General Information

Government Type

Municipality

Entity

Blanding

Public Body

Planning Commission

Notice Information

Add Notice to Calendar

Notice Title

June Planning Commission Minutes

Notice Type(s)

Meeting

Event Start Date & Time

June 11, 2026 07:00 PM

Description/Agenda

Planning Commission Minutes Commission Members Colby Davis Tyler Nielson Regan Richmond Will McFarland Braden Rees City Council Rep: Kellen Nielson June 11th, 2026-7:00 pm 50 West 100 South Street, Blanding Utah 84511 Google Meet meet.google.com/kwz-oabg-ucx MAIN MEETING Call to Order 1. Roll Call 2. Approval: Consent Agenda and Minutes from May 14th, 2026 Regular Session Will made a motion to approve the consent agenda and minutes from May 14, 2026 meeting. Braden seconded the motion, it passed unanimously. Public Input - None Reports 1. Council Representative None 2. Commissioner None 3. Development Director a. Vote for new Commission Chair - Tyler nominated Regan. Colby seconded it and the motion passed unanimously. B. The commission decided to schedule the August meeting for August 20th. Todd Thorne will join us for that meeting and do some training for the commission members. They will hold a July meeting if necessary, to meet the needs of the community, in particular the Baylesses. If they aren't prepared with their requested plans, then the July meeting will potentially be canceled. Administrative Actions 1. Palmer Subdivision amendment Ben introduced the Palmer subdivision amendment, which involved joining two existing parcels into one to accommodate a house that is currently being built. The commission approved this administrative action, confirming it met legal requirements and would not create an illegal lot. Tyler made a motion to approve the Palmer subdivision amendment. Will seconded the motion, it passed unanimously. 2. Andy Bayless Manufactured Housing Andy Bayless presented a development plan for two lots, proposing to place two permanent 600-to-800-square-foot tiny homes and potentially two RV hookups on the property. Andy noted that the sewer line and electrical capacity had been reviewed by city staff, specifically Trevor. There were concerns regarding the inclusion of RVs for residency, citing that current city ordinances generally only allow long-term RV residency in commercial RV parks and noting potential liability issues regarding safety standards. Additionally, the commission raised questions about the sewer line's condition and whether it crossed a neighbor's property; it was stated that the city engineer needed to verify the line's integrity. The commission discussed the zoning classification for the block, noting it was previously as a mobile home zone and is now currently zoned R1. The commission emphasized the challenge of balancing community standards with the need for affordable housing options like smaller home footprints. They acknowledged that while they want to encourage useful development, they must maintain consistency with current R1 zoning requirements. The commission explored the possibility of the Baylesses modifying the plan to feature tiny homes and eliminating the RVs, which might be more acceptable under R1 zoning. Consequently, the commission made a motion to table the Bayless development plan pending further review of the sewer line by public works and the submission of an updated drawing by the applicant. Colby made a motion to table the item until further information can be gathered and the plan can be redrawn and brought back to the commission. Braden seconded the motion, it passed unanimously. 3. 'The Forge' Conditional Use Permit Ben presented the conditional use permit for The Forge, a fitness center located within a historic building. The commission discussed the history of the building, noting previous administrative resistance to its development and the current owners' efforts to comply with inspections. The commission deliberated on what conditions to attach to the permit for The Forge, specifically regarding state licensing for a health/fitness facility if necessary, parking, and ADA accessibility, hours of operation, and requirements for a public-facing commercial space. They questioned the extent of the city's role in enforcing state-level compliance and agreed that further evaluation was needed to ensure all requirements are addressed. Will made a motion to get further info on what is necessary to meet codes and state requirements and be brought back to the commission. Colby seconded the motion. It passed unanimously. Legislative Recommendations 1. Wall heights adjustment discussion/recommendations Ben introduced amendments to the fencing ordinance, proposing an 8-foot height limit on interior side or rear setbacks. The proposal includes a provision allowing for 10-foot fences in side or rear yards if adjacent neighbors sign an agreement, which must be recorded. Additionally, any fence over 72 inches would require an engineered design and a building permit. The commission discussed the current requirement that only open, clear chain-link fencing is allowed in front yard sight triangles if the height exceeds four feet. Concerns were raised about whether this rule, aimed at visibility and safety, is too restrictive, with suggestions made to allow other see-through materials, such as vinyl, for fencing exceeding four feet in height. The participants discussed aesthetic concerns regarding tall fences in front setbacks, agreeing that such structures can negatively impact neighborhood appearance. They reached a consensus to restrict fences in the front setback area to a maximum height of 48 inches (4 feet) to maintain visibility and neighborhood cohesion, regardless of the material used. They removed the 6-foot fence allowance in front setback areas. Will made a motion to send the fence revisions to city council. Braden seconded the motion. It passed unanimously. 2. Subdivision Ordinances discussion Ben opened a discussion on subdivision regulations, noting that the current major subdivision designation based on lot size is uncommon compared to other municipalities. There are currently three levels of subdivision in the code: one-to-two lot subdivisions (approved by staff), minor subdivisions (three or more lots with existing infrastructure), and major subdivisions (which involve more complex requirements). The committee identified that the current 'acre and a half' threshold for triggering a major subdivision status creates significant financial burdens, such as mandatory improvement plans, water reports, and soil tests, even when the development does not require new infrastructure extensions. (Todd Thorne noted that other communities often set the major subdivision threshold at 10 lots). This process can discourage smaller, affordable development projects. The commission discussed the high costs developers face when installing infrastructure, with Colby suggesting that the city explore options like a redevelopment agency or public bonding to help manage these expenses. The group agreed that these partnerships could lower costs for developers and help the city achieve growth and affordable housing goals, although they acknowledged the complexities of land ownership and public investment. The participants debated whether to mandate soil reports for all major residential subdivisions. While some argued that builders should already be responsible for verifying soil quality to protect their own reputations and avoid liability, the committee discussed whether the city should formalize these requirements to protect future homeowners. They concluded that the city retains enough leeway to review specific submittals and reject inadequate reports. The discussion turned to curb, gutter, and street width requirements, noting that while these are standard, they add substantial costs. Participants considered alternative storm water solutions, such as detention ponds or underground rock and stone drainage systems, which could be more cost-effective than building into the city's storm drain system. The group agreed that flexibility in managing water retention could support development without compromising the city's systems. Ben directed the committee to review the subdivision documents before the next meeting to share further thoughts and suggestions. Adjournment Will motioned to adjourn. Tyler seconded the motion. The meeting adjourned.

Notice of Special Accommodations (ADA)

In compliance with the ADA, individuals needing special accommodations during this meeting may call the City Offices at (435) 678-2791 at least twenty-four hours in advance. Every effort will be made to provide the appropriate services.

Notice of Electronic or Telephone Participation

One or more commission members may participate electronically.

Meeting Information

Meeting Location

50 W 100 S
Blanding, UT 84511
Show in Apple Maps Show in Google Maps

Contact Name

Ben Muhlestein

Contact Email

bmuhlestein@blanding-ut.gov

Notice Posting Details

Notice Posted On

July 28, 2026 03:57 PM

Notice Last Edited On

July 28, 2026 03:57 PM

Subscribe by Email

Subscription options will send you alerts regarding future notices posted by this Body.