Cache County Planning Commission Meeting 10-02-2025

Order the planning commission meeting After. 10/02/2025, the Cache County Planning Commission meeting. We'll have our opening remarks and pledge. I'd like to welcome right here first of all, and then we'll have our opening remarks and pledge by Nate Dowd.

Yeah. My opening remarks in the, form of a prayer. Our dear Heavenly Father, we thank you for the opportunity we have to gather together in this, county, in this great state and country where we have the freedoms to work together to decide how we want to grow and as a county and a community. And thank you for the opportunity we have to come together civilly and go over these matters. Bless us as we discuss these matters on the agenda tonight that we can have, the best interest of the citizens of this county in our minds. And we say these things in Jesus Christ. Amen. Amen. Will you all please stand and join me in the pledge of allegiance?

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.

Well, that's George right there. Get the microphone.

George. No. That might have been.

I will just, say one thing. We have some new tech in here. It's a work in progress, but if we might get some feedback and stuff, but we'll try and adjust as we go through. So Okay. Thank you. Just FYI. Was George gonna step in? I motioned to him to see if he wanted to say a few words, but he'd wait me off to the

Alright. We'll start with our consent items after we first review and approve the agenda. Reminder on that. Has everybody has the commissioners had a chance to review on tonight's agenda?

If you have, do we have an approval? Just as a reminder, we are removing item number six from the agenda tonight. Okay.

I'll make a motion to approve the agenda with the, taking off item number six, salary subdivision, as well as, last month's meeting minutes. Second motion. Okay. All in favor? Aye. Aye.

Okay.

So just confirming that Saddle Ridge withdrew tonight.

Yes. Yes. Okay. Consent item number one. One. The Bold Canine Solutions LLC conditional use permit. I request for a six month extension of the effective period of the approval to create and operate a a kennel a home based kennel in the agriculture a t n tase n a 10 zone. Any comments or concerns on this, commissioners?

Okay.

You wanna do one one at a time on those three? We could go through. Go through. Doing it all through? Okay. Second one's the Nautica Subdivision First Amendment, a request for a six month extension of the effective period of the approval to amend the Nautica Subdivision in the agriculture a 10 zone. The this amendment is to convert the existing agriculture remainder into the twelfth building lot within the subdivision. And the third consent item is Zan Summer's lot split first amendment, a request to amend an an existing second lot subdivision. The amendment will modify Lot 1 by shifting boundary lines with a parcel that is not located within the subdivision.

Okay. Make a motion to approve those three, consent items.

Do we have a second? I second the motion. K. All in favor? Aye. Okay. Regular action items number four, public hearing.

It's for the Mountain Manor Springs rezone. Connor, if you can take us through that. Yeah. So it's a request to rezone about 98 acres from the a 10 zone to the r u two zone. Staff is recommending denial tonight. The reasons why is the location of the subject property to be rezoned is not compatible with the purpose of the r u two zone. Nearest parcel in the county that's in the r u two zone is located 1.25 miles away. The proposed rezone is not consistent with the Cache County general plan. And should the maximum number of lots be subdivided, the secondary ingress, egress ought to be created. And there's currently a weird restriction on Parcel 26, which is the largest one, which if we go through with the reason, it would kinda complicate the issue of resolving that. So for those five reasons, we're recommending denial. Password. About a mile and a half, somewhere in there. I should also note, at the time that we wrote the staff report, we hadn't received public comment from Mendon. They're against it. They submitted one a little bit after I think it was on Monday. Yeah. I saw that. So yeah. There's also that reason if you wanna add that too. Okay.

It also borders the FR 40.

Yeah. Any comment on on this, commissioners? I think it's pretty straightforward. We can make a Okay. Make a motion to open a public hearing. Okay. Do I have a second? Second. K. All in favor? Aye. Aye. K. Do we have the applicant here that would like to please come forward and state your name, and keep your comments to three minutes? Through us. I just right here at the podium.

First of all, it's kind of a misrepresentation. We turned in a built like a plan with 20 lots,

but we were Can you please state your name for the record? Oh, sorry. Ryland.

With 20 lots, the r u two I don't think we could ever get enough water rights for 49 lots. So it's kind of a misrepresentation of what she's trying We did turn that in with the packet, and so that's kind of the first thing I wanted to say is it wasn't gonna be 49 lots. The next thing is, you know, Petersboro is a pretty diverse place just right up north from there. We have a huge amount of acreage that's commercial zoned for a and then just right over the hill, there's a a large subdivision over there too.

The

and then down in Mendon that used to be Petersburg, they just annexed in another big subdivision right down there. And we're just kinda we're following the pattern. You know, when when we first moved up there, there wasn't anyone up there. And over the years, you know, go back ten years, fifteen years, nobody was up there. And there's slowly been growth. And we just like our neighbors, we want more cool neighbors. And so we're trying to continue the pattern that's kind of been happening at the top of the loop up there and get some more people to be able to enjoy the great community up there and the good views and hopefully bring, more people that are like minded to to growth in up there in Petersburg. I think that's that's all I had.

Thanks.

Any other comments? Please come forward and state your name. Please come forward and state your name.

My name is Kent Baker. I live in Petersboro, at 165 North 7100 West. I am also living on the old family homestead, which is now, Willow Ranch LLC and the JFB Family Partnership, for which I am the farm manager. I I like the idea that we're not gonna have 49 houses up there if there really are 20, but and that would keep more with the rural area. But I am also in charge of a farm that has water rights. We have 80 acres of pasture that are that have spring fed water troughs. I have a lower field that is prime agricultural land. It's silty loam, very productive, on which we can irrigate 20 acres. We're thinking of maybe putting 10 of it into pasture. We've been talking to extension about that. But I'm concerned that the my water comes from, I think, almost the same drainage as they are taking their water from. And if they divert it, will it I'm afraid it will impact my ability to maintain my agricultural work that I'm trying to maintain. So I would really I'm against doing this because it it might be detrimental to everything that my family has done here for well over a hundred years.

Thank you. Thank you. Any other comments?

Cody Mickelson. I live at 440 North 7200 West just across the highway of the proposed acreage or not highway, just, county road. I I am opposed to this proposal. I I I'm not opposed to continued development under the current zoning that's currently there. That's how we all got our homes there is under the current zoning requirements. But I am I am opposed to changing the zoning to increase the the the amount of homes that could be there. Particularly because of what it states that needs to be for a rural two zone that there must be appropriately served by suitable public roads, have access to water and utilities, and have adequate provision to public services. There's not much of that out there. In fact, there's only electricity for public services out there. As, Kent just explained, biggest, concern is water. Most of us who have, or all of us who have individual wells in that area are deep wells, mines particularly four eighty feet. So it is a it's a it's a it's a limited aquifer that we're accessing in that area. There are springs and I know there are springs that come from the proposed area that actually serve other homes that aren't in that proposed acreage. And so my concern would also be to what would that do for those homes that are getting water from that area. And so, for those reasons, I am opposed to to changing the zoning for that for that area. Thank you. Thank you.

My name is Jason Coy. I also live in the area, 7036 West 600 North, just kinda down the road and around the corner. I'm also opposed, to the development. A lot of similar reasons that have been mentioned, but, my well also is 430 feet deep. Water is a primary concern, as well as the the safety of my kids and just every like, if there's, you know, that many more people driving up and down that road, You know, that presents a safety issue. I also think that just based on what a lot of people in the area are looking for, you know, the wide open spaces. I mean, there's a reason why we we bought bought our lot, oh, five or six years ago and built, last year. But this is this was our dream. This was why we we chose Petersboro over other places that had subdivisions nearby. We wanted to to get out in the country, and and this is the place that offered that. And, you know, I think that you had pollution, whether it's, you know, noise pollution, light pollution, whatever, you know, plus the traffic and and the water concerns. I think there's there's just a lot of that that, really becomes a big concern, and I think it changes the way of life, for a lot of people if if these larger subdivisions are are brought too close to home. So

thank you. Thank you. Yes. You can come back up in Oh, yeah. They have. They usually can't.

Sorry.

I forgot. Ryland. I forgot to mention. I forgot to mention. Yeah. Okay. I Sorry. I forgot. Ryland,

I forgot to mention. I have talked to the Utah division of water rights, Skyler and Ted over there. They said there's no problem transferring those water rights. He said it wouldn't be impossible. So we do have water rights lined up to purchase. So if that's a big concern, it's it's not because the engineers of this region said it's not. The other thing Oh, gosh. Now I forgot. Okay. Yeah. That's what I wanted to mention. Thanks.

Hi. I'm Terena Lund. This is my land. I miss the old days where you could do whatever you wanted with your own land. When we came from England, it was life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Happiness defined as you could do what you wanted with your own land. And now, it's six to six people to tell me and my neighbors who can tell me what I can do with my land. That's my livelihood that I get to do with because I was divorced. And that's all I have to provide for the rest of my life. Unless I want to go, I don't know, flip burgers. But, and I understand there's a concern. Like I said, we were only going to do less than 20 lots, but, you know, I have to pave the whole road. I have to improve the road because lots. I find it very hypocritical, actually, that some of them got to, you know, develop and and do their lots, and they're here to oppose me. Interesting.

I want you all to be in my face

and know who was going to be able to develop that land. I wanted to make it pretty. Some of those lots are meant to go to my other two children, my girls, who I was going to give land to for their inheritance. One of those lots would have to pay for the entire road. If not two, one has to go to develop the rest of the land on the bottom the way the county wants. I mean, one of those lots has to go to pay for all the water rights. You get the idea. Anyway, I just wanted you to see my face, and I wanted to see yours. I hope that you'll seriously consider our proposal. Thank

you. Any other comments?

My name is Tana Wardle. I am Larry and Dana Young's daughter. They're back there at the beginning or they were at very beginning of all of this My dad's family owned all the land But had to have it rezoned so that you guys could live out there. You can't stop progression I know that we want wide open land and that's great But the valley is filling up that's great But the valley is filling up. Utah is filling up. It's not gonna stop I don't know anything about how many lots there is But when my mom and dad initially bought the land out there it was to provide summer for their children to live Not developing it is taking away their dream I mean you talk about the American dream They can't do what they want with their land that they bought thirty years ago so that I could go live out there And now other people are determining that and it's not just me. It's my sister. It's my brother, my children. It's I don't I don't know. So I do hope you consider maybe maybe it doesn't have to be that many lots, but really in order to put in the road to put in the water that will be required to bring the power up, to bring up the utilities, that costs money. We know the city doesn't pay for that. We know we have to pay for that. That's why we have to have so many lots. So I do hope you consider it because it's more than just not putting houses out there or water rights. It's gonna happen. It's just do you want good, honest people that have owned the land for more than a hundred years, or do you want people that are really just have the money to buy it? Maybe that's what it's about. I don't know. But we do care about the land, and we care about the people beneath. We we're all together in this one for all.

Thank you. K. Thank you. Any other comments?

She was in favor. Oh, she was in Yeah. Okay. I think she's family.

I'm Jennifer Nelson. I'm a realtor. I'm with Equity Real Estate, and I've been working with Trina. So the other option is is if she can't do this and she needs the money, she'll be selling to a big developer. And we know what they do. They'll come in, and they'll have the money and the resources. And one way or the other, that land will be developed. It's whether you want somebody that's going to care about the land and do it, caring about her neighbors and their needs, or whether you're gonna wanna deal with somebody else. Because in the end, she does have to do something with the land.

So I really hope you'll consider it and let her maybe less lots, but somehow,

maybe less lots, but somehow develop so that she can be in control, the family can stay in control, and they can do it where they take everybody's needs into consideration instead of someone who wouldn't.

Thank you. Anyone else would like to make a comment?

Okay. Make a motion to close the public hearing.

All set up.

All in favor. Aye.

Alright. Thank you, commissioners.

Mister chairman, maybe maybe before we start just address the the question of the number of lots on there. And and really what we're talking about is is to allow 20 lots or whatever. There needs to be it needs to go to this zone, And it's really if if what we're considering tonight is the zoning change. And so whatever they want or not, if we make the change in the zone, then it would allow up to the 49 lots on on that parcel. And and so that's what we have to consider is the is the potential density that could be there. Whether they build that much is, you know, up to the applicant if it's approved. It's a good point. Mister chairman, I have a question. Yes. So

and I apologize if I overlooked this in our notes, but if I understand correctly right now, with 98 acres, as long as this hasn't been split up, they could realistically build nine homes right now and not even have to come in here. Well, they may have to for a subdivision.

They're gonna have to meet the road requirements and such, but but right now they're given nine homes. Is that correct? Sort of. It'd be seven since they already have two building lots. Two parcels. Yeah. So, essentially, what would happen is there's already a house on 17. And then to solve the issue with, 125211, that's the one that's causing the issue in terms of the restriction. So they have two lots, so they could add seven on top of that. So they could have seven more. Okay. Yeah. That that was

appreciate you clarifying them two homes. And there was there was a lot said. Yeah. We all appreciate and understand property rights. But when we look at a zone of this magnitude, the county is not financially in a position to manage, especially in that area. At least my thoughts.

Right. On the in the the past, r u twos we've done have been a lot closer to a city.

Five. Boundaries.

It's much smaller. Five. Mhmm. And and r u five rezone on something like this would get them almost to the 20 lots. Right? They they get they minus they'd be 19. They've already got two, potentially 17 new lots. If if that it might fit a little bit or it's still pretty big, and and they probably they might lose a couple to some of that ground. The forest of those acres might get taken out with the rezone. They didn't show that in there yet. But But I I I don't think our county's even prepared. Yeah. The R U Two's For an R five. Yeah. That's a lot of that's a lot of lots up that road. Yeah. That doesn't meet our current plan. Yeah.

Forty forty nine lots, I mean, that's that's basically dropping a town into an area without any services.

And and it it would fall into what we're looking at. Right? The county council placed a moratorium on new subdivisions over five lots so we can look at water issues around the county. And this is one area in the county that that with the ground water study going on that does need to have some like that. Because, it it's true. You can buy water rights and transfer them there. That don't make no more water. If the state engineer will let you transfer it there, it doesn't mean if we punch 20 more wells that they'll all have reliable water supply. So that's something with the current discussions we're having with the county council, we need to figure out some more before we look at these higher density subdivisions. Because if you look at that map in the packet, in that whole area right there on on the map, and it doesn't show all of them down Center Street. There's some more homes lower down there. But there's 30 homes on that. You know, it's it's putting two thirds of those all just on that parcel. And that's that's getting pretty tight out there for that area. Again, that's what we in in the master plan, it has us looking that more next to city boundaries, at least,

the way I Well, it's a good thing to bring up up to the reminder that men in the city is against this because the at that point, there's huge annexation area of this where this is at. They're opposed to it because the water and also probably doesn't meet their infrastructure. Huge infrastructure

needs. Right. Well, there was there was also a comment mister chairman made that if these people don't get it, they'll sell it to a developer. They're not gonna have any better luck trying with the developer than they are personally. So they can sell it, but it's not gonna happen,

most likely. Not not in the short term.

Any other comments? K. Get them ready for a motion?

I made them all tonight so far.

Someone's gonna make it. No. The public here is closed.

I'll I'll make a recommendation that we recommend that the county council denial of the rezone of the Mountain Manor Springs rezone with the The conclusion. Yeah. Based on the conclusions, how many are there? It's five. Five conclusions.

Yeah. You wanna add a six that says Men and Cities against it? We can add six, but Men and Cities letter they sent out after this was prepared.

Yeah.

Alright. Do we have a second? I second the motion. Okay. All in favor?

Aye. Like

we talked about before, Number 6 off Saddle Ridge Subdivision, so we'll move down to Number 7. Discussion, Powder Mountain Master Plan. Actually, I think we're on five. Boom. Yeah. Water. Right? Or water use Sorry. I skipped that. Master plan. Water master plan. Thank

you. Yeah. And, our, consultant, Aubrey Larson, she was here a couple months ago to give a presentation on this. Unfortunately, she's not able to make it in person, but we think we've mastered the tech to bring her up on the screen. I see. Yeah. So getting fancy around here. Fancy around here. But, yes, let's see if we can get her on. But, yeah, this would be a public hearing to recommend either approval or denial to county council to adopt it. As a reminder, this is a state mandated update to the general plan that needs to be adopted by the end of the year. Based on our previous discussions and email I sent out, we didn't have any further changes from the last time you looked at it. So we will get her on here. Promise we did practice this a couple times.

We did practice. I was we're on a stack of water.

I know when I was in here with Janine earlier seeing how to use all that for our board meeting Monday, I I I knew I was gonna have problems on Monday too. There was a couple times till we had figured. Yeah. We had training yesterday and then, yeah, started at, what, 03:30 practicing.

Yeah. We did that. I swear. Yeah. We did that. We were flawless in practice. That's great. Well practiced.

Yeah. Thank you. Mister

chairman, I don't think we've clarified. I don't know if the applicant

on that last one understands or not, but they'll still have an opportunity before the council.

Maybe what we did you hear what I said? Another opportunity to plead your case to the county council?

No.

No. No. No. They're they're next it'll be on the agenda.

Yeah. We'll we'll set a public Aubrey, can you hear us? Can you hear me? Yes. How are we?

I can kind of hear you.

If I talk louder, is that better?

Yes. That's better.

All right. We're going to get you up on the screen here so you can do your presentation.

Perfect. Can you hear me okay?

Yes, we can hear you. We have the owl in, so yeah, you're coming in loud and clear.

Perfect. If I share my screen, will it pop up for you guys? It will as soon as we get you okay, there.

We were just telling them that we did practice this.

But it's not quite going as smoothly. But live on, so I was trying to follow.

There we go. Okay. Yep. Looks like we have you up on the screen.

Okay. So you can see my my presentation? Yes. Perfect. Thank you for accommodating me. I apologize. I I have what I thought was a cold turned out to be COVID, so thought I'd spare you. So my goal this evening is to just give some background information on the Cache County water use and preservation element and then just quickly, a refresher of the content of the document. And then if there's any questions or discussion, we can make some time for that. Okay. So project background. First of all, who was involved? Myself. I worked for a firm called Landmark Design, and we, partnered with Hanson, Allen, and Luce who did the more data intensive analysis as part of this project. We also worked with county staff. I know Brandon Bell has moved on to a new position, but he he was fantastic to work with. Angie and then our steering committee, Special thanks to to Nate and Nolan for your support throughout this project and giving us some really important insights. Even taking a step further back, I I thought it would be helpful. Just a quick reminder, what's the role of the general plan if this will function as as a new chapter? It's the advisory guide to land these decisions. Describes generally where you are, where you wanna be, how you'll get there, and it does not create regulations.

And then, again, this is a public hearing, so we wanna open that up.

Okay. I just have a question. She said the current goal is 18.1%, but that that was the old number. What's the new number in water savings

in gallons per day? They haven't finalized their new their new updated Okay. Basin wide numbers. Okay.

It will probably be bigger. Well, I'm sure it's gonna be a lot bigger. Okay. Well, we've done public hearing.

Mister chairman, I move that we open the public hearing on this water element.

Okay. I second that. Alright. All in favor?

Aye. Is there anyone here who would like to make a comment about this water plan?

Ryland.

I just had a question because there's a subdivision moratorium right now going on because of water. But I called the Utah division of water rights, and they had no idea about it. So I don't understand. Maybe you guys are talking to the state about this stuff, or is it at a local level? Or, you know, they they like, they seriously had no idea about it. I told them about the moratorium, and then

There's two differences. Water is ran by the state. The moratorium was enacted by the county, so it's different. And, actually, the water department should know about that because they attended a meeting here last week about our moratorium and what our outlook is on water. Last week? Yes. Mhmm. Okay. And so, yeah, they're not stopping putting out water rights because that's up to the state. The big thing that's mister Nathan has described is the water study that is going on by the state right now. So that is being anticipated by many, many people to see what that finds. So the moratorium and remember too, such as what mister Watterson explained, when you rezone or request to rezone it to R U 2, once you put the R U 2 in there, then even though you told us you only want 20 homes, it's capacity of 49. Right. So somebody can go more. So Yeah. We

we just got a recommendation from someone on the planning commission to to do RU two first, and then if that didn't go, do RU five. But I was like, I don't know. But we were gonna do RU five, but on the planning commission, we we went off that recommendation, but which is is fine. But so the so the plan is to, like, limit water use.

And If I if I might just offer and I'm I'm not saying you don't understand it. I'm just trying to clarify and Yeah. I'm trying to ask a question. If you were if you already had a water tank on the hill out there, if you already had a supply, your problems are solved. If you were also sitting right on top of an aquifer, it it's better. But when you listen to your neighbors and their wells are 400 plus feet deep, and you're in one of the driest areas in the county, Mendon City themselves stopped all building altogether until they could find additional water. This is protecting you in a way because you go to all the cost of developing this, and then people go out there and they can't find water. You can buy water rights. Yeah. But just because you got a water right out there doesn't guarantee that you have water. Right. Yeah. We yeah. We were proposing that we could drill a big, like, just a one well

to feed into Yeah. We're So this is really outside of this here. It is. Yeah. Right. So we yeah. We we we don't wanna get in discussion on your item. It'll it'll come back up. Right. But, yeah, your questions for the the water element plan I'm good. Were valid. Thank you.

Thanks. Any any other comments?

We close the

public hearing. K.

Second.

I'm sorry. Do do do you have a second? I I I'll close the hearing. Okay. All in favor? Aye. Aye.

I think it's a really good plan.

Well, it's been a long time on it, so hopefully it's pretty good. Looks good. And I think it meets what the county's

ultimate goal is, just to preserve agriculture and also sustain growth in a manageable way.

I'll I'll give my one beef about it, and that's map six and the color scheme. For those of us that are red green color blind, that's that's a pretty terrible map.

But Paige Subtle differences in purple don't work very well. No.

Don't have any that, Jason? 19.

Is that the aquifer map? Yes. It is. Yeah. Okay. I can change that easily. Sorry about that.

It all looks great to you? No. I I can see the perp but the subtle differences, you you look at the the four different purple shades.

I It's not easy. Jason's done with that question. Go ahead.

The question I have is you said that the homes take up I can't remember their exact percentage, a small percentage of water, and most of it is groundwater. Is that just county or are we including Logan City in that?

This this plan is looking at the county. Just the county. But it's it's the same. All cities rely on ground water too for their Right. For their culinary. City does. Yeah. Every city does. Whether it's a spring or a But Logan City depends majorly on Logan River to provide their water, except for the wells they have in the West. Yeah. The the big the big Dewitt Spring. Spring. Yeah. But it's But it's ground water. Yeah. Still ground water. Yeah. We don't have any any city in the valley that takes river water and treats it for their residents. And and the reason in there it showed that in the county, right, residential takes more than Ag is because a lot of our development, similar to this one that was proposed tonight, right, is happening on dry farmland. So there's zero irrigation today. If we put 20 homes and even if they each only irrigate an acre around their house, we've increased the irrigation

quite a bit on that ground. But if they buy water shares out of the Logan River High Line Canal and wanna transfer them to Peterborough, that's impossible.

No. It's not impossible. It's hard, but it's not impossible. Not off and off pipe. It's not. It's it's they just transfer it to ground water and then they can pump it out. Okay. Yeah. So it's it's it happens that every city does that. Right? They take surface it happens. That's every city does that. Right? They take surface shares, do a change application, they transfer those shares to their well. They were coming out of Logan River, now they're coming out of a well, maybe on the other side of the county. Okay. That that happens fairly often.

Mister chairman? Yes. That that brought up part of one of my questions that they're talking about and then just canal companies in general. So have we have we first taken into consideration that canal companies that are still open or actually contributing to our groundwater? And if we looked at what happens if they pipe recharge, We've we've seen that happen in areas. People had wells that weren't great until they piped the canal. And then the next thing you know, their well goes dry. Yeah. It's happened. But with that said, I I don't know if this is a county issue or if it's a canal per cow canal by canal, but is it really healthy for us or is it law that we have no control over taking water from an area that has water and moving it to an area that really doesn't have water, but gives them a right to try and get water. I I'm not a fan of that, But who controls that? The state.

So that's out of our control. That's a state engineer. That's state law. And to your first comment, this groundwater study is looking at that. Right? It's assessing the canals too and which ones are critical to our recharge. Because not all of them are. But but some of them are But but you've got a canal. Are really critical to us. That canal that runs the whole West Side. Yeah. So they they they're From Hiram over through Minden. They're looking at all of them. If they pipe that baby, I'd be real surprised, especially when you listen to them people come in here and talk about no water. Some of those What that would do to their homes. Some of those real shallow ones that are relying on some of those springs and stuff. It's probably not getting to those 450 foot wells, but some of those older homes that have shallow wells, for sure. We just don't ever wanna be in the position of

being caught between the developer or the homeowner in that scenario when the canal company was there first and has the right The pipe to pipe their canal.

Well, we might see that on that one in the next decade.

The points well taken, Brady.

Well, ten years ago, we didn't in in water, we didn't talk about depletion. You know, we we we only talked about diversion. And as we study it, we talk more and more about it. We we begin to understand, you know, what that depletion of our water supply means if we're not recharging it. And, we we weren't because that's all we measured for a hundred and fifty years was diversion. And, you know, now, you know, an example this summer that happened here is the the West Cash Canal over on the West Side pressurized from Trenton coming south, a big chunk of that. And if you drove the Highway 218 between Smithfield, between Amalgam and Newton this summer, I've never in my life seen the Clay Slough dry most of the summer. And granted, it was a dry year, but right there off the highway, it was it was dry.

And how and how many of those fields below the canal couldn't farm all their acres until they piped that? Until they piped that. So so we're see I mean, we're already seeing some

unintended consequences of doing that. And it it was great. It was progress. It's helped those those farmers out by doing it, but we have to take those consequences into consideration as part of this, you know, this plan.

Well, I think it's like breaks in here. Where where does the county, right, get involved in those? Right? If canal company wants to pipe their canal, they we we can have a conditional use permit. That's really our only

Yeah. Well interaction. And I'm not saying it's a bad thing. It's just we have to recognize there's consequences that, you know, these folks are drilling wells and they go dry.

Or they drill them and there's no water. Oh, there's no water. It's a staggering figure. 2,000 acre feet and additional water we have to come up with by if that many homes do come in by '26. And it and it may not be additional. Right? Because some of those would be developed on irrigated ground and so those shares would would transfer. So and and in this, there was no way to assess what percentage of those might happen on irrigated ground and what percentage of those home will be built on dry more. So it's yeah. I think it's a close number for what the acre feet is requirement.

But it it's it's hard to say. If that's really new water. Have any studies been done on what nature provides and the level of

water in the ground? Well, at the years. That's part of what this ground water study in the state is doing right now. We'll assess. Right? If if we go to a more rain driven scenario and less snow or early to melt, that's gonna change how the water goes into the aquifer. So that's that's one of the reason the water district requested this updated ground water study because last one was done in '93. Right. Right. It's been a long time since they've looked at it. We've we've had some differences in in our snowpack. And and I don't think we're drawing it out. Yeah. And so we're look we're looking at that. But it is looking at all those things to mind. And and there's and on the side of that, the state is building a new tool, that you can run all kinds of scenarios for each basin on. It's gonna be really helpful for us to be able to run some of those scenarios.

Back to my question about the state water rights are the ones that basically control those move the movement of water.

Can canal companies restrict that within their company? You can have it in your bylaws that they can't sell shares outside the company. But if they have the right water attorney, you can't stop them. Them. You can make it a little harder, but you can't totally stop them. The only one that can is Wellsville Minton. So that's a bureau water right, and it's actually tied to the parcel number. So it has to stay on that parcel. Those are the only shares I'm aware that no matter how good your attorney is, you can't split those shares off that ground. They they stay there.

What about storage water? So like Hiram Dam, you know, they they have is that convertible?

Well, it's it's all the bureau water. Right? So that's the serves all that is that bureau water. That's all bureau. Yeah. And so it's it's pretty tough to do much different with that. Porcupine's

same? No. Porcupine's

porcupine could potentially. Could be, judgely. If it goes into to Hiram.

Well or or you between there. There's there's a lot of canal companies. So their shares could be moved around.

Was there any discussion through this just reemphasizing protection of the water sources, the the the areas where water where we have either surface water or,

you know So I think and I don't remember if it came up in here as one of the recommended because one of the ones that when we talked about it at our joint meeting the other day too is getting a better source, water protection Yes. Code amendment or what what we need to update. So we did talk about that a little bit. But, again, these yeah. It it may have been one of the recommendations. I don't know if it was in that one or not. But that's where we come up with that. I think we were cognizant of the fact

that protecting the water rights that are here even though we're tasked with conservation and stopping the use, but still making beneficial use of the water rights we have. And that's what Nate and I try to look at, especially on the agricultural ground, saying, okay. If you got this much and you're gonna save it by 10%, where's that 10% savings gonna go? Hopefully, it's putting the agricultural

So we definitely don't wanna lose it. So are we making a motion? You want a motion from Ascend to accept this or recommend it to the council approval? Yeah. I heard to the council. It's it's definitely some good good information.

It's a 100% better than what we had in there for, Marielle. May

Mister chairman, I move that we recommend the Cache County Water Use and Preservation element discussed state to the county council. Second.

K. All in favor?

Aye.

Thank you, Aubrey. We're gonna disconnect.

Thanks, everyone. Have a good evening.

Thank you.

K. Item number seven, we'll have the discussion on the Powder Mountain master plan.

Right. Why why he's coming up, are we are we okay to even ask staff or legal? Do we know what's going on with six? Are they just restrategizing or rethinking, or or does it even matter?

They'll be my understanding is they'll be back next month. They'll be back? I just wanna clarify. They'll essentially be looking for a decision on the main issue of fire app access.

K.

Yeah. And I would also add that, public works is actually in the process dedicated in the along the existing road.

Where do I plug in?

Going from one to the other.

Okay. So Oh, yeah.

Gotta have my secret decoder ring connected.

So tonight with your presentation, are you guys just pretty much giving us an update where we're at today on things?

Well, I thought tonight we'd review the content of the plan really quickly, and then just have a discussion discussion about the proposed, recommendations and conditions for approval of the the application. As I mentioned last month, you know, we I've we found that the application itself is is complete. And we just want to make sure that the proposed conditions get addressed and then answer any other questions that the council might have or commission might have for it. Alright. So here's the slideshow that I didn't have for you last last time.

Can you please state your name? Oh, yes.

Sorry. Good evening. I'm Brian Carver, planner for JUB Engineers, working with the development services department to, review the Powder Mountain Master Plan for completion completeness and identifying conditions for appropriate conditions for approval. So the purpose of the plan, of course, is, to present development concepts, for the site, both short and long term, and then, look at future directions for development and then, balance those development, developed facilities and other amenities with the surrounding environment. The contents of the plan as required by the County Code include maps, both topographic, as well as, topical based on, different uses and environmental factors, any restrictions on the property, details on existing and proposed features, general development concepts, and then, public services that will be available if you're provided to the site. The code also requires statements from a list of affected entities and, as well as, proof of title and tax clearances for each of the parcels involved. There's an environmental summary, with about 10 elements, required as well as a financial an analysis for the project. The code does, require a development agreement, but that's, an outdated, artifact, since the state law was changed recently prohibiting development agreements for this type of project in Title 17 of the State Code. So, we are proceeding with that one. As I mentioned last time, our findings are that, there's substantial compliance and completeness. With the document, there aren't any really, any major concerns raised by the information provided on the site. But the biggest obstacle, for making sure that this gets done correctly is that, Cache County has a responsibility to work with Weaver County to make sure that your local agreements are in place to provide the necessary services to future development, primarily, fire and EMS and law enforcement.

Do you mind if we ask a question on that? So that folder that they sent out was pretty amazing with all the documents back in '24 on maps, etcetera. But no one has there ever been any official like, has the Weber commission met with the county council or I know they just got a three type of government, but has there ever really been face to face interaction about this? Council to council? No.

But fire department to fire department. Yes. I believe the sheriff and the sheriff has talked. Have they not? Cindy? So there is some communication, but there still needs to be drawing down to

an agreement. So so,

so, yeah, it's a good question. I've had concerns about that as well.

Prior to any approval, that would need to be in place. Correct?

Fire and EMTs, I mean, they signed from last October. There's documentation

of Interlocal agreement hasn't I mean, the details of that have not there's no signatures on on that.

Because the or because of the necessity of these agreements is, oh, I'm sorry.

What was your question, Lauren? Sorry. I wanna go back to Jason's

question. As far as the interlocal agreements, I don't know if they have to be done before or signed before, or when does that come into consideration with the interlocal agreements are signed between lever and cash for this The master plan. Yes.

The way I'm viewing it is you can have a condition of the master plan be that interlocals are in place prior to as make the basic make of the condition. I'm not tracking that there I was looking into this before. Maybe that's a question I'll be while we're getting there while we're talking about this. As far as the current status of that interlocal between Cache and Weber County, you mentioned in the report there are some language sent to to our office for consideration in that. We're certainly willing to do that. But I've when I talked to Taylor and others in our office, I haven't seen that yet. So I just wanted to clarify level the playing field on that point. I'm not sure if you have that language or and then my understanding as well is that fire, the sheriff, and all are all in those conversations. Those details do need to be ironed out, and I think that is a very valid point. And whether where that falls on approving the master plan with the conditions subject to these inter focus being entered into. I think that's kind of up to, you know, up to up for debate and discussion. It could be a condition of the master plan, I think so. Or could it be, hey, we have to have that in fact prior to things are in place. I think that can go for debate as well. Long way to answer your question. It depends.

But

I agree. It's an important part of this. So, you know, we're giving things for the questions. I'm like, it's certainly something

Yeah. Yeah. And it I've got a I've got a recommendation on on how we could handle that, a little further on. Okay. As you've seen through the documentation, you know, the existing conditions are mapped pretty clearly. This is a very, you know, wide scale view of the property. There are some more, more detailed exhibits in your packets. And then, it's also pretty easy to zoom and pan if you're using an electronic device, to get in and see the site in a good level of detail. Similarly, the concepts for proposed land uses and proposed development features. Also, there are a couple of detail maps provided that, we believe to address all of the requisite points of the of the application requirements. The environmental summary, there are a couple of issues that are are are pretty clear cut. There are no floodplains on the site. There are no historical sites on the site. The air quality impact for development of this proposal based on the altitude and and air movement on the site, air air quality impact to the the county would be negligible. There are a few concerns with, geology. Of course, this is a a really tricky site geologically, to develop a lot of exposed bed bedrock, a lot of, dissolute bedrock, which means it's it's breaking down. It's no longer, really solid, but not in a very, you know, even way. So, there are potentials for expansive soils, which are clay type soils that when exposed to water, they expand rapidly and they can cause problems with housing foundations. And then just the general variability of the, geology and soils across the site, are challenging for development purposes. So, the geotechnical reviews, all recommend, additional site specific studies, preferably at at the subdivision approval level going forward with development. Hydrology is similar. You know, there are some drainage challenges, soil challenges, and and, management of precipitation, that would contribute to stormwater management on-site. And so, again, more site specific detail, ought to be required, at one once we get into the subdivision divine design scale. Vegetation and wildlife, it's a complex ecosystem up there. The Department of Natural Resources, Divisions of Natural, excuse me, Divisions of Wildlife Resources and Forestry, Fire and State Land both reviewed this proposal and provided comment along with recommendations on best practices that can be integrated and and Powder Mountain in their support memo has stated a number of of those best management practices that they're willing to implement going forward to maintain habitat integrity and, as well as, protecting sensitive species and and other, plants and animal resources up there.

Do you do you have any of the communication from the division? Yes. Yeah. None of it's on our packet, is it? It should be in,

Well, I can show you.

And we can cover it later. I just kinda curious. 768.

7? 67

68. Yeah. That's that's Alright there. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. That's got correspondence between the applicants and those divisions and and the documentation that they've provided in response. Thanks. There we go. Similarly, they as part of the environmental summary, they contracted, for a traffic analysis, which, looked at the area in five year and twenty five year increments. And and, you know, within at least the next five years, traffic as a result of of development on-site, congestion is still manageable. Looking forward to the 2050 horizon, things get a little less manageable. But, the analysis had several recommendations for signalization of intersections and additions of right and left turn lanes to facilitate traffic movement. In the comment provided by the Utah Department of Transportation, there were concerns that the the existing study doesn't address the condition of the state route that serves the ski area. It's a it it has areas of steep slopes, sharp curves, and and, and and so, additional study might be necessary to take into account what improvements might be needed, safety barriers, things like that, as traffic increases along that road.

Question. Is that include

development on both sides of that the county line?

Yes. It does.

So that there's access to fire and everything if if need be from the north end?

No. It does not address access from the north end. It's strictly the, Weber County side access. So They're supposed to provide most of it or all of it. Yep. So some of our recommendations, the the existing development agreement that the applicant has with Weber County has a condition in it that as development approaches a certain density level, a certain number of units that a new traffic state safety study should be required. It, I think it would be appropriate for Cache County to have something similar in place. You know, where exactly that trigger number is, I think is up for discussion. But, some sort of, some sort of, threshold that, once that's reached, once that development threshold is reached, a new traffic study should be required that looks into additional issues like road conditions and safety beyond just the traffic congestion, emergency access, things like that. In discussions with with the county and the applicant, we feel like a a tracking of a a development tracking and communication structure, needs to be organized and and put in place so that, as development occurs, there's an incremental, tracking of, what's already been approved, what's already been built, and and what the next application or or next, phase is going to look like. We've we've got kind of an outline. Yeah. We could probably put a little more detail into that. We would recommend that soils and hydrology studies be considered at those subdivision level development milestones, as well as as cultural resource inventories and best practices. It's a big site. The State Historical Preservation Office doesn't require a cultural resource inventory because it's not federal property or it's not using federal money to develop the property. So but, but there are some best management practices that could be put into place because of the the historical agricultural and mining uses of the the property. There is a likelihood that there are some historical artifacts or or other, resources on-site that, but in their, again, in their support memo, the applicants put in their consent to, put, to to utilize those best management practices. So, and then again, the the interlocal agreement, between the two counties is a key issue. It is my opinion that that is not material to approving the conditional use permit for this Master Plan application. However, I would recommend that it be put into place before any sort of, development or or perhaps occupancy permits are issued. You know, we don't want houses and people on the ground without those critical services guaranteed to be in place.

So will you restate what your concern is having in place one more time before this is approved? I I would recommend

that the interlocal agreement be be in place before any

occupancy permits are issued for development on-site. But it's even gotta be before that, then that before building permits are issued.

Because you get structures going up and you've got problems. That's true. That's true. That's a good point. So that might be a better way to revise that that before building permits are issued, the interlocal agreement being put in place. The county, we ought to come up with a timeline, to make sure that that gets done in a timely fashion because it's it's not really something that the applicant has any control over. So I don't think it's it's appropriate to hold them hostage over progress, on the master plan adoption or on, on-site development. But, it is definitely a a priority that Those aren't there. Exactly.

There shouldn't be development. Yeah.

But that puts, I think I believe that puts the onus on the county to make sure that that gets done.

One question I have. This development is almost from nothing to something bigger than maybe the Park City, actually. I don't know. But are we learning things from Park City's other areas that have been developed like that? Absolutely. Yeah. We've been examining Park City,

the the Heber Valley, Deer Park air or excuse me. Deer Valley areas, as well as, looking at, similar sized resort developments, out of state around the region, looking at ways to looking at the at both their management plans and looking at the the county ordinances that are in place to govern these types of developments, for for comparative examples of how to do this. Weber County actually already has quite a a well written code in place. They've been working with Powder Mountain for a long time, and they've been managing these types of activities for for quite a while. And so they've been very helpful in in their development. Their planning office has been really helpful in providing information as we look into this. So that's that's all I've got. If you want, we can look at individual elements of the plan. I'm sure, the representatives from Powder Mountain would be happy to take questions if you have them.

Mister chairman, I got a question for you. Sure.

So I'm really glad you pointed out this. I briefly looked through the folder, but I'd overlooked this fire and, the communication between the forest department and for of forestry and what have you is there gonna be any. Minimums of clearance around structures as far as trying to preserve structures in the event of a fire?

Those those details that level of detail hasn't been put into the document yet, but

let's take a look. Well, I just the only reason I ask is from an insurance standpoint, things have really changed over the last three years. And it's based off of historic fires. And so to start with, if you've ever had a fire in the area before, you're batting uphill to start with. Oh, yeah. But, as we've observed, I mean, it's obvious. Them forest fires get going, and they're throwing fires a mile ahead. And and these homes are toast if they're not got some A defensible space. A defensary around them. And I know that's more than we're here to discuss tonight, but I just was curious if that was

how that was being addressed or thought of. The the county already does have some standards for development in the wild land urban interface, which this would fall under. So I I I would assume that, those would already apply.

Will Weber have more say on that if we enact that? Will they be more in control or concern over that if once the interlocal agreement signed where they're the ones monitoring it, or does that affect cash in any way? No. I think they would probably wanna have some input into that. You know? I definitely think it needs to be taken into consideration.

Yeah.

We can offer per dam and maybe just put a 10 up or something to stay over.

I'm gonna stay at the new fire station.

And maybe if I could just ask a question and just, just process, I mean, we're looking at it, we're looking at master plan here and, and I think some of the things we're concerned about, you know Or out of it. Are maybe

Too detailed.

Looking at the at the the details of the conditional use or or whatever whatever tool that it goes through at that point. Is that correct, Connor? As we as we look at that, Angie, we'll have another chance to look at those specific details, materials of construction, things like that that we could put a condition on.

She's worth noting now. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. And that's one of the components that we're looking at after the master plan is kind of developing development standards and a process for all of that. This will We're gonna make a very context based just because there's

There are some things that are, I think, down the road. But, you know, dark sky lighting, I think, would be really appropriate for this development because that's probably the one of the biggest impacts for residents of Cache County is we put a city up on the mountain. It's it's gonna stand out there. And and I wanna make sure that we don't miss that. If that's something that needs to be in at this stage, I kinda got an idea that we'll get another look at it to develop that.

Yeah. Yeah. The dark sky lighting is specifically addressed in in their support memo, six point seven, six point eight. But, yeah, that's, but that's also yeah. That's a project design guideline that they've

Okay.

K. Any other comments, questions?

So we need him to make

a motion on this tonight? Not yet. Okay. Thank you, Shadi. Have enough for actions next month?

Just one more. You guys done a trip to come out where it's it's pretty cool to see that many documents in the folder plus more.

Cool?

Well, thank you. Thank you. She there's she wants she wants to comment. Yeah.

Brian? Yep.

How's your involvement is judging and gonna be on this? I mean, if you completed your

Well, so the the prime primary tasks in our contract were to review and, and and report on the the plan itself. Look into some concerns over the availability of water. And then, the last task is to address some, inconsistencies with subdivisions up there that may be crossing the county line. Crossing the county line, looking at some ways to remedy how to get those lot lines to behave or or maybe get the county line to behave. But it's so so that's all we've got. At this point, I'm I'm happy to continue to assist if there's, anything else that we can help with, you know, working, working through the the design standards. I've already provided staff with, some examples of design standards. But if if it makes sense for us to help continue to work with the county to refine those, we're we're ready, willing, and able. I've already had some of our staff with experience in negotiating interlocal agreements volunteer, but that's something between, I think, the county attorney's office and

Yeah. Put it all in here. That we can

we can discuss later. But, you know, you may have somebody else already in mind to help with that, and that's just fine. But yeah. Yeah, so we're we're we're about done. You know?

Sounds good. Thanks for that.

Yeah. That would be great. Hi. Brooke Hans with Powder Mountain. Thanks for letting me speak tonight. And I especially thank JUB and Brian for that presentation because it and I thank you for reading all those materials because there's a lot to get through. So, for him to, and their team to have spent the time and, done the work on behalf of the county and come to the conclusions, that he had on the screen previously is very helpful because in essence it says, yeah, we we met or exceeded the standard. We've done the work. And now it comes down to what types of things or conditions of approval, are necessary or beneficial, at least, at a minimum, to put, to memorialize, to make sure that what you get and what we want, are, one and the same and that we, deliver on that and the county's expectations and the applicants, frankly, are both met. And so some of the questions I just wanted to quickly see if I could address. I I love the dark sky question. It is, in the, packet. We are committed to that. And and in fact, in Weber County, we already have that regulation, but it would not really be that great if one county, we were bright sky and the other dark. So that is something that please take a look at and always willing to consider additional options, but, basically, we're following the international dark sky protocols. WUI, the defensible space, the fire. You may all be aware that currently of the 52 homes that are currently built there, and the multiple structures that exist mostly in Weber County as you're aware because that's who's, given us permitting under existing zoning that they have there. There are more stringent requirements because it is a wildland urban interface. And so unlike most homes in the valley here that don't need to be sprinkled, homes in the valley here that don't need to be sprinkled, there are protections in place there on top of just what you can plant and where. And so how much water is available, fire flows, and etcetera. And and we bring cash. We've been able to have multiple conversations and in person meetings with both fire districts and I felt like, I can't speak for them, but they were really aligned in the the necessary things that are going to have to take place in order to make sure that we protect the lives and structures there. But that's very important to us. Interlocal, I appreciate JUB's suggestion of working through this and delivering on a master plan CEP approval and then going to and and may maybe, you know, from the county's perspective, putting some pressure and some demands on the the fire districts. As you're aware, again, Weber currently serves and they're gonna continue to serve. And any pressures of cash starting to do allow a building, it would make that and necessitate them to actually have an a new agreement. There was an agreement at one time, but a new agreement in place. But what the master plan not only does that pressure piece, what it also does is it says, we've committed to this project and development's going to happen like this in these locations. And so I feel like the interlocal becomes a better document because now they're working from this is happening, now this is what we have to get to agree to, and we have some parameters for what we can expect and what we can then negotiate together, that being the two districts, not Powder Mountain's involvement. And then I think there was another question I also appreciated about whether we've looked at other communities and done this before. And I loved the reference and the appreciation of the Weber County code because I actually wrote that and wrote the work that in the master plan that we got approved on that side. I also Deer Valley East Mayflower development was also referenced. That was also my project. So this is what I do. And so this is very much in alignment with what we have done in other communities. In some cases, this is actually more dense and more thorough than what we do in in communities. And so, we're proud of the work and that it replicates or at least mirrors what communities in the country do related to ski resort development. I just have a couple slides I want to show, if you don't mind. We'll go to the okay. I think you can go. So I think you can skip this one. We just talked about, the environmental is just gonna bore you to tears, so we'll continue. This was just in case I didn't know what Brian was gonna present. So I had I was ready to talk about all the things. Let's go to the next then. Okay. So one of the things that was addressed briefly and, we were prepared for, and one of the questions actually that was regarding, what you're gonna see and and when there's gonna be additional conversation, this is the suggested. And and the reason why this isn't already agreed to or platted out is because somehow in the adopted ordinance, the sheet with the drawing like this is lost. So your ordinances we no one's been able to find it, and I was involved in that. And so I I don't even have it back from, like, 2007. So we need to make sure that we agree to here's how you're going to see applications come in the future. Again, not just for us so we know what we're doing, but for you so you can say, oh, I get a bite of this apple this many times or during this piece of the process. So you can see that we're here on the left hand side during the Cache County Master Plan CUP. If we were to get past that stage, what we've recommended and what we suggest and I think the staff is somewhat in alignment with is that we would come in when it comes to like a hotel, a commercial structure, a mixed use type of development that we would create a design review package and we would have standards for what that, what does that mean? Right. And so you would, and that would go to planning commission and you would have an opportunity to look at said lake hotel and potentially some of the architecture in it and the things that interest you and that you're concerned about as a county. You would be able to have that review Now, if we were just doing a single family subdivision, Now if we were just doing a single family subdivision, that would come through the subdivision plan and then it would go through the planning process through the, planning commission and council. Unless you change how you do that, we would just follow that traditional process and then we would go and seek a building permit. One of the things that's different about this project than some of the zoning that you have in existence is that there aren't necessarily setbacks and requirements of height set forth. And so we would want to develop those as part of our design standards and guidelines and attach those to the subdivision approval. And that way each time an application comes through, you have assurance that, you know, and the person who buys the property knows what they're getting, not only for themselves, but for the adjacent properties. So this is, has been presented, but it's a work in progress and we recommend that this, type of of document, something similar, get attached as well, which is one of the recommendations JUB made. But I thought I'd we had this done. I thought I'd show it to you. So we're definitely looking forward to any additional questions and thoughts you might have and working with staff and JUB on making sure we have all of the conditions of approval that you might want in place for you to take and review. And hopefully, we get to a positive actually, an approval. You're not recommend recommending body in this. You get to make the decision. So with that, if you have any questions, I'll answer them. And otherwise

Would you mind forwarding for that? Oh, it's annotations. Sure. Yep.

You you can welcome to do that. Taking notes right now. So Thank you. Brooke, may maybe I'll ask questions. Kinda maybe tying some of the stuff when it comes to how much approval or fingers the account would have in further development. Mhmm. Where the current county code is when it talks about resort recreation, talks about some development plan applications after. My my understanding is that, you know, more or less we just talked to just now and for the council as well, is that's when you can get into these details with all these requirements to talk about before. Is that your understanding as well? And then Correct. More or less. I mean, it gets but and it was kind of fuzzy based on language in there and everything else, but that's how I'm envisioning it in my mind. Is that your understanding as well? It is my understanding for certain structures. I always felt like straight up subdivisions for single family that

requires a development standard, but not a development plan where you're potentially looking at juxtaposition of, like, if you have two buildings and how far like, if you if you're building a taller lodge, how much you may wanna have between it and the edge of the property boundary or the next like, the ski run or something like that. So those are things that I think go into the design review I was calling it. I because I think the development plan applies to both.

How close are you on coming up with all those conditions?

I'm there.

I was just wondering if with Connor, if we can have those before one week before the meeting, maybe? The more time we have to review those might be good. If I I think that's great. If we're close to having them wrong. If we're close to having them now, maybe we'll send them out in two weeks. We go for we're gonna shoot for two weeks from now. Two and a half. Do I hear two and a half?

Sure. Yeah. We'll go with that.

You're on the guideline program.

I guess. Yes. No. Thanks, John. You guys put a lot into this. This is Yes. Good. Long process. Great. Yeah. Thank you so much. Thanks.

Keep going. Let's keep going. K. And item item number eight, discussion of the pioneering agreement.

I'll take it, Matt. What's that? I was gonna ask Matt if he wants me to jump in or Matt will jump in. He'll let her make Go ahead go ahead, Andrew. I can be here for backup. Okay. Well, last time when we were here, it was the end of the night, and everyone was tired, and I get that. So I guess the purpose today would be, more or less, what questions you have. This was a request that's been made by prior council members, etcetera, to come up with a draft pioneering ordinance, essentially, a way that the developer comes in, puts in some infrastructures, and then it results in allowing additional adjacent properties to develop whereas they otherwise would not have been able to. They kinda basically chip in and pay their portion back to that person who first put in the road, for example. There's a lot of caveats with it. It's not a mandatory thing. The council would have to approve it in each circumstance. It's the way it's gonna be drafted. That's more or less the theory and the concept that we put forward here. And so and we're I'm at the point where we're at the point where we need feedback on what you guys are looking for or what you want to see going forward, if anything on this front. If that makes sense. Question. So, Connor and Angie, this is for you. So the people that were here tonight

comes before you guys and wants to do an r u two. Do you have anything or do you give them anything that talks about their responsibility on roads? Because they had a feeling that the lady who got up was throwing dust on the situation as far as, hey. We gotta we gotta build and pay for roads. I'm like, well, if you develop, then you should understand that. Yeah. So, typically, what we'll do is what's called a pre application meeting where we sit down with them, and Matt usually turns out her Jesse. And so described to her before then. Right? So she's leaning on the sympathy of the commissioners, basically.

She's gonna say my determination to say They told her she was gonna have to build a road, and she realized that was gonna be really expensive. So it's gonna cost her two lots to pay for the road. So there went the arty two instead of the arty five. Yeah.

See, and that's what I wanna be careful about because we almost tipped the hat that and and we need to be upfront about it. But at the same time, you know, they they basically told us the reason those lots went up is they gotta cover the cost or make a profit. And I'm saying the developer makes a profit. The county is stuck with providing the services, and we gotta be careful on that. It's I don't know if the county is in a position to provide services for 49 homes or whatever out there, and we'd be ready for that. So that's that's part of the reason for those meetings last week. And all of these things have to take into consideration. So I'm glad there's a pioneering agreement because if we put that on them, then they have a course if they do go through that that it can be equalized out because she cast her neighbors under the the bus, you know, like they didn't have to do it. So

Oh, I guess a little bit more on that one and then bringing us back to the pioneering mode is How about pioneering? What do you mean bring it back? They don't have very much frontage on a county road for that particular development. And so most of the road costs that they were talking about is to improve the private road to current standards because they're at the maximum amount of homes that are allowed on a travel private road. They're they would have to pave the private road. So most of the things that they were talking about is to improve their own private road to facilitate more homes Yeah. Not the county road. So that they would have had very little to hardly any impacts or improvements to the county road. Just because and then this is, again, a different discussion is that because our minor private road is so narrow, I mean, most of our roads, unless you're going to a commercial use or, you know, lots and lots of homes. But when you have that situation up there where you have multiple accesses to one, it gets very hard. And so we would we would have a very hard time making them improve anything that was outside of the frontage of what they were developing. Probably nearly impossible.

So Matt, did we throw away the 500 foot rule of a private road?

It's hard because we have so many of them that it's it's hard to enforce that portion of it saying that you can't have a private road more than 500 feet. It's still in there, though. So you're correct. The code says that. But pretty much what you're doing is giving people a design exception to every one of those because 500 feet in the county, as you guys know, based on our 300 foot give them a notice letter,

500 feet in the county is not very far. So Not very far. Well, that's what I'm thinking with this land. If you go you go 500 feet of a private road.

So so that's another good example and one of these other code things that we should talk about is is they already have a private road that's a mile long. So how do you all of a sudden come in and say, no, you can't have it. Right? It's already there. All we can do is try to get them to improve that so that we're not creating dust. We're not creating pollution. We're trying to you know, but that would be 42 garbage cans on the side of the county road too. It's It's a lot of ways to bring it down there. So now you're trying to find ways of how do we get waste management to go up this private road. Well, I think Amazon

and all these other things. So Steep slopes too would fall into

that property. I mean, private roads create their own issues. But, yeah, it hasn't been feasible for us to restrict most private roads to 500 feet. 99% of them are more than that just due to the terrain and the amount of land they're developing.

From from your standpoint, not to change the subject, but can you maybe incorporate pioneering into this deal out in Hiram if that comes back? So my understanding is the people that have put the road in, the asphalt road all the way is gonna have to be widened, possibly some areas improved. Yes. And and and we wouldn't we wouldn't,

put that under the pioneering agreement. That road wouldn't. No. But just kind of looking through what we have proposed for the pioneering agreement, I think it would be beneficial for you guys to look at it like a rezone. So we would come, someone would propose that they wanna enter a pioneering agreement. And then we would have to have a public hearing and a public meeting. We would have to send out notices similar to a rezone that would be heard here at the Planning Commission. And then there would be some kind of a recommendation forwarded on to the council for final approval. And so at that point, you could say, I don't think those lots and I don't think those property owners are receiving a real benefit. And then you could look at other ones and say, yeah, where you're actually pioneering a road, those people on this other side are are getting a free ride. So there's probably gonna be if you have to improve a couple feet of asphalt along your property, we probably wouldn't ever recommend that for approval of a pioneering agreement. We're gonna be looking at new roads, substantial improvements where they're actually adding value to the adjacent or properties that had bought that. So that when they come in to develop, they don't you know, it's a way. Logan has the same thing where Logan will but Logan pays into that. So Logan's paying half of a road. And then when those developments come back in, Logan can charge impact fees for the portion they paid. We're just kinda removing the county out of that saying, hey, we're gonna approve it and we're gonna okay it. But at the end of the day, this pioneering agreement is between the developer and the landowners, and and we don't even get involved in that exchange of money.

So that that Maybe I would just clarify one thing on that. Like, as far as the mechanics of the pioneer agreement between the county and the developer, right, it would it would benefit problems would be noticed and all that. But to Matt's point, yes. It's essentially gonna be between developer and those those parts that would be effectively the developer and the neighborhood landlords. Right? The county does have a part to play in this and that we would

be basically collecting with the obligation. Correct.

Well, we also

me, there's impact. If you talk about what Brady's talking about, the subdivision up there, that road isn't the width that it needs to be to accommodate those houses. So to get the width, now we're gonna encumber some ground or yards of those people who have been there. So benefit or not benefit?

And if and if they came in, Nolan, and said, hey. I wanna build 42, it would probably be pretty easy for the county to address some impacts to 42 new lots. But if they came in and did three, kind of hard, then they do three more, kind of hard. You know, so these small incremental things get very hard for us to put an impact on. I mean, that's the good thing about Hirem is they're coming in saying, hey, we want 27. That's pretty easy for us to allocate some kind of impacts to and kind of get impacts outside of their specific development as far as road improvements and those types of things. But small one lot, two lot, three lots, it gets very hard for us to say your fair share of the road improvements is 3%. So give us you know, dollars 2,000. And then what does the county do? The road still doesn't meet standards. So part of that becomes a no. If they got rezoned and wanted 42 lots up there, staff might recommend no, because we can't provide the essential services and the roads don't meet standard. So

I'm trying to fast forward a little bit in in doing a pioneering agreement. The benefited property owners are probably gonna protest every one of these. Right? Because it it encumbers them

to pay some money in For ten years. In the future

for for ten years.

So that again, that would be that public hearing that would be required to be had. And you could hear their arguments for or against, and

you might be persuaded to not approve it. You might be persuaded to approve it. Could you tell tell me what the the timeline would be, where where this would enter in? Is it pre zone change pre pre subdivision

or post? I I wonder where this falls in the You asked a good question and one that I've kind of tried to find when when that might be the best time so that we could make sure that it's very specific of at what point in this process do they need to come. But it says, an applicant may request that the county council consider entering into a pioneer pioneering agreement regarding the road improvements. The county council may allow the applicant to construct it says, why for any pioneering agreement authorized by this section, department in conjunction with the proposed development or other land use applications. Correct. So it doesn't really say when, it just says that they need to do it with, say, at the time of a subdivision that that they can't just come in willy nilly and apply for a pioneering agreement stand alone. It needs to come with some other type of development or land use action. Yeah. But it doesn't but it's not super specific.

So to be what that's what I'm referring in in the draft ordinance right now is, yes, has to be in conjunction with some other type of application. K.

So let's say the developers says, okay. I'll I'll build the road. Crossing, let's say, a $100,000 to keep my seat. But he's put a $100,000 in that road, and he should want some money above and beyond that $100,000 to recoup for as an investment. So who determines

the value of the road to the person who's gonna be building the new house? So so a good example, if we try to make that as cut and dry as we can, is let's say this $100,000 of improvements is is just across one lot. So and that's what it cost him. We would say probably the person adjacent to that should pay 50,000 Because If that person decides to develop later on. Right. So if they built this, you know, and it was split equally half and half and the developer paid for the whole 100,000 and his lot was on this side and the the guy adjacent to him, I mean, you'd probably come to the conclusion that this guy is is a beneficiary of half that road. And so his cost to pay back at some point would be, you know, 50,000.

I asked the question because I've developed two different buildings. Right. Both times, I've in specific regions, I've asked the gas company to extend the line Mhmm. So they didn't have to. They will not do it. They will not do it because they're making an investment that they don't know when they're gonna get it back and will

return. That's one of the things I think we'll face with this. Yeah. So right now, if that same thing came back and that developer built that road there at his dime, there is no way for him to get any type of payback. But yet that property on the other side, he he came in for development or a subdivision. And it's like, oh, well, you don't have any road improvements. They're already done. They already meet our standards. So, you know, easy ride through. And so this was requested by developers for that case saying, hey, I'm putting this in,

and now my neighbors are you know, have little you know, they're getting benefit to their property. Their land values probably just went up. And I

property. Their land values probably just went up. And I I had to But what I'm saying all the money in. What I'm saying too is he's put a $100,000

there and it took ten years before he started to get any money back. He's going to expect a 100,000 plus interest to get that back. Yes. He's not gonna develop Not the way this is drafted. Can't do it. Well, but he's not gonna develop it if he doesn't know he's gonna get some income back out of developing that road.

Yes. Maybe I look I just called him a Yeah. His income will be he gets to build that house at the end of the road he wants build today. That's that's the developer's benefit. Potential for a payoff. Or or maybe 10 homes. Right? Maybe 10. Some of that cost. Because he's probably not gonna build a long road if there's only one home in it. But if he's really doing a development, he needs a half a mile of road. If he gets free return, I think he'll do it. Yeah. Because that's my question. If you got three or four land owners on either side of that road. Right? Say, we got a half mile of of two track road and at the end is this nice piece that he can put 10 homes on. Yep. If all those land owners come to the public hearing and say, we don't want any part of a pioneering agreement. Yeah. Right. We're not planning on developing, which maybe they are, maybe they aren't. Then we have to do or the county council had to decipher, are they telling us the truth? Or are they gonna come in next month, soon as the roll's done, and request a Yep. Or are they gonna wait the ten years where they don't have to pay anything back anyways?

That would that would be the choices. Yeah. Is that But at the end of the day, I I just don't know how how somebody can whether we're in the public hearing we okay it. Do

you have to pay it? Do you have to pay it? Do you have to pay it? Do you have to pay it? Do you have to pay it? Do you have to pay it? Do you have to pay it? Do you have to pay it? Or or even if we don't okay it, if there's fine print that says, well, you still do something in ten years,

it's not fair to the person that paid the investment for the whole thing to not recoup some of their expense. Expense. Because if if he hadn't have done it and the other party does, they would have to pay a 100%

of it. Yeah. And right and right now as the county code stands, you go do these you build these roads outside and expand county services to areas where there isn't a road, it's just It's cost. It's just a cost of doing business. This would this would allow some of that to come back. And if and if and if we don't think that that's something that we're willing to entertain, then this pioneering agreement just doesn't go anywhere. How do you feel about it?

Well, so we saw that one in Clarkston last year. Yeah. It was 500 feet from Parkston City boundaries. And, you know, that guy and there were two lots on the other side and they came in and they said, well, if he paves the road Then we'll build then I'm gonna I'm gonna build on that and that would've helped I don't remember his name, but would have helped him

out. So it would have been more fair. In the agreement.

They still may not. Yeah. So the county But that would have been more fair. So I I I like it. Well, every time something surfaces, whether it be West Smithfield, I mean, people are just waiting for one person to bust it in some of these areas so that they could get going. And it's

I think it's the only fair way to I I wish I I like this idea, and I think there'll be a few places where landlords say, yeah. We're willing to. But I wish that we could do it similar to how Logan does. I know the county doesn't have the budget. It'd be nice if the county did have the budget. Yeah. If we had that, it'd be perfect because then you guys can just Right. Require the impact fee and whether they wanted to or not, as soon as they do something, you know, it wouldn't matter if they waited the ten years. Logan's never expires. Yeah. And they have the ability to charge current value.

Yep. So in this one It goes up. You put it in in ten years down the road, you might be getting a discount because asphalt's twice as much Yeah. As current prices. And they they will exact that for you as part of your development. So I wish I wish we can do that. But this is the

the first step to maybe getting there someday. I mean, I feel like it discourages

some of that development because then they're gonna say, oh, it's not free as soon as they get the first house.

So so as the county, they draft and and enforce the agreement. Are you gonna have a a fee associated with this to help cover the county costs? That that would be another thing is some kind of a fee or an application fee for this that that For maintenance management. The cost

over the ten years. Andrew, if I'm not mistaken, when I look at the very bottom of this one and it says, nonliability of county. The county shall, in all cases, be immune and not liable for any payments to the developer if the pioneering agreement is determined to be unenforceable. Agreements under this section shall not confer a benefit upon any third party and shall be in a form approved by the county council. The responsibility for payment of the required improvements or facilities shall rest entirely with the developer. The county shall not be responsible for collection of amounts from third parties. So the way I read it is, hey, we're gonna come up with the agreement and it's something that's approved by the county. It's the developer's responsibility to pay for all those upfront costs. Yeah. The county is not shall not be responsible for to collect anything from the third party.

But I still think we we just thinking back, deal is kind of an example of multiple agreements over numerous years that's Now kind of in a bag mixed around. So if I understand this correctly, just just hear me out. If I understand it correctly, I build a house at the end of that mile road, and I've got four neighbors, down the way I pay 100% of them costs. But if in the next ten years, any or all of my neighbors build, they will proportionately share the cost. But if the county isn't able to say and ask the end guy or at least say, did you get your pioneering and we'll hold the permit on this guy until that's been done, what good are we doing in even putting this together?

Good good point. I think there needs to be some way for the county to hold up their permits.

To mitigate the risk of the developer. Until and it's gotta be paid upfront. It can't be after it's done. If if you don't pay if the developer don't sign off or or test attest that you paid your share of it,

your example, now I run power clear to the end. The guy doesn't develop and he hooks on the power. We need to consider utility faction in this pioneering because he just got a free power

It would be any cost associated with development.

So right now, no, we don't consider those types of utilities because we don't provide them. What we would try to incorporate in here if necessary would be, let's say that in five years from now, the county has, like, curb and gutter standards and storm drain, and now there's piping involved in that, were those utilities that were county owned, county maintained, then we could probably enforce a pioneering agreement on some of those types of utilities. But where we don't manage or have any

jurisdiction or anything, we couldn't be putting restrictions on power and those other utilities are not owned or operated by the county. And Rocky Mountain Power has those agreements. They have a seven year, don't they? Yeah. They do. They have to help cost share on if someone gets If you upgrade big enough to other people can hook and they hook onto that within seven years, you get a portion back. But they're big enough. Right? They hold all the money, so they're

they are the controller. It makes sense. And they're pretty good watching that. It's just I was wondering how we would tie that together.

So so the the money collection is is of a concern. Right? How do we you know, again, going back to Logan is not the best example, but Logan paid into that. So now Logan is a part owner kind of of those improvements. And so that's a direct thing. Hey. You want a permit? You need to pay us. In this case, we're saying, hey, you want a permit and and you need to pay us and then we're gonna give you this give this money to the developer. It it creates another issue of accounting and and stuff that we need to vet probably a little bit more and figure out how that would work. But as it's currently written, the way I read it Unless Sanders is different is Yeah. Hey. We're gonna put this agreement out there, but at the end of the day

Well, I think there's to be a a fee associated with this too so that the county doesn't have children all the cost. Yes. I'm gonna make note of that as how much time and effort is it. Payment in lieu, like, somebody who else is gonna be affected for a while, we have the payment in lieu that they could put that in.

That was that was if they didn't develop it.

The fee in lieu of Nolan would probably be a little different because in this case, you would be putting those improvements in. But you bring up another good case as if say it's a gravel and there's homes on the gravel portion and now this guy is coming from the end of the gravel and pushing the gravel road another mile. And case. So, yeah, that's something we probably need to vet as well is how could this incorporate into these Clarkston's a good example of some of these dirt roads that have a house already on them. And know, you wanted to take that even further down the road. But I think the the key thing to this is we have the ability to say, we feel like this fits the pioneering agreement and we have and it doesn't fit. So when they come into an application, I think it all starts here of does this fit what the intent was is there truly a benefit to the neighboring parcels and if we all say, hey, no, we're voting no against the pioneering agreement for this developer, then that would kind of like a rezone. Then it would go to the council, and the council could say, hey, based on Planning Commission's recommendations or based on these factors, we're also saying this project does not warrant a pioneering type agreement. So so I think you have some flexibility in there where this is not a you have to approve it type thing. It's still at our discretion. This whole thing is entirely discretionary. So it's not Hey. But

we we need to we need to think about it though one step further. It's probably not gonna be the developer that's gonna be there ten years from now. The developer is gonna know his cost of what it costs. So we're probably gonna wanna record that, but the transaction is gonna be to who is actually living. Because if the developer, he's gonna account for his cost when he sells the lot, he's not gonna take a loss.

That could be I thought about that too is now that this guy had bought that land, did he inherit some other type of value? Right? If you similar thing, the developer does all this development, he sells two or three lots and then leaves. Do we do each one of those land owners get a portion of that back that's I think you're gonna have to because they're in their lot price,

the developer ain't gonna take a loss up front. He ain't gonna sell the lots for less than they cost him to put them in. So now does this property owner have to try to collect from this guy across the street, and this guy collects across the street? Sounds like a good Well, but but but why are we gonna turn around and pay the developer that's already made his money, and now he's just getting the royalty?

Right. There's a lot of these what ifs that get very hard in the code, but all all the things you guys are bringing up are the things that we wanna hear back and try to either solve them now or, you know, just say, hey, I don't think we're ready for a pioneering agreement. And You might make us developers if we're gonna get paid profit and then make a royalty. We might start a business. You know, if you put those improvements in, you're you're losing money from day one, because inflation goes up. What we are gonna sign on the paper saying what your payback is is losing money every day. Really?

So the way the agreement is working, like, they said, if this agreement is entered into, it's between the county the developer. Right? And so that's who would be the the the the agreement would be with. Because there's a draft ordinance and a separate agreement after contract would be entered into. It would be up for review and approval by the council. Right? And then as part of the process, if there's a determination that there's a benefit of parcel here, there's that notice that's recorded against the property. It's not a lien, but puts any other future property owners on notice that if you develop this parcel, it's subject to this agreement.

I don't know if that answers your question or not. But just Oh, yeah. I I don't know. But I I still at the end of the day, if if if you develop the law and then I can pay you and I'm paying you market value today based off of the improvements and everything, I don't feel it's right that you get recomp for that. I should. Because I paid extra for my lot, but it's only my opinion. I said

that I don't I don't care either way. Right? I'm just presenting what's the draft is. You're the decision makers on what you wanna see

or not see or whatever. So I agree. If you totally agree, I mean, once the developer's paid, then anything that comes back from that should compensate the person who paid off the developer and the developer's held. I mean, how many subdivisions? Especially

But I think, like Matt said, everyone's gonna be so different. It could be the developer. Right? It's a two It could be the developer. Right? It's a two lot subdivision. He he builds on one and sells the other lot. So he still got an agreement. He still bore some of that cost. I think to get into this level and say, well, three sales later over ten years, it's That third homeowner's not gonna be valid. Because the agreement we have is Yeah. It it's it would be such a legal nightmare.

So I think we're gonna have there'll be a lot of them. I think we say, did they that doesn't make sense. Just put it in. If you if you can't make the money on the two lots, then don't do it. And I hope the person buying the lot knows that there's that agreement so they can go to developers. I need a discount because you're gonna be reimbursed if this happens over ten years, man. They can enter that agreement in. Yeah. That'd be a separate agreement outside the Exactly. But I'm saying I don't know. There's just really no fair way to make it where the

It seems it seems like a real nightmare for the no more. It's

a complicated I mean, it could be very complicated. And then there's probably some that are very straightforward that is easy to split the cost. It's nice. It's flexible. Yes. So, again, if if we're if we find some of these, it's like, hey, this we just don't agree with this one, or hey, we feel like this is a good one. I think that's the discretion of the planning commission. It's gonna put a lot of burden, and so there should be fees because the engineering's gonna have to go in and figure out the cost, figure out the cost sharing, figure out the square footage. And along with that application, that planning commission time, what those costs and what those paybacks would be would be already set. They would be based on a cost estimate. Pioneering agreement? But so we would have to put together some costs for that estimate. You're gonna have to go a little deeper with engineering at the subdivision time. So there is some work associated with the county to make sure that that payback is fair and equitable and that the contractor's not, you know, making money by saying it's gonna cost me a million dollars when it and then at the end of the day, it cost him a couple $100,000, and now he's charging all these guys basically royalties to come in on this road. So

Matt, do we know have we have we looked at all or ask if other counties are doing this and how they're doing it?

So there is cities that do it. Again, Logan I hate to keep bringing Logan up, but they kinda have their method to do it. Right? They have funding where they can go pay that other share to put those improvements in. City in Utah. So this is mimicked after some of the other ones we've seen. Correct. They somewhere in Ridge County, they probably don't have anything. I I haven't checked with Box Elder, but they probably don't have anything either. Kind of like, you want a bill, go for it, and you bear the burden. So

I'd say a lot of this was I I took from a couple different codes that I saw in place from other cities and municipalities in Utah and tried to create something that I thought would make sense for the county, right, for presentation purposes. So a lot of this so it is being done in other areas and within the state, to answer your question.

I'm glad we're seeing that it's a good start, for sure. Yeah. And if if you if that was my assignment is to go find out if there's any other counties that have this, great. Well It might take a while because

some of those counties only work couple days a week. But The only the only reason I was even asking is personally, I I think this document is is awesome. I think it's great. I I'm I'm I'm fine with it. But my only concern there is if the pioneering agreement is entered into, it only makes sense that whoever whoever is sitting on that property at the time, whoever paid each time, it don't matter if the home sold two times. Generally, people aren't going to take a loss on their on their resale. And so everybody's been comped ahead of time except for the guy there now.

And and I don't know. What happens if the developer is gone and dead, right? Or, you know so you you run into these other problems is nine years down the road, this guy comes in, he's gotta pay, and now no one can find it was an LLC, and they don't no longer exist. And, I mean, there's there's issues with trying to find that person to pay back as well.

We run into that same kind of issue with the fee in lieu of I mean Let's say the way there this the draft agreement is in place right now, the agreement that would be entered into again, this would be up to the council because they're gonna the actual agreement as well. The current draft we have is, like, hey, it's not not assignable without the ring consent of both parties. So if you're in a situation where developer does this, you have all go through all this process, something happens to developer or whatever, and say they die or whatnot, ultimately, the contracts can go away. So then all the benefited properties just go do what they want, and they're not gonna have to pay into this.

So the agreement would be between the developer and the county. Correct. The county signs the agreement that the developer will pay. If we're getting to that level, why could I I know that nobody needs another job, but couldn't you build a fee into the agreement and the county take the fee to manage the money in the agreement because the county has the resources to as it comes before the for any permits or any new development, the county's already gonna have the resources to see because it'll come right through the office. So see the see the agreement and they can say, oh, yeah. This area, there's a there's a pioneering agreement in force. So to get your it's just part of your checklist because it's here, it's added to, you've gotta pay it before they can collect it and and and have it built in rather than that poor homeowner or or whoever's there with that property trying to get it collected

because they don't have the resources to do that. So, ultimately, the way this would work may I don't know if this will help answer that question. So if this agreement is entered into there's gonna be notice on the opinion of benefit of parcels. Right? And so then the county or so the county's obligation would be that if that benefit of parcel come property when it comes in less developed, we just basically say, hey. We're gonna do our best debt for it to collect this, whatever the the proportion is, prior to approving their subdivision or whatever they wanna do to build on. Right? So then at that point, then then we then pass on to the developer. Now if you wanna build any certain type of fees or whatever to do that, I'm certain I'm certain that's something we can look at. I don't know if answers that. I meant to talk about putting that into the fee schedule or whatever the case may be. But

Well, rather than just being a drain on county resources, because you're gonna be administering anyway, just build the fee into it.

So it's something we can look into and not be that those conversations.

Could you also look at it when the developer sells the property, a parcel that now that agreement goes to that person that's bought the park property, you know, that that portion of the payment goes to them. Instead of to the developer at that point, it's transferable to the to the homeowner that's building on that law that got developed. So if someone comes up and builds another house on that road, would that go to that person that the developer sold that law to?

The tricky thing would be it could be 20 lots that that first developer did. So now do you split that payment into 20 every time?

Well because you get confident. Well, the developers should have made it. When when it comes because, like, so ultimately this comes down to, hey, county's providing a mechanism where the county can enter into an agreement with the developer for a binding agreement. Now that contract is between the county and the developer. When it starts getting I I don't see I it's the parties to that contract of the county and the developer. And if you try to push that down to whoever's buying the lots the developer's selling to, I don't know how that works. I can look into that if you want, but in conception of my mind right now, I'm just not seeing how that makes sense. But I'm happy to verify that. But you would do that initially when you create that first contract, that first pioneering agreement,

it would be in there.

Because all we're doing is making the developer

I more money. I'm I'm honestly not in favor of it though if we're gonna leave the developer at the head because how many developers have still got the piece after ten years? Maybe that parcel of Hiram. Anyhow, I won't say no more, but I'm just not in favor of making the the developer more profitable because he's not going to sell us lots

without make he's gonna know his costs, and he's gonna factor it into his sale. And if we do wanna make it as part of the contract like you're saying about Jay about passing it on, like, we certainly make that. And as I'm talking through it now, that could be a possibility. I mean, if that's something that you want to It

just goes with the parcel numbers. Exactly. Yeah.

So so I guess just to make sure I'm taking away some points here. Kurt, you would like to see us make sure we have a fee so that we're covering county staff and any notices and those types of things. So some kind of a fee that's reasonable to even ask the question. Correct? Right. Well, Jay, maybe what you're talking about is maybe the county has more involvement in collecting these funds and then distributing them to whoever that

developer or that first person was. Is that Yeah. And and build the cost of that into the fee.

And then the other one I'm hearing is maybe potentially that those people that are liable for that payback is tied to whatever potentially a lot. So in an easy case, it's this guy develops on this side and this guy's benefited guy. The when if this guy comes in, he's paying whoever owns the lot at the time of that payback. Yeah. I think that's fair. Tied to the parcel seems the easiest way to do that. I I I don't that's the only fair way. It is. And I mean, the sale of that and all that other stuff could be figured into his cost of whatever

Yes. Knowing that, you know, maybe in ten years, he'll get some money and maybe in ten years, he will. The developer is still gonna get all his money back, but as a selling point on those locks, he can say, if anyone on this road builds in the next ten years, you're gonna get a check. Yeah. Yeah. If you guys had to pay for the locks. If you had to pay for it Yeah. For the locks. That's fine too. Seems That's great. I think it's reasonable. That's our personal number seems a good way to do it.

Yeah.

Any any other takeaways that we should look at? There's a right of way here. No. I think that's something that's pretty good. Yeah. I think it's good. I don't see this being if someone comes in and does a subdivision, I we don't even consider it. Right? Because they're gonna sell these these lots and they're gonna pay for it. It's more of where you're building a road that's and you only own half of that road than it's the people on the other half.

Good work. Thanks. Thank you. Hey. I guess one last question for you though. Just and this is kind of simple. I mean, how would you allocate it or would you take like the okay. So say we got a mile road and we've got four part or two parcels on each side of it. So there'd be two parcels on this side, two on this Which you then each one would be 20% if they all did, or would it be based off the footage total cost? How how do you you guys can work that out. Yeah. That's something that

for every different design and who's benefiting and how they're benefiting, that would probably go into what we would come in and recommend that each one of those adjacent landowners would have to pay back. Again, the the easy case is $50.50. Right? Now you have someone that's at the very end of that and you have lots all the way down the side. It probably wouldn't be that the guy at the very end didn't have, you know, he got a free ride. I mean, he's still benefiting that. So now you're taking a a proportion instead of maybe frontage, you're looking at, okay, each one of these people has, you know, some some type of proportion in each one. Even if their frontage is very small, they're still receiving some benefit from that and try to figure out some equal share so that everyone was treated fairly. It could be frontage width. It could be access. It could be lots of different things. But And that'll be drafted up in the agreement. That will have to be part of what came to the planning commission right up front.

The county engineer has a lot of discretion in figuring all that out as well. So

Good thoughts. It looks

good. Okay. Moving along to item number nine in Cache County code commercial lot coverage.

Yeah. So at our last planning commission meeting, Nate asked for us to expand out, the seventeen ten zero four zero development standards. So this is what that table looks like right now. A particular concern in this case was maximum lot coverage in the commercial zone. Nate wanted to today, we're just kinda formally introducing that to the planning commission to get that discussion going. I guess, do you guys particular direction you want us to look in? Do you want us to address some concerns that I have in drafting this? Where do you guys wanna start? I think we go back to the meeting we had just last week when the Bay River Health Department We got some huge issues. Yeah.

Huge.

Acre and a half. It was acre and three quarter, wasn't it? Acre and three quarter. We gotta get that adjusted immediately. That's

a whole another That's that's ridiculous. But then but then he came back afterwards and he

said That's a different Well, depends on the soil. Yeah. So he he couched his comment, his first one. We still need to be cognizant of figuring Yeah. That'll be this. For sure. Do you want us to bring one to the next one? Well, that's that's the that's two lines of About Jake. We've been screeching. I think we need to bring one to the next one and address it. They come in and they do this, and then they make half acres, and then they turn around and develop it again.

Yeah. Some back story on where where my request on this came from. So before I was on the planning commission, I came in to do a project out in Petersburg. Right? Storage units. And I asked him, I said, why is the lock dent or coverage different on those? And he said, it it was probably because someone came in with a request to adjust the industrial one up and they never looked at the commercial one at the time because there's I mean, how many commercial projects or industrial do we have in the county? Pretty few. Not not very many. Right? So it hadn't been looked at a long time. So he said, well, we'll get it on one of the next planning commission meetings and we'll we'll look at adjusting that. Well, that didn't happen. And then I talked with Steven about it. It still didn't happen, and now, we've had another project come in. So, Chris Chambers. Right? He asked the same question, and and the biggest difference is it means, like on his project or mine, you're either gonna leave all the driveways gravel to meet that 50%, or you're gonna or you're gonna asphalt them and have a a better looking place, is the real difference in that. Most cities are either 85 or 90%. Lot coverage. And so, to me, it just didn't make sense in commercial settings to only have 50% lock coverage. To hit. That and industrial should probably be the same. They're similar type operations. You know, if we got 50% and we're gonna have 50% open space or landscaping, right, really doesn't make sense in a commercial setting. So that that's the reason I asked it to be brought on there. So the word What what if we made it so that

asphalt roads don't count as part of

your part of your 50? You could do that and adjust other areas of the code so there's not impervious

impervious surfaces. Because it's not structures. That that

that doesn't right now, we we count asphalt on a that's not right. So that was the other yeah. That was the other place to address it, but this seemed like the easier place instead of changing all the other stuff. That's a fairly easy change. Yeah. I I I would rather see us leave the structures at 50

and allow asphalt as extra.

But Yeah. I kind of agree with that to some extent. I know Nate says you're just gonna pave your driveways. It's kinda like today with that rezone. Sure. They came in with 20, but they could theoretically go to 49. In terms of impact, there's only five differences between commercial and industrial. There's 11 differences between industrial and commercial that you can do in the commercial zone. So my fear with those, it's commercial businesses, boarding facilities, bed and breakfast. My concern is they would just keep it as, let's say, gravel roads, but then add 40 different more rooms on to it. So the concern I'd have in general is just impact.

Right? So if we wanna do just structures, I think that's a pretty good way to approach it personally. But but the other ones you could still address in the conditional use permit. All the other concerns you have could still be addressed in the conditional use permit. Right. So you could still address those.

Would that impact the rezone process at all? Because I feel industrial one do you guys look at industrial? It's either that or not. Yeah. Yeah. It's a very have no control. Heavy hitting one. Commercial, I feel, is I don't wanna say treated loosely or lightly or lighter. But I feel in industrial, and that reason kinda comes in, it's kinda like, oh, hey. This is something big. So in that case, in terms of impact, are you comfortable with that, I guess, in the grand scheme of things? Almost having commercial industrial will be able to be played around with a little bit? Because in my time in planning and zoning, I've been here for two and a half years. I have seen some extremely impressive lawyering where they can make a definition fit one thing or another. People play the game, so the concern I'd have to bring commercial up to 80% and making that impact on par with industrial is the fact that they could just lawyer it. They could say, oh, hey. We're doing this. It doesn't fit this. Industrial reason is probably not gonna happen. Commercial reason might happen. So they shoot for commercial instead. So that's just kind of the fear I have there. I mean, you guys are the deciding body, so it just kinda comes up to you. I'm just thinking in in practice,

Highway 30 gets done and and out on 3200 West, Maverick decides, oh, we've got a big highway now. We're gonna throw it we're gonna throw a Maverick out there. You take a look at every Maverick's station, they're a lot bigger than 50%. Right? Yep. They're say they're they're 90. And so, you know, kind of that application of of how are we going to use how are we gonna use

Do you think 10th West? The 10th West Maverick right now? Are you are you thinking structures on that one or over

If you're talking structure and and hard surfaces. Well, asphalt. No question. But I'd be in favor of the question. But

I'd be in favor of not counting asphalt structures. That's that's not right.

I think the definition calls out impervious surfaces. So if we make, we could make this fairly simple tweak and it would kind of cover all that. But if we wanted to kind of differentiate between structures and non impervious surfaces, then we possibly have to work with some definitions as well to get that cleared up, to make that demarcation.

Matt's coming up with some comments.

I I guess I wanted to maybe help vet the asphalt versus gravel part. And maybe, Brady, your questions about for if Nate volunteered his project for Bring it up. I I think yeah. That's a good one. It's storage sheds. Right? Yeah. I think asphalt in the storage sheds is a lot cleaner than a whole bunch of gravel for dust and erosion. So I guess from an engineering stormwater type perspective, I would count asphalt as impervious. No questions. Right? But gravel would be the same thing. You're not that's you've changed that part. So if you had a five acre commercial spot and all you just wanted to fill it all with gravel, I guess from an engineering standpoint, I have a hard time seeing that that wasn't lot coverage. So I I I would like Nate's suggestion is we just up the percentage that you can and not try to distinguish between asphalt and buildings because it's very hard to have parking and storm water and everything with, you know, 90% building coverage. Right? So I don't I would hate to see someone trying to play the game saying, oh, I'm gonna leave a whole bunch of this gravel because that doesn't count as Or if you lot coverage, you know, where you're changing it from an agricultural and you're covering it, you're still getting stormwater runoff after a while, you know, gravels maybe impropriates a little bit more. But It's like 5% different, right, on your on your stormwater. It's not. And a lot of times, if you're a good engineer, you're just gonna count them the same because after a while, it's hard and packed. And so I think we're splitting hairs at that point of a storage shed unit between whether the gravel between the storage sheds is, you know, lot coverage or not lot coverage. So

But, Matt, so if you if you put, though, what impact is this gonna have in storage units, you're probably not gonna have every every tenant there at the same time. But we we take industrial. So we allow them 80%, and we look at the flour mill out there. I live right next to it. That thing has been the biggest freaking disaster parking everywhere but on their lot. I mean, they're they're up and down the roads. Semis are up and down the roads. That that's not good. And then that's soccer field that we put in Hyde Park. There was supposed to be fencing along the North Side. Well, they didn't do it. And you go there anytime there's people there. And that road is just I mean, it's just an accident waiting to happen.

That's for sure. You gotta vote to extend the meeting.

Yeah. Might better break.

So anyhow, I'm just that's that's a couple examples that I was thinking of in my mind that if we allow them to find structures, Then how do you count marking?

We need to extend this. So do we have a motion to extend that? Make a motion for a five minute break and extend to 08:30.

All in favor. Optimistically. I have a second on that. You're not so fast. Second. Okay. All in favor. Aye. Aye. K. I'll be right back. Five

minutes. The one that you're talking about with the soccer fields? Yeah.

That's different. Lot coverage wouldn't account on that one. That wouldn't know. It wouldn't have helped us. Yeah. Well, if it's 80% and not 50%. Yeah. Soccer field's in Hyde Park though. Yeah. No. It's not. Oh, it's set back. It's on the West side there by the fourth. We're here for Oh, Hyde Park's the other side of the road. Set back is the issue that Yeah. I'm all the That's a major, major issue. I missed that meeting, and I really Yeah. We wouldn't have changed that.

I I would not have voted for that. I mean, it has That's amazing. They got no room.

Now all that And and we're still dang coverage. We're dang glad they're there.

But But it could have been done better now. Or if they came in and said, they're always allowed to ask all their all this because that's gonna kinda get certain lot coverage. And now they

But how does solid surface affect stormwater? Do you have to have greater retention ponds? You just have bigger ponds.

But it's not a huge difference between the gravel. Yeah. But we want him to have asphalt. We do because we want runoff. We wanna fill the Great Salt Lake. We gotta runoff. It can't it can't runoff. We just have to hold it on our property. No. We gotta change that. Alright. I'll cut a hole in the end. To me, the lot coverage should be everything that's not the landscaping portion or the Or native. The native. Yeah. That that's where the 80%. Yeah. You can just say any any part of this developed or not not, you know, the landscaping, some of those come out over the native Yeah. Is is you gotta be your 20%. To me, that seemed to make more sense too.

How can you say 08:30? I can stay that long. Yeah. I wondered about that. By that clock.

Yeah. We're there for a while.

Actually, the next few go pretty quick.

Yeah. We can get it through the next few quickly. We gotta wait for them if we start. Because because if I got home before 08:15, I felt guilty about telling me a second counselor I couldn't come in to meet with him. Gotta get past 08:15. Try slow. So you hit traffic. You'll love your way home. I also told him I was now blocking his number.

It's not gonna stop him.

I can avoid him. I'm pretty good I'm pretty good at avoiding him.

Still working? Yeah. The audio cut out during the water meter. So no more batteries on their microphones? No. No. Apparently not. IT's going all out. Yeah. So there's still battery packs

on these ones, but, yeah, these are hardwired in. Wow. And I think they added even some speakers up here to capture audience better.

I thought they were always just saying how good you did. Yeah.

So I watched one of the YouTubes. I guess it was probably two weeks ago when the audio was terrible. It is. Yeah. I did. It just should seem a lot better.

Yeah. See, and I go back and I listen to several just as I go back and check things. And I can always hear whoever's up here, but if you're past

podium Yeah.

I can't note that you're in I can't note your comments because there's no way to verify what you're saying. I think that'll still be the problem. Yeah. Probably.

Because there's nothing out there to catch them. They need one of those microphones that hangs down from the ceiling in the middle of the crowd. Yeah. Yeah. I microphones that hangs down from the ceiling in the middle of the crowd.

Yeah. Well, everybody

that way you can keep rolling. It's five minutes now. That's right. We can take this for five minutes.

Mister chair votes who extend the break by five minutes.

Not gonna happen. We don't have enough time to do that. Unfortunately, Connor, you don't get that. Oh, man. That's right. You can't make a motion.

How about this weather,

Only for another day, then we'll really be loving it when it starts raining. Yeah. It's a good thing. Other than trying to plant some ground. You better hurry. It's not gonna make it. You got twenty four hours. Definitely won't make it. Yes. Next four days after that after tomorrow, isn't it? Yeah. But Saturday is really the biggest the best chance. And they're they're the other ones keep changing there every few hours.

But call I talked to a person down in North Arden today and they got slammed. Really? Yeah. With that one the other day? Yeah. Like, that's like an

Yeah. We got

two tens. Yeah. And I was like, we didn't get nothing like that. Yeah.

Hey, Kurt. Hey, Kurt. When everyone gets back and we start up again, I just wanna talk about the same pattern agreement and get first paid.

Okay. Sure. Okay. That'd be great.

You wanna make a motion to start the meeting at the end, do we all? Okay. Start with starting As soon as you say we're going. Okay. Sorry. What's that? I'm here. So much you can do. Alright. We're ready to start back up. Let's turn time back over to go over some pioneering. Sorry. Just to clarify how you what is the direction the commission wants to go with it? You want to set it because if you're gonna ultimately want to present it to the council and recommend approval of it, we have to have another hearing if to have a public hearing on it and open up for public comment on it as well. So I just wanted to clarify what the intent is. Do you want us to rework some things? Do you wanna get move forward in that process and basically set for public hearing next month and open it up? Or what direction do you guys wanna go with it? I like about Jay's recommendation of the fee. K.

Or, like, you mentioned to you the impact fees. Mhmm. Should we do a correlation with what goes there? You can look at that. Sure. Because if the county's on to chase that or give that payment back to somebody for a while, we have to put a task on the county employees somehow. Mhmm. Not even to mention the tracking. We go talk to the recorder because because now we have to flag that lot, that part. So we're not again only impacting developed services. We're impacting the recorder and whoever else and probably the auditor because he'd have to mail out

Yeah. I think after the kind of the three things we highlighted, maybe incorporate those and bring it back one more time. And then and then look at the public hearing, maybe the meeting after that. Correct. Because there was there was quite a few changes, I think, on both. Bias and make sure all the same page. That'd be my that'd be my recommendation. I think that I agree with you.

Okay.

Right. Back to the commercial, law coverage.

Yeah. So like I said, this is kind of introducing it. What direction would planning commission like us to move in this? We can explore multiple ways, I guess, and bring it back next time. Just kinda depends on what y'all wanna do.

Well, I think one thing from an ethical standpoint that we just need to be careful of is and if if there's something that benefits mister dogs Yeah. Because of this, that's another thing that we that, you know, we kinda gotta be a little careful about. But

Yeah. So so the He's already paid the price for it. Yeah. He's already So it's already there. The benefit to me would be me, and I can I can ask them all the other driveways? I can already add another 35%

of structures. Well, I can already add the buildings. Correcting a correcting a code. I I yeah. I don't I don't see an ethical issue on on that. Hey. It's there's a better way to do this. I would be comfortable with with the proposal going to an 80%. I think that's that's clear to me. It gets very, very difficult if we start saying building square footage and and hard surface, all of that. To me, that's and and and maybe we re re explore it in the future if that, you know, we start It becomes an issue. Putting down a bunch of commercial space. It's not, you know, we don't see that many of the It's not you know, we don't see that many of these, but it seems like a reasonable request to go to to go to 80%.

Concern I have of going too much though is if we don't have a parking regulation at the same time, I think you're going to run into some problems like you've got out north there. Because the number of times I've been in the Logan City Council to plead for things to be done. It was over parking, and it was parking in my lot, not the neighbor's lot. Just making sure they were big enough to have another park. That would be part of the of the conditional use process. So They have to meet certain parking Yeah. There there is a parking standard. Yeah. 80% when you think it takes Yeah. Leave much for parking. And that would be part well, that would be part of the

of the space.

So what does that look like if we approve this 80% tonight? What is the next step? What is that? Then then we would approve it hearing. Approve it tonight. It would be a public hearing next meeting. Yeah. Okay. And then we would recommend approval to the county council at their meeting after that. Okay. But

I don't I don't know. I mean, unless we look at and I don't know. We don't need to waste any more time on this. But if we look at, like, some of the commercial rezones that we've done over the last year or two, Hiram. That Dan Dansford with the

Yeah. Of

course. I don't know. Maybe it's no big deal. But I don't think it's something we should just do way fast without thinking thinking about it. Because once we make it, it's no different than a rezone. It's done.

But nobody else is worried about it. You wanna say thirty days to think it over, hon. They could even they could even bring some of those to review. Some of the other ones that have been done in the last two years, so we could look at how it would've or could've changed them. Yeah. Yeah. So We could look at that before the public hearing even and still do it all, just say maybe. I think that's a good idea. You can you can review the stuff and then have the public hearing about it after.

Wouldn't be that many, would there?

No. Probably not. We could probably go to five years and still be, like, probably less than ten. Yep. Okay. We can do that.

Yeah. Speaking of that too, remember how there was that one that was gonna do, like, the event center equivalent to the fairgrounds? Did they bail? Yep. When went on? They expired. They decided it'd be too expensive, I think. Well, I knew they were out of time, but I didn't know if they were did an extension or No. Their engineer got notified, and he just said just let it die, basically. Yeah. Course. Yeah. Yeah. Yep.

Mhmm. Yeah. It was gonna cost a lot of money. That road was expensive. Yeah. But they bombed everything. It was they were gonna be into millions. Would have been nice.

Okay. Let's go to discussion number 10. Irrigation canal setback distance.

Yeah. So another request at the last meeting was to look at the setback from the top of a recognized irrigation canal bank to any structure or fence, which currently is 16 and a half feet in every zone. There we did have a situation recently on a zoning clearance where this came up and we weren't really able to determine where that 16 and a half feet came from. So we were looking at it and one of the suggestion was that we just remove this altogether and let the canal company decide. However, when we were in a staff discussion, Matt, public works director, pointed us to another chapter of the code, which is chapter eight two eight zero five zero access to properties and setbacks. And in that section of code it requires a 10 foot setback in order to allow the vegetation department to get access to contain and maintain for noxious weeds. So the suggestion would be to keep that setback but reduce it to the 10 so it's consistent with the other section of the code that we have the vegetation management department needs in order to do that maintenance.

So I would make a suggestion Mhmm. That we change them both to Canal Company Deference. So so currently, we have a 130 something canals in the county. I think I can count on my two hands the ones that actually have a clear right of way that you can drive down and do vegetative man management. So, we're talking about less than 10% of them that you can even do that on. And we're encumbering the other 120 canal companies land next to those canals or something we really have no control over. We don't know when a farmer puts a fence up next to that canal. I see the point of, right, if if it were if it were a clear canal like like the Wellsville amendment. Right? You can drive that entire canal. You could spray that if the canal company wasn't doing a good job. But those ones are already being maintained. Right? We're not gonna have a structure or fence across those because the canal companies are maintaining those easements. They're making sure that's done. I still think both of them companies are different. Right? Some are some are 10, some are as much as 30 feet. And some of them own their land. Yeah. And some own their land, and they don't. But if it's in the canal company's easement and you're proposing a a fence or a structure, you have to have written permission from the canal company. Then in both cases and and we could we could add to that. And if it's one that the canal that the county needs access to, which I can't think of any of the others that that the county could drive if they wanted to to spray. Right? They're gonna have to go around everyone's fence. But you could just say a gate is required at the property line so you can still get through that to to do the spraying. Instead of because if not, you're encumbering two sides of a canal and if a guy comes in and buys that and it was a it was a crop field and he wants to turn it into a pasture, he now has to fence the entire length of that canal of that canal 10 feet off the bank so he can graze his cows on his own property. Right? That's a lot of money to put into something. The the the county may never drive before we were down there to spread that. So in my mind, we're taking property away from land owners for something that probably is never going to happen.

Probably is never going to happen. But maintenance maintenance is a huge issue. And I think that's where the canal company comes in. When you when you look at an excavator Yep. That's 10 feet. At least 10 feet wide sitting on the ground, and then you start swinging it. I don't I don't think it's our right to change this.

Well, I don't think we have authority to change chapter eight. So I think planning commission is relegated to sixteen and seventeen. Yes. I mean, it's so busy. But but what if we left it to

the property owner and the canal company? That's where it is. But you gotta say the canal board, you can't just go to the secretary or one one member. You gotta go to the board and have

a statement or a letter back from them. Yeah. I like to defer to public works since the vegetation department's in there. So the other code would need to go straight to the county council just to change? Most likely. Okay. What do you think? Yeah. I think I think those ones just don't make sense. Run, they're totally unenforceable the way they're currently written. Well, so

Sevier County, they had a case where they came in and they built the corner of the structure out into that area and it didn't get caught. And so then, the homeowner basically claimed adverse possession on it and it really felt then it filed up so the canal company couldn't get down and and it got pretty ugly and pretty expensive because they were they had build it out into that and compromised

part of the So it bank. In that situation, when they brought that plat to the county and the county said, oh, it looks like you're close to the canal. You're gonna have to have a letter from the canal company. Well, they missed it. Right. It got built.

So I don't know So that could happen in either way. Yeah. It could happen.

I just don't know if we wanna dilute it. I don't think we're doing Well, right now, it's 10 feet. So like you said, Brady I thought it was 16.

And that's the other one. It's 16 and a half and chapter 17, but 10 The other one. The other one I wonder if you kept the sixteen and a half year enough? They wanted to build a fence. How do you get permission for an exemption from the canal company? Well, that's right. That's right. Yeah. We could even add that if anything inside that sixteen and a half year. I'd be comfortable with that. Because right now, there's no there's no exemption. Well, the only concern I have is the big canal companies

that manage a lot of water, they watch it, they manage it, and they're doing the maintenance. It's those small ones that don't have the personnel, those real small companies, and they're ditches more than canals. And they're the ones that don't have the resources. Well, they and but they're they're also the ones that have a fence every 200 feet already.

Right. And so they don't Those fences already crossing canals and yeah. So so so they don't because that's where this one came up. There was a a guy that's trying to get a zoning clearance to build a house, and he can't because there's there's a fence in the shed next to the canal. And the canal company said they're fine with it, but there's no exemption in the code to say, okay. He got to get out the fence and move the shed to get a building permit. And that's when we looked at that 16 and a half per feet. I'm like, well, we shouldn't be telling someone they can't put a fence next to the canal if, you know, that that butts right up to the canal so they can graze along it. Or if the canal canal company allows it, then the canal company should allow it. But if but if the canal company you know, because most fences go in, we're never gonna know about it. But we have no way to know if someone's building a fence at the at the county. They're

they're they've had some real problems though in other states. Wyoming over there on the Salt River, People start I mean, this is totally on the subject, but you get them structures or allow men to start with. And then they it's like he said about that building down there. I just

it. Well, let's what do we run into if if we have a house or something else like that and the development service office is is based on time to approve, but yet the canal company or the board doesn't meet for a while. So we got

In terms of official issues,

I'm not sure, but I guarantee if that canal company doesn't meet the next week, I'll be getting phone calls. Exactly. So we're putting a constraint there, so we gotta figure something out about that because you're under legislative law to approve that in a certain time before maybe the canal board meets. So

I get what you're saying, Nate, Nate, but we Well, even if even if there's an exemption in there, right now, there's just nothing. Right? If if the canal company is a 100% fine with it So because they can because they can use the other side of the canal for maintenance if they need it. Right? There's there's other things. There's there's so many potentials out there. I think, to me, just having a blanket statement, nothing within 16 and a half feet of any canal in the county, to me, seems overreach on property rights by the county. That. Do you think that the would you say that applies to structures or just, like, if they got rid of the fencing part? I I think on either of them, some of them. Because because in in in some cases in some cases, right, the canal company has the easement on both sides of the canal. A lot of them

only ever go down one side. So so it may be So it the canal company approval. Structures wouldn't be a good idea that So I wanna I just wanted to clarify the portion that's in the noxious weeds Yeah. Part of it. It says the 10 and a half feet, but it says where maintenance, repair, upkeep, etcetera is provided or serviced by a canal company or others don't own the property essentially. So this I think this is kind of something that if someone's coming in and they're trying to plot something and they haven't talked to the irrigation company, it was a way to try to you know, the bigger ones are going to be but if you had some canal through someone's property and and the irrigation company had to provide maintenance through there, they didn't have an easement or something. But it was it wasn't a broad across the board every canal. It was the ones Not the other one. No. It was the ones that are being maintained by someone other than the property owner. That that that one makes sense. So so it was it wasn't all inclusive and it it made some exceptions for fence fence it off. And and so you had to go along all these fences. They needed to provide a way at least a 10 foot opening so that people could go up and down that canal bank.

Yeah. That makes a lot of sense. So it's a little different than just a blatant 16 and a half feet. No no nothing in fences. So I wonder if you're the guy downstream and now someone's got the fence up against it. No. You can't get water to your place because so many things are in the way. How are you gonna make them in that canal? There's no setback.

Well, that's why I think that yeah. But it's it's it's I don't think that's the county's responsibility. That's the canal company's responsibility. But we gotta protect the canal company. We do. And I think we do that by saying if there's if it's proposed, you have to go to the canal company. And realistically

both and then it will still leave the liability of the canal company. We're gonna maintain that easily, not the county. And realistically, if someone came in for a zoning clearance, we already do have stuff that's required upfront. So, like, let's say someone comes in for a house and they don't have a water right, they're gonna say, hey. Sorry. I can't accept this until you get the water right to me. In the terms of a canal, if they came in, we could just say, hey. Before you can even apply, you do need to provide this letter. So that kinda protects us all the matter. Care of the time thing. K. If you're if you're comfortable with that, that'd cool

Yeah. Have them call me. Yeah. I mean, they change often enough. There's not a good list. Right? Most of them know who it is because it's it's in their neighborhood. They know who they you know, they have water shares too in the canal and in a lot of cases. But if not, we could find out who the canal company was. Because we kinda do that with Nineteen. Yep. That's for the modification

of the canal.

It's it's yeah. It's not always

a a lot of times they've passed away or or they've changed. Right? They change every year sometimes. I think it'd be good to talk to some canal companies and see what their thoughts are. Their thoughts on it. Yeah. Say, you know, would this be good? Is something you look at? You know, small ones that would, you know, that'd be impacted by this. Possibly doing some more war traffic. Yeah. I I just you know what? Yeah. To me, it seemed like we were

I mean, I get why the setback there are We get in people's property rights quite a bit when the canal companies are the ones that are supposed to oversee that type of stuff. Not that we couldn't still be there and have a step that they still have to jump through to make sure the canal company is aware of it. To me, that that seemed like it made a lot sense. They're gonna be notified and have to get that letter and then if they have an issue, they can't do it. They can give them the zoning clearance. They give them a letter, they can still give them the zoning clearance. Did those setbacks have anything to do with the county's planning of flood mitigation

in the past?

No. That's a different one of I think the current is 50 feet from a open water, so that's our flood plain stuff is 50 feet. But a lot of times, irrigation in canals are not in the flood plain. So They're not. Now it's like you're trying to decide if

Yeah. That that explanation on that.

So how do you wanna proceed? Do you wanna look at examples like talking to canal companies and see their thoughts? And I've talked to a few already, but, yeah, we can we can talk to more in between and see.

That you need to hold a setback of, say say, 20 feet? Like, I I would like to propose additional setbacks in the county because I think in a 10, you can build, you know, five feet from your property line. There's no place for drainage and Yeah.

I think it could be either way. It could be the 16 and a half foot setback unless you have a have a letter and then the letter It's otherwise approved by the irrigation company that if they Mhmm. Right. Yeah. Yeah. I like that. Yeah. Because then then those little ones that you can't get a hold of, then it's just it's just that's what it is. But if you get a hold of them and I think with this particular landlord, that was his right. He came in with a letter, had had the approval, and we're like, there's there's no exception. You know, there's nothing we can do. So that's why I thought, well, let's let's look into that. That would make

Yeah. If you get an exception from the company, then you can lessen it.

Is there a timeline on how long that would last? They're not here for a month, two months, three months? Which what? In terms of getting a letter if that setback applies or not.

Well Fair deadline on the The active ones meet at least monthly. It just depends on how fast they do. Just depends on how fast they wanna build their house. You got true. If they wanna get the letter back to you, they'll get the canal company together. There's no rush. We don't meet that all. Who do you want staff to make a change to this? We can look at it like what it would look like. I'm trying to get a I think that's with an exemption. Really just one one line into that code is all we'd have to add. It's Yeah. It's an exemption. We add that.

Yeah. I would I guess my only question would be for maybe the county attorney is if Two minutes.

That would need to require that that chapter eight reference also get changed. I don't think so because that sounds like it's a totally different thing. It's more it doesn't apply to every canal, it sounds like. Well, this one's a blanket, every canal. And it's not a zoning clearance there. Yeah. We'd want it to be a blanket for every Yeah. I mean, this one, I think we just leave it. Just add that that line in there. That's a requirement to get that exception if you wanna do something in that. That makes sense. And the other ones are still covered.

Okay. We're almost out of time.

We're gonna fly to this next one. Actually, this next one, I don't have the energy for, and it's not a huge priority. So I will kick that to next month. What's just the highlight of it? We've been having issues with our frontage requirements, specifically for f r 40 zones because, yeah, the 150 feet of frontage has to be on a public or private road. In the past, we've had creative solutions to this by people, dedicating easements to themselves in order to create that frontage. So this would allow for existing legal parcels, to not have that 150 feet on a public or private road, but they do bear the burden of proving access. And that's only in the f r 40? Yeah. That would be the exceptionally in the f r 40. And then for the other, zones, we would just clean up some of the definitions because we still have a phrase in there that says you can create frontage parallel to a public or private road. But county attorney, Luthy, I believe it was, said that that wouldn't work. It has to be actual frontage. So it's just cleaning up some language and then, clarifying that the frontage also includes a minimum depth, you know, because we have some people who wanna come in with, like a foot or like two feet. But you gotta have, the availability put in pads for trash and mailboxes, things of that nature. The definition, one of our definitions for property frontage does talk about it needing to meet the front yard setback. So we're just cleaning that up and maybe adding a row to the table that, clearly shows that that's the requirement.

Angie, what about part of that looking at the we're what? At the 2,006 now? Used to be 1970. Yep. So how does that does that factor in at all?

No. There could be legal nonconforming. Mister chair, you gotta vote extend the meeting.

Alright. We got one right and left after this one.

Yeah. Twelve is just about our joint workshop. We're just gonna revisit, but we can I can just ask you to email me your suggestions on that, and then just remind you about our October 22 meeting? Okay. I just have two quick

October 22 meeting. Okay. I just have two quick questions. Okay. Are we gonna change table 17 on those minimum lot sizes? We can bring it back. I'm honestly concerned about that. Second question is, did anybody hear from well, probably the attorney's office? Was there any communication between the attorney's office and Nixon to resolve that?

There has been. I don't know the details of those. K. I know Terry has had some conversations with that regard. Okay.

Did you wanna extend it five minutes or three minutes? Or So we need three minutes? Or I can just run through this really quick. Let's just run through it really quick. We're just sitting here. We've been there for Okay. So item 12 was we just were going to ask for direction or suggestions and things to look at based on our joint workshop with County Council last week. And then again, a follow-up meeting is scheduled for October 22 at six p. M. So that should get noticed and we'll send you out that information. But if you do have specific direction or ideas, I'd love to hear them. You can email me, give me a call. Then item 13, just letting you know about the annual cash summit. Typically, it's always been in November, but for some reason it's in October. It's actually two days this time. Monday, October 27 and Tuesday, October 28. If you go to cashsummit.com, they have the Yeah. Again, I have an agenda set up. The first day Monday is mobile workshops. Keep scrolling down. And then Okay. And then they'll have a keynote and even a dinner on that Monday. And then Tuesday is the more typical sessions, breakout sessions. You can earn your required training hours through this. But again, if you wanna take a look at that cashsummit.com. And we are happy to cover your registration fee if you would like to go to that. So just let me know. Again, I'll send out a separate email just to remind you and and see if you wanna go to both days or one day or not at all.

And that's all I have. Thank you, Angie. Mhmm. Thank you, Connor. We're good. Let's Do you wanna adjourn the meeting? We'll adjourn the meeting.