Transcript — Eagle Mountain Planning Commission, 13 October 2026

Speaker A: Okay, welcome to this evening's Planning Commission meeting. We'll start our discussion Um, our discussion items today will be a presentation provided by David Stroud for Deer Run concept plan. I will, before we get started, just like to formally recognize that Jason Allen is not available. I'd like to congratulate him and his family. They had their baby this morning, so congratulations to him. And right now I don't know if Commissioner Jensen will be joining us, but for For now, during our discussion items, we'll proceed.

Speaker B: Okay.

Speaker A: Switch over here.

Speaker C: Yeah, can you get us switched over on the screen, please?

Speaker D: It should be switched. You might have to drag it over.

Speaker C: I am. It's not, it's not, it's not going over to it. Oh, sorry, I need to plug in. It's been a long day.

Speaker A: It was a hardware issue, not necessarily a software—

Speaker C: It wasn't a user issue, it was a hardware issue.

Speaker A: Soon it'll all be connected. You want to think about—

Speaker D: yeah.

Speaker B: Yes.

Speaker C: All right, this is a concept plan to be reviewed from Ivory Homes. This should look familiar to you. You saw it a few months ago as well. And so obviously went— did go to the City Council, some changes, some discussion with City Council. So we're going to bring it back to you to take a look at it. Just again, the idea where it's located, just on the north side of 73. The road going north, that is the newly constructed by Ivory, the Airport Road extension up there. That's about 62, 61, 62 acres you see there in yellow. Zoning of the property is foothill residential, so that is the code that they are proposing to develop under. And the concept plan you see here, fairly similar to what it was in the past. There was some previous discussion at the last meeting if you recall, on the wildlife corridor. And I think that was probably the biggest discussion we had on that. So they have set aside wildlife corridor property there. Again, about 61 acres, total of 93 lots. Getting some feedback here. And open space, some detention, that sort of thing. In the FR zone, quarter-acre minimum lot size, half-acre. Average lot size, all lots do meet that. There were a few from the last review, or the resubmittal, they had to increase the frontage on a few of the cul-de-sac lots. Up there just off of that top right corner of the tabulation table, you see that dark line, that's a connection, a mid-block connection due to the length of that block. It was about 30 feet over, kind of ticky-tack, but it is, it was 30 feet over. And so we said we need to put a mid-block connection in there, so that will connect to that property you see there. Should this development go through, I know Ivory has mentioned, Brad did mention, whether it means that Ivory is looking for that additional property there as well to develop also. But proposal right now follows the FR zone.

Speaker B: Yeah.

Speaker C: So I'll leave it open to your comments and your questions. And the applicant is here.

Speaker A: Yeah, David, do you, if you feel comfortable, would you share with the commission recent comments or recommendations or suggestions by council on this that may have led to— is this the clean version or were there previous comments?

Speaker C: No, this is based on what the council mentioned. There was, if you do recall, if you look at Airport Road there, I don't know if I can go back, it doesn't, see if it shows it. So on this, you see where Airport Road runs to the north, hits that red east-west border there, Those two segments, those two parcels you see right there, those are owned by the city. Those were in the original concept plan. Maybe there was some miscommunication between the council and the applicant, but Steve Mumford had given some comments. Steve here, no, had given some comments on this to me today that he he thought that the council did not want those taken out, those two parcels. They are now leased as far as this concept plan goes. The issue that does come up with those 2 parcels is access. Due to the nature of what those roads are classified as, you cannot have direct access for an individual lot onto those rights-of-way.

Speaker A: Which parcels on this one are you referring to? Are they within the—

Speaker C: You look on this, these 2 right here, if you look on the left screen.

Speaker A: So these are— That are beyond the proposed concept. Yeah, yeah, those are both owned by the city.

Speaker C: By the city. I think the one on the right could probably be handled by putting in a knuckle, you know, a pseudo cul-de-sac if you wanna call it. I think that leaves enough room there. That frontage I wanna say is about 250 feet, maybe 300. The one on the left, the more triangular-shaped one, that could, obviously the curved road on the north, Airport Road on the right, on the east, cannot access. And again, it could, my thought was potentially a development agreement could say, well, let's serve this by a private drive. You may probably could get 2 lots there, I would think. Could we do a shared driveway? Possibly. I mean, just some thoughts that had run through my head. If not, or we, the council ultimately could tell the applicant, put those back in into your plan. We've seen in the past, one issue that does come up is potentially one of the cul-de-sacs could be too deep. Again, there probably could be some provisions to relax that through an agreement.

Speaker B: Mm-hmm.

Speaker C: Potentially would need some fire department input as well, but I think there there could be some options for that. But until we get to the council, not not certain at this time what the status of those two parcels. Everything else is meeting code. The applicant there are some things that will go into the development agreement that will be specific to this development itself. You recall there was the discussion of the creek bed, the drainage. The applicant, the way the plat is drawn up, the drainage area, the wash, would be fully contained within the lots. It would not be under city control. There are some, the applicant does want to request a reduced setback to the wash. Right now it's 50 feet or 75 from the centerline of the wash, whichever's greater. The applicant wants to request a 20-foot setback from the top of the wash. That would be in the agreement. But overall, the way the plat is set up, yes, it meets the FR, Foothill Residential Zone standards.

Speaker A: Okay, I have some— any questions? We're here just to have a discuss the concept plan. Whether it be for staff or the applicant, I have some. But so was did the city, did staff, our elected officials, or the applicant consider a buffer of retail or commercial or business space adjacent to the UDOT highway? The UDOT highway through here will be like 2100 North. 300-foot-plus right-of-way, frontage road system, 6-lane freeway. Because it seems like from a use standpoint, it would be— of course, it's zoned foothills, so that would be a consideration. But it seems like where feasible, adjacent to these major— this major corridor, having commercial or business Something like that would be beneficial. Was that considered, whether it be the applicant or staff or our elected officials?

Speaker C: Yeah, Ben, you can come up here. Ben, push the button. Should be a button on there. There you go.

Speaker E: Got it. So as I agree. Ivory's looking at these different properties. There are multiple properties in the area that they're looking at. There are some areas that they are looking at doing commercial through here. With it being foothill residential, it'd be really hard to go like commercial and then directly to foothill residential with the size of those lots. I mean, typically that buffer would be like you'd have a higher density at the commercial and then kind of gradually going up to the bigger lots. So with this, I mean, putting the commercial on the other side of the highway, it kind of allows this to be its own bigger lot neighborhood, and then the commercial would be on the other side of the highway potentially. So yeah, we have—

Speaker B: Yeah.

Speaker E: They are definitely considering commercial in this area in different locations.

Speaker A: Yeah, I kind of look at this spot as even though you're right, going from a commercial to the foothill is, is an often complex density switch, but residential right up against the highway, um, I don't know what the city, um, if the city in their long-range plan has considered that. I don't know, David, have you heard any conversation from the city's perspective, whether it be staff Or elected officials on this section for commercial adjacent to?

Speaker C: I personally have not heard any discussion.

Speaker B: Okay.

Speaker A: The other thought is there. There's lots of cul-de-sacs trying to maximize the space between the wash, the configuration, and the size. Of the property, did as an applicant, as a designer, or as a city, did you consider connecting the two larger roads as one road that's west of Airport Road? The one that's closest to the that would be the west boundary that ends with the cul-de-sac, which identified the mid-block crossing. What was was consideration given to connecting those two over the wash? So you can see, if you see where I'm— David, you know where I'm—

Speaker E: There's one right here maybe.

Speaker A: Yeah, so the furthest to the west branch road, the local road that conveys traffic, let's see, so this.

Speaker B: Okay.

Speaker A: From a connectivity standpoint, it would make lots of sense. From an applicant standpoint, was that considered?

Speaker E: Yeah, the hard part is— was just that there's kind of a loss of property. You see that lot 92 and 93?

Speaker G: Yeah.

Speaker E: As you bring that road through it, the wash is just really creating a pinch point right there.

Speaker B: Sure.

Speaker E: That crossing the wash perpendicular is Is a lot easier than like trying to parallel. And sure, it was kind of taking out the ability to do those lots. So that was the reasoning why we ended that at Nicolaus Sec.

Speaker A: I would pose to the city that I think this is a less desirable road layout for future. And in my previous life, I've done this exact thing where a client has come to me and said, hey, I need you to maximize The space, and so which is which is all part of the regular process of land. Hey, we know what this is zoned foothill. We know what the road requirements are. There's not anything necessarily if you've met the cul-de-sac length. I would argue from a city that the city really should consider having those two sections connect. It would be way better in the long run. In my opinion, from emergency services, from just local traffic, if those two were connected, okay, yes, it could lead to a loss of lot, which we know from a business standpoint is not as fruitful as it could be. But I've drives through; we all drive through so many neighborhoods that if you don't have your street maps on a local road. I'm going to say there's a few— I'm going to— I'll just say there's a few neighborhoods in Saratoga Springs. I won't say the name, where if you don't have your roads, there is no way that you will ever figure your way out of that neighborhood. Somewhere.

Speaker B: Sure.

Speaker A: That some people don't. And again, that's, that's not necessarily conflict with the code. I think it's— I think the city really should consider that. Cooperate with the applicant and say, okay, what what are some concessions? And maybe the city doesn't. Maybe the city staff or elected officials. Maybe it's not an issue. I don't know about emergency. So you've got a couple of dead end roads. Of course, that one side is you know you do you can get back. You know that whole west or south side. I guess that's south. You can emergency services can find their way around. to the— obviously to the north, or that one road will connect to the next. But that's the second— that's just a second, um, the second thought I had. Um, those were my two thoughts. One, some other type of use— commercial, business, something like that— against the highway. And then looking at connecting, having more of the local roads connect with each other rather than cul-de-sacing.

Speaker B: Thank you.

Speaker A: Those are just some questions I had, or thoughts. Anybody else?

Speaker H: Yeah, thank you. I guess this one's probably more for the city, but I'm curious, with other washes throughout the city, are those generally owned by or maintained in any way by the city, or are they typically carved up in lots and sold?

Speaker C: I don't have a definite answer on that. I know some are owned by the city. I believe Tickville, I think, is a city.

Speaker H: That's what I was thinking.

Speaker C: Which is the big one. This one, I know people have said there's typically not much water that ever comes down this one anymore. Ivory did when they were doing development of Airport Road. I believe Ivory's the one that went and put in the culverts for future road locations, that sort of thing. But I think Brad, and Brad's not here, I think Brad was, he didn't have a preference either way as far as whether the city owns it. 'Cause that was a discussion point at the last meeting with the council of who owns it. Obviously Ivory wants to keep it because they can add that to their lot square footage. Great, it's private property.

Speaker B: Yep.

Speaker C: City at one point, at least, at least I did initially, was, well, the best of that, something like that be kept in the open for public use. Could be, you know, just open to whatever. But Ivory wants to go with keeping that privately owned. And so that's how it'll go to the council.

Speaker H: Okay. And then related, do you know if the city has a position on the 20-foot Like the, is it a variance or the—

Speaker C: Again, the development agreement's not written, so that's just been talk as of right now. I did make it a point in one of my red lines to Brad, to Ivory, that that may be a hard sell. Just my opinion, again, I don't make the decision, but it was just my opinion that, 'cause right now it's 50 at a minimum, at a minimum.

Speaker I: Right.

Speaker C: And so you're reducing that by more than half. You know, if council's good with that, they're good with it. But that's at least the direction Ivory wants to go right now.

Speaker H: Yeah, I just anecdotally, I've lived out there for a while on the other side of the highway, but just right there, I've only seen it run once.

Speaker E: But when it did, it like filled up, overflowed SR 73.

Speaker H: Like it flows at times.

Speaker B: So anyway, thank you.

Speaker A: Commissioner Strom.

Speaker J: Yeah, just a couple things, and I'll just comment on that since I've lived here my whole life and I've seen that flowing over the road. So I think, you know, just because we've had some dry years, uh, that may be changing. So I think actually the county has specifications on how far you can actually How far you have to be away from the gulch. So, if I'm not mistaken, and I think it's 50 feet from the— it's 50 feet from the bottom and 25 or 30 feet from the top or something like that. I can't— I'm not— I don't remember, but it has some very clear definitions.

Speaker E: It depends on The classification of what that wash is.

Speaker A: And yeah, here we would—

Speaker E: I guess we've done engineering. We definitely— the setback is definitely not going to be in where any of that flood could go.

Speaker B: So, okay.

Speaker E: Yeah, we wouldn't— we would never propose houses in where the flood could go.

Speaker J: Well, I just don't want anybody to assume, you know, you've been here for a little while and you've only seen the I've seen it flow once, but I've seen it through my lifetime flow over the road. So it, you know, it's— it can happen. And we— that would be something we wouldn't want to wash out a bunch of yards and houses and everything.

Speaker E: 100%. We don't want that either.

Speaker K: No.

Speaker J: So, um, the other question, and it was actually from an email that I got, as far as the wildlife corridor, what are you using for specifications for the wildlife corridor.

Speaker E: When you say specifications, like—

Speaker J: Yeah, the comment I had was that there is some— it's the, you know, just trying to look it up now to make sure I've got it right.

Speaker C: The code does have a specific fence that would have to go along wherever the development butts up against the wildlife corridor.

Speaker J: But what I— the comment I got, and it's from from somebody on the Wilderness Alliance. They wanna make sure that we are looking at using the GSLLC Wildlife Alliance specifications that I guess there's been some conversations with staff about that and they said that they weren't doing anything until I guess we're getting a new—

Speaker C: Specifications on what?

Speaker J: Where the wildlife corridor should go.

Speaker C: Well, it's already mapped. We already have a map where we—

Speaker F: This was a map by Todd Black a long time ago.

Speaker J: Okay, and we're— because the comment I had was that we're looking to get a new biologist in November and we weren't going to do anything until we look at it.

Speaker F: This is an old map that we've had where we mapped the wildlife corridor a long time ago.

Speaker J: Okay, I just— I'm asking the question.

Speaker B: Okay.

Speaker A: Other questions? I had a follow-up with— so if the— this is not Tickville Wash, this I think is West Canyon or whatever the unnamed wash is— it would remain in private, is there an easement needed beyond the setback, which of course would avoid If everybody follows the setback correctly, as future homeowners, that they they wouldn't build structures within that area, right? Because the wash would the the setback would define that. But is there a need from a public interest to have access from an easement perspective that the city has considered whether it's publicly part of open space or remains? Private but in an easement?

Speaker C: Whether an easement is needed there or not, that'd be best answered by Public Works or the city engineer. I wouldn't have the knowledge to— I can take a guess but might be wrong, probably would be wrong.

Speaker A: Yeah, I mean, that is a— that's a consideration for obviously both parties to consider. Obviously, on one hand, if it remains part of the the lots, then of course you're meeting the code is a little bit less complicated. However, from an administrative standpoint, public infrastructure, you know, how and would and is there a public access need, at least from a municipal standpoint, that I'm sure will come up, but the only way to do that would be an easement. And David, could you— I was looking for it through the code to see if I could find what Does the code define the standard for boundary offset to the washes in the code?

Speaker G: Do we—

Speaker A: is that in there somewhere?

Speaker C: We just have the setback dimension I know of.

Speaker F: Okay.

Speaker C: Either 75 or 50, whichever is greater.

Speaker A: 75 or 50 from the centerline?

Speaker C: 75 from the centerline or 50 from the top edge, whichever is greater.

Speaker E: Greater.

Speaker F: Okay.

Speaker C: Is the setback.

Speaker H: I gotcha.

Speaker C: Yeah.

Speaker A: Okay, so if you did, yeah, then that just becomes the rear or a setback for each lot, and the applicant would be proposing a 20-foot setback.

Speaker C: That's the discussion now. Again, the development agreement's not even drafted.

Speaker A: Sure.

Speaker E: So that's—

Speaker A: But it would be a factor, 'cause that could significantly— have you considered, has the plan considered what Well, I mean, if it's all part of individual lots, it's not a problem, right? It's just developable, you know, space within that setback. I'm guessing, have you run an exercise to see if the city holds a 50-foot setback from the top, the lots can still build the required, the desirable building envelope?

Speaker E: Yeah, if you look at Lot 59, is a good example.

Speaker A: We put—

Speaker E: that is an actual Ivory house footprint on there. And that product was put in there looking at if we had that maximum setback.

Speaker B: Oh, okay.

Speaker E: And it definitely would still fit on there.

Speaker B: All right.

Speaker C: Yeah, there's another example on the right as well of a house footprint. And I looked at that as well. I scaled that out. Certainly if the council says no, we keep it at fit. Yes, they're still buildable. Obviously reducing that gives— because Ivory has quite a few different housing options. It gives just more flexibility to whoever buys the lots to what they can build.

Speaker B: Sure. Okay, great.

Speaker A: Uh, any other questions from the commission or discussion?

Speaker B: Commissioner Strong?

Speaker J: Yeah, just back to the setback. So you're comfortable— so you're asking for an exception to go to the 20 feet is what you're asking?

Speaker E: Possibly.

Speaker B: Possibly, yes.

Speaker I: Commissioner Hess, could I jump in? I'm going to—

Speaker C: Yeah, please.

Speaker I: Attempt to voice what David— I think I can guess what he's going to say on this one, but I do think the city's going to want an easement there.

Speaker G: Yeah.

Speaker I: I know when we talked about this with staff, Public Works and Engineering expressed interest that in that 20 feet, if that's what we're given, it's likely those will be they won't be able to fence them in. Um, so it'll basically just be lost property. Yes, it'll be part of the property.

Speaker B: Yeah.

Speaker I: Um, but yeah, we're going to need full access to be able to get in the wash without having to go around fences and work it that way. So I hear that's something that will be highly considered in the development agreement.

Speaker B: Yeah.

Speaker C: And one thing about fences too is the thought I've had before, but it just came back to my mind here, is that we don't want to see fences down in the wash either. We want to have it— whatever development agreement comes through, I'd like to see some language That specifies where a fence cannot go. We just, it just, yeah, don't want to have them down there.

Speaker A: Yeah, that would be good. That would be, that would be obviously just the, you know, I don't necessarily speak on behalf of all the commission, but, but I would definitely recommend an easement that would allow the city when necessary to either get rid of tumbleweeds, though there'll be less since there's more homes here. There'll be less in this section. Or drainage issues that—

Speaker G: right?

Speaker A: Because if not, then, then it becomes the property owner's issue, right? Until at some point it crosses the public right-of-way, you know, with the streets. And so having an easement, I think there would— not that the city wants to address all that, but of course I think has some due diligence or planning perspective there.

Speaker E: It would allow you to in an emergency for sure.

Speaker A: Sure, yeah, and it will happen, you know, inevitably in some form. But yeah, along with the other lines, as far as— are there language in the wash that restricts— well, the setback would include fences. Do we know if the code, when it comes to wash setbacks, that it precludes the allowance of fences?

Speaker C: Sorry, that I do not know.

Speaker A: Okay, we know it would be built— like, you can't build stuff in that setback.

Speaker C: And we'll check on that, but definitely if it's not, I'd like to see that in the development agreement.

Speaker A: I think it— yeah, I think— and that's obviously a conflict, you know, from some extent from a property ownership standpoint versus a, well, we don't want fences in there to hang up debris and cause worse problems. But anyway, good.

Speaker B: Okay.

Speaker A: I'll remain quiet and see if anybody else has anything else.

Speaker B: Okay.

Speaker A: Thank you for coming and presenting that part of your concept. Thank you, David, for the work that no doubt you've done and other folks in the staff have done as well on that. So, okay. All right, that concludes our first agenda item, just the discussion. on that concept. The other, the other kind of ongoing agenda we have in our discussion session or our working session is just a brief review of tonight's agenda. We won't obviously be having, you know, making any decisions, but our— so we'll just proceed with that. The first one that would be up is the The UCCU Express site plan. Is there anything in particular, Mickey, as you would be presenting this, is there anything that you would like to draw our attention to? Or Commission, is there anything specific that you might want to ask ahead of time?

Speaker D: I don't have anything specific to call out that we need to discuss now.

Speaker B: Okay.

Speaker A: Yeah, and some of that we don't want it to necessarily— it doesn't have to be redundant. We can save our comments for the agenda. The action item. The same for the B, 7B. Mickey, this is— is this a repeat version? Is this kind of the ongoing approach the city is taking to bring—

Speaker B: Yes.

Speaker A: Existing parcels into—

Speaker B: okay. Yep.

Speaker A: Any questions for There are items that you want to ask Nikki on this ahead of the action items?

Speaker B: Okay.

Speaker E: All right.

Speaker A: And third, David, is there anything specific for 7C about artificial turf?

Speaker C: No, just something we were directed to draft up and bring to you and then the City Council.

Speaker B: Okay.

Speaker A: I will have some— I will have some comments. I'll save those for the 7, our agenda item 7. I think those are probably more appropriate there, but any questions from commission?

Speaker B: Nope.

Speaker A: Okay. All right, it is 6 o'clock. That concludes our, our discussion or our working session, and we will adjourn till 6:30 PM for our policy session.

Speaker B: Thank you.

Speaker A: OK, welcome. For those attending, it is 6:30 PM. We're going to go ahead and begin our action advisory, our Planning Commission meeting. We'll call the meeting to order. Call to order. If you will please stand and join with me in the Pledge of Allegiance. Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Okay, just a point of announcement and clarification. Commissioner Allen, Jason Allen, is not in attendance today. He's excused as they welcome their recent baby birth that was just today. So congratulations to him and his family, and we'll see him next time. Okay, we'll do our declaration of conflicts. We'll start with Which would also mean now that we're down a commissioner, that means Commissioner Jensen, you will be a voting member. Okay, so declaration of conflicts. Commissioner Jensen?

Speaker D: None.

Speaker A: Commissioner DiCorsi?

Speaker H: None.

Speaker A: Commissioner Hess has none. Commissioner Strong?

Speaker J: None.

Speaker A: Commissioner Freeh?

Speaker G: None.

Speaker A: All right, next on our agenda is a review and proposed action for the September 22nd Planning Commission meeting minutes. Does anybody have questions, comments, or anything that needs to be revised? If not, I will entertain a motion on this item.

Speaker G: I'll make the motion to approve the minutes from the September 22nd, 2026 Planning Commission.

Speaker J: I'll second that.

Speaker A: Okay, um, Commissioner Fried made a motion to approve the Planning Commission meeting minutes from September 22nd, followed by a second from Commissioner Strong. We'll go ahead and proceed with our voting. We'll start with Commissioner DiCorsi.

Speaker K: Yes.

Speaker A: Commissioner Hess is yes. Commissioner Strong?

Speaker J: Yes.

Speaker A: Commissioner Fried?

Speaker G: Yes.

Speaker A: And Commissioner Jensen?

Speaker B: Yes.

Speaker A: Okay, thank you. Moving along on our agenda, um, I don't know, I don't see Brandon. Does anybody have any staff, any updates, um, in that Brandon might have for us?

Speaker I: Yeah, I can take care of it. Brandon was, uh, not feeling well today, so we can excuse him. Um, last week at our city council meeting, uh, the Corrigan rezone, I think you guys saw that recently, that was tabled to give the applicant more time to figure things out, to work with the City Council on how to move forward with that one.

Speaker B: It's on for next week.

Speaker I: Yeah, I think Dave's right, it's gonna be a discussion item at the next City Council meeting again. The archery code, I believe you saw that as well recently. That was approved by the City Council. And then I think the next things were, Rob had 3 code amendments. The first one was the fencing change where I think it was allowing barbed wire in certain instances on top of fencing. That one was tabled to work with city council members to see if there's a better way to word it. And so that should be brought back here shortly when that's ready. The other one was a change to, as we do these rezones that we're going to see today, lots that are less than 4,500 square feet would automatically be considered legal conforming lots in the RC zone. So that one was approved. And then the final one was the change to site plans and how we can differentiate typical site plans from master site plans and when what's required. That one was also tabled to kind of work out. I think there was kind of a discussion on when the timing of preliminary plat versus a master site plan was gonna happen. So they wanted some more information on that. So Rob will continue to work on those ones and take them back. But I think that was everything that you would see and they've dealt with.

Speaker B: All right.

Speaker A: Stephen, thanks for that update. I appreciate that. Next, our agenda item number 7, our action advisory items. We'll start with item 7A, a public hearing for the UCC Express site plan, and this will be presented by Mickey Mills.

Speaker D: So this is for the UCCU Express, which is just right near us over on Trailhead. Facing off of Pony Express, it is a commercial community lot. General plan is the community commercial, so those are compatible. All of the landscaping that they are proposing is xeriscaping in line with our code, and they are meeting our minimum parking requirements. These are the elevations for the north and south, and Dave, if you'll pass that up to them, we've got a materials board to present to as well of the actual materials proposed.

Speaker C: Nice.

Speaker D: And then we have our east and west elevations. So the west elevation here being the primary elevation facing Pony Express. The drive-up canopy elevations as well, similar materials used there. Their landscaping plan, very thorough. And their lighting plan. So they've got some exterior lights. That's gonna be these kind of downward-pointing can lights here. Those are gonna be on the exterior of the building. These can lights here, these are gonna be tucked under some of the inside setbacks of the structure.

Speaker J: Mm-hmm.

Speaker D: And then the pole lights for the parking lot. And these bar lights here, these are for the canopy. So those ones would both be shielded by the canopy there. They are requesting a minor variation. So our code does require a 10-foot-wide drive-through service lane. The applicant is proposing an 8.5-foot lane including a 10-foot escape lane, so they will have 2 service lanes. And one of the things that I thought was relevant was, you know, what's the widest vehicles that we have? And a quick search tells me that that's a GMC Hummer, which is like almost 7.5 feet, and then a dually F-350 is about 8 feet wide. So that would be kind of tight. I figured, you know, we've got a horse community, maybe that would be relevant. But with the, the 10-foot escape lane on the outside lane, there's nothing barring that. So I, I don't have any concerns from planning perspective and would encourage that to be approved if you don't have concerns. And I don't know why we just jumped back to the very beginning there. And so, yeah, staff recommends that we forward a positive recommendation with those proposed 8.5-foot-wide drive-up lanes. And the applicant is here as well if you have any questions.

Speaker B: Great, thank you. Any questions—

Speaker A: or sorry, any questions for staff?

Speaker B: Yeah.

Speaker J: So there is no barrier between the escape lane and the 8.5-foot access there? I mean, so if they— if you had to get a backhoe in there or some— I'm, you know, some big piece of equipment, you would be able to do it?

Speaker D: That'd be an interesting thing to take through, but I think that you could.

Speaker J: Just curious.

Speaker D: Yeah, yeah. So you can see here on this zoomed-up one here, this is technically that lane here, and then the 10-foot expansion as well.

Speaker B: Okay. Okay.

Speaker G: Yeah, yeah, just getting back on the 8.5 feet, if, if it were 10 feet, would that create any concerns moving everything that extra foot and a half in other locations?

Speaker D: So they're, they're currently overparked. So if you look at this right now, there is this parking space here. Um, they could remove that and be fully compliant. One of the things, one of the reasons, and this is included in the letter in the staff report, is that they find that when they do wider lanes, people often don't pull up close enough to the drive-through teller, and then they open their doors and they have to kind of get out and stand there. So they want it to be a little bit tighter to kind of force people to get closer. So that's their motivation for it. They could do the 10-foot, and in the code it does allow city council to approve that minor variation. So it doesn't have to be just because it's, it's, you know, a unique lot shape or anything like that. So.

Speaker B: Okay.

Speaker A: Any other questions?

Speaker B: Okay.

Speaker A: Does the applicant want to present? Okay. All right. Let's make sure we're doing this in the proper order here. Let's see, so this is a public hearing.

Speaker B: Is that correct?

Speaker A: Okay, perfect. It is, we'll start at 6:40 PM. We will open the public hearing for agenda item 7A, the UCC Express site plan. Any comments that have been submitted or anybody wishing to make comments?

Speaker B: Okay.

Speaker A: Hearing no requested comments, we'll go ahead and end our public hearing at 6:41 PM. Okay, now we'll— any discussion amongst the commission on this item? I have Commissioner Corsi.

Speaker B: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Speaker H: I guess, I mean, the 8.5 feet, I'm just trying to think, that feels really tight with my mirrors on my vehicle. I think I'm just under 8 feet, so I'd have like 3 inches on either side. It feels really tight. That's my only comment there is like, would 9 feet work and still get people close enough? Or maybe not, I don't know.

Speaker B: Thank you.

Speaker A: Commissioner Strong, did you want to—

Speaker J: Yeah, just, I've got the same, yeah. I think 8.5 feet seems a little bit tight. You may, you know, since I drive a dually with mirrors, your mirrors would be very close, and some of the old trucks don't have the collapsible mirrors on them. So, uh, yeah, I, I would yield to as much as you can possibly get away with there. I, I think the— or the concern about In my opinion, them not getting close enough to the window is— I don't think it's a good excuse. I'm sorry, but I just don't.

Speaker B: Can I say something?

Speaker E: Sure. Yeah.

Speaker A: Yeah, please. State your name and—

Speaker B: Yeah.

Speaker K: I guess it was on. Sorry. Abe Dietz. I'm with UCCU.

Speaker F: Okay.

Speaker K: I've been asked to come and represent tonight. I didn't have any initial comments, but as you're visiting about the trucks, I get that. Our number one concern is our members. Our concern, more so than getting them close, is just the safety issues. As they open those doors and bump things, or if older people have a hard time getting in and out of their car like that, we don't want to create a problem because we're so far away. I know that we do take precautions with the 8.5 feet as far as having people— we have bollards on the side of our machines so that people don't actually hit the machines. They would hit the bollard first to try to just protect that. But yeah, our main concern is just the safety of the people, our members, as they come to those drive approaches.

Speaker C: Thank you.

Speaker A: Commissioner Schall.

Speaker J: By safety, why would somebody going through a drive-through window be opening their doors?

Speaker K: Because they're further away. They can't reach the canister, so they open their door.

Speaker A: That's the problem.

Speaker K: That's the concern. Yeah, we have the 8.5 feet at most of our other locations, and it seems to be preferable for everyone where they can get close enough, still manage to miss their mirrors. I would dare say that if you had a larger vehicle, you'd probably just focus on the outside lane here. But that's just thinking ahead and realizing that it might be kind of a tight fit in that center or that first lane.

Speaker D: And a quick addition as well. That 8.5-foot measurement is curb to curb. So there's likely more space above for the mirrors on the outside. So it wouldn't be the tire to tire space that you'd be looking at.

Speaker A: You're talking face of curb to face of curb, not gutter to gutter?

Speaker K: Correct.

Speaker G: Yeah.

Speaker B: Okay.

Speaker A: Yeah, yeah. I'm in favor of sticking with the standard on this one, the 8.5-foot. I mean, if you're overparked because of course the width of the vehicle is an issue, but If you're pulling a trailer, that movement's, you know, if you've got a, you know, a long bed, you know, full dual cab pulling a long trailer, of course you would go.

Speaker E: Does—

Speaker A: let me ask you this— does UCC prioritize both tellers so that large vehicles that are concerned about the 8.5-foot spacing, if they go to the one on the outside, will somebody answer them?

Speaker E: Or is it—

Speaker A: Do they close it?

Speaker K: No, no, they would both be open. Yeah, because you could go to either one.

Speaker C: Okay, good.

Speaker K: And maintain, yeah, the service.

Speaker A: Because the Taco Bell that has a dual drive-through is permanently closed.

Speaker K: Oh, really?

Speaker A: The outside.

Speaker K: Sorry, we don't do that.

Speaker A: Sir, this is just an observation. This is not a judgment on how they run their business. But I'm just saying they have 2 drive-throughs and the outside is—

Speaker C: Always closed.

Speaker A: Always closed.

Speaker K: No, they would both be open.

Speaker A: Yeah, okay, so you can handle either one because Correct. My, my issue would be less about driving straight with a wide vehicle versus the trailer that occasionally follows that vehicle, right? If it's a 20, 30-foot trailer, right, for some reason that's— obviously I don't know what the, the movement has been modeled here as far as the radius and, and drive-through. Is there, is there going to be a sign that say, hey, if you have a vehicle, a trailer that's over X feet, you can't make it through here. Is that something that's been considered in the design? Sorry, random thoughts.

Speaker K: That's a great thought.

Speaker J: And I guess I didn't see it as a trailer issue because, I mean, you've got a limit of certain types. I would hope that no one would go that big. No, but mine was my dual truck with big mirrors, and that's why I I, yeah, that was more my concern there. I've, I've come real close at the DMV about smacking my mirrors when I go through there.

Speaker A: So yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

Speaker G: I would say just if there was even just a little bit of signage to say larger vehicles use outside lane and that's it, I don't think it would be a problem, you know, just so they, they understand. Because I'm not going to know that it's a foot and a half shorter necessarily just driving up there, but a little sign that says, you know, larger vehicles use outside lane. I've seen that before.

Speaker A: And yeah, I've seen that as well.

Speaker K: There's a sign that as get into the drive— or the, excuse me, the drive-up, you could have a sign there that said larger vehicles use the outside lane, and that's perfectly notable.

Speaker A: Okay, um, any other comment? Any— Commissioner Jensen, did you have a comment you want to make?

Speaker D: Well, I feel like if you're pulling a trailer and you don't think you can make it, you can always park and walk inside.

Speaker A: There you go, right?

Speaker K: So I agree.

Speaker D: Yeah, however, the narrow lanes at my credit union give me a little heartburn, and I don't drive a Big, big, big.

Speaker A: Yeah, yeah. So, okay, um, I do have a couple of comments, um, on the landscaping, and this is a question for staff, or, um, you can remain if you would like to answer this question.

Speaker B: Okay.

Speaker A: Okay, if you look, is the park strip width between the trail and Pony Express Parkway 5 feet or less, or is it 6 to 8 feet wide?

Speaker D: I am not prepared to answer that question. I can tell you that on the inside of their parcel, they've got the 10 feet of landscaping. I did not look at the width of that park strip there.

Speaker A: There wasn't a dimension included in that specifically, so this is just between the main trail and Pony Express Parkway.

Speaker K: Are you talking the, the sidewalk or the—

Speaker A: The park strip.

Speaker B: Okay.

Speaker A: So code requires the 10 feet. The state Well, the, the, this street tree guide requires a Class 1 tree, which the tree that you're proposing along the street tree, the Syringa reticulata, which is a Japanese tree lilac, that is a Class 1 tree, street tree. Those are intended, much to my disagreement, for park strips that are 5 feet or less.

Speaker B: Okay.

Speaker A: If it's 6 to 8 feet, the street tree guide requires Class 2 trees, which in my opinion are true street trees. The heartburn I have with— so my comment is, without a dimension on both the trail or that space, the park strip between the trail, to me it seems that the park strip is at least the size of the trail. or greater, I would be recommending that that should— those trees only along Pony Express Parkway, because of course as you come around the corner, that park strip obviously narrows up.

Speaker F: Yeah.

Speaker A: You can see it. That my comment would be that any street tree that meets the spacing requirement has to be selected off of the Class 2 list, which is a larger mature tree.

Speaker F: Okay.

Speaker A: So that would be one comment. That I would be, if I'm proposing a motion, that's what I would be, or at least for us to consider, unless staff can verify that. But just looking visually on it, I don't have a map scale or anything like that, but it looks like it's wider than at least 6 feet. The other is not, it's not as big of a deal, but it looks like the incorporation of a landscape berm and landscaping To address the headlight for the park. The code requires that parked vehicles' headlights are screened, right? And they've done that, and they've got plants in there, but they've also included a landscape berm. I was gonna say, a little berm, yeah. And it looks like— I couldn't, again, I couldn't see whether it was those contours were 1-foot or 2-foot. I assume that they're 1-foot contours. And so that landscape berm ranges between a foot to probably 3 or 4 feet. I don't know exactly, which of course helps because, you know, vegetation is good. But so I didn't— I wanted to ask if the intent of that landscape berm was intended, especially if you look further down in the park where the berm gets bigger, if that's intended to be a 4-foot berm. Or a 2-foot berm or something like that. Do you happen to know that?

Speaker K: I do not, but I do know that that's what the berm is for.

Speaker A: Yeah, it's to add to get those plants higher.

Speaker K: Correct.

Speaker A: To meet that requirement to screening headlights.

Speaker K: I just don't know how tall they were going to be.

Speaker A: Yeah, and the plant, I mean, if you just look at the general layout, I mean, these plants should be scaled to their mature size, which of course is going to take several years. The trees, I don't think those are scaled correctly. But again, those 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 trees along Pony Express Parkway, in my opinion, should be— and I'll have staff verify that— they should come from the Class 2 street tree list rather than Class 1.

Speaker B: Okay.

Speaker A: Those were my— that was my discussion. Any other comments? Okay.

Speaker I: Can I speak to the street trees?

Speaker B: Yeah.

Speaker I: I'm not aware of anywhere in our code we talk about that.

Speaker A: It's— okay.

Speaker I: I mean, if you know the reference.

Speaker A: Yeah, Section 13, it's 1635.080. If you pull that up. Okay, not that we need to spend time doing that, but the— let me see if I can get that.

Speaker B: Yeah. 1635.

Speaker A: So we have street trees, right? Street trees. Now, this is where— this would be something from the code. There is a street tree guide produced by the city, and it defines the classes. So if you look at the street tree, it says street tree specifications. This is 1635.080. B, street tree specifications. At the time of planting, street trees shall have a trunk caliper of at least 1.5 inches at the location of 8 inches above the soil line. Street trees shall be Class 1 only, selected from the approved street tree list in the city-approved street list established in accordance with Section G of this section. And it references that.

Speaker B: Okay.

Speaker A: So I have a huge— if the city is only ever requiring the Class 1 trees, it's doing a huge disservice to street trees. But in the street tree guide, if you search, and this is where it's not referenced in the code unless I missed it. So I just use my Google and I did Eagle Mountain street tree guide. And it doesn't, in that code, this could be an issue that probably should be addressed. Because in that code it says Class 1, but if you look at the street tree guide, I'll pull that up. I have that in my— this would be something that I would love to clarify from the city's perspective on really what they expected. So there's a street tree guide, Eagle Mountain City Street Tree Guide, and in here it talks about tree types. And there's a— the first table breaks it into class. Okay, Class 1, small trees for park strips 5 feet or less. Yeah, go to that first, that next table right there. Okay. Large trees for park strips 6 to 8 feet wide. Then down below is Class 1 trees, small trees. I have a huge concern about these because These are only ever used in residential areas where they do have a small park strip. There's another issue with the tree size, but this tree is the Syringa reticulata. It's on this Class 1. You'll see it there at the bottom. So the city says, hey, these are the street trees that we approve. Use these trees when the park strip is 5 feet or less. This is how I'm interpreting this. Class 2, hey, if you have park strips 6 to 8 feet wide, you were supposed to use this list, which the Syringa mirticulata is not on that. So these trees are true street trees. Class 1 is an accommodation of a smaller tree in a smaller park strip. I'll save that discussion for another rant of mine. So, because there also is in the code, there is a requirement in the code that talks about the tree size, and it requires that street trees have to be pruned 8 feet over sidewalk and 14 feet over parking. So none of the Class 1 trees will ever reach that in their maturity because They are not large trees without me having to do— well, nobody prunes the trees out front of their house in the first place, so the crabapples just cover the sidewalk.

Speaker B: Right.

Speaker A: So, but to your point, that would be my— that's how I'm interpreting the, the, the collection of code and the street tree guide. That would be how I would interpret the intent of those. But if it's not clear, you know, enough, then of course for this particular application, you know, a different decision could be made. But I think we are doing a disservice if we prioritize street trees. Larger park strips should have larger trees, and Class 1 trees are not street trees. They're nice, but—

Speaker D: I did do a very quick measurement just off the parcel map, and it looks like the park strip is about 10 feet and the trail is about 8 feet.

Speaker A: So yeah, and you could confirm that. I don't know if we want— if you want to take that up with the, the city arborist, but, um, that's why, that's why those 2 class size of trees exist, is because they realize that, hey, we don't want to try to put a London plane tree in a 5-foot park strip.

Speaker K: Sure. No, that makes sense.

Speaker A: Even though everybody loves street trees and alleyways and covered streets, but trees don't always grow.

Speaker B: Okay.

Speaker K: So can I ask, this park strip guide or the street tree guide, is that noted in your city code? These 7 sheets that you have here?

Speaker D: I would have to look into this. I have not seen this before.

Speaker K: Yeah, this is new for me. Okay.

Speaker D: I also don't see a date on it, so I don't know if there are any recent changes or when this version is from.

Speaker F: So the code does require that there's a city-approved street tree list that's to be followed, and that's what he's referencing, and you can access it from our website.

Speaker H: No, that's fine.

Speaker K: Yeah, we just— I just want to make sure we can—

Speaker A: And the link, if you go to the same code, 1635080G, item G does say, you know, approved street tree list.

Speaker B: Okay.

Speaker A: Perfect. But when you click on those revised codes, it pulls up the previous version of the same. It doesn't necessarily pull up the Street Tree Guide.

Speaker B: So anyway.

Speaker A: Okay.

Speaker B: So.

Speaker G: Yeah, by the way, that document's August 4th, 2020. It's right on the city website.

Speaker A: So you can just type in Street Tree Guide and it'll pull it up. Oh, Street Tree Guide and it'll pull it up. Yeah, 'cause the guide itself that I've got pulled up, it doesn't have like a revision date.

Speaker F: date.

Speaker A: That would be probably something for the city to think about. But unless I'm not looking at the right one, it could be a different one. But I searched the street tree guide.

Speaker F: There's one. If you go to the city's website and you go to departments, Parks and Rec, there's a link to the street tree guide.

Speaker B: Okay.

Speaker F: So if you click that link, that'll be the current guide.

Speaker A: Okay. I didn't, I didn't think about navigating that. I was I just searched it because in the G it did reference it, but I couldn't find a link to it. Okay.

Speaker B: You got the same one.

Speaker A: Good.

Speaker B: All right.

Speaker A: Does anybody else's heads hurt?

Speaker B: Because mine does now.

Speaker A: And I was the one talking, I apologize.

Speaker J: I know more than I need to know.

Speaker B: No.

Speaker A: That's okay. That's okay. All right. Okay. Any discussion beyond what's been mentioned?

Speaker D: Have we banned flowering pears?

Speaker A: No, but we should. But I don't think— they are not— I don't think— let's take a quick look.

Speaker E: They're on there.

Speaker H: I saw them.

Speaker G: I thought I saw them.

Speaker A: Bradford Callery pear. I think they have a flowering pear, so it's—

Speaker B: yeah.

Speaker A: Yeah, there's—

Speaker B: I think you brought some instructions.

Speaker A: Yeah, it's a discussion for another day, for sure. But they are listed there in the street tree guide.

Speaker B: Okay.

Speaker A: I guess the question is, I will, if there's no other discussion, I will make a proposed— I will propose a motion to this item. And let me make sure I get my language correctly. We had the public hearing, we closed it, we had our discussion. Okay, why can't I find what I'm looking for?

Speaker B: Okay.

Speaker A: I propose the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to City Council regarding the UCC Express site plan. With the proposed 8.5-foot-wide drive-up lane, with a condition that the street trees situated in the park strip between the trail and Pony Express Parkway are selected from the Class 2 tree list in the street tree guide.

Speaker G: Could I make a small adjustment to that?

Speaker E: Sure.

Speaker G: Maybe add it on the 8.5-foot maybe some signage saying larger, you know, it doesn't have to be exactly this, but something just indicating for larger vehicles to use the outside lane or something to that extent. I don't know if you think that's necessary. Um, if not, then—

Speaker A: Do we think, like, is that something that we— because I, I don't, I don't mind that. Is that— I don't know if that's something as a, as a business you're going to do anyway, but let's So code requires a 10-foot.

Speaker F: So if they want something different than that, then I think we can pretty much require any signage we want.

Speaker B: Okay.

Speaker K: I don't, I don't think putting a sign in there is any problem at all.

Speaker B: Okay.

Speaker A: Um, I will make a note and I will revise my motion, and Commissioner Freeh is going to make sure I do it okay. So I, I, uh, make a motion to forward a positive recommendation to City Council regarding the UCC Expressway site plan with a proposed 8-foot-wide drive-up lanes as presented with—

Speaker K: 8.5.

Speaker A: 8.5, um, wide drive-up lane with a con— with a recommendation. Is it— is recommendation that there's some added signage for large vehicles using those to direct them to the wider outside lane? And the other condition would be that the street trees situated in the park strip between the trail and Pony Express Parkway are selected off the Class 2 list from the Street Tree Guide. Commissioner, does that work?

Speaker B: Yes. Okay, so you've made the motion?

Speaker A: Made the motion, yeah.

Speaker D: I will second your motion.

Speaker A: Okay, okay. Um, we had a motion by Commissioner Hess to— for deposit a recommendation with conditions. With a second from Commissioner Jensen. Any questions or need to clarify? It was a little wordy, so I apologize for that, but clear enough?

Speaker B: Okay.

Speaker A: All right, seeing no discussion, we'll proceed with our, our voting, and I'll begin. Commissioner Hess votes yes. Commissioner Strong?

Speaker J: Yes.

Speaker A: Commissioner Freeh?

Speaker G: Yes.

Speaker A: Commissioner Jensen?

Speaker G: Yes.

Speaker A: And Commissioner DiCorsi?

Speaker H: Yes.

Speaker A: All right, that vote passes with 5 votes. Thank you.

Speaker E: Thank you.

Speaker A: Yeah, appreciate the time for coming and presenting your plan.

Speaker H: Thank you.

Speaker A: OK, OK, next is our agenda item 7B, a public hearing for amending the official zoning map for areas in Oak Hill and Parkway Crossroads, and this will be also presented by Mickey.

Speaker B: Mills.

Speaker D: So this is a cleanup task as well, just looking at some of the historic zones. This one is mostly residential. I think there was 5 residential properties in this rezone that met the minimum requirement for the R-3 zone. So just for the sake of continuous zoning, we're going to zone those RC. Those are mostly just corner lots, some of the longer lots. But RC keeps it continuous, applying the agriculture to the roads as we typically do, and then the improved open space for our parks, and then the commercial community along Pony Express as that buffer between the residential use and that thoroughfare. And for Parkway Crossroads, these are currently under the old Village Core commercial, which has been an issue in the past just because of how restrictive that one is. This is just going to bring it more up to date and in line with our current code. The current— the future land use designations, these line up with those as well, keeping it consistent. All of the commercial lots will remain community commercial on the future land use code, but it should be noted that for the Oak Hollow residences, those are currently Residential 1, but they will be changed to Residential 2 to maintain that compatibility between the existing zone and the future land use designation. There's not very many changes with this. It's not a material change really of any sort. It's really just to bring them into compliance with their code, make questions about setbacks easy to answer, zoning easy to answer. So no change in city services, traffic generation, compatibility is okay, and they comply comply with the general plan as well. No changes to rights or entitlements for any of the properties. That's all. And staff recommend that you forward a positive recommendation to City Council.

Speaker F: Okay.

Speaker A: Any questions for Mickey or staff on this item? Okay. Thank you for your presentation. It was good. And this is a public hearing. So it is 7:06 PM, and we'll open the public hearing for agenda item 7B. I don't know if any comments were received online for this agenda item.

Speaker B: Okay.

Speaker F: All right.

Speaker A: Seeing no comments, we'll go ahead and close the public hearing at 7:06 PM. Discussion? Any questions? Prior to making a motion on this item?

Speaker G: No, but I, I, I'll just say this because it's coming up here. We have a residential cottage zone and a regional commercial zone, both RC. That gets a little confusing because I see zoning everywhere, and everywhere I go, RC is, uh, regional commercial. So that gets a little— that can be a little confusing for people looking at the zoning and seeing it's RC and thinking it's regional commercial when it's actually a residential zone. So they may want to Look at that a little bit and see if there's some better way to label that. I don't know what that would be, but—

Speaker A: Yeah, and I think as we've seen emails about people asking information about codes, you're like, well, that's why our code's online, so they can do their research. But our staff is very capable to answer those questions. But you're right, I mean, you could change those acronyms any number of ways, but Point taken.

Speaker D: Quick clarification there. It's going to get a little confusing. So our future land use designations for the commercial ones, commercial is the second word for those. So those are regional commercial. And for our zones, those are commercial first. So it's commercial regional. So our commercial zone is CR and then our residential is RC. But I definitely understand the confusion there.

Speaker A: Sounds like we need to add some numbers to these. Zone acronyms. No. Okay, good point. Any, any questions besides the comment from Commissioner Freeh? Okay, I will entertain a motion on this item 7B.

Speaker J: I will make a motion to forward a positive recommendation to council for item 7B as presented.

Speaker G: I'll second it.

Speaker A: Okay. We have a positive— forward a positive recommendation motion by Commissioner Strong, followed by a second by Commissioner Freeh for item 7B. Any final questions? Okay, we'll begin our voting with Commissioner Strong.

Speaker J: Yes.

Speaker A: Commissioner Freeh.

Speaker G: Yes.

Speaker A: Commissioner Jensen.

Speaker D: Yes.

Speaker A: Commissioner DiCorsi.

Speaker H: Yes.

Speaker A: And Commissioner Hess votes yes as well. That motion passes with 5 votes. Um, okay, next on our agenda, um, is, dare I say it, another landscape item. I apologize for this. Thank you, David. But it is item 7C. It's a, a proposed ordinance for Artificial turf in Code 1760.

Speaker B: David.

Speaker C: Yes, we were directed— the mayor actually told us we should probably consider something as far as relating to artificial turf. So I jumped on that. And so I'm presenting you with a code. It's actually a code that I did draft from scratch in Saratoga Springs. I did consult with some artificial turf suppliers in the valley. 'Cause my knowledge of turf specifics are pretty minimal. And so I did consult with a company there, I believe they're in Draper, if I remember right, to get the specifics. So that was then incorporated into the code. And also the 1760.100, as I was doing the turf, this came up. So I'm like, well, let's look at that as well. So we'll look at the turf code first here.

Speaker B: Okay.

Speaker C: So yeah, so obviously everything in red, this is all brand new. Uh, uh, Section 80 or, uh, subsection paragraph 85 is new. Uh, so basically, um, we want a no-fade warranty. Obviously things that do sit out in the sun have a tendency to fade. Obviously this is a man-made product, it's going to be in the sun, uh, if used, uh, quite extensively. so we want to have a no-fade warranty on that. Multicolor blend to at least mimic real grass. Obviously real grass comes in different shades, different hues of green. Could be some, you know, depending on your seed mix of your grass, could be, you know, one could go dormant at some point, whatever. You know, there's a variety of colors typically in grass. Of course, put in by manufacturer instructions. Pile height, so length of the blade, minimum of 1.5 inches. So, and 50 ounces, so every square yard of turf would be at least 50 ounces in weight. And then water permeability of 19 inches per hour. We'd like to see if you're putting it out there around trees, at least give a 2.5-foot clearance around trees. Then of course within that you could put wood chips or whatever, but we don't want to see turf You know, abutted right up next to tree trunks. When they put turf down, they put an infill in there. Now, if you ever watch professional football or college football and you see somebody drags their foot across the turf, you see all the black, that's rubber infill. We don't want to see rubber infill. One, you know, you could probably have a good argument of being the, you know, is it good for the environment? No, probably not. But there are organic materials that can be used. It helps support the turf, it helps support the blades, it helps with the water drainage as well. Typically it's like quartz. There could be some crushed, some type of shell, nutshell or something they can use as well, but they then put that in once the turf is installed. So artificial turf is not gonna be considered to include artificial trees, shrubs, or bushes. We do need to make sure that stormwater is maintained on site. Obviously, if you've got grass or other living material, there's gonna be a difference of what happens to stormwater at times, less to soak into. We're not gonna— we don't wanna consider artificial turf as landscaping. And the minimum living plant coverage still applies. So your front yard, you still have to have 50% coverage of living plant material, and tree canopies do not count towards that 50%. So someone cannot just come in and do their whole front yard and park strip as artificial turf. You still have to have 50% of that area would still have to have living plant material, and any other landscaping standards that may apply would still, would still be applicable. And then the next section, state code prohibits the city from enforcing or having any rear yard landscape requirements. So maybe wise just to take that out of the code. And I mentioned CC&Rs. We don't do anything with CC&Rs, and so we want to remove any reference to that. That's strictly an HOA item there, and so that's Those are the 2 code amendments we present to you tonight.

Speaker A: OK, good information. Any questions? This is a public hearing, so we'll have a public hearing. So if you have questions now or you want to— OK. All right, our public hearing is 7:14 PM. We'll start our open— or open our public hearing on agenda item 7C. Any comments?

Speaker B: Questions?

Speaker A: Uh, received nothing. Okay, I'm seeing no comments that intend to be made on this agenda item. We'll go ahead and close the public hearing at 7:14 PM. Okay, discussion from the commission? I have my comments, but— Commissioner DiCorsi.

Speaker H: I just have a couple questions. One, I don't know if sand or other things are used, but I wonder if the inorganic infill might unintentionally prohibit maybe things that are otherwise used in landscape areas and wouldn't be normally considered to be harmful.

Speaker B: I don't know.

Speaker H: Are you—

Speaker C: do you have a different idea for another material?

Speaker H: Is sand ever used, like, as part of turf or not?

Speaker C: Quartz is used.

Speaker H: Organic?

Speaker C: Yeah, I mean, yeah, I mean, sand is organic. Quartz is used, crushed up quartz, which that's, that's an element of sand. So I, you know, perhaps sand. I haven't seen sand specific, that word used. Usually it's defined as, you know, quartz.

Speaker H: Okay, okay. Um, I guess I wasn't sure on the— if you would consider that to be organic material or inorganic.

Speaker B: Inorganics, rubber, plastic, stuff like that.

Speaker H: Yeah, I mean, derived from a living—

Speaker C: Non-natural.

Speaker A: Okay, non-natural.

Speaker H: Yeah, anyway, just wondering if that was maybe— could be misinterpreted. Do we have any concerns about turf in areas of, like, within public utility easements or otherwise, like, where it's maybe difficult for the city to replace after it's I mean, turf, I think it's fairly easy.

Speaker C: If it needs to be pulled up, to pull it up. It's probably actually, as I would think, a quicker repair time than if you're going to have to dig up turf and grass and sprinkler systems. That's actually probably more time, I would think, probably more time-consuming and costly.

Speaker H: Okay, so no concerns there.

Speaker A: I mean, I kind of do. I mean, I think so many of our districts, Just to follow up on your easement question, I've got public easement. I think we all do in front, just 5 feet behind the sidewalk. And when they come pothole and tear stuff up, of course, that's the burden of either the public, you know, anybody who's fixing that, that becomes a burden on them. You know, not that they want to fix artificial turf, but, you know, I can dig up real grass and put it back in pretty easily. But, but it would just be— it would be transferred to the easement holder and the utility who's performing that work within that easement if it falls in your yard, front or side yard.

Speaker B: But yeah, okay, okay.

Speaker D: And my question is, we are going to allow this in the front yard?

Speaker C: It's an option in the front yard, and if you're on a corner, you could put it on the side yard adjacent to the street. Again, you still have to have 50% of that landscape area. You still have to have living plant material coverage. So you can't just blanket your whole yard with artificial turf and say, I'm done. We still want— we still require plants, grass, whatever.

Speaker A: Okay. Because it was silent before, you could. You know, I have a neighbor that did all— pulled out all of his grass and put in AstroTurf or artificial turf. You know, the similar type of product, but it's in the front and backyard and it's not a problem. But having this makes it allowable and it gives you ability to control certain aspects of that. I'm not opposed to this. A couple of comments are as follows.

Speaker B: Is—

Speaker A: I know, I think I know the answer to this. Is park strip considered your front yard?

Speaker C: Yes.

Speaker A: So some can, but it's not my front yard, it's city right-of-way, which I am under obligation to maintain.

Speaker C: Right, owner maintains.

Speaker A: Should, should, to clarify, if, if the city, if the code wouldn't prohibit artificial turf to be put in the park strip, should we add language that includes, you know, I don't know the correct term, or is, or from staff perspective, is front or side yard sufficient?

Speaker C: I've always, we've always, and I, I'll speak for myself, but in all the years I've done this, I've always considered because front yard, because the owner maintains.

Speaker B: I've never Yeah.

Speaker C: Come across the city where the city maintains parks like that.

Speaker F: Yeah.

Speaker C: So to me, as far as those calculations go, the interpretation, yeah, that's still the front yard.

Speaker A: This would require administrative approval for every property owner?

Speaker B: Yes. Yeah.

Speaker A: Ooh, who's going to be the one doing that? Just city, somewhat city staff?

Speaker C: Mickey's already volunteered.

Speaker A: Mickey, you volunteered. 1, 2, 3, nod it.

Speaker D: Day flies.

Speaker A: Yeah. I, I, that's it.

Speaker C: We don't anticipate, you know, a, a run of this, but at least we want to have pre-disposed standards should someone want to do this. Hey, let's at least have some minimum, you know, threshold we'd like to see met.

Speaker A: So I, I, I killed off my grass and put new grass in this year. Was there an administrative— was I supposed to get approval?

Speaker C: Not, not for grass, no.

Speaker A: All right, for real grass. Okay.

Speaker C: But talk to me afterwards.

Speaker A: No, I'm just kidding.

Speaker B: Yeah.

Speaker A: Okay. I have a couple of concerns. I don't like Article H because the stormwater will always run off to the sidewalk, almost certainly. And your treatment of said real grass or artificial Um, like, are we expecting every property— so to— I read H as this: thou shalt not let any stormwater run off your property onto city right-of-way.

Speaker F: That's already the law, with or without artificial turf. It's required to maintain. I mean, I, I'm not saying that it's— it's not followed practically, um, but the code already says that you're You're required to keep the stormwater on your property.

Speaker B: Okay.

Speaker I: I think there's a provision that says if it runs off a driveway or if it's properly put into the right locations.

Speaker A: Yeah, like the front yard, right? You can't pipe your roof straight to the sidewalk.

Speaker I: Right, but like if your driveway runs off, that's okay.

Speaker F: Yeah, generally speaking, you're supposed to retain your stormwater.

Speaker A: Okay.

Speaker F: So, I mean, what that essentially is requiring you to do is to have some sort of plan to do that.

Speaker B: Okay. All right.

Speaker A: Well, yeah, that's a— can you imagine everyone about the plans? Like, I would be— if I were— if it were being enforced, it'd be like, well, you can't grade anything to the sidewalk. Everything's got to fall back to the house. Discussion for another day.

Speaker B: Catch basin.

Speaker A: Yeah, to, to your— and that's, that's fair. I have another question. Like, the living plant coverage is a little concerning. I understand that the practical approach is correct, that you still have to provide the 50%. But if you just do logical approach, let's say my front yard is 3,000 square feet, and let's say it's all grass right now. And I want to replace it with artificial turf, obviously I would have to choose to leave half of it in or to tear out the rest of it and put shrubs or something else in place, right? And so hopefully, usually I won't speculate on, usually folks that want to do this would probably be looking for a way to save water and time. Are they also going to put in some other irrigation system that grows? Because you can't just say, well, I'm going to do 50% of that 3,000 feet as artificial turf and the other 1,500 square feet as landscape rock with no plants. I could say, hey, look at all this water I saved. I'm doing the environment a good thing. But they wouldn't meet that code. So I, I don't—

Speaker C: Well, if there's 50% coverage with, say, you do the rock, you'd still have to— rock or turf, whatever one you choose, you'd still have to meet that 50%.

Speaker A: I guess I'm thinking from, from somebody's perspective who has turf, natural turf, and like, hey, I want to save water, I'm going to rip this out and put artificial turf so I don't have to maintain it and save water. They'll just have to consider Yeah.

Speaker B: So, Commissioner Strong.

Speaker J: Yeah, I've got the same concern. 50% seems like a lot if you're trying to— you may be defeating the whole concept of turf. You know, it seems like if you've got a 1-acre lot, And, you know, you've got 200 feet in the front. Just seems like a lot. And, you know, if you're on an 1/8-acre lot with, you know, 100— footage of 100 feet or something, and very small, then 50% wouldn't be hard to do. But it just seems like a lot.

Speaker C: Yeah, yeah, certainly, you know, different lots are going to be— you have bigger challenges other lots. Um, that's what, what a homeowner is going to have to consider should this code be approved.

Speaker B: Okay.

Speaker A: And I think to that, that point, it will just put the onus on the property owner to realize you— they have— they do have to think about it a little bit more. And they, they may— they can't do their entire front or side yard if they— with— if they get approval, because I'm sure the approval will say okay.

Speaker C: I mean, it's fine. You go down, you know, we've all been down to St. George, you look at some of the landscaping treatments down there where maybe a little area for a dog to go out to and that's about it for grass. You know, it can be done. And so—

Speaker A: Yeah, to go from just existing turf to artificial turf is, is gonna put people in— it's gonna raise some concerns that they hadn't thought about.

Speaker C: Yeah.

Speaker A: If they see the code and are— and you mentioned it here that of course the living plant minimum covers the still required. So I think that's 1760.90D talks about landscape areas shall have enough plant material to create it at 50%. As you had mentioned already, trees don't cover that. So they'll just have to do a little bit more homework. But hopefully in the approval process, the administrative approval process, is that going to— I'm guessing that would be a note, say, hey, you're going to do your front yard good.

Speaker C: Yeah, they'd have to show us the numbers.

Speaker A: Okay, so, all right.

Speaker G: Well, as we know, a lot of people don't— they ask, they just do and ask for forgiveness later. My neighbor has probably 95% rock in their front yard because they took out all their grass, and they've done it as tastefully as you can, you know, with some paths and different things, but still, it's not meeting code, right? And so it's likely that if— even if this went through, most of the residents wouldn't be aware of it. And even if they were, they just would hear, oh, I can do turf now, you know. So from the City Council standpoint, it might be good to encourage them to use our communications director to help educate people on what is allowed or not allowed. And maybe, maybe an idea that when we used to have an HOA in the ranches, They would do code enforcement blitzes, and they'd let you know what they're gonna be focusing on that month. And so, you know, that may be kind of an idea too. If we see something that's a concern in the city, they could say, hey, we're gonna be focusing on landscapes. Just a reminder, here's some of the things that you should be— you're required, and we'll be looking for that in the city, you know, throughout this month, just to make sure that everyone knows what's allowed. And then they can generally, Offer, you know, just warnings to people and then work out a plan to get it remedied, and then you go on from there. I mean, you don't want to be in, you know, the Nazi police kind of thing going around, but you do want people to understand what the rules, the laws are, and that they're following them, because that helps everybody have a nicer maintained property. If you ask people that are anxious, they'll say a lot of the neighborhoods have gone down since the HOA went away, and that's because people just feel like they don't— they can do whatever they want now, and that's not true. They're just not following code. So it's a good education on the parts when we, when we put these things in. I think it's an important aspect of it, and we have the resources without additional cost to help with that. So already—

Speaker B: so, Commissioner Strong?

Speaker J: Yeah, the only concern I have, and I guess I'm being maybe— I would prefer to see 75% turf and 50% weeds, or 25% weeds, than 50% turf and 50% weeds.

Speaker G: And—

Speaker A: Yeah.

Speaker J: You know what'll happen. And so by the more turf, from a neighbor's standpoint, is cosmetically better than for somebody that's not I'm not a real green thumb guy. It's just something to think about because, like I said, I just see the turf as a weed patch.

Speaker A: Yeah, I think that probably, maybe the city ought to consider that, you know, in an upcoming code, looking at that plant material. So you would say that If in the hypothetical that somebody completely replaces or wants to replace their natural turf that meets the 50% living cover with an artificial turf, it would be they can only do 50% of it, and they would have to come up with something different. But but maybe because of the proposed artificial turf being included in in the code, which I think is. Is a fair— it's probably the most expensive option out there to save water, you know, between that landscape rock or, well, concrete, I guess you could concrete to some extent. But anyway, but maybe there's a future revision that adjusts or considers that 50% living plant to exclude noxious weeds, of course. 'Cause I should say, Rob, that, you know, everybody's view on desirable and weedy stuff is different, but we do draw the line on noxious weeds.

Speaker C: Don't call them weeds, call it historical vegetation.

Speaker G: Well, and educating landscapers too, right, when they come out, 'cause a lot of times they'll say, what do you wanna do? And they don't, and they just do what you ask them to do. I mean, I put rock in my front yard and they were like, do you want this rock or do you want grass? I'm glad I left a portion of grass and stuff because obviously I wanted it there, but also, you know, I might have played with that 50% number a little bit more. And most homeowners don't have those numbers in their head or taking a measurement out and measuring what's 50% versus 45% or 40% or whatever, you know. They're just saying what looks good. And if you go with what looks good, you know, everyone has a different opinion on that, right? Yeah. So they may— so a lot of that education comes from there. And on bigger projects, they'll usually say, hey, you know, we, you know, a good landscaper that's insured will definitely look at that and get the approvals from the city before they go through with the project. But some of these smaller projects, especially not really big, you know, lot sizes, some of them, they may not necessarily go that route even if they are insured. They just may kind of know in the back of their head. But so it's good to make sure that that communication is coming through every avenue that it can so that There's just that education to understand what makes sense and what doesn't. And some visuals might be good too, you know, just throw those out on your social medias or wherever. One of those postcards they send out, hey, just a reminder, here you go, here's, here's what you can do with your yard. We're encouraging you to do it, save some water, those kind of things, because they have in the past done that. But just understand, here's what some restrictions that you will have, you know, on the way. 'Cause up to now they just kind of said, hey, you can do this stuff. And I think a lot of people have jumped in and done stuff, but not knowing what was typically allowed. And most homeowners aren't going to look it up. Let's be honest, we kind of know how it goes, right?

Speaker B: So.

Speaker A: Yeah. Commissioner Stephen, you had something? I'm going to have Commissioner DiCorsi go. You go first and then Stephen.

Speaker H: Sorry, you were waiting longer.

Speaker A: Oh, sorry.

Speaker H: I didn't see the hand. I just have a really quick one. The wording on item E, this is kind of nitpicky for sure, but I don't know that tree trunks really maintain any sort of radius. So maybe it's something like artificial turf shall not be installed within 2.5 feet of the tree. Same gist, just maybe adjust the wording slightly.

Speaker A: Yeah, I think they say it's— it says maintain a 2-foot Radius free from artificial turf?

Speaker H: Yeah, it's only the— it's the composition of the sentence. Tree trunks maintain— tree trunks shall maintain, and it's like, you're going to enforce it with a tree?

Speaker A: The subject should be the space. I gotcha. Minor, like it's more like a direction. A tree ring that's 2 feet, 2.5 feet. Anyway, okay.

Speaker C: Steven?

Speaker I: I just— I wanted to point out that You've been talking about this 50% requirement. Right before that in the code, it does mention that that requirement only applies to building permits. So properties that have building permits that are issued after February 1st, 2024.

Speaker B: Right.

Speaker I: So that'd be all your newer builds. And it's kind of— maybe this question for Marcus too. So what— could this ever apply if a property completely changes their landscaping? So, or does it really just tie to their building permit?

Speaker F: I would say that if they were changing their landscaping and putting in artificial turf, it would absolutely apply.

Speaker B: Okay.

Speaker I: Would it be better to change this wording though to make that a little clearer?

Speaker F: To clarify that it applies to anybody putting in artificial turf? I think—

Speaker I: Well, just to— I mean, I've had this question.

Speaker F: I think just it being there, those are just the standards for artificial turf that we have. Had already legally put in artificial turf, then you would you could be nonconforming theoretically. But if you have like grass and you know other vegetation in your yard and you want to put in artificial turf to replace a large portion of that up fifty seventy five percent whatever the number is, then you'd have to follow these standards because that would be the standard that applies in our code at the time you're doing the act. So I don't know that you need to. Put it in clarifying that it applies to existing homes any more than you would have to put it in any other code requirement that it applies to an existing home that wants to engage in a use that they're not conforming on.

Speaker B: Okay.

Speaker A: Good discussion.

Speaker B: Okay.

Speaker A: Any other comments?

Speaker G: I'll just say I'm glad we're writing this because this is really good to have because I've seen it come on the news before with other cities doing it and having problems with the runoff and all that other kind of stuff when people bring turf in. And so having some standards is really, I think, is smart and helpful.

Speaker B: So grateful for it. Yeah.

Speaker A: Well, the city does have one area of artificial turf out there, Eagle Mountain Boulevard.

Speaker G: And high school.

Speaker A: Well, yeah, yeah, yeah. Be careful what you wish for, I guess, because it's hot stuff. It's not cool by any stretch. But anyway, yeah, okay, I will entertain a motion for this agenda. Item 7C. Do you want to try?

Speaker B: Yeah.

Speaker A: OK. I think the only suggestion we really came to was just some language consideration for, right, item E to make the emphasis on the space, the free, the 2.5-foot tree ring. We usually call those tree rings free from artificial turf. That would be the only thing, I think, other than that. But you're welcome to make that.

Speaker H: Okay, I move that we— I believe the action is to forward a positive recommendation to City Council for Item 7C with the change to Item E that we talked about probably something along the lines of artificial turf shall not be installed within 2.5 feet of the outer edge of the trunk of any existing tree measured at ground level. Something like that, or to that effect.

Speaker B: Yeah.

Speaker K: That's good.

Speaker B: Okay.

Speaker F: That make sense?

Speaker J: I will second it.

Speaker B: Okay.

Speaker A: We have a motion by Commissioner DiCorsi. To forward a positive recommendation with a recommendation of language change, as well as a second by Commissioner Strong. Any need to clarify that?

Speaker B: Okay.

Speaker A: Any discussion?

Speaker B: Okay.

Speaker A: We'll proceed with our vote. We'll start with Commissioner Freeh.

Speaker F: Yes.

Speaker A: Commissioner Jensen.

Speaker D: Yes.

Speaker A: Commissioner DiCorsi.

Speaker H: Yes.

Speaker A: Commissioner Hess votes yes. And Commissioner Strong.

Speaker B: Yes.

Speaker A: OK, thank you. That vote passes with 5 votes. Moving on to our agenda. Thanks for the discussion, everybody. That was good. Um, we don't have item 8. There's not any discussion items. We had an agenda review. Our next scheduled meeting would be— ooh, November.

Speaker F: What day is that?

Speaker A: Someone's gonna know their calendar better than me.

Speaker I: October 27th.

Speaker A: Oh, October, okay, yeah, yeah, okay.

Speaker B: Coming, coming, coming.

Speaker A: Okay, does anybody know if they will be out of town October 27th?

Speaker H: I'm scheduled to be out of town for a conference that week.

Speaker B: Okay, all right.

Speaker A: I should be here. I will be— I will miss the following on the 10th.

Speaker B: I don't remember.

Speaker A: Is there? I think I should be here. Okay, well, if anything changes again, just make sure you give me, uh, you know, enough notice to ensure that we have a quorum. Okay, um, we're on our last agenda, looking for a motion, um, to adjourn.

Speaker D: So motioned.

Speaker A: Okay, all right, we have a motion from Commissioner Jensen to adjourn. Um, all in favor?

Speaker B: Aye.

Speaker A: Okay, 7:38, we adjourn the meeting.