Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay, we'll go ahead and get started. And Justin, let's see. Justin's going to lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you. All right, looks like we have a full quorum. Are there any conflicts of interest? All right, approval of minutes for July 1st. Any corrections?

I do have a correction on item 4.2. It shows that I did the motion and the second, and I know that wasn't correct, but I don't remember which was what, I know I did one or the other. So I would just make motion to approve the minutes with an adjustment to 4.2 once we make that determination.

Looks like it was Adam who did the second, Adam.

Adam was the second, okay.

It was Adam.

That's what I was thinking as well. Yeah, I got you on that one. So yeah, so I'll make a motion to approve the minutes for July 1st with that change for item 4.2 with my motion being moved upon and seconded by Adam.

I'll second.

Okay, a motion by Andy, a second by Daryl. All in favor? Aye. 4.1, review and consider approval of a conditional use permit for a conference and reception center.

Alrighty, we will be talking about Haven Events Center. This has come to Planning Commission before, however it was continued for better information about the parking study and a resubmitted parking study with better information. This has been received and the information does reflect Harriman City Code. So this is up in Teton Commercial. This is a better view of it. This is building two on lot two. These are the shell buildings that have been constructed and were already approved. This is a significantly better layout than we had in our last one. Our applicants were great and helped us get a more accurate understanding of what will be happening. So in the center here, you can see the main event space. On the left side of your screen is the board game cafe. And then on the right side of your screen are the bride and groom rooms, as well as that smaller event space called the cove. Okay, so getting into the weeds of it, this is the new parking study. Our tenant sent in a new document lowering that number of occupants to 306. There are currently 50 parking stalls on this lot. As you all know, there were required to be 51, so on lot one when it's built, there will be an additional parking stall there. Building one will require roughly 40 stalls and then building two will require 73 stalls according to the parking study and then it's broken down here. The board game cafe will be 19, the large event space 42, small event space 12. So if we do that math really quick with those 73 stalls and 2.5 occupants, that gets us to 182 occupants. The parking study and city code, the parking study is based off of our parking schedule that we have within our city code, show a deficit of 63 stalls for lot two. Lots one and three will be built out and have an additional 68 stalls so that 63 stalls can be made up in the cross-access agreement between lots one, two, and three. And then there are on-street parking areas available in this area, and they are treated as common space. This could potentially yield up to 38 stalls. They are not reserved, so it wouldn't be an exact science if there will always be those 38 available. But that's the maximum that could be available. lots one, two and three are built out and there is no deficit in parking, but those additional 38 are available. It would bring the parking total for building two to 111. And then when you multiply that by 2.5, which is the occupancy rating for each vehicle inside of the parking study, it gives us 277.5 occupants. As we discussed previously, lot one is looking to plan construction within, start construction in the next four months. So they're anticipating that parking area being done within the next six. So that could help with the occupancy load here. We also have discussed upping the occupancy as more spaces are available. If there are two more spaces available, multiply it by 2.5. You get to have that many more occupants as everything is being built out. one other thing I wanted to mention was there is an option for vendors to bring alcohol into this space as it is an event center I checked with licensing and I was worried about the potential distance from several schools in the area however The distances are OK, and preschools don't count towards that. And as we won't be giving Haven Events Center the actual license, it'll be through whoever the vendor is. It will just be upon Haven Events Center to make sure their vendors have that proper documentation. Perfect, so our recommendations are here. So the chart at the bottom goes with the second statement. This is what we currently have with the parking on-site only would be 25 in the day and 105 at night. And then including the on-street parking, it would be 120 to 200. There is that potential to use that on-street parking temporarily while lot one is being built out and then kind of transferring those stalls. Yeah, and then the overall recommendation number three is to just increase capacity as parking is available. If you have any questions or concerns, I'm happy to answer questions and the applicant, Swen, is here as well.

I have a question. Do we have accepted site plans at the city for lots one and three and where those exact 53 or 63 parking spots would be located?

So we do have a document from the applicant. It's not included in this plan, but site one does intend to have 33 parking stalls on it. That is confirmed. We do have that documentation from the applicant. However, we don't have anything on block three.

33 additional parking spots.

33 parking spots.

Just 33 parking spots?

Correct.

So no services, no buildings, no nothing on that lot Because you can't share parking spaces if there's no use.

Yeah, so this might be a better question for the applicant. The city itself does not have any approved or official site plan applications. Yeah, I think lot one is intended to have 33 lots itself. I'm not sure about construction, so one can probably answer that better.

Right, right. Yeah, that was my question is whether you guys have a site plan or not. Okay.

Perfect. Cool. Sven's on his way up.

So if you don't mind stating your name.

Yep, Sven Nielsen. I'm on the application for the conditional use in behalf for the owner of the property. I did print this out because I know it was late and I was just trying to give an example of... It's a little bit additional to where the street parking would be. I don't know if you guys can see this very well. Just to give an idea of what the parking study is referencing and where. We could do five here, five here, and then 28 additional on this back row. And here is the actual property. The printer, unfortunately, didn't have a good poster board for me, so I have to use this. And then on this site is where the 33 future sites. This site is through the city. And actually, the contractor is here and has been approved with two drive-throughs. And then a retail building, I think similar to this Haven Event Center building, right around 5,000 to 6,000 square feet, give or take. I don't know exactly the square footage, but that's what's been approved. And with the current use with the city, there's a little bit of overage on the parking. With the 33, I think it's only 31 that's required. And so there's two extra on that particular area. And then the third lot, we have not gone that far with yet. So that's open to discussion. Any other questions on that? Or any questions in general? I'm happy to help.

Do we have any questions for the applicant?

So I guess my question is, you only have 10 spots in this lot two that you can use for this event center. You need 73. That gives us the 63 stalls. If lot one has 33, but the city does not have those site plans yet, are we just... It does for lot one. It does have... Yeah, that's approved.

That's through, yeah. I just didn't bring it up, but that is through, yes.

Okay, because city says that they don't have a site plan for that yet. That's what my question was.

Shane happens to be the contractor on that.

Right.

I'm correct, right? Come up and...

Lot one site plan in the street.

Do you mind stating your name too?

Oh, yeah, sorry. Thank you. Shane Peterson. I'm with Pico Construction. Lot one was previously approved site plan in three buildings. There's two drive-throughs and one office building on there. The permits were ready to be purchased. They have not been purchased yet, and the permits just expired without, we weren't able to purchase them yet, but they were previously approved. all of lot one.

So was this traffic study, and this goes back to you, sorry, does this traffic study then take into account lot one's uses and their parking requirements, or is it just assuming that it's a blank lot?

I believe so. I think the traffic study can... considers what we also plan on doing on lot three that's not through, right? So I think it brings it all together. And then what's currently there with the street parking as well. The parking study references the DCRE for the entire master development. And that's kind of how they based it off of. And then there is also going to be eventually overflow parking on a lot that we do not control as well. So every owner in the master developer, every owner of the lot will have access to that parking once it is actually there. So then it's kind of like for now, the street parking overflows good and works, but as that will increase anyways, and then street parking won't really be a factor. But right now it is currently, the parking study references that documentation to come up with a number of occupancies and the hours and what operations like, hey, during the day, this is what you could do. During the evening, this is what you could also do with what's currently on site.

I just pulled up the parking study, and I can confirm it discusses lot one having 33, lot two having 50, and lot three having 38 parking stalls.

Right, but does it take into account the uses of those parking stalls in lot one and lot three?

That is not within this parking study.

I don't think we're allowed, I don't think we can...

consider that for this application, and that would be something we would consider for a future application, wouldn't it?

No, because we can't assume that we can use those parking spots if we don't know what uses are going into that other lot. Those uses haven't applied yet, though.

We can.

No, they have. They said that they already have Is that correct, that they have already submitted their site plans? It was in 2024.

There was a site plan approved for lot one.

But it's expired.

Yeah.

Okay. That's what I'm trying to understand is the site plans that have been approved for lot one, we can't just assume that none of those parking spots are being used, all 33 of them.

Sure. I think with what's currently planning to be built, there's an overage of two there. And I can't tell you off the top of my head, because I do not know, there is an overage, I believe, on the second. On lot three. And to say lot three is only two buildings. And so there's an overage there.

Of one, according to the parking study that I'm reading. Oh, sorry.

I'm talking about lot three.

Yes, lot three shows one.

Which is one? Okay, I couldn't remember what it was.

Yeah, table two, two.

There's one drive-through building on that that's, I believe, is supposed to be right around 2200. Granted, this is not through the city yet. Right. Which would be, I think, eight parking stalls. Right.

Yeah, I'm just trying to get my head around. Sure, sure. You know, the old ridges. Old ridges-wise, we have three parking spots between one and three.

that doesn't quite make 63. so right now according to this study that it's saying that there is a deficit of 60 stalls between lots one two and three right so they would be limited on their occupancy because of that right they're not going to be allowed to do yeah they're not going to be able to reach their maximum goal unless they provide parking elsewhere but right now according to the parking study they There's only two lots in lot one available and one lot in lot three. So they have this 63 deficit in lot two. They can make up three of those in one and three. They're still at a 60 deficit. So they will be limited.

And that's what I want to be completely clear with is we're not saying, yes, there's tons of room in lots one and three to cover everything.

We're saying you're limited.

60 spots deficit. After one and three are built. You're not getting much out of one and three. Yep, exactly.

All right. Yep. The nice thing is, is we're a little bit flexible on what we do as far as, so we can go through and mitigate some parking issues, right? And it might not be the number that we have in our brain, but we don't have to build the buildings yet, right? The one thing we're trying to avoid is when you go and do the infrastructure for this parking lot, there's a significant cost just to do like the drainage and stuff like that. And so it was like, hey, we can't just go put the permanently parking in, and then rip it up, and then put all that drainage. But we can do the drainage, and we can put the parking in, and then we don't have to build those buildings until there's time. We have obligations for our contract as the owners of the lots through the master development. Hey, we have to start progressing on these lots. It actually doesn't stipulate buildings, though. And so we can get ourselves like, hey, we're going to go through, we're going to get the parking there, We don't have to build anything until they start on the larger lot that we don't own, that's just south of the three lots. So there's a pathway to mitigate the problem and then also be patient with it, if that makes sense. We are able to do that part at least, if that makes sense.

So from the things that you've seen and understand, when the entire development is completed, you're gonna make up that deficit in parking?

When the entire thing, like everything that we don't even control?

Right.

Oh, yeah, I would think easily. Because you're going to have a cross. Yeah, there's a cross-access agreement, and then there's going to be probably a mid-size box. I don't control it, so I can't tell you what's coming, right? But like a fairly large, it's not going to be like a Smith's or anything. I can't imagine there's Smith's down the road, right? But something large that's going to have substantial parking.

Yeah, until that happens, you're willing to not erect a building on?

One and three.

One and three. Okay.

Well, we wouldn't need to do both of them that way, but for one, we could do it that way, because the one would make up the difference, right? If we did one of them, does that make sense?

No. Yeah, he's saying that if he doesn't build on lot one, he can use all of lot one.

Yeah, but I think... Can I make a... Because, again, 33 available lots on lot one, 38 on lot three. It still doesn't get you... one of those doesn't get you there, but you're counting on the on-street parking to get you there, is what I'm hearing.

Right.

Okay.

Based off the traffic study of like, hey, what can we facilitate?

So between the on-street and one lot, they can get there.

Because common area, the... There's easements that are part of the DCRE. All the street parking is available. The roads are common area. And for the common area, there is allowable parking. So the question is, can we get enough parking with what we can provide? And then also, is there surrounding other street parking that allows a business to thrive without really congesting anything and then allow him for occupancy? So I guess. And like, hey, during the day it's this, during the night weather, you know, it's this, but allows him to be able to. I do. Go ahead. Sure.

I'm Christopher V. Wager. I'm the owner of Haven Events Center.

Sorry, I wasn't aware of any of this. Actually, this is all new to me and the information I haven't been communicated with except for we do what you want or we'll sue you. So here's, I want to kind of go over really quick my concerns, because I know the landlord's view of parking and my view of parking is very different from what I was made aware of when we were building this. And mind you, this is a $1.4 million inside building project of 6,000 square feet. So this is my whole life that will go on the line. I've spent years looking at event centers. I'm LDS, so I've been to a billion different weddings. And I have a wedding photographer in the family and a wedding planner in the family. So I've We've done a lot of research on this and the number one complaint for event centers is parking. You actually have one in Harriman right now that the complaint is parking. And so my concern when I started this whole thing a couple years ago was the parking. And that's the grand scheme of things. I was told we'll have a box store and we'll have ample parking across the street. As we're coming up now, when I look at the parking study, my concern is we can accommodate about 228 people in an entire event center. This is a 6,000 square foot event center. We can put in the main part, if somebody reserves our event center, it's 228 people. We also have a soda shop that can fit 30 people. The soda shop will be ran all day long and we're next to a high school. and a huge neighborhood. So the concern there is that parking there. But then we have the concern with the parking as far as the event center. We plan on our goal, maybe to make it a little so you understand, is to constantly be involved in the community from marketing days where people can come in and sell their crafts to daddy-daughter dances to dealing with the high school, doing a buffet, catered buffet for their dances, things like that. So majority of our things will be in the evening, but there will still be things during the day. We have to accommodate and be able to make up a $24,000 rent payment and a loan payment. And so we have to have income. The way we have income is parking. Nobody's gonna want an event center if there's not enough parking and we have to trudge through mud to get to it and that's one of my concerns. If we can find a way that we can have parking and enough even for temporary and we have a commitment that we'll have enough parking within maybe six months or something like that but that would be satisfactory but Or even just, I know that the developer has put in gravel in the parking lot. Okay, so that doesn't happen either. That was the quick solution. So apparently I just found out just now that that's not an option either now. It's not. My concern is that we wanna be here for 10 plus years, 20 years, we wanna be able to do this, but I need to have the parking to do it. And parking along 118 South Street is not, I mean, until somebody gets killed, I guess that's fine. That's a concern. I mean, I can see, but I am a little concerned with that. And I do, and inside, if we can do parking, curbside parking through there, but... But that is my concern is we do have to have enough parking for these people. We can't have an event center that needs to make 26,000 square foot event center that needs to make a $24,000 rent payment with 50 people being able to occupy it or 100 people during the day. So we need to have that parking. And I don't have an answer with that. The one thing I do, I do wanna see if I can get an answer for, has this always been labeled as an event center?

This is your first application that I'm aware of. Well, the shell, when it came in, I believe they had put event center on that shell space. We didn't have any more information. Okay.

This is the first official at the time. Yeah.

Okay. I just need to know that. That's one thing that I need to make sure whether we have clarification that it's always been listed as an event center. And maybe you guys can answer this question for me just real quick. Is it the tenant's job to do a parking study or is it the landlord's job to do a parking study? I just need to know that. Do you guys have any? Depends on the developer. Okay. I just want to make sure who was responsible for that parking. That's a question for staff.

Whoever has the application. That's who's responsible. Okay.

I just needed to know that real quick too. Just for the record. staff has been communicating with the applicant and that's Sven Nelson.

Yeah, I've not, the parking issue. I just, that is my concern. If we can, we need to be able to have parking somehow. And we don't, our shell took a year and a half to be built and it was supposed to be six months. And I can't put in this business, start this business, with not a guarantee to have parking, and then it takes a year to have parking. I mean, when we start and open up an event center, if we do have limited parking, people have to park, clients will see that and they'll be like, yeah, we understand it's a new development, but for how long will people look at that and say it's a new development and we're okay with having compromised parking? then down the road that will sabotage our own business. And that's one of my concerns that I'm trying to figure out what we can do.

We agree that the parking is an issue. We'll talk about it as a group.

We're going to have a discussion and then we'll probably have some questions for you. Thank you.

Can I just say one last thing?

Come up, yeah.

I am trying to facilitate an opportunity for him to open business. I agree with him. He's got to get open, right? Do I need to say my name again?

No. You're OK.

Thank you. The details of a lease and a business like those are all things that really are irrelevant. The idea is, of right now, is can we, is there a pathway in which we can get him moving forward and opening and then also facilitate more parking. I'm not disagreeing or anything in which he can do. I prepared this, I've been working with a designer, never got it from a designer, just to have a general idea of what could it look like when there's chairs or an event's gonna happen, right? Because when people are there, there's two different types of classification when it comes to the fire department. Hey, if we're just sitting there or standing room only or just chairs, it's one per seven square feet. But the limitations come if you set up chairs or tables for an event, just like a general idea of something like this kind of setup, all of a sudden that ratio of occupants to the fire department becomes one per 15 square feet. So then instead of 200 plus, you're talking 158 people max. And so I just wanted to be like, there's a pathway in which we get him open and then And moving forward for these events, which are most likely going to have an event, we don't want to limit him to just night. That's not fair. And we want him to be able to do things. But he'll still have, with what's available there and in the area and then coming, he'll have plenty to run and operate his business to be successful now, even with. Because 220 people might be what the fire code is with not a single chair in there. But the second that happens, those fire codes changes once there's that kind of stuff. Because it's only like 3,000 square feet of available open space. 200 plus people is a lot. I just don't think that being a real thing, if that makes any sense.

My desire was, she was supposed to be here, but she's actually stuck in a car accident in traffic right now. And so she did send me, and she does have plans to show, setting up chairs in this building, how many people will go in there and so forth like that. Again, you also have the constant flow in an event center and a wedding reception. Say, for instance, you have a constant flow of people coming out and in and out and in. but they still have to park. And like I said, the biggest concern is the big picture. How long can I sit there with only, I can't make a $24,000 rent payment with 100 people.

Okay, yeah, so we'll discuss and then let you know

I think we'll do it in a motion. Can we look at the staff's recommendation? Recommendations. So what I'm reading is those would be your maximum limits, correct? I'm asking staff if I read those right. The maximum limit during the daytime would be 120.

With the current available parking, yes.

And that would be the limitations on this to be a, if we went with this, this is the limitations you'd have for the event center. You cannot go bigger than those.

Currently, yes.

Without additional parking.

That is pulled directly from the parking study.

and that's utilizing lots one and three. No, this.

No, this is what is listed as onsite only is specifically lot two. Onsite plus on street is just lot two plus that communal parking area.

And as they develop lot one and three and provide that additional parking, then those numbers can go up. Correct.

So when those are developed, does the applicant need to come back to the city? No. Okay.

No, if you look at Item 3, or Recommendation 3, it talks about just the occupancy cap rising as the capacity for parking rises. Okay, thank you. Also, Lot 1, the permit itself is expired. However, the Planning Commission approval for it is not. Sorry, I did not have that information beforehand, but just so you know where it's at in the process currently.

And again, the item before us, I mean, we're sensitive to the use and things like that, but the item before us is the conditional use. It's not the agreements between parties. It's what's before us now.

Based on the facts that we're seeing and our own codes.

Even though we're sensitive to the things, it's we're only able to act on this item.

You're saying on-site only 25, if you go with that, it's 25 to 105. Right. Mike?

Mike, there seems to be a disconnect between the applicant and the owner. I presume our own fire department fire marshals have looked at this and they've come up with an occupancy.

They just look at a gross rating. They look at the emergency door, basically. Right, so they actually, I believe, have an even higher number, right? And I think Lawrence researched that.

That's where that 553 came from beforehand.

Was the fire.

Yeah, so that's not what the applicants are asking for. That's how many people could like physically be there.

The way fire code goes is it's basically by egress. Sure. So if they put a bunch of doors to let you out.

That's just like an empty building, nothing.

They don't care.

No fixtures, nothing, just walls.

Our limitation would trump fire code and this would be your limitations.

So I will ask one more question. because it does say on street and I heard a comment about parking on 118th and I recognize that is not allowed and not included in that. So I just wanna make sure that's clear. It's all internal.

On street parking means parking on one side of the roads as they're 28 feet wide. Engineering does allow for one side to be parked. And it would give 38 stalls if all of them were available.

I wanted clarification, thank you. Without impeding any egress or traffic.

And the more we talk about this, the more I feel uncomfortable. It seems like there's a lot of if this happens and if that happens. I don't think it's our position to determine how best to park on this or how to maximize parking. I think they need to come back to us and say, what I would like to see is a map that shows here's where we can come up with our parking. Here's the plan to implement it. I don't think it's our forte to recommend how they do that.

They have a parking study, I guess is my point. And they have that. And I agree. And I agree. I mean, there's a lot of.

60 stalls we need or 60 parking spots.

Yeah.

I think.

But my point is, is they've gone through the process. They've got a parking study. There's a plan in place if they can prove that. They have the on-street and things like that.

If lots one and three provide the extra parking.

Well, but that's item three. That's where staff comes into play and they have that requirement. Right now, based on on-street and staff is in agreement, is my understanding with what they're saying on the on-site and on-street parking here, the 120 and the 200. You guys... agree that that is an opportunity. Am I correct there, that the occupancies can be met based on what's been presented?

And obviously those future, as those future buildings are built out and tenants come in, they will also have to provide an updated parking study looking for opportunities for shared parking or offset peak hours.

We will be expecting this in other applications.

I think there's a I mean, I think it was pointed out in our

in our previous meeting that there's a pretty simple solution if an agreement can be made. There's Advantage Arts Academy inside of the 500 feet that is within our code. If there is a cross parking agreement with that parking lot, it's a simple three minute walk to this event center and there's 100 parking spots there. I mean, if they can come up with some sort of an agreement, that solves all of this solution. I think that's a pretty good.

And that would be handled under item number three. But until then, this is the only option we have.

But until then, what we have will be very limited. And if we approve what is a very limited option, and then they want to go to the table together on their own.

So based off what we have, I'm ready to make a motion, because I think we have it in front of us. We could argue about it all night long, and we can see where it goes. I'm comfortable with staff recommendation. I totally get that it'll limit the use to what the event can be based off that, and that is the intent is to increase the parking. That's the bottom line we're trying to do, which is why I make a motion on item 4.1 with staff's three recommendations. And I will second.

Okay, so we have a motion by Adam, a second by Andy. Andy? Yes. Daryl?

Still reading. With contingent item number three, yes.

I'm using all three. They're all included. OK.

Yes. Thank you. Heather? Yes. Preston? Yes. And Forrest? No. OK. So that passes with one opposed. All right. Item 4.2, review and consider approval of a conditional use permit for a medical service.

Alrighty, so we are going to look at the Bingham Canyon Clinic. This is located up in Anthem Commercial, just above the creek, and it is closest to Mountain View Corridor. Here is a picture of it being in that area. It is worth noting that the lower lot that's highlighted here is for the creek and drainage. It will not actually be built on, as well as where the word Anthem for Anthem Creek Lane is, is also owned by this property for that potential future expansion. However, it is not being built on for this specific project. Okay, so here is the proposed landscape plan. it has the number required for the islands and parking areas as it does have that strip down the center between the parking stalls and then if you look at this on the far right side of the image you'll see that the area is just rocks with no plantings once again this is due to the uta area this road could be expanded or used There's an easement. So that area cannot have irrigation or any permanent plantings, so that's why the rocks are there. On the lower part of the image, you can see the pond. I should state this also extends. There's a bottom about third of the pond, and there's grass on each side of it as well. It's on a different page in the packet. But this is the overall landscape, and it does meet our requirements. Here are the proposed elevations for the building. There was a potential concern that the material coverages were not being met during the DRC phase, so our applicant was wonderful and did give us a chart that shows all of the different materials being met. The primary materials are brick and stone and then metal panels will supplement that. You can see here on the right side of the slide all of those different elevations. You can see there's a lot of glass or like glazing areas as well. Staff findings, the materials are within the MDA. There's plenty of parking. As we discussed, there are about 10 stalls over. And we see this as basically a intro into what could be the next phase. They are talking about expanding this down the line if there is a need for it. So that would just be 10 less stalls to put in in the future. And they also have discussed putting that pond under the future parking lot if necessary. And then, yeah, as you saw, the landscaping does meet requirements based on that image. These are the recommendations for approval. It looks like a lot, a fair amount of it is just making sure that they get the correct floodplain development stuff as they are right next to that creek. And then making sure any lighting stays within the actual lot itself and doesn't start spilling over into the residential area. Any questions or concerns?

Thank you.

Okay, and then does the applicant have anything they'd like to add? Good, okay.

No, if you have any questions for them directly, though, as you saw, they are here.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, discussion or a motion?

I think they missed everything. Cut and dry. I'm ready to make a motion.

Go ahead.

if there's no discussion. I'll make a motion to approve item 4.2, subject to staff's eight recommendations. I'll second it.

OK, so we have a motion by Daryl, a second by Adam. Forrest?

Yes.

Preston?

Yes.

Heather? Yes. Adam? Yes. Daryl? Yes. And Andy?

Yes.

OK. All right, 4.3, review and consider approval of a conditional use permit for a daycare preschool center.

Thank you for coming. Looking forward to it. Thank you.

All righty. Now we are going to look at a preschool center. We're headed back to Teton Commercial. So it's still in this top part of our city across from the high school. Here's a better look. We are still looking at lot two. We are now looking at building one, specifically the right side of building one. Here's that. So this will be a mix of daycare and a preschool. So there are two separate entrances. The kids club is the daycare and it will be on the left side of the building and then the right side will be used for the preschool. All right, here's an image that shows kind of the three separate units. So unit three will be that entrance for the kids club and then units four and five will be primarily the preschool. They're looking at 48, 58 students in the morning and then 34 students in the afternoon. with roughly six employees. And then they're looking at their separate check in and check out procedures and then ratios of one to eight for staff to child ratios. So this is the circulation plan. You can see they're intending to do drop-off in that pedestrian area to help mitigate the pedestrian auto conflict. They are planning to do 10-minute staggered drop-offs. And these, I believe, are roughly an hour before each of the classes start. They will be staggered as well for pickup. And then there are 10 stalls required for this area, four overall, and then five or one for every 500 square feet. So the four for the general use and then six for the size of the area. And yeah, every all of the conditions are met as the shell is already built. And this is a use that's permitted within this area. Finally, these are our conditions. The first is to just address any comments that do come up in this final process of approval or TI, and then getting the business licenses and health department sign off. Any questions?

On our other preschools and daycares, do we have specific signage that they have to do?

yeah so typically if um there are spots specifically being used for pickup and drop off we have had those like poll signs that say like for pickup and drop off only during x time um so our applicant could do those in the future with the ti if they are interested however we don't have them required okay is there also a signage that says like um for drivers like children are

or would they mostly be just coming right to the car? They're not gonna be, I just wonder about.

Yeah, it appears they're intending to come right to the car and use that pedestrian crossing area as kind of the building to car so there won't be any direct auto-pedestrian conflict points. And they do also have a row of parking. They have a fair row of parking and on the side of the building as well. where none of the spots are marked specifically for a business. So those could be used for pickup and drop off within that hour window. So there is a lot of parking that can get to that front door without conflict if that pickup drop off point, specific point is busy.

So at 118, that's where they're exiting from this development from Teton. Is that gonna be a right-only exit? And is that conflicting with your right turn into the development?

Hey, Josh. Question for the traffic plan.

It looks like... Yeah, that exit's the right-only. They have to turn right. They have to turn right. On to 118th. Oh, we got engineering.

So exiting this way, this is 118th.

Yeah, out on 118th, that is right only out there. The only left movements are allowed at the entrance to the east.

They could technically turn left out of the parking lot and go back.

And there's kind of a few ways out of there, which I like when we looked at it. They can go out to the east and then down to the south and go out kind of over by Harriman High as well.

You can't really force them to make this transition. maneuver that way. But that's the plan. Yeah, exactly.

They'll go wherever they want to get out of the development.

But they wouldn't be able to turn. You're right. They wouldn't be able to turn left on 18th. Yeah, they wouldn't be able to turn left.

That means that everyone who's leaving has to stack to the people that are coming as well. I agree with you 100%, though, that there are other ways around that.

I think it's one of those deals after they do a couple drop-offs, they'll kind of figure out, depending on what direction they're going, what way to leave, what way to get in there, but it does look like, and those are private roads, it feels like we have a lot of stacking in there if it does back up a little bit right at drop-off time, so.

There's more stackings in some of our high schools, so we're okay.

Yeah.

Thank you.

That's part of why I brought up that there are several spots that could get there without auto-pedestrian conflict, because we're aware that we can't force everybody to take this pattern. But they do have a specific location marked for drop-off. And like was noted, there are several ways in and out of this little area of commercial. OK.

Thank you.

Yeah. I'll go back to the recommendations for you.

Thank you. Thank you.

Okay, does the applicant have anything they want to add? Okay, discussion or motion?

This one makes sense to me, so I will make a recommendation for, or I will approve item 4.3 with staff's three recommendations.

I'll second. OK, so a motion by Adam, a second by Heather. Andy? Yes. Daryl? Yes. Adam? Yes. Heather? Yes. Preston?

Yes. Christian Forrest? Yes.

OK. All right. Any commission comments?

Nope. So I wanna just clarify real quick my no vote on the first one so you understand why. I think there are two things that are issues. Number one is that we can't definitely say where the parking is gonna be located. And so without that definite answer to meet the code, the city code, I feel like it's irresponsible to do that. And then the number two issue was There's an alcohol license being provided to that event center, but they're also doing a kid game board thing that's running all the time. And so I think that the city needs to look at that and the availability of having the alcohol license and a kid-centric program in the same building at the same time. And a daycare right across the street. License doesn't carry with the event center.

So the event center itself will not have a license, but there is an opportunity for people who are booking the event center to have a vendor that sells alcohol. So your point stands, but I do want to clarify Haven Event Center itself will not have an alcohol license.

Okay, thank you. Future meeting, our next city council meeting, August 12th, and the next planning commission, August 19th. Motion to adjourn.

So moved.

Second. Adam, Heather, all in favor?

Aye.

So moved. I just disagree. Okay.