturally part of alternative systems as they require an operating permit by the health department that's renewable and for for the life for forever. And so that permits in place to assure that maintenance operation maintenance is provided

to the system to make sure it's functioning the way it should. And to be clear, that's probably you probably have that same requirement for a a traditional system as well. Is that right? The permit that you put in says that. Right? No? No. That that's No good. So

But Now the other question is is if this is in a source protection, if we notify the source protection, are they aware, or how do they protect their source protection?

Typically, that's just how it is. If you look at the analysis portion in your packet, the Utah Division of Water Quality actually does provide some documents on how to set these systems up. Their findings are highlighted. Basically, continue to prohibit the construction of on-site waste on-site water systems within a drinking source protection zone one, which this would still not allow, prohibit the construction of a conventional on-site wastewater system or water system within Zone 2. If connecting to a sewer is not a feasible option, then an alternative system capable of meeting less than 2.5 milligram milligrams per liter nitrate nitrogen at the end of pipe may be permitted. Just a couple other findings like that. Basically, they also recommend establishing a source protection team,

just kinda coordinate all that. I'm not sure how that would factor in Bear River, but So you you read over things, but you didn't answer. Did we notify whoever set this source protection up that this is going and this is happening so that they're still aware of their source protection?

Yeah. I think there is. If you look at the actual ordinance amendment itself, if you look at a three d four, the proposed alternative on-site wastewater system must be approved by the owners of the public water system connected to the Zone 2 area of the connected to the Zone 2 area where the wastewater system is proposed.

So they'd have to sign off on it. So even we're talking about it, they haven't been they haven't been warned about it or talked about it. Right?

In a sense that we don't have an actual application, no. Yeah. I I don't think we're gonna go out ahead of time and say, hey. We have this coming into you. Well, if I see it no different than we say if somebody's building something within 300 feet, they get notified. We're in their source protection. Why aren't we notified?

I think at least correct me, but I think that would come when the applicant actually came in for the the permitting and and the permit to do it. Right now, there there is no set source protection area per se. Right? We've got I don't know how many in the county. A lot. And so, although this came up from an applicant that is in one, he's not proposing to do it yet, I think. Maybe that's the difference.

Well, but there's there's a current traditional system there. Yeah. Right? So Yeah. That it's already there. So the impact is already there to the to the source protection. This would be a lot better for him. Yeah. K. K. Alright. This is just a discussion item. Right? We're not chair. There was a comment that I think would help us whether yes.

I'm Richard Jex, an engineer with Jex Environmental Solutions. And this wastewater type of technology is my niche, if you will. The client that's asking for the code change hired me to help work through this and negotiate so that it's compliant with water quality's requirements. What's embedded into this is like Richard was explaining before, this would be an advanced alternative wastewater treatment system that takes to a much higher standard than a traditional waste alternative. It is considered a controlled source because of renewable permit. But at the applicant's request, in this case, I did reach out to the engineer for the town of Lewiston who owns the source protection zone that's being affected by this. And I did communicate with them and ask them for any of the concerns that they might have. They pointed me to a city ordinance that they have that with these changes, the applicant would be able to apply and meet both the city ordinance and the county ordinance to be able to proceed forward with this. And the DEQ document that I don't know this gentleman's name, but that he was reading out of, Connor, is a document that was created a few years ago collaboratively between the division of drinking water that enforces the source water protection zones and water quality that manages the wastewater treatment systems. And they came up with this criteria to establish how to do it and what kind of standards you'd have to have a system to be allowable within Zone 2. And this language enforces that to where it it wouldn't any standard alternative system wouldn't be adequate enough. It has to be the type that are approved for use within a zone two in a controlled source and the water system will sign off on it. But in this case, to answer your question, yes. They have been notified prior to the applicant getting to this point just to solicit any feedback they had so we could coordinate that and communicate

those interests and concerns as well. Thank you. I appreciate that. Glad to know that.

K. Alright. This is a discussion item, you would like us to give a nod.

But Just any direction you'd like to go in. Yeah.

I I think I think it's great to start looking at this type of stuff. So Yeah. With with the other stuff we're talking about in our combined meetings, I think this is gonna come up to Nolan's point more and more. Yeah. So I think and the health department seems to think they're they're good systems and good alternatives, I think, for the future. Mister chairman, do you do you wanna see if anybody else wants to get comment on this?

in here?

My name is Chase Peterson. I'm just I'm the owner of the people that put in public comment. I don't wanna delay the meeting, but this this is like a project that I kinda went through this process kinda like, you know, hit my head against the wall, like, four or five years ago with the county trying to just understand the opportunity to develop my property, which otherwise should reasonably be available for development. But because this water source protection area kind of just threw a blanket claim over, like, 200 acres of my property and all of the surrounding landowners, it's sort of just, like, nullified the value of my property. Like, I can't because nobody's gonna bring sewer up to where we are. I live up Smithfield Canyon in that context, but there nobody's bringing sewer up there to us. And so you're essentially just saying, like, well, yeah, you could have a development if you had sewer, but we're not gonna make that available or kind of reasonably, like, financially feasible. And yet there are these, like, really high quality systems that, like, the experts are here. I'm just so glad these guys are here because I mean, there's not really an argument for public safety for not doing this. Like, the people that do public safety are, like, the ones that are most annoyed probably that this has not been corrected yet in the code. And so just as a landowner and I think speaking for a lot of my, like, just fellow kind of people up in Smithville County, I'm sure everywhere else in the county where these things exist, like, it'd be really great to get the rights back to our property that otherwise has just been kind of, like, removed or just like it's just like we can't win this fight to just have a reasonable, like, let reason take place so we can we can protect the public and also, like, utilize our land the way we'd like to. So I really appreciate you guys looking at this and, like, this can happen now. And then, frankly, for whoever these people are that, like, finally push this through because I didn't because I guess that's just all that needed to happen was to get maybe on the agenda. So thanks for looking at it. It it matters to a lot to a lot of us. So

Thank you.

This is Matt. I

would just be brief, but I I did wanna just let you guys know mister Jacks is one of the leading experts in this area. So I think the county has been greatly blessed, if you want to use, to have him a part of this and to write these ordinances to make sure that we are following best practices across this and doing something that's good. So he, you know, he works across United States doing all kinds of stuff and his knowledge and expertise is so I think we're grateful to have him a part of this and help us with this ordinance.

Thank you. Anybody else? Okay. Alright.

So this this would come up out of future as a For action. Notice and Public public hearing? Vote on. Okay.

I'm seven next agenda. Like, the next meeting agenda.

Well, we're we we hit the nail. It's not set. That would be our hope, but we'll see how it how it plays out. Next item, number seven, amending Cache County code seventeen ten forty, commercial lot coverage. Okay. I hang around.

We kept the best for the last.

Alright. So this is a continuation of an item we had in October, to increase the commercial zone lot coverage from 50% to 80%. At that meeting, we were directed to reach out to another couple counties and see what they are doing in their zones. As you can see via this memo, there's a pretty wide range. The two inherent trends that I noticed in discussions with their planners and looking at their code was the first issue you're gonna hit is use type. Right? So some of these, places do have very high law coverage, including all the way up to a 100%, but those uses are typically more that would be industrial under our use code. So it's a bit it's not one to one exactly. And then, otherwise, in most other ones, it kinda depends on location. There's a lot of, hey. You have to be x y z feet from or not feet, but miles. From this location or that location, they have very set zones. It's generally, I feel comfortable saying the average is probably 60 to 70%, but at the same time, it really just kinda comes down to such a large multitude of factors that no one code in another county is necessarily translated well to ours. Because, like, we look at, like, Weber County, for example, like, Rich County, they don't even have any coverage, right, or a maximum limit. But I called them, and I'm like it was funny because I called and I was talking to their planner, and I was like, hey, Sid. You guys what's your lot coverage of the commercials on? They're like, we don't have a lot of commercials on, so we typically don't see anything like that. Rich County. Yeah. Box Elder County, that was another funny one. They're like, oh, we probably should add that to our code because they didn't realize they didn't have any. But other than that, yeah. So it kinda depends. It really does come down to your discretion. If you feel, like, comfortable moving it forward, it's not necessarily sticking out in terms of code in the state, in terms of what's going on. Air is all over the place. Yeah. If you feel super uncomfortable about it, we might be able to split the commercial zone depending on use type. But in general, just there isn't anything that's screaming, oh, don't do this. So

There's one question I have that I was kinda clear on from the last discussion. So our current Graham. We're currently at 50%. Right? Right. Current the ground. We're currently at 50%. Right? Right. And this asphalt count in that 50 for the this road's counting under the structure. Any impermeable surface. So I would be in favor if we changed structures to 50% or just leave it as is and leave it as a CDP case by case. Say that again. So currently, in a commercial zone, they're restricted to 50% usage of the lot, whether it be structures or parking surface.

Right.

And so in reality, 50% of their lot is not being utilized. And so just looking around as I drove around the valley, there's some pretty there's some pretty good organized ones. There's some pretty trashy ones. But if we allow them 50% structures, not counting parking surface Okay. Or leave it as is and do it on a case by case CUP. That's just the thought that I had this last month as I've drove around looking.

requirement on that. We could we could have made all incoming trucks come from the West, you know, so they they couldn't get there from off of the highway that they would have to come from from the West because you could stage a lot of trucks to the Yeah. To the West. And

You know, that they They can't change that one. It's just They would anyway.

So and and Brady brings this up a lot. So I just want when they came in, we made them do a traffic study and made them do any improvements that were associated with that traffic study. And we got reeled and beat up because they're like, we don't need to do anything. We're not going to have any impacts. And I do think that we tried our best for that one, but I think where we all kind of went away is they might have said they had 20 trucks. They just didn't say they were all coming at 08:00 in the morning. And that's the problem. So when we start looking at these, the parking that we looked at was for the employees, not necessarily staging. May I clarify one thing loud? Yeah.

In bringing this up, I am not pointing my fingers at you. No. I'm not pointing my fingers at anybody.

Everybody did awesome. Yes. We just it's a learning experience. We could have done better. It is. And so if you know, they they provided a good traffic study. It talked about the flow and the number of people. But but you're right. There's some of these proximities and things are are why if you guys have to postpone things and give everyone a little more time and we kind of kick them around once in a while, it doesn't hurt because once we've approved it, it's

long gone. But But but therefore, wouldn't the CUP even just to stay as we are, unless we pull 80% back from them and look at them on a case by case.

We we we don't the more case by case we have to look at, then that we get into more of these debates. So from And then we change. Yeah. From an ordinance thing, it would be nice to just say, here's what you're shooting for from the start, and then and then we don't have to have the negotiations. So if 80 if you're not comfortable with 80, maybe it's 70. But I I think I think something like that and say, hey, here it is. It's gonna be easier for everybody.

Is there a requirement to take care of their own wastewater?

Yeah. Storm water? Stormwater. Yeah. Yeah. The state requires a certain percentage stay on-site and infiltrate. That's what Valjay was talking about. He wants to just send that directly to the Great Salt Lake. Put put that straws in the notes. Yes. That's fine. He gets his credit. The other part is just trying to mitigate any increase in stormwater so that downstream, we're not sending a whole bunch of water every time it rains to on to properties that have never been prepared for it. All the oil from the runoff. Oil, all that stuff. Yes. Oh, it's Just more minerals to extract.

Yes. My my sort of reaction on this because it does seem a little out of place that commercial is, like, has the lowest coverage out of all the other uses or whatever. So it does seem like it's it's not in the right place. But, but my initial reaction was, you know, is thinking that something more like a 70% may be more appropriate just to distinguish a commercial from an industrial Mhmm. Type of coverage or something like that. So that's just my two cents

on on that.

50 doesn't seem appropriate.

I I tend to agree with you on on the the overall that it prop for commercial should probably be higher. You think of you think of what a commercial business is going to look like.

You leave you leave 50% of your lot empty. Yeah. It doesn't it doesn't make a lot of sense in commercial. So do we wanna throw in throw got a really nice landscape.

Yeah.

That that you have to that you now have to water, and we don't have excess water to be landscaping all this extra ground.

Obviously, 80. Increasing both to 80. I'm on water running on.

He won't. He won't. He won't. He won't. He won't. We

can argue about it. I'm gonna take a break.

Brakes in honor of a whole set of water.

It's like a fill break. Okay. So are we in agreement? 80? No.

70? I think we got three. Three are good with 80, one's good with 75, and two are good with seventy, and one We need to give Connor something to work with. So Back to the back to what we started or I started my comments on, I'd rather see somebody 70 and then look at our CUP if if that's doable. But I think it's easier to bring it down with the CUP than increase it up to 80 if there was a request in the CUP. Maybe I'm wrong with that. But I think it's easier if it's at 80 and there's there's a reason that 80 doesn't make sense on a certain one. You could you could restrict that. I don't But how yeah. I don't know if you can increase it. Maybe you can't do either.

Increase or reduce with the CUP. Yeah. If someone came in with 80, I couldn't say, oh, no. I gotta go down to 70. I could ask them to drop it down to 70, but I couldn't force them to go down. But we couldn't go from 70 to 80 because the code doesn't allow for it. Yeah. That 80 is the max. I can't Yeah. And if they meet that max, as long as they're meeting it, I can't say no. Seems like for the confusion for developers as we do more and more in the county going forward is to have

them both the same. So your comfort level was at 70?

Mine also. But I 70? I agree with you guys in doing such, and I would suggest if we went 70 that we dropped industrial to 70. Even though that's not the discussion, but I think it would be better.

What's your comfort level? He says my comfort level is a lot better. I just took a break. Comfort level's better. I like it.

I I like I like 70%. Or or we or we say have it 70 to 80, and at the public hearing, we hear from the public and we make our final decision at the public hearing next month.

yeah. I think the middle ground is probably 70 where we've where we've settled. So we'll go with that, and then we can then we can discuss that in a public hearing. Public hearing next month. Okay. Twenty five minutes. We have checked it off. Number eight, amending Cache County code seventeen ten forty. Again, irrigation canal setback distance.

I thought we had,

I thought we had made given some guidance on this one. Is that right? We had some guidance, and it grew a whole bunch.

Well, that's because we have another section of the code that says 10 feet. And actually, Jake Forsgren, our Noxious Weed supervisor is here to provide comments. But so after our discussion, I did leave it at ten, so that's consistent with the chapter eight code, allowing for our vegetation division to do maintenance on some of these canals. But there is an exemption for parts. So an exemption to the setback may be allowed if one, the board or other entity governing the recognized irrigation canal agrees to the reduced setback, they provide their own treatment of the noxious weeds along their irrigation canal, they provide a written approval, of number one that includes a statement regarding the maintenance, number two, and then zoning clearance process, our vegetation, division and Jake would review that and confirm.

But that is where we've gotten. Would it be for less than 10? Yes.

you might have some of the 10, but I would say most of them that you see around here are

k. The the the facts, though, too, you get wet circumstances, whatever else, you got a slick bank slick bank. I just I I don't know why we're even looking at changing this for the people that understood the canals, put it at 16. If it's not needed and the canal board agrees with it, let it happen. But if we if we cut this down, I just we can't go back up. And I just really worry in some of the areas because whether it's alternate train I don't know about Jason Canal, man. What do you think? I got rid of all the canals for that reason. Buried your lines. Buried them all. But you still have these lines. Open banks. Wellsville.

The problem

and I'll tell you a quick story. The High Line Canal, when they did that and brought it around the mountain and put it through there, those people hollered forever because they thought they bought their lot to the middle of the canal. It's not really our problem. It's the title company's problem because they don't tell them what they bought. So no matter what you do, it is always a fight. Because somebody's gonna want to plant grass into the bottom of the canal. I'll guarantee you. And so, somehow, we've got to make it nice and clear. And I would make it 16.5 because, boy, they bet it cost us a $100,000 of attorney fees to defend what we owned on that case. Simply because the neighbors took us to court, and they lost. But it still cost us a $100,000. So if you've got the property, if I were the canal company, I would hold it, and I would hold it forever because you're never gonna get it back. So I'm a sixteen point five footer each way.

Yeah. Jake, I don't know if you wanna come up and speak to your personal experience on this.

Alright. So my name is Jake Forsgren. I'm the noxious weed supervisor for the county. I've been here nineteen years, almost going on twenty. Had a lot of opportunities to be out on these canal banks, serving the canal companies, myself and my crew. And I would I would tell you, there's a difference between a lot of the canals. Some have the right of way through there, that we can get our equipment through there to do noxious weed control for the canal company. And there's others that they have landscaped up to the top of the canal, which creates a problem for us if we need to access the canal, do noxious weed control, as well as the canal company maintaining that canal. Huge problem in our county. Under state law, every land owner is required to control and contain them. And so our division is out there providing a service to the whole public. Problems that they have on their land. And so, canals is just one of those areas where we found a huge problem. You know, we've got water in there. It's a great way to transfer these weed seeds downstream. And if these canal banks aren't being maintained properly, you're gonna have a problem through all the farmland and everywhere else in the county. So I would just urge you to keep that that protection there as much as you can

from what I've seen. So Yeah. And I'm I'm planning with the 16 and a half feet. The the footage, I think, is isn't the reason I brought it up. It was because, you know and and I agree with Jake. If if there's already canal that has their their right of way that they keep maintained so they can drive along the canal and spray and and clean their canal with a track coat to Brady's point. Right? We want we want to maintain that, and our current code would would maintain that. Right? You can't do anything in that easement. But we have probably at least half, if not more than half of our canals that don't have that roadway along them. Right? They're out through farm fields. There are fences. You couldn't drive them if you wanted to. And our current code says if that farmer wants to put another fence that goes up to that canal to divide his pasture, he can't do it. There's no exemption. He can't put a fence in the middle of his pasture to split it into two pastures. So if we just have that And so paragraph. If we just have that first note, an exemption to the setback may be allowed if the border entity governing that canal gives written statement allowing for that fence or structure, whatever it might be in in that easement. Everything else stays in place. Right? They they already have to do weed control. It's it's state law and county code. If they're not doing it, you can either enforce it. You know, first you send them a letter saying spray your weeds. If they don't, you can go spray it and send them a bill. So we we have that in code to say, okay, let's put another written treatment plan in place because he wants to build that fence. To me, it seems like extra work that you have to now look at. And maybe it's just as much as he he you know, the the county vegetative department goes out there and says, okay. There's there's no noxious weeds on this parcel or there is and you have to address them at the time. But that that exemption allowing for that to happen, I think, is what we were really looking for.

that would be the only change. We'd set back the same and just have

allow for that foot That was my initial original request. And the 10 foot came because another place in code for the vegetation. Maybe we increase that one to 16 and a half so they match instead of reduce this one. Might make more. It it might because most canal companies are it's it's 15 feet from center of canal on either side is what their easement is. So on big canals, you know, that 10 foot right away probably is there. But in others, a small canal, that 16 and a half, it might go outside of that still. So I I like the bigger for for that. If it's in that area, they have to get that clearance from the canal.

Yeah. Some places it makes sense to to allow it. Others it doesn't. Yeah. Because if if you're cleaning a canal with an excavator, 16 and a half feet is pretty tough because you gotta think what you're doing. You're driving along there and you're trying to swell out. Yep. And and you gotta leave a place to dump that so you can clean it up later. So Yep. Yeah. It's pretty tough. I I like the wider because that's what most can have some of the easements already are. Sounds like we have consensus on

Andrew. Yes. I don't need Firestone for a couple weeks now. It looks like I managed to skip printing that one. I'll share with Aljay. Okay. So I do apologize for that. I've lost my log and my two hours expired.

Let me find

my own document. So this is a proposed amendment to clarify the code as it applies to frontage requirements for properties in all zones, as well as where access should come from to enter a subject property. We've been counting been encountering more and more of these issues with determining what frontage is and access to property as property owners start building further and further away from public or private roads. And then an additional issue regarding frontage and access is specific to FR 40 zone, where many legal parcels don't have actual frontage on a public or private road, nor a clear, legal access through adjacent properties through recorded easements. So, we're hoping some of these proposed amendments will help with those issues that we've had. So we'll just skip to our the page with the red where we're asking about possibly changing. I think the first part I'll just focus on is changes regarding access to FR 40. Again, there's many times where there's not clear legal or clear actual frontage on private or public roads, nor are there recorded easements that clearly lay out a path from a public or private road to the property. So the proposal on the last page is to add a footnote stating that required frontage in the FR 40 zone on a public or private road is required for new subdivision lots and for legal parcels or lots subject to a boundary adjustment. But property owners of existing legal parcels or lots in the F 40 zone without frontage bear the burden of proving legal access to their property. In the past we've had kind of some silly results where we've required the applicant to provide an easement to themselves on their own property in order to establish that 150 foot frontage requirement that's currently in the FR 40. And then, this last summer, we've had at least two cabins up in FR 40 where there hasn't been a clear path and there's been no cabins after their proposed location. So, it wasn't established that there was actual, an actual easement or anything getting to that property. So if we place the burden on the applicant and it's you know becomes their responsibility to prove that out, it'll just help us a lot with trying to get those cabins permitted because again out in the wilderness there there's not the grid system you know that provides easy access to all these properties. So it's become a burden for the applicants and for staff to try and establish that. The other thing that we just wanted to clarify. Can you bring up the parcel map? I'm bringing up this parcel. Is property people have been questioning what the depth of that needs to be. So in our lot slash parcel frontage definition, there's nothing that really talks about that depth that's required, but there is another definition called property frontage that talks about the length of the property abutting the road and a line parallel too. So, you can see in this case and this has happened a couple times. We have established that the 90 foot frontage, if it's not going to be the full width of the parcel itself, has to at least meet the front yard setback. So we've added stuff to our site development table that would just clear that up that it needs to have at least the front yard setback in-depth and not just like a one foot or six inches. A couple reasons for this, one they need to have an area to establish a pad for garbage or mailboxes and if it's not that minimum front yard setback then it can get located in the right of way. The other issue on this particular example is you can see they've established the frontage for the subdivision lot on the North South Road and their larger area to build a house on is towards the back of this farm. After they went through this, the the father of the son who wanted to build was like, you're not putting a driveway in the middle of my field. And so now he is accessing from the south through all of the structures. Through the barnyard? Yeah. Through the barnyard to get to his house. Did this at CUP.

I remember this coming in and we rezoned it. Not a CUP. It was It was a subdivision amendment. Zoning in a subdivision.

Subdivision amendment?

No. There's no legal way we can make them access off their actual driveway they're supposed to build.

And that's what we wanna clarify. I'm sure sure Matt can talk to that, but there was nothing in our code that we could require even though also on that subdivision amendment plat, the address that was assigned to this lot was off the North South Road. Nice to close mailbox there, I guess. Question. Yeah. What are you saying is the depth of the requirement of the 90 feet? 30.

From property line? Yes.

That comes from the original definition under because if you go 33

from the middle of the road, if it's a county road. Right?

Well, the to go through the zoning clearance process, yeah, there was a lot of discussion with fire for emergency access and with public works about if an access point through the barnyard, was going to work for their code requirements. But, again, this what we're asking for the change is if you establish that frontage on that road, that has to be your access unless you are granted a variance from the land use authority. But right now, do those folks have occupancy? They haven't started building it. I think they've barely got their zoning clearance. I get it. We're still On my way here, there's a it looks like right down that

that road right away, they've got a trench with a pipe in, and I I I noticed that my Well, if I pull it up. Miles an hour. It's actually a fairly small pipe.

Probably to pull their power up at four inch maybe?

It it wasn't gray though, Bill. Yeah. Also, their well gray before the power company gets there. It doesn't have to be gray. Also, their well is not located on their property, So that could have been piping for the well as as well.

He knows some get around, Tim. Just the ends speak. Andy, I would like to on that depth, I think we need to be careful on how we describe 30 feet because somebody who's not thinking about the depth of the county ability to take 33,

I'm sorry.

They have a way that we're gonna be into some situations there. So

for that Nolan, that's the 33 is the 30 foot is to match like a building setback. So when you mentioned that 30 feet would be from the property line, I would say that's from the right of way. And so even if they had whatever that is, we're gonna make sure that from wherever that

property line right of way is, that depth is another 30 feet past that. Clear on that Yes. For the applicant. Just you didn't say 30 feet. I'm gonna go out there to my property line. 30.

No. It's so when they plot these when they're doing these subdivision plots and they're doing these frontage requirements, we're looking at that from the dedicated right of way line and then going 33 back from that.

Okay.

Yeah. Any other questions on that? Maybe just

because I didn't catch it. What's the difference between option one and audit?

Option two would maintain our two separate definitions that kind of address the same thing, whereas option two would kind of combine them into one definition instead of two.

Who

makes an exception to not an author from?

So originally, I had designated the county engineer and fire district. But then in thinking through it, I did put it as a director variance because the director also is the land use authority for variance for maximum structure height or minimum setback distances and then the Director, if there is a variance for a required frontage access, definitely bring in statements from the Fire District and Public Works in order to make a determination. Because that's that's where the impacts are. But then I thought you might want a neutral body to kind of weigh that. And we can bring this back again next month. It's not a rush. I like one a little better, but this one might not be quite ready for a public hearing. Yeah. Okay. A little more. And then for the next item, I don't know if you wanna loop that into part of the discussion on the joint workshop as part of the subdivision stuff for the minimum lot size. But

what just an idea I had as I see the clock ticking closer to I think the lot I think the lot size one fits real well with continued to talk with the public health department and and lot size and community community systems or more sense we do that when in conjunction with those three or four other codes we're looking at. Back to what Brady asked our

and I think we've kinda done that as a performance standard up until now. Right? Yep. It's we left it on the health department, which is probably where it should be

in in most cases because they're gonna have the expertise to to be able to make the But even on that last document we just looked at, that Angie was going over the frontage of the stuff Mhmm. If you scroll to the top of that, it showed our minimum lot size down to half acre. Yeah. Yeah. And that shouldn't be if we're

at a per acre and a half minimum. I think the discussion we were talking about is is, you know, they said in in one breath, they said one an acre and a half, but they also said a half acre could be I'm not missing. Yeah. Yeah. In in the other meeting, and and and I just wonder if it should be more of a performance standard. The way we've done in the past is they need to meet the the Bear River Health Department requirements.

Definitely where I'm at. Yeah. Like Yes, sir. I I don't want to I'm I'm hesitant to increase those minimum lot sizes because under the right conditions, the right property owner wants to develop their property, and they wanna keep as much of it in farm for whatever if the conditions warrant Agreed. To be able to go down to a half acre. I I currently live on a half acre, and it's a lot of ground. You've got extra ground to deal with. Well, and and and where one of my previous houses,

Yeah. If we go There's actually a few that the septic system is on the adjacent property that can eat. Yep.

The drain field goes on to the other lot. Yeah.

What's interesting is in Bear Lake, if you do a septic tank, you have to set aside a certain amount of land for another septic tank to drain the You have to hear too. The health department requires that on your map. So a half acre, that gets tough.

But that 80% lot coverage could be pretty good. Does that cover the minimum lot size? Alright. Yes. I think we'll We have two minutes left. And so So quickly, next year's meeting dates, Pretty much typically all lands on the first except for January and July. January is New Year's, I believe. And then July, the July 4 that would I think it lands on July 3. So we move both those back a week. Connor was just telling me that Jason mentioned August 6 is fair week. That's fair week. And last year or this year, sorry, a couple months ago, we lucked out because we got kicked out. Right? But if you wanted to move that one as well.

We got kicked out, so we were able to make the rodeo. Right. Yeah. It was close.

I I recommend pushing that one back. Any

any desire to do that? I'd be fine with pushing August back a week for that. There's a lot going on that week.

And then I guess the only other one, which we brought up in the past but hasn't been an issue is the April is usually on spring break for schools, but I don't think we've had an issue with that in the past. So

maybe one or two of you are always on the the county Christmas anyway. So it doesn't matter.

I'll make a note to personnel manager. So if you're okay with that, I see. Really space to get over there

for two weeks. We're dragging the meeting out. Yeah. Okay. We are just about out of time, but we have one more item on there, and that's elections for chair and vice chair. Is that why you came?

No. I know currently, and she would not met everything. Okay. And she said I should come to this meeting and do a kid on the block and wanted to buy some property

for a project that I've been involved with. Oh. It's an international school for the fine arts, k through 12 private. And I found

It's a significant project. And whatever I do with The United States, that's home, because then there's also an international expansion component as well as the internationals coming in. We go out. And so so

Yeah. Actually, what we were going to do is set up a development review team meeting. This this isn't the Yeah. We talked about today at four in June. No. I said the thirteenth at four. So Yeah. I Well, I messed up. I hope you enjoyed the whole meeting in Marshall.

I didn't realize I'm not really ready.

So so that's not on the agenda, but Well,

so you you've gotta meet with them first Yep. Before you come meet with us. Yeah. So I'll get that Make a motion for the elections that we leave the chair and vice chair the same for Well, I think it was just a a a note that it's coming up. Yeah. It's coming up next month. I thought you were doing the agreement. Well, I know we were doing it for Kirk. You didn't wanna stay in there too? No. Well, we could put the new guy in. That's what I that was gonna be my suggestion. We don't have to do those today, Angie? No. We were just putting that as a just to let you know next He won't be here next month. Oh, he won't be here next month. We can do it next month. Okay. Alright.

Yeah. And will we have a director that we can

Is this a correct rendering?

Yeah. That's from my architects.

And Okay. I move the adjournment. Alright.

Anything else? Director.

We believe we've already addressed. Yeah.