Transcript — Eagle Mountain Planning Commission, 8 September 2026

Speaker A: Well, you'll probably have an assistant, I would hope, in this time next.

Speaker B: That'll cut down on your nights to only every other one.

Speaker D: Yeah.

Speaker B: Hey, the goal is to get the information, make it relevant.

Speaker C: Yeah, there you go.

Speaker B: We have karaoke tonight. I don't know if you want to hear me sing. I suspect not. That's good music. All right, we would not be expecting that. She breaks out Lights go down.

Speaker C: Hey, everybody up here ready? Testing, testing.

Speaker D: Okay.

Speaker E: Yep, I don't—

Speaker C: the only thing better is if you had the infinity screen with the infinity sign. OK, we'll wait for—

Speaker B: Right now.

Speaker C: OK, all right. It is— thanks for the technical expertise to keep us sounding clear for the recordings or for the meeting log. We will go ahead. It is 5:31 PM on Tuesday, September 8th. We'll go ahead and begin our Planning Commission, our work session. And we will have a training by— I'm guessing this is with Marcus— for on ethics. OK, you have— we have— you have our attention and we are ready to go. Thank you, Marcus.

Speaker B: Yeah, we gotta like not set the default to monitors, but whatever. It's fine. We're good.

Speaker E: We're good.

Speaker F: You got it.

Speaker B: Okay, let's—

Speaker G: sorry.

Speaker C: You just have to know to pull it off your imaginary screen.

Speaker B: Yeah, well, now I can't see it on my own screen. I got to look down here to see the slideshow.

Speaker H: There we go.

Speaker B: From beginning. There we go.

Speaker E: Okay.

Speaker B: So we are here to talk about ethics and Open and Public Meetings Act.

Speaker I: Okay.

Speaker B: So we're going to start with the video. And some of you may remember this. This is a somewhat edited version from a training I've done with some of you, but not all of you, so we're going to— you have to bear with me if you've seen this before. Okay. There we go. I tell you, I got to plead ignorance on this thing, because if anyone had said anything to me at all when I first started here that that sort of thing was frowned upon, you know, because I've worked in a lot of offices, and I tell you, people People do that all the time. Okay, so obviously pleading ignorance is not any sort of defense to any of these things, so it's important to be trained and understand kind of what our obligations are as members of the Planning Commission. So let's— all right.

Speaker H: Okay.

Speaker B: Open and Public Meetings Act. We're going to start there. So it is the intent of the legislature that the State, its agencies, and its political subdivisions take their actions openly and conduct their deliberations openly. So that is the public policy surrounding the Open and Public Meetings Act. The Planning Commission is subject to the act, and so you have to abide by it, and thus have to understand what it is that your obligations are. Okay, so the default rule is that a meeting is open to the public. As a planning commission, I think I'm aware of one time in our city's history where a planning commission has ever gone into closed. Session, or one incident that led to— may have been multiple meetings where they went into closed session, but it was regarding the same situation. So it's not something that's likely that's going to come up during your tenure, but it is possible, so it's good to understand how the procedure works. So again, the default rule is it's open to the public, and it can only be closed for very specific reasons under the statute, none of which are likely to apply. The one prior situation had to do with reasonably imminent litigation, which is one of the reasons, or pending litigation, which is one of the reasons that you may close a meeting. Requires a 2/3 supermajority vote, which in the case of 5 voting members is 4 votes. Extremely unlikely you'd ever close a meeting, but could happen. Okay. So in order to understand this, you need to understand, one, the term meeting is actually a defined term in the statute. Here's the definition. I think I will skip reading it. You can read that first section yourself, but that is the basic definition. But the gist of it is a quorum, plus you're discussing public business that's within your jurisdiction, that is a meeting. It's a little bit more complicated than that, but that's the general gist of it. It does not have to be in person. It could be phone calls, video conferencing, emails, text messages, et cetera. It doesn't have to be any formal setting. A quorum is 3 members of the body in your situation. So, because we have 5 voting members, it's a majority. OK. So here is an example of what not to do.

Speaker C: Members of the Commission, Mr. Vorstein is pleased to be here today.

Speaker H: And when the day finally came, I was ready. I felt so confident that all I had to do was present my case.

Speaker C: And we have documents, one of which is a report by retired FBI agents which completely absolves Mr. Rothstein from any wrongdoing. I'd like this marked.

Speaker J: Pardon me, Counselor, before you continue.

Speaker C: No, I want to have this marked.

Speaker J: This, uh, this commission is prepared to act on a motion denying the Rothstein application.

Speaker A: Denied!

Speaker J: Do I hear a motion seconded?

Speaker G: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I second the motion.

Speaker J: Do I have a vote on the motion?

Speaker G: Mr. Chairman.

Speaker J: Aye. Aye.

Speaker I: Aye.

Speaker J: The ayes have it.

Speaker B: This hearing is adjourned. Okay. So here, obviously, you wouldn't think that the movie Casino is about Open Meetings Act, but here you'd be proven wrong. So the gist of it is that they obviously had already decided what they were going to do in advance, and this would be illegal under Utah law. So individuals constituting a quorum of a public body, So again, 3 individuals in the case of the Planning Commission, may not act together outside a meeting in a concerted and deliberate way to predetermine an action to be taken by the public body at a meeting on a relevant matter. So relevant matter is a defined term in the statute. It means something that's within your jurisdiction to act on. So, okay. So again, here's some miscellaneous rules. Again, quorum is 3 members. Chance for social meetings. If you go bowling together and you don't talk about city business, that's, you know, Planning Commission business, that's fine. You can have all of you together going to social meetings. I wouldn't necessarily recommend it based on my own history and experience that those things sometimes— what do you have that's in common among you all? You're on the Planning Commission, so those types of subjects tend to come up. So I wouldn't necessarily recommend it, but in and of itself is not a violation of the Open and Public Meetings Act. But again, it states in the statute it cannot be used to circumvent the requirements of the statute. So you can't say, hey, let's go bowling and discuss this rezone. So, and the last thing that's kind of a miscellaneous rule is you can only take action on items that are properly noticed. So sometimes people come and they wanna, it's more common in city council meetings, but it could happen here. Where you wanna talk about, hey, this is something that we should put on the agenda, or here's something I prepared. I know in past Planning Commissions, there were some very proactive Planning Commissioners that would draft code that they wanted, you know, without reference to any staff members or their expertise, and they would want to run it through the Planning Commission and send it to City Council. So, I mean, that's, you can do that. But you can't just bring it up in a meeting. It would have to be noticed properly. So in the case of anything pretty much in your jurisdiction, it would be public hearing and would require a 10-day notice.

Speaker E: Okay.

Speaker B: So hypothetical 1. Planning Commissioner A meets with Planning Commissioner B to discuss a preliminary plat application coming before the Planning Commission on the next agenda. Commissioner A convinces Commissioner B that the preliminary plat does not meet legal requirements. They decide to vote against it the next meeting. Is this a violation of the Open Public Meetings Act?

Speaker J: Yes.

Speaker B: Yes. In spirit, probably.

Speaker J: No.

Speaker G: No.

Speaker B: It is not.

Speaker C: It's not 3.

Speaker B: They are not a quorum. So that is the key issue here to highlight. It is okay, again, Ideally, again, the spirit, you gotta remember the spirit of the Act is that these things occur in a public meeting, in the open. However, it is not against the law for one of you to discuss with another one of you issues coming on the upcoming agenda, if you want. Even if you decide, hey, I know this is what I'm gonna do, like, you should, I think, you know, as legal counsel, I would advise you to keep an open mind and to see seek advice and all that and discuss and not make decisions in advance of the meeting. That being said, I'm here to instruct you on the law, and what the law says is that if it's not a quorum, then it's technically lawful, you know, in this situation. So, okay, hypothetical 2. Commissioner A speaks to Commissioner B about a rezoning application in front of the Planning Commission next week. He convinces Commissioner B Excuse me, I used the male gender in all of these, so I guess, you know, males tend to be up to no good more often, so. No, he convinces Commissioner B to recommend approval. Commissioner B speaks to Commissioner C to get his support. Commissioner C dislikes the rezone application, declines to give support. Is this a violation of the Open and Public Meetings Act? So the trickier this year, so—

Speaker C: It involves 3, but it doesn't involve all 3 at the same time, right? So technically it's not a violation, but it feels weird. Would be. I probably wouldn't do it.

Speaker E: Yeah.

Speaker C: I would say no, it's not a violation.

Speaker B: Anybody else? Agree, disagree, don't know? Okay, let's go back to the— okay. Individuals constituting a quorum of a public body may not act together outside. So we have 3 individuals here, so that would be a quorum. May not act together outside a meeting in a concerted and deliberate way to predetermine an action to be taken by the public body at a meeting on a relevant matter. So again, I would say that this is a violation, even though they don't necessarily all come to the same conclusion. They did meet with the intent to predetermine an action to be taken by the public body, and they did constitute a quorum. And this section of code specifically contemplates not all together at one time. So it is actually, I think, a violation. It's a little bit more of a gray area because they don't actually predetermine the action to be taken. They only attempt to do so. But I do think that that would actually be a Technical violation, and in addition to a violation of the spirit of the Act. Okay. Hypothetical 3. Planning Commissioner A texts Planning Commissioner B about a variance request on next week's agenda, and they decide over text messaging that they will vote to deny the request. Planning Commissioner B texts Planning Commissioner C to solicit his vote. Planning Commissioner C texts back that he also opposes the variances. Is this a violation?

Speaker I: Basically, yes.

Speaker B: Yes, again, the point here is that text messaging doesn't change anything. It could be over phone calls, it could be in person, it could be emails. Text messaging just makes it easier to prove the violation because it's in writing. So, all right. Let's talk ethics. Okay, Municipal Officers and Employees Ethics Act. Planning commissioners are municipal officers under this act. Okay, the purpose of this part is— the purposes of this part are to establish standards of conduct for municipal officers and employees, and to require these persons to disclose actual or potential conflicts of interest between their public duties and their personal interests. Okay. Definition of appointed officer. So the first question is, are you subject to the act? And I already told you the answer to this question. Yes, any person appointed to any statutory officer position or any other person appointed to any position of employment with the city or with committee. Da da da da da. And it says, including appointed officers include but are not limited to persons serving on special, regular, or full-time committees, agencies, or boards, whether or not such persons are compensated for their services. Planning Commission does meet that definition of. full-time committees, agencies, or boards. Special, regular, or full-time committees, agencies, or boards. So definitely a regular committee— it would be a regular committee, agency, or board. So there you go. Okay. It is unlawful to disclose or improperly use private, controlled, or protected information acquired by reason of your position. This is very unlikely to ever occur, but theoretically possible, so we're going to talk about it. To further substantially the officer's personal economic interests, or to secure special privileges or exemptions for the officer or employee, or for others.

Speaker K: Okay.

Speaker B: It is highly unlikely that you will ever come into contact with private controller protected information under GRAMA. Theoretically possible, so, But if you do, obviously you don't use that information to your personal advantage. That would be unethical.

Speaker E: Okay.

Speaker B: These glasses are kind of getting in the way, but it is unlawful to knowingly receive, accept, take, seek, or solicit directly or indirectly for the officer or employee or for another a gift of substantial value, or a substantial economic benefit tantamount to a gift. That would tend to improperly— would tend improperly to influence a reasonable person in the person's position to depart from the faithful and impartial discharge of the person's duties. The person knows, or that a reasonable person in that position should know, under the circumstances, primarily for the purpose of rewarding the person for official action taken. And then there's the kind of safe harbor Occasional gifts, $50 and under, are considered presumptively not in violation. So if— yeah. So I don't know how often people are giving gifts to planning commissioners. I suppose at Christmas things happen, like candies and stuff, cookies.

Speaker J: We had the opportunity to go on a helicopter ride. That could have been considered a gift.

Speaker B: Yeah, I think I am aware of the situation to which you're referring. Yes, that would be considered a gift because that person or entity offering the helicopter rides had business before the Planning Commission and the City Council. And so it could be considered a reward for services rendered. And so if it was under $50 worth, value, then you wouldn't have to report it, and it's presumptively okay. If it's over $50, it doesn't necessarily mean it's not okay, it's just not presumptively okay. You get into the gray area. The further from $50 you get, the less gray it gets. So if somebody offers you something, you know, $10,000 worth of value, it's pretty clear-cut that that would be a violation. If somebody offers you $51, probably less clear-cut. It's probably not a violation. Any more than $50 would be. It's where you draw the line. So, you know, there's a, you know, when I was a kid, I hate it now, but when I was a kid, I was a big fan of Law and Order, and after I became an attorney, I became less of a fan, because it just drives you nuts, 'cause you understand the law and why they're getting it wrong. And, but there was an episode where a person who was a very wealthy individual, this all takes place in New York City, uses her influence with the bank, 'cause her business does substantial banking with this bank, to get a judge a below-market mortgage interest rate as a way to bribe him. So I think that would be the def— that would be like the quintessential substantial economic benefit tantamount to a gift, because she's not actually directly providing it, she's not actually, they're not, no money is changing hands, he's just getting a significantly lower interest rate that's gonna save him, you know, thousands of dollars a month on his mortgage. So, which is certainly something of value and would be a bribe under any version of the law. But the issue here is, would a reasonable person under the circumstances think that the purpose is for rewarding them of official action taking or trying to influence them? That's kind of the key language. Rule of thumb, stick to the $50 limit. You know, use your discretion on what you think occasionally if you have questions as well. Um, okay, another video. This is another example of, you know, what not to do.

Speaker C: Hey, Tom, check it out.

Speaker D: Norton Construction just sent this over.

Speaker B: Whoa, mama!

Speaker I: I love Great Lakes wine.

Speaker B: No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.

Speaker E: You know as well as I do that we are not allowed to accept gifts over $25 for corruption reasons. We live in a fishbowl and the public is always watching. But you cannot enjoy this basket.

Speaker B: I'm so sorry.

Speaker E: And so to avoid temptation, I'm going to lock it up. Okay.

Speaker B: So apparently in Pawnee, Indiana, it's $25 is their limit. But again, I think, you know, again, under these circumstances where it is a gift that is probably slightly over $50, it's probably okay. especially when it's given to a big group of people and not just one individual. But that was not the one I was thinking of. That comes up later.

Speaker E: Ooh.

Speaker B: But in any event, yes. If somebody wants to, again, Christmas holiday gifts kind of thing, that's fine. Just, you know, make sure that they're not like wining and dining you every week. I don't think that's remotely likely, but. It is something to be aware of. So it is a responsibility you have under the Ethics Act. Okay, it is unlawful to use or attempt to use your official position to further substantially your economic interest or secure special privileges. This is another, I don't anticipate this will be a problem, but it's obvious, and I think it's common sense, but it's something to be aware of. Okay, let's, Let's go to the next one. There's a million ways to exploit your power, but have I ever given in to that temptation? No, never.

Speaker E: I'm not that kind of politician. Mr.

Speaker B: Parks and Rec Business, just need to grab a quick hot dog. Sorry about that, little girl, you can have the next one. I have a moral code and I never violate it. People look at me and they say, wow, Tom, you are so pure. You're like a brown Superman with a beard that just stands for Okay. Yeah, it's, you know, obviously nobody would be that brazen, hopefully. But yes, that's an example of what not to do. Okay. Violations of the Act can be prosecuted criminally. So that is one of the potential consequences for violation. Depending on the value of any benefit received, it can be up to a second-degree felony. felony, anywhere from a B misdemeanor to a second-degree felony. Again, using the $10,000 example, that would be a second-degree felony. Using the $51 example, that would be a B misdemeanor, and anywhere in between. So just don't do it, not a problem. Yes?

Speaker K: It's a total hypothetical, but if someone were to deliver a gift to your porch, say, like in that It shows up on their desk, then what?

Speaker B: Okay, so if somebody were to deliver a gift that, you know, clearly has a value, or, you know, you are aware that it has a value— And felt uncomfortable receiving because it's— That is above $50.

Speaker K: Right.

Speaker B: Yeah, then I would report it.

Speaker D: To you?

Speaker F: To—

Speaker B: Yeah, I mean, you can reach out to me, reach out to Brandon. And, you know, we'll advise you on what to do. I think this is unlikely to occur.

Speaker K: I think it's remote. I don't think anyone even knows I'm on the panel.

Speaker B: But if somebody says, you know, here's, you know, they give you like 2 tickets to the Jazz game and say, all right, you know, looking forward to seeing you at Planning Commission next week. You know, if somebody's that brazen, yeah, I mean, just please let us know. You know, depending on, Depending on what it is exactly, we would respond appropriately. And like in that scenario, I'd probably report it to law enforcement, 'cause that's somebody's attempting to bribe a planning commissioner and take official action. You know, in another situation where it's a gift basket like there, but it's a really nice one and you just don't feel comfortable accepting it, then we would deal with that probably differently.

Speaker K: Okay, just curious and adding some interest to the conversation.

Speaker E: Yeah.

Speaker B: Yeah, please. If you have questions, feel free to interrupt. I mean, as much as I love hearing the sound of my own voice, I'd much prefer to hear the sound of your voices. So, okay. So, yeah, so I mean, under the state law, under the Municipal Employees Ethics Act, the big thing that you have to do aside from avoiding accepting gifts of large amounts, is to report certain things that present a potential conflict of interest. Okay, so again, in typical legalese, we start with, it is an offense, i.e., it is a crime, for a planning commission member to receive or agree to receive compensation for assisting any person or business entity in any transaction involving the municipality in which the member is an officer, unless you first file with the mayor a sworn statement giving the name and address of yourself, the name and address of the person or business entity that you'll be assisting, and a brief description of the transaction. So, you know, again, this would, I think, normally occur during a context where somebody has hired you in the, you know, again, you're laypeople, you're not like professional planning commissioners where this is your job. You all have day jobs. And so this would most likely occur in a situation where somebody has hired you in the course of your professional duties unrelated to being a planning commissioner, and they want, in which case you just have to disclose it and then recuse yourself from any involvement in that action. So that's pretty straightforward. Under state law, actually, you're only required to disclose it. Under city law, you're also required to recuse from being involved in the action. So yeah, so there's a disclosure form that you can get from the city recorder if you have that type of, any type of conflicts or any required disclosures. You should be filling those out, I think, annually. So. Okay, planning commissioner who is an officer, director, agent, or employee, or the owner of a substantial interest in any business entity which is subject to regulation of the municipality, so in which you are a planning commission member, you must disclose the position held and the nature and value of your interest upon first becoming appointed. Again, there's a disclosure form. So if, for example, you are a business owner and you have a business, and that business is based in Eagle Mountain, and thus you have a business license with Eagle Mountain, for example, maybe you own Crumbl Cookies or something, you own a franchise there, and you get a business license, and you're subject to regulation by the city and all that zoning and all that good stuff, then you would just simply disclose that interest. And if by chance that Crumbl Cookie franchise had business before the Planning Commission, you would then recuse from any action related to that. So that's pretty— anytime, say you're a 50% owner and then you buy out your partner and you become 100% owner, you would disclose that change as well. Again, we have a form. It says an interest of $2,000 or less need not be disclosed. So pretty straightforward, and when in doubt, disclose is always my advice. I get this question much more often from city council members. But again, my advice is pretty consistent that, you know, I always advise to err on the side of disclosure. Like, it may be something that you don't technically legally have to disclose, but then it's just like, oh look, if they're disclosing that, then they should, you know, they'll disclose something that's worse than that. Planning Commission member who is an officer, director, agent, employee, or owner of substantial interest in any business which does or anticipates doing business with the municipality in which he's a Planning Commission member shall publicly disclose to the members of the Planning Commission immediately prior to any discussion by such body. So we do this every meeting. We have conflict of interest disclosures. It's right at the beginning where you would take the opportunity to say, yes, I own the Crumbl Cookies. That's agenda item 7B on tonight's agenda, and so I will be recusing from that. That would be an example. So that's pretty straightforward. Any questions? Yes.

Speaker E: Mike, if you're not financially involved with a business, but you're heavily emotionally involved with the business, would you have to recuse yourself if it came before the Planning Commission?

Speaker B: I guess I want to understand what you're saying a little more. Like, you really like Crumbl cookies, and And so—

Speaker E: Right, like if it's something that people want to bring to the city and you really want to support it and promote it, can you—

Speaker B: So again, it requires some sort of either employer-employee relationship or agency relationship, like you've contracted with them or you own it in some fashion, or that would be the type of relationship we're talking about. So you're saying, man, I really, want Chick-fil-A to come to Eagle Mountain City, and this business, this Chick-fil-A owner, is wanting a business license, or whatever. I'm trying to think of something that would come before the Planning Commission. They're asking for a rezone, so that they can open up a Chick-fil-A. And you say, I love Chick-fil-A, and I think every city should have as many Chick-fil-A's as possible, and I, you know, like, 'cause it's just the best. Their chicken is awesome. Would that require disclosure?

Speaker G: No.

Speaker B: Or recusal, no. It would have to be some sort of, again, officer, director, agent, so employee, or owner. Something of that nature where you have some sort of financial interest.

Speaker E: So assisting them in the proper pathways, and this is who you need to talk to, this is what you need to do.

Speaker F: Again—

Speaker E: Involvement, but not financial.

Speaker B: Yeah, I mean, it depends on the nature of that assistance. Are they paying you for that assistance? Again, because we just covered that a couple slides ago. If they're not and they're just saying, hey, I know you're on the Planning Commission, I have some questions about, you know, the process, you know, I want to locate here, you know, and you say, oh yeah, you can look at the zoning map, see what it's zoned for on the city's website, here's how you navigate to there, and then if you need a rezone, you know, you file an application, you can get a You can contact Community Development and they'll assist you with the application process for rezone so that you can get the correct zoning to open up that Chick-fil-A. And that type of situation, that's fine. People ask me legal questions all the time. I always say, I'm not your lawyer, but here's some friendly advice. Like, this is kind of— this is what you want to— kinds of things that you would talk to your lawyer about. So, who is not me.

Speaker I: Drew Corsey, you had a question?

Speaker K: Yeah, you may be getting to this, but familial, like say it was a, I don't know, brother-in-law that wants to open up the Chick-fil-A.

Speaker B: Yeah, so that would be, I think, affected under, let's go back to, Okay.

Speaker G: Special privileges.

Speaker B: Yeah, this, where you're talking about— go back one more slide. There we go. Getting substantial value, you know, it says again, for the employee or for another, right, is what it's talking about. So again, I would disclose that, because it could be perceived that is a benefit to a family member, which meets the definition of a benefit for you or another. Again, somebody related closely to you in this case. And say, I would— so what I would do is I would not— I would recuse from that and disclose it. Say, hey, look, this person is my brother or whatever. You know, I haven't talked to him at all about this, but I'm going to disclose that, and I'm going to recuse from any consideration. That's how I would handle that situation specifically, because I do think that that is potentially problematic.

Speaker K: Yeah, just for the record, I don't have any family in Eagle Mountain, but just asking.

Speaker C: In that case, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

Speaker B: Somebody moves here, you never know.

Speaker C: Yeah, I was saying, at some point we've all fallen for the trick. Question on, in that context, like, so there's a formal disclosure form that you would submit ahead of time, but like if it's just—

Speaker B: In theory, there should be an annual disclosure that you're filing.

Speaker C: Oh, okay.

Speaker B: So if that is not occurring, we can make sure that that does occur going forward.

Speaker C: Okay. I have—

Speaker I: I don't—

Speaker C: I haven't seen the annual one. I don't know.

Speaker B: Did you file a disclosure form when you first were appointed? I have to—

Speaker C: I'm pretty sure I did.

Speaker B: Yeah, okay. So yeah, I'll have to look at it whether or not it's just the City Council has to update it annually if possible.

Speaker E: Okay.

Speaker B: I know, I mean, it's clear that you have to update it if things change.

Speaker F: Yeah.

Speaker B: But it may just be that you do it when you're first appointed.

Speaker F: Okay.

Speaker B: I know the City Council has to do it every year, but that may not actually apply to you. So, okay. Okay, again, any personal interest or investment which creates conflict between you and your public duties, is disclosed in this meeting, or, you know, in the next meeting, and you also disclose it in a sworn statement to the mayor. So again, we have that at the beginning of every meeting, any conflict of interest, and routinely people say no, 'cause that's usually the case. And yes, but in the event that somebody says yes, you would describe the conflict, you'd fill out the form, submit it, okay, and give it to Brandon. He'd make sure the mayor gets it.

Speaker D: Thank you.

Speaker E: Okay.

Speaker B: In addition to any criminal penalties that we've previously discussed, violation of disclosure requirements mandates expulsion from the Planning Commission. I mean, it seems pretty self-explanatory. Don't break the ethical rules. It also— if any action taken in violation of disclosure requirements could potentially— the action could potentially voided. So we just want to steer clear of any of that. So my advice is, when in doubt, disclose, disclose, disclose. I think that's the safest course. If you say, all right, you know, we have a rezone application, and, you know, my family member owns property in that area that's being rezoned. They don't really have any plans to do anything differently, but, you know, I mean, like, anything as innocuous as that, I would say that's probably not legally required to be disclosed, but, you know, so if you have any questions, should I disclose it or not, my advice is always just disclose it. I mean, anybody's gonna think, oh yeah, you know. If you disclose and you don't, strictly speaking, have to disclose, then you can still still vote if you want to, and we can have that discussion about whether or not disclosure is strictly speaking required, but you still wanna vote and participate 'cause that's your duty as a member of the Planning Commission. And that's fine, that does happen. But again, in that situation, I wouldn't think you would be required to disclose, in my opinion. So I would say you could still vote even if you disclosed it.

Speaker C: Yeah, I just had a follow-up question on that. So if you had, like, in an agenda, Somebody, as we're doing your conflict of interest, if somebody notes that they have a conflict for a particular item, what's the proceed— can they be part of the discussion, or—

Speaker B: So my preference is that if you think your answer to that question might be yes, is to contact me in advance of the meeting, and we can have a discussion not in a public setting.

Speaker C: Okay, the nature of—

Speaker B: Yeah, so we can have an attorney-client Okay. And about the issue.

Speaker C: Okay.

Speaker I: Is that—

Speaker C: I don't know if anybody's had a situation like that come up on—

Speaker F: So—

Speaker C: I've never had that situation come up on a meeting that I've attended, but it's good to know individually.

Speaker B: Yeah, I mean, if, for example, like something like UDOT comes in and they are doing something and it actually relates to your responsibilities with UDOT, then yeah. Okay.

Speaker F: Sounds good.

Speaker B: We'll have that discussion. Okay. Okay, so this is— now we're getting into city code. So again, here, this again, this is going to your question a little bit about siblings. But basically it says, for purposes of this chapter, an official has a conflict of interest if the official knows or has reason to know that the official or a parent of the official or the official's spouse, sibling, or other member of the same household, agent, principal, client, employer, or employee, is required to disclose a conflict of interest by the requirements of the Municipal Officers and Employees Ethics Act. And then adds additional requirements. So again, so getting back to the sibling question, under city code you would have to disclose. I think under state law you would have to as well. But there's a— it's, I think, crystal clear under city code. Code has an ownership interest in a business having matters under proper consideration. Has an ownership interest in property within Eagle Mountain City for which zoning, conditional use, or development approvals are under consideration. Represents as agent, professional services contractor, other advisor, individual, or organization under consideration before the Planning Commission. I'm seeing that I copied and pasted this from the city code. and it's driving me nuts because there's no Oxford comma.

Speaker D: But yes.

Speaker B: Has an ownership interest in a business or property that has been issued a business license, is a place of business, or otherwise operates a business offering or providing goods, products, or services in Eagle Mountain, or uses or develops property. So again, this is all kind of, I think, common sense. If you have a financial interest in something that has Or somebody that has business before the Planning Commission, then you should disclose and recuse. Again, if it's your primary residence and it's rezoned, that's an exception. But otherwise, if it's a rental property that's getting rezoned, then yes, you have to disclose that. It's a business that has whatever business before the Planning Commission. You have to disclose, and under our code, if you have to disclose, again, if you're required to disclose, then you have to recuse as well. So again, has an ownership interest in property other than that of a primary residence that might enjoy direct and immediate financial benefit or suffer direct economic harm by zoning, conditional use, or development approvals. So by even if the land is not actually owned by you. So for example. So if somebody wants to open up a gravel pit close to your residence, you know, 1,000 feet away, like the bare minimum away that it has to be, or somebody wants to open some sort of commercial business that might be considered, you know, something that would devalue your property, sexually oriented business, for example. Then, and it's not your primary residence, right, then that would— then you'd have to disclose and recuse. So you have a business next to this, you own a property that you, you know, whatever, in a business that's next to this sexually oriented business that wants approval, then your business is probably going to go down in value if that gets approved. So that would be an example, you know, but the reverse is also true. You know, you own a car repair business, and somebody wants approval of a car lot right next to it or something. Theoretically, you know, something that where there's some sort of synergy there. I don't know, that was just an example I came up with off the top of my head. But anywhere, you know, something where you're gonna get some sort of synergy from, for your business, where this other business, you know, that would be an example of where you would disclose and recuse. Yeah, so again, I mean, this next one is common sense, I hope. Has an agreement with the party seeking approval that would financially benefit the public official if such approval were granted. Okay, yeah, so that's a bribe, so don't do that. Hypothetical 1. Planning Commissioner A goes to a planning conference to receive training on his duties. Company 1 invites Planning Commissioner A A to dinner and pays. Company 1 has business before the Planning Commission. The cost of the Planning Commissioner's dinner is $40. Is this a violation of the Ethics Act?

Speaker F: No.

Speaker E: No.

Speaker B: That one's pretty easy. Again, without more, you know, if they're taking you to dinner every night for like a month, that's different than what we're talking about here. Again, hypothetical 2, it's the same facts except the dinner costs $75. Is this a violation of the Ethics Yes, maybe. I like your answer. As a lawyer, it depends is like my favorite thing to say. I would say it's probably not a violation, but you're outside the safe harbor. So I would recommend against doing that, because, you know, again, where do you draw the line? Is a $75 dinner a violation? Is that the type of thing that a reasonable person would not faithfully, you know, impartially discharge their duties as a planning commissioner? Probably not. Is $100 that number? $150? $200? Where's the number? I don't know. All I know is that the further we drift from $50, the more in trouble we're getting. So my advice is don't do it. Order something that costs less than $50 so that Brian will be correct. You're not violating— you know, that would be a violation for going over $75. You know, we don't want to even get— we don't want to get near that. So that's my advice.

Speaker F: Thank you.

Speaker B: Don't do it.

Speaker E: Okay.

Speaker B: Planning Commissioner B owns 25% of Company 2. Company B has business before the Planning Commission. Does Planning Commissioner B have any obligations under state or city ethics laws? If so, what are those obligations?

Speaker C: They have a part, they have an ownership in the business, so, but I can't remember I don't know if there was a 25% or 50%, but I mean, yeah, I would disclose it either way.

Speaker B: The language is substantial interest.

Speaker C: Okay.

Speaker B: So I would say 25% is substantial.

Speaker C: Okay.

Speaker B: So I would disclose it. Okay? And you should be disclosing that when you're appointed, before there's any business before the Planning Commission. On the night of the Planning Commission, you would then disclose it again when we say, do you have any conflict of interest? And you say, yes, I have conflict of interest on item 7A. And then you would recuse from that item.

Speaker E: Thank you.

Speaker B: Okay. All right. So now this is a new addition to our training, standards for civil discourse. We have not observed any issues here, thank goodness, but it is something to be trained on and is related to ethics. Okay, so this is from, direct from our city code. It is in the chapter on city council, but is applicable to, by its terms, elected officials, members of city boards and commissions, and employees in public, in any city public meetings. So that would include planning commissioners in a planning commission meeting. Okay, the following standards are intended to encourage and require Eagle Mountain City Members of city boards and commissions to meet obligations of civil discourse to each other and to the public and comply with the requirement of a statute that just says you need to create rules for standards of civil discourse. Elected officials, members of city boards and commissions, and employees are expected to make mutual and firm commitments to adhere to these standards. Okay. So what are they? Conduct and language that is condescending, uncivil, abrasive, abusive, hostile, or obstructive impedes the fundamental goal of participating in civil discourse and public processes and the rational, peaceful, and efficient resolution of decisions and is a violation of this standard. Such conduct tends to delay and often to deny resolution of issues in the public interest. So again, I have not observed an issue in the Planning Commission in relation to this. So, but it is something to be aware of that we should— again, I think this is common sense, but we should be civil in the way that we deal with each other, we deal with the public, we deal with staff, et cetera. Elected and appointed officials, and again, planning commissioners are appointed officials, and city employees should exhibit courtesy, candor, and cooperation in dealing with each other and the public and in the administration of the city. Yeah, I think that's pretty straightforward. So don't try to lie or deceive people. You know, so, and treat people with courtesy and respect. So elected officials, members of city boards and commissions, and employees shall not, without an adequate factual basis, attribute to other persons improper motives, purpose, or conduct. Each person affiliated— So again, that's, Again, don't call someone a liar unless you have the goods to back it up. So if you're gonna, you know, you can always assume that they just misunderstand or that they're wrong, not that they're intentionally fabricating things, unless you know that they are or have at least good evidence to suggest that they are. Each person affiliated with the city should avoid hostile, demeaning, Or humiliating conduct in words and written and oral communications. Neither written submissions nor oral statements or conduct should disparage the integrity, intelligence, morals, ethics, or personal behavior of others. Again, you know I think this is common sense kind of stuff. But again, I have not observed any issues in relation to this in the planning commission, so I wouldn't be you know too concerned. Just keep it in mind. You know again, we're going to. Treat people with respect, you know, courtesy, and I think everything else takes care of itself. So any questions?

Speaker C: Questions?

Speaker B: Okay, that's it.

Speaker I: Great.

Speaker C: Thank you, Marcus, for putting that together for us, and thanks for having some good comments and questions. It is 6:15. Next on our agenda Is just a preview of tonight's agenda. If we want to do that for a few minutes before we take a break, let's see. So tonight's agenda—I don't know. Oh, Vince, I oh, I don't know if there's anything that you want to. preemptively review for the 2 agenda items that you have for tonight's policy session, or if you just wanna wait until then.

Speaker G: Yeah, not necessarily, unless you have specific questions, but.

Speaker C: Okay. Commissioners, I would suggest we can wait to ask those questions during the policy session. Is that okay?

Speaker H: Yep.

Speaker C: All right, okay. I see the discussion item. I guess this is a discussion agenda number 8 on the agenda later. I guess we can just wait and have that discussion then. Is there—

Speaker I: That would be the best.

Speaker C: Is that a good time to do that? Okay, perfect. Okay, well, with that said, we'll go ahead and if there's no objections, we'll go ahead and end our working session and we'll start back promptly at 6:30. Okay, it is 6:30 PM on Tuesday, September 8th. We'll go ahead and welcome individuals for our Planning Commission meeting, our policy session. We'll go ahead and get started. And the— on our agenda, go ahead and if you'll stand with me and join in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Speaker B: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, 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.

Speaker C: Thank you for that. Well, next on our agenda item is our declaration of conflicts. We'll start with Commissioner Jensen.

Speaker E: None.

Speaker C: Commissioner DiCorsi.

Speaker K: None.

Speaker C: Commissioner Hess has none. Commissioner Strom.

Speaker K: None.

Speaker C: Commissioner Allen.

Speaker G: None.

Speaker C: Commissioner Fried.

Speaker J: None.

Speaker C: Okay. Next is a review of our August 25th Planning Commission meeting minutes. Any notes in your review that need to be pointed out or adjusted? Okay, I'll entertain a motion for those Planning Commission meetings minutes.

Speaker F: Chair, I move that we approve the August 25th, 2026 Planning Commission minutes as presented.

Speaker H: I'll second that.

Speaker C: Okay, we have a motion made for approval by Commissioner Allen, followed by a second by Commissioner Strong. Any discussion? Okay. We'll proceed with our vote. We'll start with Commissioner DiCorsi.

Speaker K: Yes.

Speaker C: Commissioner Hess is yes. Commissioner Strum?

Speaker I: Yes.

Speaker C: Commissioner Allen?

Speaker F: Yes.

Speaker C: And Commissioner Freeh?

Speaker J: Yes.

Speaker C: Okay, thank you. All right, um, next is a status report. Is there any, any status or any items that need to be mentioned from city staff?

Speaker A: Um, just a couple of things. We do have the APA Planning Conference this week. There's a few of you who have been registered for that. I did want to let you know of a few applications that, uh, kind of the outcome of a few applications that did come to the city council last week. The Gateway Park Phase 3 application was approved. That was the preliminary plat up by, and I always forget, I never can keep the name of this in my head, up by Spring Run Plaza A and B. So, and then there was, There was the Pinnacles rezone that was proposed to rezone the strip of commercial land on— what was that, on Aviator?

Speaker I: Aviator.

Speaker A: That failed. It was denied by the council. And then the retaining wall code also went forth, and that was, that was successful. It was approved by the council. So that's what I have for you today.

Speaker C: Thank you, Brandon, for those updates and for your staff and all they do. Next, our agenda item number 7 is our action advisory items. We'll go ahead and start with item 7A, a public hearing An ordinance for this Eagle Mountain, Utah— Eagle Mountain City updating the culinary water impact fee facility plan. This will be presented by City Engineer Vince Hoag.

Speaker G: Okay, hold on till I get the right screen up there.

Speaker B: Can we get full screen, whichever that is?

Speaker G: Sorry, technical difficulties here. I'm getting all my notes on the screen that you're seeing and getting the PowerPoint on my laptop here, so it should be swapped. See if I can figure that out.

Speaker B: Let's try that.

Speaker G: Still swapped. But I guess we can do it this way rather than delay, but—

Speaker B: Upwards is display settings. There we go. There you go.

Speaker G: Thank you. All right. Yeah, I'm here today to talk about the culinary water IFFP update. The update is from last year's 2025 version, which was the most recent version. In in the course of working at Eagle Mountain City, I've noticed that there's a lot of changes happening in the city. I'm sure you guys see it too, and change is happening fast. And so because of some of the changes that have happened, we've felt it was necessary to take that IFFP and do an update to it. There are several reasons for that. We'll get into more of the details here in a minute. One of the main reasons we started looking at doing an update to this was a new master plan. This is for the Talons Cove Spring Run area. Brandon was just talking about that. We're already getting commercial applications up in that area for development. You can see Walmart kind of in the lower left there and SR 73 on the south side of the map. This is all part of the mine that's up there that Hadco owns and runs. The plan is to eventually build this all out with commercial, institutional, and at this point it's It's all a master-planned area, but the assumption was when we did our original IFMP was that this project area was 30 years out or more before they would finish mining in that area and actually start building. But the reality is we're already getting applications in for kind of the south end and the west end that's not part of the mine itself that is part of this master plan. And so we— We thought, let's take a step back and include this area. It's a large area of land. Let's include it in our planning for the future. The next big piece of change was our SR-73 Central Utah Pipeline. This is a pipeline— Central Utah actually provides about half of our culinary water, and we have a contract to supply a lot more of our culinary water in the future. Our existing pipeline from central Utah comes up Pony Express from a pump station down right inside Saratoga Springs, and that one is basically at capacity at this point. And so if we want more of the central Utah water that we have contracted, we need a new pipeline. Now, up on 73, right on the east end of the kind of the blue line there, Central Utah has a big terminal, what they call their terminal reservoir, and I think it's 20 million gallons with room for expansion in that area. They pump water to there, and then it's the city's responsibility to take the water from there and get it the rest of the way into the city. And so part of that project will be a pump station there next to their reservoirs, and then the The blue line and the purple lines that you see are options for routes that that pipeline is going to take from that pump station into the city. As we did our 30% design, those costs came in. We had a cost in there in the original IFFP, but the more detailed cost estimate came in higher than we anticipated. Part of that was because we upsized the pipeline for additional future growth and the potential for additional Central Utah water if that ever comes available, so we only have to build this pipeline once and not have to run parallel lines. So we're we're looking to the future. We're planning for the future, but because of that, the cost came in higher. Okay, the other thing is that we have several wells that are under construction right now. We have a tank that's under construction. In the Scarlet Ridge area down south. And based on the pricing trends that we saw from those bids and from the contractors coming in and building those, we realized that the cost for future tanks and wells in this IFFP were a little on the low end. And so we decided to bump those up so that the impact fees that we would collect, which will be based on, on the IFFP cost estimates, would reflect the real-world costs. And then the bottom line for culinary water, and these numbers are different from what you saw, I think, if you looked at the original PowerPoint that was attached. I updated these numbers because they didn't reflect exactly what was in the plans, but these numbers do reflect now. So we went from about $73.2 million to $109.1 million just for the culinary water infrastructure over the next 5 years. So that's a big gap, which means the IFFP update was, was needed for sure. And the whole point of this is so that the new growth coming in, they'll pay the impact fees and those costs aren't put on the residents who are already here. They will be a cost to any new home that's built. And then with that, open it up for any questions you guys have.

Speaker J: Commissioner, is there a plan— let's say we don't have the growth. I mean, we probably will, but something happens and the growth slows way down and we don't have that growth to help pay for that that we need from those impact fees. Because maybe it slows way down due to COVID, another COVID or something, you know, happening. Is there a plan for how to, like, to fund that if we don't have those impact fees?

Speaker G: So yes and no. I mean, the— what happens if there's not as much growth as we anticipated typically means we don't have to build the projects as fast as we anticipated. Either, and so in the end it kind of balances out. It's not a one-to-one relationship. There's a lot of factors there, obviously, and getting the Central Utah into the city—it will need to happen, I think, either way. But yeah, they they do kind of balance out in the end. And then the rest of the question is probably more on the financial side, which I'm not as familiar with. But a lot of our bigger projects were were. Getting bonding for. And the bonding, kind of the backing for the bonding, they don't rely on the impact fees. They are actually looking at other income that's more consistent, such as our water rates and our sewer rates and those kind of things, to back that bond. And so, yeah, yeah.

Speaker C: Commissioner Strong.

Speaker H: Yeah, just more of a question. You said that they're pumping water into a reservoir, and then we have to pump it from the reservoir to here? Yes. Okay, and I assume they're pumping it out of a well, is that correct?

Speaker G: Uh, their sources vary. A lot of it comes from Deer Creek Reservoir and Provo River, and then a lot of it comes from wells, uh, in Orem and Vineyard area. Oh, okay.

Speaker H: I, I did see that it got over that far, so it could be coming out of The Strawberry Aqueduct or one of those places, right? Yep. OK.

Speaker C: Other questions for Vince at this time? OK. Thank you, Vince, for that presentation. This is a public hearing for this agenda item, so it is 6:43. We'll go ahead and open our public hearing for agenda item 7A. Anybody in the audience wishing to make comments for this item? Anything received online? Okay. All right. We will— let's go ahead and end the public hearing, seeing no comments. It is 6:43. And with the public hearing over, any discussion amongst the commission on this item? Commissioner DiCorsi.

Speaker K: Yeah, I just would like to kind of recognize or thank staff for being proactive and looking ahead at costs and hopefully taking into account, you know, a lot of future growth as we plan these projects. I don't think it's ever as painful the first time as it is to go back and try to do it once everything's built in. So I'm in favor of it.

Speaker H: Noted, thank you.

Speaker C: Any other discussion or questions? OK, if no further discussion, I'll entertain a motion on agenda item 7A.

Speaker F: Chair, I move that we forward a positive recommendation to City Council for item 7A as presented.

Speaker H: I'll second that.

Speaker C: Okay, okay, we have a motion presented by Commissioner Allen to forward a positive recommendation on this agenda item, followed by a second from Commissioner Strong. Any need for final discussion or clarification? Okay, hearing no further discussion, we'll go ahead and start the voting. I will begin the voting. Commissioner Hess is yes. Commissioner Strong?

Speaker I: Yes.

Speaker C: Commissioner Allen?

Speaker F: Yes.

Speaker C: Commissioner Fried?

Speaker J: Yes.

Speaker C: And Commissioner DiCorsi?

Speaker G: Yes.

Speaker C: Okay, thank you. That vote passes with 5 votes, um, or that motion passes with 5 votes. Okay, moving on to our next agenda item, 7B. Again, this will be presented, this is a public hearing as well, for wastewater master plan and the wastewater impact fee. Facility Plan, again presented by Vince Hoag, our city engineer.

Speaker G: So a note on this one, we did update our master plan in addition to the IFFP because there were enough changes on the wastewater side that we felt it was a good idea to do both. And so we're bringing both before you today. You'll see these slides are very similar to The ones we just went through, so similar reasons that we're going through this updating costs, adding additional areas. Again, Spring Run Talons Cove area. This one impacted the wastewater not just in that specific area, but it also required several upgrades in the the ranches parkway. Roadway to get the wastewater from here down to Pony Express. And all, all of this actually ends up in the Temponoga Special Service District treatment plant. And so yeah, there were, there were pretty significant changes that needed to happen because of this area in our existing system. This one, our wastewater treatment plant expansion, we're at 60% design on that. We're taking our wastewater treatment plant from 2.4 million gallons of treated water a day up to a capacity of 8 million gallons of treated water per day. So that's a significant increase. Again, that was in the original IFFP, but now that we've reached the 60% design, again with increasing costs, we thought, well, it's increased enough that we should go back to the master plan and IFFP. And update those there. The other part of that is our east trunk line, which this figure, it's a little hard to see because it's small, but on the far east side there's a red dotted line which is our east trunk line. That one is at a 30% design also. Our trunk line that currently goes down Pony Express right now is really close to being at capacity, and so any additional growth growth anywhere along Pony Express or on the north end of the city, it won't be able to tie into Pony Express. We, we need a new trunk line, and the best route for that trunk line we determined was on the east side of the city, and that will tie into that same wastewater treatment plant. But at 30% design, we updated the costs on that one too. And then same thing, not talking about wells and tanks like we were with culinary water, but just installation costs for sewer lines and those kind of things, updating pricing in general as those costs rise. And the bottom line on this way— on this one, and most of the jump in costs was our wastewater treatment plant as we refined that cost, but it went from $193 million to $259 million. Any questions on this one?

Speaker C: Questions for Vince from the commission? Commissioner Corsi.

Speaker K: I probably should have asked this on the first one. Talons Cove, I, I'm not familiar with that. I guess associated with Spring Run, that has nothing to do with the Talons Cove, like Saratoga Golf Course? It does not. Okay. It's just kind of a name that we have for that area.

Speaker G: I think that's the name of the pit, if I remember right.

Speaker K: Oh, right. Okay. I should know. Okay. Then as kind of a follow-up, it looked like maybe— is there a little bit of that area that's also within Saratoga Springs jurisdiction? And is there any coordination on sort of where that Wastewater or culinary water go?

Speaker G: Right. This development is right on the line between Eagle Mountain and Saratoga Springs, yes. And we have had discussions because there is a part on the northeast corner where it would actually flow easier as far as wastewater goes to go into the Saratoga Springs side than it would to the Eagle Mountain side. And so we've started some discussions. I think that part of it is far enough out in years that we have time to figure that out. But yeah, there will be a lot of coordination for transportation and possibly sewer and culinary water in that area.

Speaker K: Great, thank you. Yep.

Speaker C: Other questions? Okay. All right, thank you, Vince, for that presentation. This, again, this is a public hearing for agenda item 7B. We'll go at 6:50 PM. We'll go ahead and open that public hearing. Any individuals wishing to make comments? Any online or anything submitted through the website or anything like that? Okay. All right. Hearing no comments for the public hearing, we'll go ahead and end our public hearing at 6:51. And any discussion? Okay. Hearing no discussion, I will propose a— make a motion. I make a motion to forward a positive recommendation to City Council regarding Agenda Item 7B.

Speaker K: I'll second that.

Speaker C: Okay. Commissioner Hess, Made a motion to forward a positive recommendation on this agenda item, followed by a second from Commissioner DeCourcy. Any final questions? Okay, we'll proceed with our vote. We'll begin with Commissioner Strong. Yes. Commissioner Allen. Yes. Commissioner Freeh. Yes. Commissioner DeCourcy. Yes. And Commissioner Hess is yes. Okay, that Motion passes with 5 votes, and that ends our policy session or the act. Sorry, the action advisory item 7. Thank you for your time, and then we'll move to agenda item number 8: a discussion on agriculture rural lot large lot zone, and this will be presented by Robert.

Speaker I: Thank you, Chair. Chair and members of the Commission, you should have received today, I don't know if you had a chance to see it, a supplementary email that is an adjunct to the staff report, and it has within its confines simply a chart which I'm going to show you tonight again in this PowerPoint. The PowerPoint, as you received it, I might have noted in my report, I thought I did, but it didn't have quite everything as far as the historic zone Shown as slides within it, and I've got a few of those to add that I have added. Excuse me, to the to the PowerPoint you'll see. So finally, I don't know how many years it's been actively attempted, but at the table we have a discussion, as you noted, for the with the idea central to trying to add a zoning district to the Cedar Pass Ranch community. The best records that I could find once upon a time suggested that upon annexation originally of the project or the community, that no zoning assignment was actually given to it specifically. I couldn't find anything in the ordinance. I couldn't find any kind of mapped exhibits. That's been a long time ago. But others have struggled to try and identify the zone, if there was one, that was assigned to the project. The question mark being, well, was it ever given one or was it a carryover from the county's presumably RA-5 zone that one of our planners in office who worked at the county believes it to have been. We have in attendance tonight representatives from the community, from the HOA, and a committee that was put together to help craft or suggest ideas for the creation of a zone. The effort has been ongoing now for some months, and staff, I wish to give great credit to the persons seated in this chamber this evening and listening in, in the case of one, and others who had a central and strong role in trying to put together what they believed would be appropriate for their community to have in the way of zoning. Recognizing that in many instances in this city, large developments have been given their own set of standards, almost like planned unit developments by virtue of master development plans and associated agreements. The ranches being in this area characteristic of that, albeit that one's expired. You look at that plan, it was gigantic. It covered most of the northern part of the city at one time, and the agreement that went with it is about 328 pages long. This effort is something that we are hoping to get comment on tonight, especially of course the codes. Started with the historic zone, and then we were also given an understanding that it would be nice to have a zone that would be applicable to other parts of the city. So not only Cedar Pass, but could be used elsewhere if need be. Given the two different directions that that created, or vectors with this zoning effort, then in front of you this evening are both amendments as proposed: the historical and this agricultural rural large lot one that we have. As part of this discussion only recently been tackling, especially the committee's been tackling— excuse me. In any event, the idea is that the Commission could look at this, weigh in with some comments. This is not a decision-making effort this evening, but give suggestions to the Cedar Pass folks and staff on what kinds of things you think would be appropriate to maybe take away or add to or whatever. whatever you wish to voice. And ultimately, of course, as you know, past the point of this meeting and on to council, then this matter will come back to you, presumably in about October, for formal action, hearing, et cetera, and then on to council for the same. I think you already are well aware, of course, of where Cedar Pass is, and generally speaking, the magnitude to the project site. I keep calling it that, sorry. Too many site plans in the past. This is the chart that I'm gonna come back to in just a bit. In your packet, you had the agricultural large lot zone standards just for showing tonight. Here and here and so forth. And then I added after the packet was crafted this, that's extracted from the historic zone. And in so doing thought, well, easier than going through those slide by slide and to help guide the discussion, let's create a chart. So we're gonna go back to that. Compare and contrast. There are a few more differences than I thought originally. Also, I want to take time now to ask if you're okay with it, as kind of a co-presentation, to have those folks that are here or their designated representative rise to the rostrum and maybe introduce themselves and give a little backstory on their efforts and anything else they'd like to say about this adventure. And then I'll jump back in.

Speaker C: Uh, yeah, I don't— Commissioners, I don't think that's a problem. We okay that? Okay, sure.

Speaker D: Yeah. Well, good evening, Commissioners. I'm Dylan Anderson. Um, I've been in your seat. I was a commissioner in 2007, uh, 2017. So I appreciate all your efforts. When I was a commissioner, I was able to be a part of hearing developers come and give a presentation like this to try to bounce ideas off, to try to help in the process. And so as a part of this, my history with the city runs really deep because I came out here before there was a city. I came out here in '94 looking for property for my family, specifically for my wife who wanted horse property. And so my wife, Danae, had the vision that this would be a place that we would want to raise our family. And so Cedar Pass Ranch was the development before there was a city. And so fortunately we got in early and we were able to build our home in '99. So I've seen a lot of the growth. I've seen all the growth and the pains that we've gone through as a city. But we love it here and wouldn't change being here. When I am the HOA president and when we found out the situation with the zoning, And in conversation with Robert Hobbs, we felt like, how can we help in this process? And excited to learn, not knowing the challenge, but excited to learn that we could be a part of it. Then we discovered, wow, what a challenge. And so in order to work through this, we decided to pull together some really smart people within our subdivision who could help and know the history. And we put together a committee to help to do this. And the committee was John and Susan Morandi with Mayor Burningham, Jeff Myers, and myself, working sometimes weekly but monthly with Robert over a process of hardcore 10 months. But this has been almost 2 and a half years in the works. So this is hopefully finding a finish line in the process. Why don't you add a few things if you like, Susan?

Speaker E: Yeah, I just want to add that I think the intention of—

Speaker C: You can, yeah, if you'll step up, yeah.

Speaker E: Hi.

Speaker H: Tell us who you are.

Speaker E: Susan Morandi.

Speaker D: Okay, thanks. And how long have you been here?

Speaker E: How long have I been here?

Speaker K: Yeah.

Speaker E: 9 years. I've been in Eagle Mountain 9 years. now. So, um, it was— it started as part of the HOA process to— when we were years ago looking to rewrite— is when rewrite our CC&Rs is when we found out we weren't zoned. I did the research. I know we weren't zoned. So, um, and the city is kind of— we kind of worked with them trying to figure it out and A few years ago, we were approached and asked to help create zones, and it was— we were tasked with that, and we set up a committee to do it. And it was important for everybody to keep a zone with what the residents are currently doing now in Cedar Pass Ranch. So we were working along that process, and as we were nearing the end, then we were asked if we wouldn't mind sharing our zone language that we created to use in other parts of the city. And we're like, well, we're unique. We don't have the same things in other parts, you know, in our development that are going to be in other parts of the city, especially the equestrian component that— and the trails. That's pretty unique to Cedar Pass Ranch, and that's why people are there. So, so that's just a little bit of background that we We separated it out into the ARLL zone, and then we wanted to kind of keep ours more of a historical zone.

Speaker I: So, and that's where we're at today.

Speaker D: Yeah. So as we were reviewing this, I tell you, we sure learned a lot. Robert taught us a lot. City Attorney helped us work through a lot of the language. We actually looked through a lot of the city zones. that are our neighbors. The historical part we started to realize a few months ago was if you drive— we're a very young city. Where would our history be with our city? Well, it's in where our roots are. And our roots were Cedar Pass Ranch and the ranches and the master development plan. Which when I saw that, I was like, man, this is a grand plan. And wow, how many times did that change? I saw every change. And I have been here so many times to witness it. It was a great idea, but it had to be adapted over time. And when I think about, well, if you drive to Park City, there are some really strict zoning in Park City. You can't touch downtown Park City. You can't touch downtown Provo. You can't change a lot of the history of the older towns. And so here, I would hope that the city would be thinking, what are our roots? And I remember how Eagle Mountain City was advertised, and it was footage of Cedar Pass Ranch and the ranches. Please come where there's open space, where you can grow and you can have animals. And that was for years. It was pictures of all of our properties, which was great. But we feel like that's also the roots of the city. And so we would hope that what we work towards in recognizing it as a historical zone, that the Planning Commission, but also the city council members who we've actually spent a lot of time talking with them to get their input so that we could do a lot of the legwork, a lot of the hard processing. And so right towards the tail end, there was some discussion about, you know, other parts of the city are going to be developed where we would like to do large lots too. Can we take this language and use it there? We're like, well, do what you want with it. I think that's great, but still there are some significant differences, which is what Susan's referred to and which will— Robert's hopefully going to be able to go through those key differences so that you see the benefits of both. And we're willing to field any questions you have and try to help you through this.

Speaker C: Okay, do you— I guess at this point Just an open discussion between commissioners, or do you? Is there more that you want to get through to present before we ask questions?

Speaker I: Yes. Okay. Thank you, Chair, for that question. My aspiration is that we would do just as was kind of just noted, and be sort of a team approach. And I can present a little bit more, and then if there's discussion or questions that either parties, self, staff, or the co-applicants, if you will, could be involved in that Q&A, et cetera. And anecdotally, this is— it sounded like from what I've been told in the past when I started here that this effort has hit and miss over a long span of time, a few times. I don't know how many times. To get it to this stage finally is like crossing the Olympics, you know, little end ribbon tape in the 100-meter dash. So regardless of the outcome, our hope is that we'll get a recommendation that council will do something with this, that it won't fall by the wayside. That would be tragic. So now, in looking at this chart, I think the understanding that you heard was that it sounds like the Cedar Pass folks, by and large— and this was presented to them at an HOA meeting that they had back in May, as I know in Report would probably like to preserve the character of what they had run with this most of this time, which is the historic zone. But as need be, of course, would be open necessarily to what the city might decide if we go with, for example, this other ARLL zone. I'll call it for short. So starting at the top, these columns give you an indication that. There's kind of a different purpose statement, obviously, with each. We can kind of skip that, I suppose. But one of the— going down to the first yellow highlighted item on the left-hand side, the leftmost column under provision, there is a nonconforming lot threshold callout. And then there should also be down below that a size minimum for lots. One of the key issues in that project has been the desire of the residents, it sounds like to me, at least of the committee and the HOA, to preserve a 5-lot minimum, recognizing there are a few lots that are under that threshold that are necessarily grandfathered or legally nonconforming, as we would say, and that any future lots that would be derived from properties, if there are any ever, from existing Platted lots would be at least 5 acres in size and preserve 5 acres for the parent property. The contrasting ARLL zone suggestion is to allow for 3 acres as a minimum, and it grandfathers lots under 3 acres. And I don't know how much you want me to go over this verbally. Or if you want me to let you read, Chair, you might just define that for me here. But a couple of callouts that are of note: commercial equestrian operations are noted as being a special use opportunity in the historic zone, I'll call it. And bear in mind, as a reminder, which you know, but in case it's needing to be said, our special uses in code may or may not yet be entered or codified. There are special uses that are defined. There's a few standards, and there's some that are maybe referenced but aren't— there's no standards given to them. They're basically an allowed use as long as you meet these certain standards. They're kind of like the conditional use permit became in Utah some years ago versus other cities and states— other states, we'll say. Sorry. When it comes to the ARL zone, as noted there, that's a deleted provision or opportunity. In other words, it's prohibited. You get down to ag structures, et cetera, you have the opportunity for indoor riding arenas in the historic zone, except that it's omitted, disallowed basically from the RLL zone. Now there are some business opportunities the RLL zone allows for, adding farm stands and separate agricultural sales activities. And as it says, a special use path for commercial equestrian operations is not there. We have a little issue on the ARL zone language. It's called out on the top of that That's a column. But I wanna skip on down to something of more substance, basically. Storage and shipping containers. So the historic zone recognizes that there are some out there. I don't know how many, I haven't tried to inventory them. At least one. And that those can be allowed one at a time, looks like, per lot. But in the ARL zone, that's omitted as a subsection, basically getting your back to just not gonna allow for them. And so whatever's there could be grandfathered, and we can— bearing in mind, let me back up one quick step, I'm sorry. We have a legal nonconforming use section in our code, germane to any other city or county pretty much anymore. But it's pretty short. And at one time the goal was to revamp it, to give it a little more meat, if you will. I looked at what Provo had and other places. Theirs is pretty long and— excuse me— but it has a lot of good stuff to it, in it. But there's always been a desire from staff's point of view to make sure that anything that's out there that post the adoption of any of these items codes or anything else. That where people would like to apply for grandfather rights to say, we believe this was legal to begin with and we've carried it along all through this, this time period, and now that the zoning's changed, we'd like to have it recognized formally as being, quote, grandfathered, then we, using what our code is now or something better in the future, should be in a position to do that. We need to respect people's property rights. And so we would ask for any kind of information that they have to give us, and there's a laundry list to give you, like things that are commonly used for that. But, but we would then create a record, and maybe that's a, in the future, a free application that they go for, you know, and file online. But in any event, it would be something to protect them and their property rights, whether it's a situation or some other nonconformance. And then that's to the best of our knowledge. So if there were countervening evidence, it would come forward and we would factor that in someday. In any event, that's the goal, is to protect those rights. And so now some of these things you see being not allowed in one zone, perhaps if they are already existing, then that's something I'm saying publicly as a communication sort of right now, we would be interested in trying to help them preserve as a right. You have down below where I was just talking about the intermodal containers, jumping back to what we were discussing, sorry. We have the low-intensity home occupation use being referenced. Has right now a 12 nonresident round-trip vehicle trip per day standard. That's a discussion for another time with our home occupation code. In my mind would be the standards themselves. We've had some interest in modifying them a little bit for ag-type small businesses, if you will. But stuff like this, which is common for home occupations, is also something that's not easy to enforce. As you can imagine, we can do a stakeout. In this case, the ARL zone, for whatever reason, has that number deleted, but still gives the objective of having small-scale, low-intensity operations. Comparative similarities in animals and fencing to a certain extent and the desire to preserve the dark sky ordinance and keep natural habitat standards as listed in both codes the same on the books. Or proposed. Now, maybe the folks that are here would like to try and characterize farther some of the differences that they see between the two codes if they've had enough time to look at them. But the most significant policy changes are noted at the very bottom of this page in our view. Just to reiterate, the ARL draft that came late in the game. Converts the historic ordinance into a generally applicable rural large lot zone, as we've already talked about. Number two, it substantially lowers the minimum lot size framework. Three, it quote removes commercial equestrian operations as a special use and removes the objective twelve-hour trip threshold for limited equestrian use or twelve trip. And that's I got that wrong. That's for the lot. And it deletes the detailed shipping container similar.

Speaker H: I'm sorry, could you repeat that? I didn't—

Speaker I: Yeah, I'm just sorry I'm talking quietly because I'm tired, but it's just at the very bottom of the page with one little correction that should have been in there. Unfortunately, I can't read that. Oh, on your screen it's not presenting? Okay.

Speaker B: It's very small.

Speaker H: Very small.

Speaker I: Oh, well. Okay, let me try again. Sorry, I'll ramp up my energy a little bit. I don't know if I can actually blow it up on this overhead monitor thing, but so once again, significant changes or differences. You're going from historic characterization to a zone that favors other parts of the city if need be. Can be used there. Drops the minimum lot size down from 5 to 3 acres. Gets rid of commercial equestrian operations as a special use in the ARLL. Changes the home occupant standard a little bit, as we talked about a second— I mentioned a second ago. And deletes the opportunity for detailed— for shipping containers and semi-trailer storage regulations. Gets rid of the details on that. So those are some of the big ones besides the purpose statement. You know, in any event, I think that'll serve as an intro. Brandon, got a way to do it?

Speaker C: I guess questions for staff or the group?

Speaker J: Yeah, I've got a couple questions, things to think about. First of all, I mean, I'm interested what you guys like the most between those 2 plans or some kind of hybrid version of it. And then the other thing I was kind of thinking too is, am I kind of smart for the city since we're putting all this work into it to create an underlying zone that can be applied anywhere and then maybe put a historical overlay onto Cedar Pass Ranch that can be used just there so that we have something that we can use everywhere that we want to put larger lots? Because I know there's some— we have some planning or some people on the council that would love to see some larger lots mixed in with what the other stuff we have. And then then you have that opportunity to put that in place and still, still preserve a lot of that Cedar Pass Ranch. And then the other question I had too was, uh, I know there's been some thought, and I think Craig Whiting has said he's kind of in favor but doesn't like the idea but would support it, of putting like some large roads in there to get traffic through the city. And I don't think I like that idea, but where else do But I guess it was his thought on some locations that were being considered the best. So I don't know how that plays into the—

Speaker D: So your first question was, what do we like the most?

Speaker J: Yeah, like between these 2 plans, is there one that you kind of prefer or some kind of a hybrid of the 2 where we could do like an overlay?

Speaker D: Well, we're here to represent the historical zone.

Speaker J: Right.

Speaker D: I'm sorry, I'm the history. Um, when we learned that a lot of what— a lot of the language and the work that we did would be very applicable to a zone for the city, right, to use in future developments for maybe not 5-acre lots, but something a little bit more like a 2.5 or a 3-acre development.

Speaker I: Sure.

Speaker D: We were like, okay, great, yeah, do that. But some of the things that make us unique probably can't fit into a smaller lot.

Speaker J: Right.

Speaker D: Such as like, I mean, what's not really listed is the size of outbuildings that we do end up having. You wouldn't be able to fit those onto your smaller lots. Animal count would be different.

Speaker B: Right, for sure.

Speaker D: The shipping container thing, You wouldn't want those on the smaller lots. So go ahead, Susan.

Speaker E: The animal count thing, there are not animal limits in Cedar Pass.

Speaker C: If you'll step up, yeah.

Speaker E: Sorry. There's not animal limits in Cedar Pass Ranch, never have been. And the residents that we've talked to with exception of a few, don't want these limits. They've already— doing their operations without the limits. If we were subject to the ARLL, that is subject to the residential tables in the code.

Speaker C: Sure. Okay.

Speaker D: The table referring to the animals.

Speaker C: Yeah. And I think for the purpose of discussion today, let us— let's make sure there's 2 things being discussed, right? The historical district, which was in cooperation between staff and the HOA.

Speaker E: Correct. Yes.

Speaker C: As closely reflecting what was the intended approval of said development under the county. That's what I'm getting. And then, then as a natural reaction, out of that came the large lot potential zone, which reflects some aspects of the historic, but not in—

Speaker E: It doesn't accurately reflect what the residents are doing in Cedar Pass Ranch right now.

Speaker C: Gotcha. So my question for the city is, aren't large lots already approved under agriculture zone and the residential large lots? Aren't 5-acre lots already approved authorized under agriculture zones?

Speaker I: Yes.

Speaker C: As well as under residential zones, the large land use agriculture residential density 1, which includes— of course, this is a general question for either. Let me take a step back. In the recent past years, the city has taken an approach to amend existing developments to meet current zones, right? Rather than creating new zones for those unique situations. So in this case, the city is taking an approach to take— create a new zone for this HOA rather than having it meet One of the applicable zones, is that correct? Yes. Okay.

Speaker I: And the ag zone and the RA-1 both have a 5-acre minimum.

Speaker C: They do. Yes. So would if all the history aside, of course, we're not making light of the fact that it was developed or approved under county, got annexed to the city. But if if we were applying the same approach. As we've had on other recent attempts by the city to match zoning, would the parcels of the properties under the Cedar Pass meet the Ag Zone? Would that be the closest applicable current zone if we were applying it in the same manner rather than creating a new zone?

Speaker I: And Chair, if you look at the totality of the standards without doing a detailed analysis, probably so. Because again, the acre standard, as I already mentioned, as you said, between AG and the RA-1 jive with both historic zone that we're talking about tonight and the proposed ARL zone too. It's in the nuances of other details that are in the code that they have proposed that gives some distinction.

Speaker G: Sure.

Speaker I: they've wanted as a community. And to try and sell a generic zone that we have already to all the community members out there might or might not go over well.

Speaker F: Sure.

Speaker I: If this was a brand new area and it was just being developed now, then I could see the direction you're talking about. In this case, although it's not staff's decision, But there's at least, I think, room to propose something unique.

Speaker C: Commissioner Schum.

Speaker H: Yeah, I have a little bit of knowledge about this whole thing, so I've heard it for several years, and I think we're making a lot of good moves there. I do believe there is some validity in what you said. The agricultural zones that we have in AR-1 covers a lot of the things that we want to do. I understand where we're trying to do something unique, but there are 2 things that I don't like in the proposal, and I'll be just upfront with you. I hate special use permits. I don't think all that is is kicking the can down the road for somebody else to have to handle later. And I, especially in an agricultural area where people are putting a lot of money into facilities and things like that— Can I interrupt real quickly?

Speaker B: There's no such thing as a special use permit. That is a kind of a mixture of a conditional use permit—

Speaker H: Okay, I'm sorry.

Speaker B: Which relates to conditional use And a special use is just a permitted use that has additional special standards elsewhere in the code. So it's kind of like when you have a conditional use process, you can put, you know, conditions on granting a conditional use permit. A special use essentially says, here's our code, these are the conditions in advance.

Speaker D: Okay.

Speaker B: Without going through the process. So—

Speaker H: But that can change.

Speaker B: So that—

Speaker H: I mean, next year, different council, different—

Speaker B: Yes.

Speaker H: Planning Commission, they could come in and say, nope, we don't want to do that.

Speaker B: They could also do that with— even if they're permitted uses, they could remove it as a permitted use. So yes, a council could change the code in the future. They could adjust the standards in the future. That's the case no matter what.

Speaker H: Yeah, but especially—

Speaker B: If you're engaging in a nonconforming use, that's something different. But I just want to clarify that there's no such thing as a special use permit.

Speaker H: I said special use and I meant conditional use.

Speaker B: Yeah, so there's— they're not conditional uses. You know, you look at it, they're all special uses, which means there would be standards set out in the code that are understood in advance, just like any other standards you would see within the zoning that would apply for those particular special uses.

Speaker H: Well, and, and the thing I don't like about special use, conditional use, it's just like may or could or possible when we're doing Ordinances. They're too gray.

Speaker B: No, I don't agree. I think they're the same. There's no difference between a P and an S, except that with the S, there are additional rules that apply that are in the code. There's no difference between a P and an S. So if you're okay with a P, then an S is the same thing, except the standard— there's additional standards that apply to that particular S.

Speaker H: Okay. I'm still concerned, and I will stay that way.

Speaker B: I just want to clarify the law. I'm not advocating for or against any particular use. Sure. I want to clarify the law that permitted use and a special use are the same thing. Special use is just a term that we use to say that there are additional standards that apply in the code, and so you need to look to the special use chapter to see what those.

Speaker C: Okay.

Speaker B: Whereas a permitted use is just something that, all right, you're in this zone, it's permitted use. There's sometimes room for interpretation because, you know, based on the language used for permitted use, is something that is similar but maybe not quite the same, or maybe it is the same, does it apply? There's always going to be things like that that occur in the law. I wish I could tell you 100% of the time the law is 100% clear. I would be lying if I said that.

Speaker H: We know better than that. But okay, the other thing I don't like about this is you're treating a 2.5-acre lot just like a 10-acre lot. In our animal use, we've learned over the last 5 years that we started out going up to 3 acres, and then everything beyond 3 acres was treated the same. And we found that doesn't work, and we've made amendments to go to so many animals, and I'm referring to the animal use, so many animals per acre when you get beyond there. And so now you're telling the guy that has 10 acres that he has to abide to the same building site—

Speaker E: What?

Speaker H: The same building size, the same cover and structure. Let me finish. cover, structure, protection for their animals. But he can have more animals, but he can't have— he has to have this size building. And so I think I would feel better about it if it was just like the animal ordinances where the bigger the lot you get, the more animals you have, the bigger the building. And it doesn't have to be actually a bigger building, but it has to be more buildings, different size, different loafing sheds, different structures, so that you can take care of your animals correctly. Rather than trying to stuff them in a 2-acre box. 'Cause a 10,000-square-foot building on a 2.5-acre lot is big. Here's the thing. A 20,000-square-foot building on a 10-acre lot It's not a big deal. So those are the restrictions, the things that I don't agree with.

Speaker E: Can I—

Speaker H: And so, but now I'll let you answer my question.

Speaker E: I'm sorry, I just was wanting a clarification, 'cause I was— you're talking about 2.5 acres in the ARLL part? Yeah, that's— we're advocating for the historical zone. Which is the 5 acres or more that's not subject to those tables.

Speaker H: But you're still trying to restrict the building to 10—

Speaker B: Can you turn your mic on?

Speaker H: Oops, I'm sorry. You are still restricting the building to 10,000 square foot size and 15,000 total.

Speaker B: Correct.

Speaker H: And there are, in Cedar Pass Ranch, lots that are substantially bigger than 5 acres.

Speaker E: Correct, and currently there are 2 lots with existing buildings that are bigger than 15,000 square feet. And so, I mean, there are, but—

Speaker H: But they're probably on 5 acres.

Speaker B: They're on more than 5 acres.

Speaker H: And those buildings would be substantially, they'd look terrible on a 2.5-acre lot.

Speaker E: Correct. And that, but that standard is what we're, they're different in both. In the zones that we're proposing.

Speaker H: Okay, but you can see where I'm saying that there are 10-acre lots in Cedar Pass Ranch, or some that are close to that. There are some somewhere in between. And so all I'm suggesting is that we look at it and say, okay, you got a 2.5-acre lot, yeah, 10,000 square foot's a lot. You got a 10-acre lot, well, maybe 15,000's okay.

Speaker D: Okay, our—

Speaker H: And so that would be my only suggestion, and then actually set up a scale just like we do with the animals.

Speaker I: So a sliding scale is what you're talking about?

Speaker H: Yep.

Speaker D: Yeah.

Speaker E: That's a good suggestion. Thank you.

Speaker C: Commissioner Allen.

Speaker F: Yeah, just kind of going high level on this. I do agree with the background on it, like that Cedar Pass Ranch has a special history, and I think because of Cedar Pass Ranch, we have the Eagle Mountain we do today. It set the culture, it set the tone, it set the direction of the city. So I do think it's unique and should be preserved. So I do like the approach of a special historical district just for Cedar Pass Ranch. It's over 30 years old. Let's maintain that. The character's been established, so let's put that in stone, and then that will help maintain it in the future along with the HOA and other things. So I do like the approach here of that historical zone. I think you've got a lot of good stuff on here. here, I'm definitely very much in favor of. And then switching over to the ARLL, if the city does want to pursue this, I agree with Commissioner Hess that it seems like it's very close to the RA-1 zone. So if we're going to create a new zone, I think we should be very careful in building that out and be very— do it very purposefully, right? So like the 2.5-acre thing, the minimum, I don't like that. I think bump that to a 5. Basically a special RA-1 zone. We could choose where in the city we want this to be, like a little brother to Cedar Pass Ranch somewhere, right, where we're going to be very careful in saying, hey, we want this to be another equestrian center. Here's the special uses. So if this does come back, Rob, and we're doing the ARLL for other portions of the city— again, I like the historical zone for Cedar Pass Ranch, but if the city wants to apply the ARLL in other portions of the city, I would like to have a comparison between it and the existing rural agricultural zones. Because again, if we're going to make a new zone, let's make sure it's different enough and has a purpose, which again, I think we could do another equestrian-type zone. We're going to be careful about where we put it and do it very purposefully. So thanks.

Speaker C: Did you have a— Commissioner DiCorsi?

Speaker K: Yeah, I largely agree with Commissioner Hess. I think Or sorry, Commissioner Hess and Commissioner Allen. Chair Hess, sorry, I'll get this right someday. In terms of the applicability of an ARLL, but being very thoughtful about how it fits into the existing framework. On the historical zone itself, I guess I wonder if a little more thought needs to be put into where this feels like HOA type enforcement as opposed to city code. I don't know, maybe it's—

Speaker D: And we can speak to that.

Speaker E: We can speak to that. Go ahead.

Speaker K: I mean, does this mirror pretty much the CC&Rs or the HOA? Does it mirror some of them?

Speaker D: No. And we can get you a copy of our covenants that we have because we are able to be more restrictive than the city, and we are. And it's to try to help just preserve what we have.

Speaker K: Got it.

Speaker D: And then we do— and then we try to do what we can on our monitoring and enforcement of those CC&Rs.

Speaker K: Yeah.

Speaker D: So we're not asking the city to come in and police our CC&Rs.

Speaker K: Yeah. Okay. I mean, there were mostly— I think it was okay. A few of them, maybe the vehicle trips per day, like that seemed seems like a hard one for the city to monitor. I think I've seen— I mean, there's at least one lot that's on the— on SR 73 that looks like it's a commercial, like, parking lot. I don't know, for lack of a better word, like vehicles like crazy.

Speaker D: And go ahead.

Speaker E: And that's part of the reason why we have been trying to cooperate with the city is because we do have an enforcement issue in Cedar Pass Ranch with the city that we have been told by code enforcement officers in the city, that they will not enforce anything in our area because we have no zoning.

Speaker K: Yeah, so it's an HOA or CDR issue.

Speaker D: The enforcement part being if something starts to become commercial.

Speaker E: And—

Speaker D: The city needs to—

Speaker E: I mean, that's kind of how it started. That's part of the history. Whether it's true or not is not for us to debate today, right? But that's kind of where we were coming from as a committee working with the city to— in a collaborative effort.

Speaker I: Yeah, sure.

Speaker K: That makes sense. I think just in wrapping up, I would say I hope that we can come to something that doesn't feel like the city is creating an HOA.

Speaker I: Chair?

Speaker G: Yeah.

Speaker I: Can I? A couple of points. So to that question a bit, initially it was voiced that the idea with this was to create a skeletal code and to allow the HOA to, to suggest what they wanted to, but to not go down the path you're talking about. But I will note what they just said and maybe reiterate it. The city's understanding of enforcing anything out there in the way of city code, any city code right now, for the most part, at least zoning stuff, is that we can't because there's not a zone assigned to the property. There are some generic things we can deal with, of course, that are outboard of maybe Title 17. But certain things, you know, the understanding is no until we get something passed for them, whatever it is, whether it's something custom or it's generic to the code already.

Speaker C: Commissioner Schronce.

Speaker H: Going to Commissioner Hess's comment, though, if we use— either way we go, we get a zoning, whether it's the historical Or it's an AR-1 that we've got on the books right now, that would fix that problem.

Speaker I: Yes, whether we— like you said, to repeat, whether it's historic as proposed, whether it's the ARL as a last-minute sideline opportunity, or if it's just a standard code that we have now, zoning, I mean, RA-1 or Ag or whatever, one of those 3, then yeah.

Speaker C: Yeah.

Speaker I: It gives something there for—

Speaker H: And then a comment, or just a question for you two. I know since I've been in the middle of this for several years, I know we have HOA CC&Rs right now, and we have proposed new CC&Rs, correct?

Speaker D: Correct.

Speaker H: And the new CC&Rs would help fix a lot of the HOA problems enforcement, correct?

Speaker D: That and get us current with state law.

Speaker H: And get current with state law, yeah. So at that point, it would help— the new CC&Rs would help do what you want to do with some limitations. It would help.

Speaker D: It would help.

Speaker H: The old CC&Rs, quite frankly, probably are hard to enforce because a lot of it's illegal. Right now. It's outdated. Maybe that's a better word. Is that correct?

Speaker D: Yeah, it is. So I was, I was HOA president in 2022 when I did the rewrite because those CC&Rs came from Colorado.

Speaker I: Yeah.

Speaker D: And so we made them applicable in 2002. Did I say '22? 2002. Now it's been 24 or 25 years and we got to get current with state code. And so we're in that process. We hope to accomplish that here in the next short, short few months because a lot of the work has already been done because it got started 2, 3 years ago of doing a rewrite. So yes, for us to be able to do enforcement on our end, absolutely, it's going to be helpful. We have made progress with that corner lot. I don't know if you've noticed, but there's been improvement in the past 3 Yeah. Because I told him, you cannot have commercial here. The city needs to come here also and say, you cannot have commercial here.

Speaker E: I also think there's a— want to reiterate that our CC&Rs can be restrict— be more restrictive than our code. And I think there's enough differences in what we're asking for to keep it separate from our HOA Because we don't want this— we're not asking you to monitor or police our HOA, no. But we do want a code that reflects what the residents have been doing there, that the city can, one, for help for enforcement, and two, it helps the residents, you know, solidify in their mind that they're— we're not going to have another civil war in our neighborhood. Because we really We really don't want that.

Speaker H: Yeah. Just one more, and, and I understand the concerns very well, really, really well.

Speaker I: Yeah.

Speaker H: Uh, and, and I think what you're trying to do is separate the agricultural use, which is our history.

Speaker B: Correct.

Speaker H: Versus the commercial use, which is people coming in with their excavators and and all their equipment and putting a big building up and getting a commercial lot for half the price of a commercial lot.

Speaker E: I think it's more than just that though. I mean, that is one component. I think we want to— the feedback that we received was the residents want to stay agricultural and they do not want to be considered residential with an agricultural component. They want to be Agricultural. That's what the feedback has been, and that's what we're trying to stay.

Speaker H: And you're absolutely right. Everything I've heard has been the same thing. They don't want to be residential.

Speaker E: Correct.

Speaker H: So, right. Okay, thanks.

Speaker C: No, I, I guess just without knowing obviously all the history, but just going off a recent zoning and what we've been doing, I can see a benefit of having a historic zone that matches the uses that have occurred in that particular site that you want to maintain. You know, Robert presented, you know, the process by which those things are grandfathered in. They're not going to change, even whether the zone changes. Those were— some of those were allowed. My fundamental question is, Robert, in your process of working on this, how does the requirement shown in the historical zone compare to just the agriculture zone? The 5-acre minimum lots, it precludes commercial. I haven't done a full depth here, but instead of creating a separate zone, How would this line up with just the agriculture zone, knowing that all of those lots that have been created historically, those are going to be conforming, right? But moving forward for new developments or new things, you would have that limitation. That would be my fundamental technical question for the city.

Speaker I: All right, well, let me start with a preface to that and understand that The RA-5 zone paperwork that we had in office printed off the internet from the county's website, which even though it has RA as its acronym or abbreviation in the title, is really, as it says in the county zone and as was expressed a second ago, flavored towards agricultural first with a side component or accessory kind of component of residential. So that was handed to the applicants as the presumptive zone that they were still maybe under, or at least were in the county.

Speaker C: In the county, but not—

Speaker I: Plus the Ag Zone was given to them.

Speaker C: The 1720.

Speaker I: Plus the RA-1 was given to them, if I recall correctly.

Speaker C: Oh, okay.

Speaker I: So that was the basis of some of the discussions, like, here's this.

Speaker C: Here's a starting point.

Speaker I: Here's a starting point, and let's do a skeletonized version. That draft zone code was very simple, was given to them as well to start fleshing out. And I didn't have the time to do an absolute comparison, but I'll show you one thing. Look at this. Now I've got the ARL table up. I guess I could move to the— let's see, see if I can get—

Speaker C: And your ARLL is proposed, but it's not shown anywhere currently on the code.

Speaker I: It's the— all along it was the historic zone that was proposed. And by the way, don't forget we have that Historic chapter that was added in the code to deal with unique situations to include historic question marks. So that was the march that we you know that was the the effort that was underway was to create something like that, right? And then towards the end of that process, not that long ago, it was suggested to staff that. There ought to be consideration for this other zone as well, to maybe be used or usable for other areas in the city. So that information was transmitted back to the HOA group and committee, and they kindly took what they had with guiding principles and crafted and created this ARL zone. And so you have the two, in a sense, competing, obvious preference given to one. By most, but there's still reason to consider the other, right? And we're just laying on the table for you. Or as was already mentioned tonight, maybe there's one of the existing city zones that's used for this instead. Maybe not preferable in the minds of many, but in any event, some kind of zoning has to be given over that property, whatever it is that's appropriate. Now, one key difference I can show you readily to answer your question about some of that in the way of what's distinct. Look at this land use chart that is part and parcel to the newly proposed— I pulled up the historic zone instead of the other one. Notice the entries in it. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 different line entries. And now look at the egg zone. A lot more callouts, and a lot of them not even relevant. Look at hog or poultry farm. Great, it's not allowed as the use. Okay, not allowed in the other proposed zone, but not even needful. They're not going to have that. In all likelihood, in their community, right? At this juncture, so there's one. The animals are described to be similar. The animals out there, the quantity and the types are treated as the same as with an ag zone. So in that case, that beckons back to your point: that's similar. And if you want, I could always run a comparable if we wanted to belay what goes to council as a. you know, working set of documents and come back to you guys for further comment. It just delays things a bit. But we could also make that part and parcel of what happens as we bring this back for formal review at a public hearing setting. In any event, as you please.

Speaker C: Okay. Commissioner Strong?

Speaker H: Just one comment. I know how much work you put into this, and I— a lot of people put into this, and I really appreciate that, 'cause I know it's been a tough one, and unfortunately, there's a lack of documentation, and things happening over the last 20-plus years. And so, you ought to get a badge for taking this one on, I guess is the best way to put it.

Speaker I: Well, a lot of people should.

Speaker C: Okay, any other questions for staff or our group presentation for individuals?

Speaker J: Just a question. I think I might know the answer, but is there anything that can be done to, I mean, maybe give this new ordinance some teeth that help protect it against somebody coming in and just finding a few buyers, sellers who are willing to sell, maybe they're retiring, whatever, and then they grab that land and They convince a few council members to vote and change the zoning, and then they start developing their large apartments in 20 years, you know, or whatever they want to do because they're right there by the freeway, by the new freeway, you know, and all that kind of thing.

Speaker B: Sure.

Speaker J: So just when—

Speaker D: and buying and doing what?

Speaker J: Well, yes, all the time in cities people go buy land and then work on getting it rezoned and to develop, you know, and that kind of thing. And in a growing city, that's It's very common to see that people try to go that route. I mean, they may or may not be successful, but they'll definitely try. And I don't know if there's anything we can put into the new zone to kind of help protect against that happening.

Speaker D: Certainly. I appreciate your concerns about that because that has been on our mind from almost from day one. Our CC&Rs prohibit subdividing. You cannot be Any smaller. We made one exception to a 10-acre lot a number of years ago so that they so it could be more usable, but that was the only exception. But you cannot subdivide. Back to trying to help protect. Back in 2005. Alpine School District wanted to come into Cedar Pass Ranch and tear down 2 houses to build an elementary school. And we were fortunate enough to be able to send Brett Wright and my wife and present to Alpine School District what is Cedar Pass Ranch and educate them. And one of the big things was there was so much open space. Is there not room for a school somewhere where there's open space? Why do you have to come into Cedar Pass and tear down two houses? And by the way, we don't have any sidewalks. We don't have any protection for our children who live outside of the busing distance. We also have 276 horses. We have, I mean, and so the protections. Yes, we've had a lot of challenges of people thinking, oh, this would be a good fit for Cedar Patch Ranch, but it hasn't been. We've had a group home try to come in. And so I appreciate your comments on that. Yeah, and I think— There's future concerns too about how do— how does the city maybe help maintain the roads that we have? because they're country roads.

Speaker J: Sure.

Speaker D: And we don't have a really good way to put future sidewalks in. And then the sides of our roads, the side grass or whatever it is, is where we often have our people do when they're walking or riding their horses.

Speaker J: Yeah, and maybe that's where we could consider something of like tying it in with an existing zone to put in the things that you guys have created.

Speaker C: I think those are— yeah, those are starting to get a little complicated.

Speaker I: Yeah, well, I think I might paraphrase, uh, our counselor, and if he gets— if I get this wrong, he'll of course correct me. But we've heard legal counsel say something to the effect that we can't bind this council we have now, and yourselves of course can't bind a future council. So through the regular process of say, a code amendment and possibly rezoning had to go with it, maybe something could change. But as you just heard, as you remember, HOA covenants are contracts. You buy into that contract when you buy property. So they can be amended too. But it's probably more difficult most of the time to do that.

Speaker E: Commissioner Jensen. I would imagine, and it's a question, if we're designating it more as a historical zone, it would provide the protections against people coming in to develop, doesn't it? Wouldn't it? Not necessarily.

Speaker I: It's not that kind.

Speaker D: Over what specifically?

Speaker E: Over someone coming in to develop. To develop and, like, grandma and grandpa pass away, they give it to the kids, the kids sell it for development. If it is a historical zone—

Speaker D: I think at this point it would have to be Eagle Mountain City coming in and doing eminent domain in order to see a need to do something different with that land. A developer right now— Cannot come in. Cannot. But if it's designated historical, they can't ever.

Speaker C: Well, yeah, I think a couple things. They have HOA covenants that obviously control— have control over the majority of the issue. The lacking support from the city is the zoning. And we can't preclude any piece of property from the possibility of a potential rezoning of any type. In any future time frame, right? Yes. Not that that would— that's not necessarily the intent. Hopefully it's helping to, to, you know, make it clear. But in the future, who knows what anybody would do on a piece of property that's interested in buying it. HOA covenants, a new zone, or, or a rezoning zone would, would provide direction to that as well, but it doesn't preclude Anybody?

Speaker I: Chair, that's correct. It's, it's the labeling of historic is a little bit different in this manner than what you may be thinking of, Commissioner, with, for example, historic downtown areas or special residential areas where they have some very strict standards. You can't even change your shingles in some places without getting approval. But even in those cases, the code can be changed to change that up. It might not be easy. It depends on a lot of decision makers' personalities and what they have on the books that they want to try and follow in the spirit of law, all that stuff. I mean, there's all kinds of things about that. But in this case, it's not that. Yeah.

Speaker D: You know, and as we come together with the zoning, and is there an instance where we really need the city's help? It would be where the city has more teeth than what we do. And we had that 15 years ago. We had somebody take their lot and start mining on it and selling off what they were scraping off of their hillside. But the city couldn't— Edwood didn't have the ability to do anything. And so in our little means, we gave them a fine and we fine them every month. But they were making money on top of us. And so this would allow the city to be able to come in, and if there was something really egregious, you would have more teeth to it than us with a small little fine.

Speaker C: Commissioner Strong?

Speaker H: Yeah, just was just thinking, you know, we've got— we're looking at an agricultural historical site or code. And we're looking at an agricultural AR-1 code. Is there anything we could take from the historical code to take a look at our standard agricultural and say, maybe some of that would not be bad in, or marry the two, use some of the, 'cause there's, we've got lots up along the hillside there, we've got 'em down I know there are some over on the west side that are agricultural, equestrian-type places, and maybe it would help enhance the agricultural code a little.

Speaker I: Well, Chair and Commissioner, if we're talking about the historic zones chapter in Title 17, it sounds like that's what you're referencing. Having largely authored that, I can tell you that that was intended to be a band-aid all along. It's there to factor in the problem that we have old zones that were referenced in master development agreements and on our books in some cases that are no longer there, no longer in our books. And so it allowed for us to create equivalencies such that if someone had a question about— a zoning question about their property, instead of trying to make up an answer and say, well, your property is like unto this zone that we still have on our books, it's current, and so we're going to apply that to you. Now what that new language allowed us to do was to say, actually, we are allowed to make that decision formally and treat you that way without having to just pull it out of a hat. And some zones were shown in there as being like unto, you know, this zone or that zone. And there are others that we get to make a distinction on. If we can't— if it's not clear, staff gets to make that call, appealable, of course. So in the text of it, other than maybe, like we've already talked about, drawing off another zone like the RA-1 or the Ag or something and saying that's close to this, there's nothing else to that that would make that kind of enhancement that you're talking about.

Speaker H: Okay. I think your comment about maybe putting those side by side so we can compare those 2 would help me understand a little better. So that's probably a good idea.

Speaker C: Okay, good discussion. I guess it's always, you know, the eye of the beholder, the profitability of the discussion. But I don't know if the purpose, if we're trying to reach a particular particular outcome with our discussion today? Are you seeking some particular recommendations from us or just—

Speaker B: It's just a discussion at this point. Just a discussion, yeah.

Speaker C: Yeah, no, no, I'm not talking about anything official, but like if we, you know, if we said, hey, why don't we compare these 2, the other 2 closely related questions.

Speaker I: I think what we've done is synthesize through all this some salient talking points or things that you've offered up, concerns, pros, cons, that kind Okay. That then those involved in drafting this code and bringing it forward to the city, this cooperative effort, can react to in one of two ways. Either embed that material or change things a little bit and then bring it back here, for example, if the time delay is okay with all the parties involved, or advance it forward and just say to council, like, here's the situation, kind of like done tonight. And then, by the way, here are some thoughts that the commission had. They're going to see that anyway, probably, if they look at the meeting minutes, you know, the audiovisual.

Speaker C: Okay, 'cause eventually the— similar to what we did, what the city did for the most recent rezone, I can't remember the name of it. Scenic, is it Scenic Mountain? That was the most recent one where we, You know, it was simple because we had a really known, very close-related zones. And we— but you have to— you have to public notice it, right? And you have to say, hey, we're officially, you know, changing these zones on each of these parcels to match this. So that's the point that eventually we'll get to here.

Speaker I: Correct.

Speaker C: The goal. And so the goal is to Option one, get the Cedar Pass Ranch historical zone through the proper channels to be part of the codified. Then you would proceed with that approach. The other option is you you would have to either amend it, continue to amending it back and forth to get to some agreeable spot between the city and the HOA or or residents of the the neighborhood or take the other approach of trying to put them into a related zone so that you could get underlying zone. Okay.

Speaker I: Chair, that's correct.

Speaker D: Yeah, okay.

Speaker I: First comes the code, however it gets there, or else a city existing code. And then yes, rezoning like if we do Cedar Mountain.

Speaker C: Okay.

Speaker I: After the fact.

Speaker J: Okay.

Speaker C: All right, Brandon has a question.

Speaker I: Uh, yeah, I just—

Speaker A: Rob's done a great job working on this with, with the app— with the, uh, citizens. One thing I don't want to do, one thing I don't want to see happen is I think we really need to focus on this his agriculture, the, the Cedar Pass Ranch Historical Zone, and not get caught Off, you know, go off on tangents on on this or that thing. I think we can come back to them after the fact, after we get the zone passed. But I I'm even concerned about even trying to do the ARLL zone at the same time. I just think that there's been so much work and it's taken a long time to get momentum going. I don't want to see that stopped. Let's just get the zone done and we. Come back to, to, uh, the other things that we've, we've discussed.

Speaker C: So I would probably— I won't speak for all the commissioners here, this is just my personal, um, thought— is, is the ARLL I think could clearly wait. You know, it's a little confusing reviewing it. I don't know if everybody, all the commissioners understood that very well, but to address the very particular need of the proposed historic district or zone. So any other final thoughts from the Commission? OK, again, thank you everyone for your time, for the work that you're putting into this. We appreciate that. And that will end our agenda item for the discussion. With that, there Our next meeting is— someone's going to find the calendar before me— the 22nd. Anybody aware, Commission, if you will be out of town on the 22nd?

Speaker H: I probably won't be here.

Speaker C: Okay. I'll be out of town. You'll be out of town? Okay. All right. Okay. So just if anything changes for the rest of us, let me know ahead of time. Okay. With that, our final agenda item is adjourn. I'll entertain a motion to adjourn.

Speaker A: Oh, sorry, Brandon, just one quick question. Um, just bringing this back to your attention, went out to Meta today on a tour. Any interest? I know I had a couple of the commission members respond back to me. Just wanting to, I guess, do a quick check with you to see if you're— if the council's interest or the Commission's interest in going out to Meta for a tour. It's up to you. We can do it. We talked about maybe October or November. It would be an hour and a half type thing.

Speaker H: I would be interested in it.

Speaker A: Is there anybody that's not interested in doing something like that?

Speaker C: I would probably be interested, depending on the time.

Speaker B: Yeah, I would be interested.

Speaker C: I don't want you to change the schedule to meet my schedule, but—

Speaker A: Sure.

Speaker D: You know.

Speaker A: One thought we could do is— anyway, well, we'll figure out the logistics. I think we could— it's gonna have to be some type of public meeting.

Speaker C: Yeah, you— yeah.

Speaker A: So we'll work that out, but I'll let them know that there is interest in doing it. I understand that work is an issue, so.

Speaker C: Great, thank you, Brandon. Okay, I make a motion that we adjourn our meeting at 8:03.

Speaker F: Second.

Speaker C: Okay, all in favor?

Speaker K: Aye.

Speaker H: Thank you.