Across the movement uh moving the years.

I believe then all of them.

Oh okay, so you're a little further east, then let's okay.

Great.

Uh yeah, say five years later.

And you're I uh me and his brother late the investments.

Great.

And so I'm really good friends both.

We we hang out at his place, like in uh hang on our place when we're playing.

I said it.

He plays over our house and yeah, good times.

Yeah, I've known Jordan.

30 30 is just five years.

My daughter, my youngest daughter texted me.

So is it gonna be a long meeting?

Call her back really quick, hey Pete.

Um called her back real quick on the well we've got two items, and we've got trained next seven, seven three months.

I'll be soon quick.

Yeah.

Or we get any uh good.

I think the only one we're missing is Jace, right?

Yeah.

I may need to borrow your pen.

Yeah, just put it right there.

Okay, I'm just gonna look.

You coming up here?

Yeah.

I don't know.

I can't look into the pressure.

Pressure Schmeisher, get up here.

You're more important than we are.

I don't know.

I think there's a lot more pressure around that little round table this year.

Oh yeah, I wouldn't ever want that.

That sounds awful.

Well now I have to know.

I know.

I guess we only have the one right now.

Uh ready to go, Noah.

Um Royce.

All right.

Go ahead and get started.

We'll bring to order the Syracuse City Planning Commission meeting September 2nd, 2025.

Uh we will have an invocation or thought by Commissioner Anderson and the Pledge of Allegiance led by Commissioner Baker.

No, she uh yes, Baker.

Sorry.

Sorry, Blake.

Got it.

Yeah, Grace Henry Father are grateful to be able to meet together and to be able to uh be here for our city and to be able to discuss needs and of our city and uh help uh move things forward and I should please bless that we can be able to have a thoughtful meeting and uh say you think it's on Jesus Christ mean for the Pledge of Allegiance I pledge allegiance to the flag, the United States in America to the public which it stands on nation under God invisible of liberty and justice for all right, thank you.

All right, thank you.

Take a motion to adopt.

I move to adopt.

Well motion that we have second.

Second.

All in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

Any post?

Okay.

We will move on to the meeting minutes.

And we will be uh adopting the uh regular meeting and work session for the meeting on August 19th, 2025.

If there are no notes or updates that need to be done on the meeting minutes, we'll take a motion to adopt.

Chair, I'll make a motion that we adopt the meeting minutes for the regular meeting and work session for August 19, 2025.

We have a motion, a second.

A second.

All in favor?

I need posed.

And I'll abstain.

Fair enough.

Yeah.

Next item.

We have the public comment section.

This is an opportunity for members of the city to address the planning commission regarding items not scheduled for public hearing on this agenda.

If you are here to discuss an item on the agenda, we ask that you wait for that time.

Otherwise, uh, please keep your time to three minutes or less.

Anyone online?

Cool.

We'll go ahead and close public comment.

All right.

Our number fourth item is public hearing for revised site plan for commercial sites.

Royce.

Okay, so we uh we discussed this one a little bit last time in the upcoming uh agenda items.

But this is uh it's a revised site plan for uh one that was approved a few months ago.

Um we met in August with the ARC, and there was one recommendation.

There's uh, but it's kind of dependent on whether these landings are going to end up actually being built or not.

So uh there was just uh a question about getting around the exterior of the building for anything that needed to be taken from back of house out to the front of the building.

Um so the uh actually I'll go down to the site plan, kind of give you an idea of what they were talking about.

All right, so yeah, I guess that probably shows it well enough.

So this is the building outline here.

So there's there's the potential that there's gonna be some concrete out here, but also depending on the way that it's set up, they might not have it.

So it is shown here on the updated plan with a uh side kind of connection there.

So this uh this was something that was recommended by the the ARC.

It's not uh required by code.

They are required by fire code if they have fire risers in the back, and also if they have doorways that they have some sort of walkway back there, but um, but other than that, uh, and again, not a code thing, but other than that, uh the review of this.

Um every all the comments have been addressed.

And sorry, I'm just gonna let our engineer in.

Um, all the comments have been addressed.

The uh the the only real differences here are that the previous site plan showed a drive-thru coming down along the back and then uh along the south side of the building.

And since that's been removed, they just have increased landscaping and the building is is a little bit bigger than it was before.

So um let's see.

Let me go down to landscape here.

So the landscaping that's proposed is uh pretty much the same as what was there before.

Uh mixture of trees and shrubs, and then like a gravel base.

Um so water wise landscaping.

And uh they still have maintained uh previous uh recommendations that were uh applied by the planning commission, uh namely that the access here on the south side.

And I've been working with the applicant on the property to the east, and they're they're amenable to that as well.

We just haven't received an updated plan that shows that change.

So uh the difference in this case being that with the previous drive-through, uh, that was one of the main concerns was just making sure that the drive-thru had two lines of of uh access to exit the the property.

So this would essentially just allow for cross access.

Uh if people wanted to access a uh drive-thru on the other building.

So kind of thinking ahead and where we do have the application in in line.

Uh this this is still gonna be effective for that.

It allows people to be able to access that drive-through across this property and across the other one in case there are conflicts over here that would prevent access.

So um less traffic jams is good, I guess.

So uh, but again, we would uh all the staff comments have been addressed, all the city code.

Uh it uh meets all the requirements of the city code, so we would recommend approval.

That's all I have.

Awesome.

Thank you.

All right, this item is open for public hearing.

Uh for this, we will go ahead and open public hearing again as a public comment.

If you have any comments, please limit your comments to three minutes or less.

Seeing none, we'll go ahead and plug close public hearing.

Chair, I need to recuse myself from this item.

We'll note that for the minutes uh for meeting.

All right, uh open it up to discussion or motion.

Oh, I'm sorry, we're did you you're looking at me?

Did you ask?

No, no, yes.

Oh, sorry.

But I was talking with no downs the line.

And then you may not contact me.

I don't have any concerns, Chair.

Okay.

And I noticed that some of them have uh wall lighting sconces on some of the depictions, but it doesn't look like there's any that are in the um profile view specifically, and then the lighting analysis doesn't have any coming off of the building, they only have the parking lot.

Is there will there be lighting involved there?

Has that been checked?

All of that parking lot.

So the lighting in this one's a little different.

Uh so that you can see these these marks here.

Um the the lighting actually is located in the awning facing downward.

So it's gonna be a full cutoff light, but it's just in the actual metal at the awning extending from the building.

Yeah, I just didn't want them to be shining like they have in the in the one depiction, they're shining up and down.

So and Royce, do we need to go back to our newest ordinance of bicycles for this?

Or uh they actually show the bike parking on here, so it's located down there.

So that's uh holdover from the previous one.

Yep.

Perfect.

That was gonna be my comment as well.

So all right.

If nothing else, we'll take a motion.

I can make a motion.

Uh move the planning commission to approve the request uh Father to the Well in for minute site plan on lot 3A of Atlanta Antelope Station Subdivision located at 1604 South 3000 West, containing 0.58 acres in the G Z G C zone.

Thank you, Commissioner Anderson.

Second, Mr.

Gardner.

We have an improved motion uh motion and a second, all in favor.

I need opposed.

Okay.

Motion is adopted.

Next item, discussion and motion.

This is not a public hearing or final plot in RCE's park west phase three.

I apologize.

My reviews are just massive because I've got all this copied and pasted code, but there we go.

Okay, so this is gonna be the third and and final uh plat for the RC's Park West project that started a few years ago, uh replacing the RC Willie property.

Um so this this is gonna be on the north side of the road, north side of 2700 where the old parking lot was, and uh there's also some properties to the west of the parking lot that are included.

So uh a mixture of town homes and single family housing for this one.

So this is 2700 down here, and then there's private drives that come up for the town homes.

Um, and then we've got two single family properties that will access the public drive up here.

Um so yeah, this one's pretty straightforward.

All the staff comments have been addressed, meets all the requirements of the city code.

Um, so we'd recommend approval.

Awesome.

Um quick question.

So to clarify, those two single families will be kind of adopted into the existing uh north facing area, and they won't have access to that private road.

Yeah, so it kind of backs this private drive, but yeah, and I suppose potentially they could access it, I guess.

It's a weird sort of pseudo double frontage lot, but um, there is uh yeah.

It's a weird sort of pseudo double frontage lot, but um, there is a yeah, so we've got a little bit of a landscape buffer on the south side.

So this this property on the west side doesn't have access onto it, but um I guess it's really up to the property owner if they wanted to access a garage or something back there.

It is a private drive, so we don't have like a double frontage lot standard for something like that in the code.

Okay.

All right.

Um discussion or motion, Chair.

There was a question the engineer brought up about a width of a roadway or access road.

Has that been resolved?

It was only six inches difference, but I'm just curious for the access road up here, the section page one.

It's just as why is five eight of road being dedicated on 27 South Street and not 33.

Okay, and is that that's that in our engineer review?

Okay.

Uh, we do have our engineer online.

Uh Brian, can you speak to that?

Yeah, I sure can.

Um I have not seen an updated set of plans since I did this review.

Um, so I'm not sure if it has been, but I know they were working on plans last week.

Um, but if you just approved it with a conditional approval, I'd be fine with that with these comments being addressed.

So, Brian, were all of your other questions addressed?

Your no, no, all those comments are still outstanding as far as I know.

I haven't, like I said, I haven't seen a new set of plans yet for this one.

But I don't I don't think any of them are major enough to hold it up.

So I think if what you said is we can approve this just based on um pending approval of your comments, correct.

Yeah, if you just did a conditional approval with these comments, I'd be fine with that.

So, whatever motion, let's make sure we get that included in that as well.

All right, take a motion.

I'll make a motion.

Okay.

Including the additional uh pending requests made by the city engineer.

So conditional upon the conditional upon the approval of uh engineer.

Yeah, all right.

We have a motion.

We have a second.

A second.

All right, we have a second.

All in favor?

Any opposed?

Motion is adopted.

Next item is to adjourn to work session.

Take a motion.

Motion to adjourn.

Okay.

We all in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

All right, we are adjourned to work session.

All right, uh, we will start as usual with our city council liaison.

What?

Dick, no kidding.

All right.

Um city attorney.

Welcome to part one of our 10 minute trainings.

Well, as promised or as threatened, here we go.

Yeah, I thought we'd spend tonight talking about uh for about 10 minutes the difference between land use decisions and land use regulations.

Those are two very different things in the Utah Code.

There are dozens of Supreme Court opinions that fight and change as to what that means.

This legislature changes the actual definition in the statute every couple of years, and so it's a moving target.

But I'm gonna give you the the really basic rule that will make you be right most of the time, and here it is.

If the action item is adopted or enacted by an ordinance by the city council, it is almost always a land use regulation.

If the final decision is reached by the planning commission or planning staff, it is almost always a land use decision.

Now that doesn't always hold true, works for most of the time.

So we've got 10 true or false questions.

Feel free to keep track if you want.

I won't have you raise your hands.

I won't have you report your scores.

But let's talk about each of these 10 questions and briefly what the answers are.

Number one.

A general plan is a land use decision.

True or false.

Ask yourself who adopts the general plan.

Is it the planning commission or the city council?

If you answered false, you are correct.

It is not a land use decision.

It is a land use regulation because it's adopted by the city council upon recommendation of the planning commission.

Let me digress for just a minute.

What are the two things you did tonight?

Decisions or regulations.

Decisions.

Decisions.

Decisions because we made the decision.

You made the final enact.

You made the final adoption or the final enactment.

Okay.

Question number two.

Not number true.

That's not the answer, by the way.

It may or may not be.

Question number two.

The adoption or amendment of a zoning map is a land use decision.

True or false.

Who changes the zoning map?

You or the city council?

City Council on your recommendation.

So if the city council does it, it's generally a regulation, correct?

So that answer would have been false.

The adoption of an amendment, adoption or an amendment of a zoning map is a land use regulation.

Number three, true or false.

A general plan is a binding guide for land use regulations and land use decisions.

True or false.

Is it binding or is it not binding?

Say that again, read it again.

A general plan is a binding guide for land use regulations and land use decisions.

It's a general plan.

It is not binding.

It is advisory.

Okay.

The city council can do things in contravention of the general plan if they have a good reason.

Next question, number four, a zone change is a land use decision.

True or false.

Who makes the decision?

City Council.

City Council.

The City Council does it, it's generally a land use regulation.

Regulation.

Next one.

True or false.

The determination of permitted and conditional uses in a specified zone is a land use regulation.

True or false.

True.

That comes up through the planning commission on recommendation to the city council, and the city council adopts the ordinance.

That's sets what the permitted uses and the conditional uses are.

Next one.

I'm a lawyer.

That's my job.

Did you notice that when he when he started this whole thing, he said almost always so he wasn't finding himself into a corner?

Yeah, the last question.

Last question is which member of the planning commission is going to complain the most about the questions.

Okay, next one.

The city council can adopt a land use regulation that has not been vetted by the planning commission.

True or false.

Generally, the answer would be false, right?

It comes through the planning commission.

You hold a public hearing, you make a recommendation for or against.

Either way, that recommendation recommendation goes to the city council and they make the ultimate decision.

Generally, that's how it works.

Okay.

We'll get back to the exception to the rule.

Next one, true or false.

The city council may consider the planning commission's failure to make a recommendation as a negative recommendation.

You get an application, you hold a public hearing, you table it, nothing happens.

You never come back to it.

Does the city council have to wait for you?

Or can they act and say you didn't give them a recommendation?

Therefore, we're going to treat that as a negative recommendation.

They can do that, which is why you always end up making a recommendation to the city council and never just throw it up to them without a recommendation.

Okay.

Next one.

The city council can decline to address a recommendation from the planning commission.

Now you've held your public hearing.

You've made your recommendation in favor of the zone change.

You send it up to them.

They're not sure what they want to do, so they're the ones that table it and table it and table it.

Can they do that forever?

Or do they eventually have to make a decision?

Yeah.

They have to make a decision.

And they have to make it timely, although reasonably timely is at great debate in the courts.

Oh, let's see.

I think we're down to about number eight or nine here.

Yep.

The planning commission may amend the boundaries of a zoning district.

True or false.

You can amend the boundary of a zoning district.

No, you can only make a recommendation to the city council.

That is a land use regulation, which is adopted by ordinance.

Number 10.

The city council may enact a temporary land use regulation without a recommendation from the planning commission.

True, they can.

This is an exception to the general rule that they have to have your recommendation.

But they can adopt temporary regulations.

They can't last more than six months.

You've probably heard that they can do a moratorium.

There's a reason there's a six-month deadline because they can do what they need to do or they think they need to do, but if it didn't come up to them through the planning planning commission, it can only last for six months.

Then they have to go back and do it again.

Hopefully they send it to you in the meantime.

So if they ever decide to do a moratorium without your input, they'll adopt the moratorium, then they'll send it to you and have you study it for six months and send it back to them so they can decide whether they want to make a permanent change or not.

All right.

If you got more than half the questions right, you get to go home at the end of this meeting.

And if you didn't get more than half the questions right, you still get to go home at the end of this meeting.

We'll talk again in two weeks or four weeks.

Thank you.

I just want to add to your you know example with the moratorium.

Um, that doesn't mean there's no work going on.

If they know they say no, we're gonna put a moratorium on townhouses built along this area until we get some more things in place or we adopt policies or whatever it is, but during that six months, there usually should be a lot of work going on.

So you don't have to extend that.

When there is a temporary land use regulation, you are exactly correct.

The purpose of that temporary regulation is to figure out what the problem is and to address the problem within those six months.

You're absolutely right.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you, Colin.

All right.

Uh upcoming agenda items.

All right.

So a lot of the same uh that we've had.

So let's see, we've got uh so we've got that that building that I mentioned to the east uh of the commercial property we were talking about today.

I'm still working on that.

I talked with the applicant last week and just waiting on some revised plans.

Um we let's see.

I I mentioned uh there was a site plan on on 500 west down by 2700 for uh uh it's a preschool.

I talked with the applicant about that last week.

That may be on hold, they're trying to decide what they want to do.

Um, so that's that's not going to be quite as pressing.

We might see that in a while.

We might not see it.

Um see we have a subdivision application for the property.

We just did the West Lake landing subdivision.

I'll show you on the map here.

Um, so we just did the commercial property here.

Um, recently there's also property owned down here.

Uh this zoned residential, and we received a residential application for that.

So we'll be looking at that one soon.

Um see, we also have uh phase four of the Sadies Glenn project.

So just a continuation of the townhomes and single family uh 55 plus community over here.

Um, and then see we also have an application for a subdivision plat down here.

Did a rezone on this uh a few months ago, and they're looking at potentially just uh building a cul-de-sac.

Um so we'll see what happens with that one in terms of whether it goes through or whether it's a cul-de-sac, but they've proposed a single family housing in there.

That's like I guess just stay on that picture for a minute because it just brings up a question because we're I think one of our jobs should be to try to prevent these little islands from existing in the middle of a so this access to this piece of property, where will it come from?

So it currently kind of sits between these two stubs here, and this this property is not owned by them, so they they can't go through without these properties developing.

But yeah, they do have a stub there.

Um, but you are correct.

Yeah, we want to try and prevent landlocked parcels like that.

So with this one, yeah.

The big question is whether or not it's it's going to be required to punch through or whether they can just put in a cul-de-sac and then these guys would do a cul-de-sac.

Um, so we'll see what we end up with.

Okay.

Thanks.

That's a great picture.

Thanks.

Yeah, based on based on timing of some of the houses built out there that was quite a while ago.

Right.

Yep.

That's all I have.

Okay, thank you.

All right, commissioner reports.

All right, we'll take a motion to adjourn.

Move to adjourn.

We have a motion, a second.

Second.

All in favor?

I we are adjourned.

Thank you, everyone.

Okay.

But if we should reports, what do we look at?

Are there gonna be cards where you want to be gone?

I think we can even mention that um if you are should you know you want to train your something on way something that you want to share with everyone.

That'd be a good time for basically generic of anything, like it's just a joke.

So all I just thing to say.

So our old chair is chairman.

He was on the time I need it right out of easy.

I'm talking about like what's in a window with the history finding the other thing.

So yeah, kind of inside 23,000 model there, and he would have a share that's fine.

So like on definitely.

You want to say hey, how hot is it?

I don't have to have systems on the general city that's why.

It's kind of our checks to public formal.

Yeah, it doesn't necessarily mean that it's anyway that's no you got some days.

Generally it's not anything that happens.

Our discussion was about new properties, but that's what we've got.

I don't actually prefer to say that's what's uh we need oh, I just uh I don't work the four dollars a day.

So not half over half, yeah.

Over half house.

It can't be three, right?

That's why we have an odd dollar.

Also, we have a person.

You don't have a random splitting above every time that we have personally.

You know, has to voting.

And if we get a C above, we can table is that a capital number basically.

Okay, it's always the okay.

I believe that's the case.

It's a default if we don't have a general consensus.

Thank you.

It'll always be quick and say that's like uh it's not gonna do something for six months of five months.

We're never gonna do that.

That's why I said it.

That seems really well.

There is that clause that says that each day could be considered a separate event, so that's one rule stacks up.

I wouldn't even mind if we said somehow.

Yeah, so uh because in all reality, a lot of times we just charge them for the first fence if that thing decided that.