Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

It's always right around.

Happy birthday, Gary.

Welcome. Have

we start, is Kim coming?

Kim's coming when we can start.

Okay. Alright.

It is the time. 07:00. Welcome to our planning commission on this lovely March 26. A little bit cooler weather today. I'm a little grateful for. We will move into the agenda items. Let's go on to the consent agenda.

I would like to make a motion that we approve the consent agenda of I guess from the 03/05/2026 meeting.

I'll second that. Motion and a second. All in favor.

Aye. Aye.

Any opposed? We will recognize Commissioner Jackson tonight. He has been he's away. We excuse him this We're excited to have Paulo up here though. We'll move right into regular agenda item 3.1. Britney.

Item 3.1, public hearing and recommendation of X Developments request for review of a development code amendment to table o five zero three zero b in chapter 39 adding a flex commercial building use. And this was on the agenda for March 12, but they asked to push it to this meeting. So it was noticed for both of those. So the proposal, at first they wanted to just amend our light office warehouse use because it is similar to that but staff recommended to them to just create a new use so they're proposing this new flex commercial building the definition they're saying is a commercial building designed to accommodate flexibility in internal arrangement of retail office warehouse services at least 15% of the building square footage shall consist of office reseller service area. As a retail focused building facades fronting roadways shall have an office storefront appearance.

So ideas, you know, warehouse, but with some sort of storefront area. And they're proposing it in commercial, heavy commercial, regional commercial, light industrial mixed use, and technical manufacturing. One of the DRC comments was to not include it in mixed use. With that, I'll turn it back to the commission for any questions.

Thank you. Any questions for staff?

Do you know why the DRC comment was to remove it from the mixed use?

Just because it's a little bit more of like a warehouse type use. So not necessarily something that we're envisioning in the walkable like downtown kind of area. Maybe more in a commercial area.

Thank you.

Any other questions for staff? Alright. This is a public hearing. If anybody's here for item three point actually, excuse me. Is you're the applicant. Never mind. No, you're not. No.

X X development, are you here? Come on up. My name is Jason Bull. I am an urban planner with Snell and Wilmer. We represent X Development and are assisting on this application.

So thank you for staff. Not only for providing staff report but also as was mentioned in the comments and going through the DRC process. So we have been looking at we looked at initially modifying the existing definitions that were in the code. As it seems that there's a need, a slight need, a slight tweak needed for uses that do contain a warehouse component but also have more of a retail focus than what you typically find in a warehouse component. A lot of times with flex buildings and buildings that warehouses you think of industrial parks.

And you don't think of a place that customers want to come and look at a showroom or come and try out the goods that are being sold. And so that's where the niche that we're trying to find, trying to fix with this text amendment. And to go along with that and recognizing that there is this desire for it to be in the retail zones, the commercial zones, and to bring in customers. That's why we did include the design elements to make sure that it is an inviting building. Staff had recommended in the staff report and through DRC talking about making some small tweaks which I've put up here as well.

We are completely comfortable with the tweaks. I think staff understands the vision that we have. Again, that these aren't warehouse buildings that belong in industrial park that these are buildings that are in a commercial zone that have tenants that may come and go but there's a need for that flexibility and for the variety of uses with the market that we're seeing in real estate and the need we're seeing for commercial uses. So, we are also we're comfortable and understand the desire to eliminate from the the mixed use zone. And just real quickly along with to give you idea of what kind of buildings or what kind of tenants rather would be used in we'd look to attract to these buildings athletic events and trainings, those gyms, those larger areas that, again, you want customers coming to.

You don't necessarily want them going to an industrial park, a manufacturing park. But they have that space and that ability to utilize the building. So small startups, technology firms, where there's that flexibility and the business is getting up and going and what that business model looks like may change from day one to day three sixty five after they've been there a year. And so having that flexibility and that ability to change within that space is the purpose for we're looking to add this to the code. Again, customer facing, employment oriented, and just an idea in so you have an idea concepts of that some of the things that we've seen as far as what we would anticipate to look like.

You know, these are buildings with parking upfront where customers drive right up that they belong in a retail and a commercial area as opposed to larger warehouse buildings, which, yeah, have the space. But they're not customer facing. They don't belong in a commercial zone. They're focused more on that warehouse aspect, not trucking aspect. Yeah. Then this is again, we just we see that there's a need where there's a strong desire for this type of use, these type of buildings here in Lehi. And so we are asking for the text amendment to add the definition and add it to the land use code tables. So I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

Any questions for the applicant?

I have one.

Officeware warehouse is clearly a thing. We see it all over. Right? It's all over the valley. It's all over the county. It's even all over Lehi in a lot of places. Why why are we looking to redefine office warehouse as flex commercial?

So I think the the change in the difference is this isn't the idea and the concept here is more of that customer facing and bringing in the customers to the site so that there is a sales floor so that there is there are customers visiting not just picking up goods or not just employees going there and working on the packaging or the office. And so that's the that's the niche. The slight difference that we're seeing that we feel that this definition works a little better than the the existing definitions to to promote that type of

unit of 30,000 but the building would be much larger. Would that kind of the idea?

Yeah, that was the intent. Yep.

Okay.

Are there, do you have examples? You showed some pictures of possible but are there examples around that we could potentially think about?

I know we had talked internally about some. I didn't include any and I apologize. I don't I know I don't remember exact the exact addresses to to identify. Yeah.

Carla Mata with X Development. There is actually not one that we can point to that is exactly what we're trying to duplicate. We have a lot of users that approach us that they're kind of segmented right now they have their offices in one location and their retail location a different their warehouse in a different location and they want to bring them all in one. And so we want to provide a concept where we can accommodate those three uses or two of the three uses, but do it in a way where it's a place where there gonna be people that want to go to do some retail shopping where there's gonna be foot traffic where it's not gonna be you know in a not very well lit industrial park out in whatever city you know we we just wanna be able to create retail environment where people enjoy shopping and where people can go and have their entire work environment all in one place.

Any more questions?

No. Okay. Thank you.

You can have a seat. Thank you. Okay.

Thank you.

Alright. This is a public hearing. We'll invite anybody from the public that would like to speak to item 3.1 to come up and address us at this point. Seeing none, we will close the public hearing and bring it back to the commission for further discussion or a motion.

Comments on this one?

This one had a No. I

think I've seen a version of this down in American Fork, by Timpanogos Special Service District. It's actually where I bought my hat from, but it's in the storefront. They had like a retail area and then the backside was all warehouse where they did their shipping stuff. So it almost created like a brick and mortar for these startup kind of companies or companies that are want to have a retail front but then they also have the shipping aspect in the back back end of it.

I was thinking on some

of the

places along Mill Pond. Yeah. Over there, there seems like there's a couple clothing places that have a little shop out front.

Wonder, would this be similar to what where we had the Lehigh Library temporarily, something similar to that where it is where that where the Move dance studio is and stuff like that.

I think that's a little different. I think that's more traditional warehouse space that's been converted. Please do.

Just one thing to keep in mind, we do want to put them in a center where we can add additional outparcels pads where we can add what sit down dining or fast food. Any kind of restaurant vibe that's going to, you know, create what would feel like a shopping center, but still have the roll up doors in the back where they can unload all of their goods and everything similar to, you know, Costco Costco has a place you know it has the retail front but then it has all the doors in the back for all the loading obviously we're not talking on that scale right these are going to be smaller for smaller startups or obviously we'd like to have the flexibility so maybe some them are bigger units and some of them are smaller units. We just would like to see the zoning code exist because I think it's something that it's a use that is in demand and it and there might be something similar but not exactly with what what we're hoping hoping to have the flexibility to do in the city of Lehi. I

like this. I think it's good. I appreciate in the report that staff mentioned that they felt like this use is different enough from uses that we currently have where it warrants. Mhmm. A new designation. And I like this. I I see why there could be a need for it. So I'm ready to put forward a motion unless anyone has any further thoughts.

Can I make one more comment? Please do. My fear is that we'd just have more large scale warehouses with the storefront. Yeah. Right? So and it doesn't sound like this is the idea they're going for. Be more of a 30,000 square foot. Keep the building smaller. So, that's my that's my concern but other than that, yeah, go for it.

Do it. Don't encourage. Putting forward motion for item 3.1 public hearing recommendation of X Developments request for review of a development code amendment to table 5.03 b in chapter 39 adding a flex commercial building use. The recommendation being that we approve sorry. We are providing a positive recommendation.

We're not approving anything here. This is gonna go before city council. With the findings being that this proposed amendment will provide more commercial opportunity in the city. It will preserve the character of the commercial areas in the city that are relevant and that it is in conformance with the purposes, intent, provisions of the general plan and its various elements and please be sure to include the various DRC comments. Second.

Motion and a second. All in favor.

Aye. Aye.

Any opposed? Alright. When will this go to city council?

The April. April. April 28.

Great. Mister chair. Yes. Sorry. But did we take it out of

the mixed use column? He included the DRC comments, which had the

Has that? Okay. Great. Sorry. I should have There's

a way to check. Alright.

So, April for you guys. Brittany, I have 32.

32 public hearing and recommendation of Slay Holding LLC's request for r one flex residential zoning on the Slay Holdings annexation. Just four acres of property located approximately 2300 West 300 South. So this is a part of the annexation process. It has already gone to city council for the intent to annex, which they approved. And then it comes here for you to review the proposed zoning on it.

And then it'll return to council for plan that's low density residential. It also does have this open space area through it because there's power lines that pass through it. So a big portion of it isn't buildable. Yeah, it's just looking at that R1 Flex zoning. R1 Flex zoning has a minimum lot size of 8,000 square feet and density of 3.25 units per acre in this case where it's under 10 acres. And with that, I'll turn it back to the commission for any questions.

Thank you, Brittany. Any questions for staff? Is the applicant present?

Hi there.

Hi. We're just proposing for final approval for the annexation.

Can we get your name?

Shane Yates.

Shane Yates. Anything you wanted to add from the report that we missed or?

No, I think we've covered. I mean, we've been working with Kim and the group and so, this is what they are proposing, I believe. So.

Any questions for the applicant? Are

you water rights coming with the property?

We'll have to put them in once we develop it. Yeah, but I don't have any water rights at the moment.

No. Okay.

Alright. Well, pretty easy for you tonight.

Yeah. Pretty easy, hopefully.

Okay. Thank you. This is a you can have a seat. Okay. Thank you. This is a public hearing. If anybody is here to speak to item 3.2, we will open the public hearing now. Seeing none, just wanna confirm, were there any com there were no comments online. So we will close the public hearing, bring it back for further discussion or motion.

Gary, I think this question's for you. I'm remembering some moons ago where we talked about it was either this property or one of the adjoining properties. And we were talking about the connection between Grays Drive there and the soon to be neighborhoods. And from what I remember, the connection point is going to have to be on the south. So it's not going to actually those roads aren't going to cross by a T. They're going to be staggered a little bit. Am I remembering that correctly?

If I understand your question right, yeah, there will be an intersection plan for there. Yep, correctly and it will come across and swoop down and go on on the southern part of the property into Auburn Springs which is being worked on right now.

Okay. So, yeah, it will go through there. Will the that road that's gonna be built, will that be directly in front of Grays Drive? So it'll be like at a four way.

Yep. Okay. Yep. Okay.

Any other questions? How

do we traditionally handle these in the past where as part of the Rone Flex zone, it says they have to bring over just shy of 1.6 acre feet of water and 2.1 acre feet of irrigation water but the applicant doesn't have that ready at the moment.

I can try and answer that. So so the city does work with Lehi Metropolitan Water District. And, normally, there are times when they run out, but I know as of right now, they have some water available. They they have culinary that would easily cover this irrigation. It might be tight on how much they currently have, but we just hold on recording the ordinance until they've provided the water.

And the way our approvals work, they'd have two years. So this this has to go to city council. And then from council's final approval, they have two years to figure out how to turn that water in. So they can either go look for shares themselves or or make a payment through Lehigh Metro, and then we transfer the water from Lehigh Metro to Lehigh City.

Okay. Sounds good. Thank you. Yep.

I'm in a good mood tonight. I'm ready to approve this one as well unless anyone has

I would love to hear about

Do it. Okay.

Putting forward motion for item 3.2, public hearing recommendation of Slay Holdings LLC's request for r one flex residential zoning property to be annexed with the findings that it does conform to the goals and policies of the general plan and please include all DRC comments. Second.

Recommendation again to city council so.

Thank you. Recommendation.

I'll second the recommendation. Awesome.

Motion in a second. All

in favor. Aye.

Aye. Any opposed?

What did I say?

I thought you

said approval.

I said approval. Thank you, Bernie.

Going. Keep them going. 3.3.

Item 3.3. Public hearing and recommendation of Gary Cooper's request for r one flex residential zoning on the Cedar Hollow Holdings annexation, which is 15.31 acres of property located approximately 400 South Center Street. This is very similar to last one. Again, this is the second meeting of the annexation process it'll go to city council you're really just considering the zoning again it's r one flex it is a little bit different since it's over 10 acres. So the requirement when it's over 10 acres, it still is a minimum lot size of 8,000 square feet and the maximum density actually goes up to 3.5.

But each development shall contain mix of lot sizes. 40% must be 12,000 square feet or larger. 30% must be between 10,000 to 11,999 square feet. And 30% must be between eight thousand and nine thousand nine hundred and ninety nine square feet in size. When calculating the required number of lots, the numbers may be rounded. So there will have to be a mix of uses with R1 flex in this case where it's over 10 acres. But the proposal for our one flex is consistent with the LDR low density residential general plan designation that's in place for that area.

Brittany, did you say mix of uses?

Sorry. Mix of lot sizes.

Just making sure. Okay, I was, that's new to me. Okay, I'm sorry.

I'll turn back for any questions.

Any questions for staff?

So mix of lot sizes from what size to what size?

So yeah, that's I what was just state stating. So 40% have to be 12,000 square feet or larger. 30% have to be between 10,000 to just under 12,000. And 30% must be between 8,010.

I have a question for for Brittany. So we're not considering anything except the annexation tonight?

So it's zoning on annexation.

The zoning on the annexation.

Okay. Yeah.

No other questions for staff. Is the applicant present?

One of these times you're gonna say yay, right? Guess Gary's not here but yeah.

Wait, what's your name? Tony Train. Oh, Sorry. Yeah,

think there is

slide

next

and I think most people know is the intent is the church wants to build a church here. We've been working with them to try to come up with a layout to get the church here. But we need to bring the property in in order to get it done. The intent is to bring back something that works in the r one flex zone. So you'll have those kind of mix of a lot sizes. But any questions?

Just for clarity, this is not multifamily housing. No. These are single lots.

Single family lots, 8,000 to 12,000 ish. I mean they're very similar to what's in the neighborhood there. Yes, there's no there's no multi family proposed but there is there is an intent for a church to go here. So, it's just FYI.

Tony, same question I asked the previous applicant. Do you guys have water rights that are coming over with it?

There's water rights and and to be fair, yeah, to Kim's point, we I kind of help with a lot of those. So, we work with those to get the the right water rights but yes, there's there's some and you're always you're always going to have to scrape a little bit to find water rights in today's world. So, yeah, there's water rights with it. Thank you.

Do you have a question? It looked like you were about to say something. No? No. Okay. Okay. Any other questions for Tony?

Also know. Thank you.

All right. This is a public hearing. If anybody would like to speak to item 3.3, we will open up the public hearing. Seeing that there's maybe a few that would like to speak to this, which we are excited for and welcome, we will give a limit on time. Let's go a minute, a minute and a half, two minutes. We'll go two minutes. So

my name is Jay Bodine. I live in neighborhood just to the north of that. And my concern is just when I look at R1 Flex online, and I'm trying to figure out the definitions of it, there are some unclear points such as once it's R1 flex, could he apply for PUD, PRD, and then change that use as far as to smaller density. Because the way I read it online, it's unclear to me.

Any ideas? It's not a back and forth. We'll hear your questions, then we'll address them after.

All right.

Thank you. Thank you.

My name is Bart Christopherson. I live in the same area. In fact, when the screen other picture was up, the two building lots that's at the top to the right where it says MDR on that. I own both of those. I'm excited for this to go in because currently, right where it says MDR, there's a power line that goes over the top of that that feeds the house that's abandoned.

And it was feeding the well or they were still using it for the well that's there to water the horses and whatnot. But I my understanding is they're not even using it for that now. But I I need that to go away so I can build a house right where it says MDR. So but I was also concerned about the density and about the same thing that that Jay mentioned. All of the houses down there to the right, that's they're mostly a little bit bigger than quarter acre lots. 8,000 is a little bit smaller. So, I'm hoping they'll put in a little bigger lots for a little less density and that was my only real question. So, thanks.

Merrill Carson. I live across Center Street to the west of this development. My I have a question. Does the R1, I forgot what the net Flex. Yeah, R1 Flex, is that for the whole 15.3 acres?

Or is that for just the part where the houses will be built? Mr. Train mentioned a church going there. Is that the same R 1 Flex as as the place where the homes are?

Great question. We'll address that with Tony after.

I'm sorry. I can't hear you.

We'll address that with mister after and have him answer that question.

Okay. Alright. Just asking that and so, thank you. Thank you.

Would anybody else like to speak item welcome. Come on up.

Hi. I'm Camilla Netti. I live right in that bottom part. It's the Southeast.

It's a lovely little neighborhood with lots

of little kids running around. So I am worried as well about the Lehigh City code with R1 flex. It says in chapter five, section two, subsection D, that it talks about the PUD or PRD developments may be allowed. And in such cases, that lot size mix requirement does not apply. So it could bend the rules for the zoning, like the minimum lot sizes and setbacks. And I just think a ton of traffic from high density housing would not be would not fit in with what's currently there and all the little kids. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thea Thomas. I live on 3rd South And Center Street. So right there just above the place. My concern is in the wording of the flex that there has to be this many homes on the different sizes. There has to be and I just don't know how that's gonna work.

Center Street is so busy now. We have a hard time getting out of our driveway and it's gonna be hard to see a lot of more homes go in there. We know that it's gonna be busy. We know that there is gonna be development, but we're just concerned about the small numbers of little sizes of houses, especially with some of the other houses around us are quite large. And I'm sure that the property values will go down if there is a lot of the flex in a lot of the smaller lots. So that's my concern.

Thank you. Anybody else that would like to speak to item 3.3? Come on up.

Jay Bodine again. Yeah, I just want to address also the traffic. There's only two outlets, basically, that can be on that property, Center Terrible Intersection with that house there on the east side with the fence that kind of sticks out past the intersection a little bit. Again, more homes that go in there, the harder it's going to make that traffic in that neighborhood.

You. Alright. Seeing no one else, we will ask the Britney did there were comments?

One bullet comment online. Yeah. Thomas. This appears to be logical annexation. I'm concerned about the flex part. Our roads cannot handle high density housing. Center Street was built as an access road. It is now a main feeder but was not built to handle heavy vehicles and traffic.

Alright. Hearing the public, we will now close the hearing and bring it actually, Tony, we'll invite you back up to address any of the questions that you heard.

Yeah. To be fair, the PRD does become a little bit of a concern if I mean, you're already concerned about the size of the lots. These lots are intended to be the eight to 10. And once the church gets dedicated, they'd be below the 20 acres and a PRD wouldn't work. And there's no intent to do a PRD.

That's not I mean, the houses that were just built to the west are incredibly nice houses. And so the intent is this area with the church with you know eight to 12,000 square foot lots fits in perfect with what's there and would be a nice addition to the area. There's three actually roads we need to construct to get out of there. There's one to the north as well we need to tie into. So, traffic will be a little bit better but for their concerns, I I know traffic is a concern about every street in Lehi.

So, anything we can do to help mitigate that. To have a connection going through, it won't go straight through which is which is a benefit to everybody but it will connect center and third and so, that'll be a nice feature as well eventually. Have these other access points to help. But yeah, there is a little bit of a question in that the way the code reads but yeah, that that's not the intent at all. There's no intent to do anything as a PRD.

Doesn't make sense in this and wouldn't be wouldn't make sense to do. But the development will clean up the area and as Bart mentioned, I it's it's probably needed here to get this cleaned up and and solve a few other concerns as well. So, I I think it'll make a really nice addition to the area with the church and with these, you know, R one flex lots. No, I and I know that is the confusion as soon as you say flex, everybody thinks density but that's not it's not what it is at all. Other questions concerns?

Any questions for Tony?

If I may.

You bet.

All right so just going back to the access points because I may have drifted off for the second. I apologize. But the two streets coming from the east, you tie into those. Right? There's two little stubs. There's that one and then there's one up in the in the green.

Yeah, up to the north.

So you tie into those and then one access to

center. The center. Yeah, lots split each side.

It's Right.

I mean, it's pretty cut and dry what this layout will be. Pretty simple concept and the church is intend to be down by the tracks. So, but that's the idea. So, if we can get it through and get the the church on board, we'll get a church built here. It's the intent.

We answer the question about the zoning for the church? So churches on the table this is the residential table of uses that has all the residential districts. And churches are permitted in any residential zone. So they wouldn't have to do any specific zoning for the church. It makes the most sense to just keep it all r one flex.

Keep it all one flex.

Yeah. I mean,

the water right dedication is not that different in how it gets approached. It's just a little different on culinary shares versus pressure shares. But if we're bringing it in, we just keep it in one zone. Yeah, the church the advantage of the church is the density on the whole overall 15 acres goes down quite a bit because you're going to put five acres into a church site. So really you're only developing 10 acres of this 15 acres in homes. But yeah, it should work well. That's the intent.

Brittany, there was the question of if the church goes in could they still do a PUD, PRD with what's left?

So yeah that's a good question. It is supposed to be over 10 acres but if it's infill which this could qualify as they could do a PUD PRD. It is a legislative item to do it that way so it comes through with a public hearing again. Be notified again it wouldn't like just pop up as a PUD it would be something that was fully noticed. So we do allow PUD's and PRD's over any zone like it can be proposed on any zone so it's not just R1 flex you could propose it if it was R1 eight or anything else it requires 20% open space so there would be an open space element which you know helps maybe reduce some of the housing and it's it's kind of all just trade offs the overall density doesn't increase if it's a PUD or PRD.

But I guess the fear doesn't need to be, oh, this is all of sudden going to change and be something like that. It would be noticed again. You'd all have the opportunity to come and speak to it if they did change their mind ever and want to do as a PUD. And I guess one other question that had come up is about like how do we make sure that it meets all these lot size requirements and we just verify that during subdivisions. When they submit to the city for a subdivision if there are one flex over the 10 acres we make sure that they're meeting all of these lot differences and Tony mentioned you know maybe if they subdivide off the church then they're under 10 acres then they go back to this requirement up here where it's just a minimum lot size of 8,000 square feet and maximum density of 3.25 units per acre.

Yeah. So, yeah, we'll work through that issue but the intent, this, I mean, that that's why I've kind of got involved with Gary. This doesn't make sense to do a PRD here or a PUD scenario. Just because it makes sense to match what the lots are in the area and to give a little piece of open space. I mean, if the church came back and said they want to buy it and do a little bit of open space, we could work with them then. But right now, there's no sense in doing that. Mean, it doesn't make sense to do a PRD here. You're not gaining anything on density wise to do it. Not with the dedication of the church and the things. And we ought to match what's around it.

Match the lots that are close by, and it'll be a good development. Anyway.

Any other questions for staff or not? Further discussion or emotion?

I'm ready to do a motion unless you want to. Do you want them all tonight? Yes.

Go ahead.

Alright. Item three. Public hearing and recommendation of Gary Cooper's request for R1 Flex Residential Zoning on the Cedar Hollow Holdings Annexation. 15. 31 acres of property located at approximately 400 South Center Street. I move that we give a positive recommendation to the city council with the findings. Nope. Where did the findings go? That the proposed application meets does conform with the goals and policies of the general plan and please include all DRC comments.

Second. We have a motion and a second. All in favor. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. When will this go before city council?

It should be that same date, the April 28.

The April. Yeah. 3.4.

Item 3.4, public hearing and consideration of Dan Bieber's request for approval of the Lifetime Fitness Site exception to the 40% maximum EFIS stucco requirement located at 240 East Traverse Terrace Drive. So this might look familiar. You have already seen a concept of this layout you approved an exception for the location of the building so it's not oriented to the street like it should be but down a little bit lower and that was September 25 that you approved that So now the applicant's coming back asking for an exception to the maximum EFIS to do just a little bit more. So we do have limitation in the general non residential of 40% per elevation. And we never got exact measurements from them, so we don't know the percentage.

But looking at it, it looks like it's more than 40% and be both like these dark dark areas at the top and the light. The purpose behind limiting EFIS is it can sometimes be a cheaper material that gets older sooner, kind of chips can look not as good. And then also can create kind of those monolithic looking walls without much variation. So those are two of the main reasons that it's limited. Section 37.1 tells you what to look at when granting an exception.

It says the applicant shall provide evidence of the exception to the design standards improves design quality, walkability, bikeability, or ability to conduct the proposed use on the subject property. And it's as determined by the city or at the Planning Commission. And the applicant shall provide justification on how proposed project fits with the purpose and vision of the Design Standards District in which it is located. And with that, I'll turn it back to the commission for any questions.

Thank you, Britney. Any questions for staff? Is the applicant present?

Hi.

Dan Beavers, development manager with Lifetime. Good to see some familiar faces on the commission here. Just want to provide some context around what we're asking for here. I think Brittany outlined the request and I understand some of the reasoning behind some of the opposition to larger amounts of eaves, the large monolithic walls sometimes seen as a less durable material. So kind of what I wanted to talk through today is some of the architectural enhancements that we're doing that I think reduce those concerns, with what we're doing to prioritize the pedestrian scale, which I think speaks to the intent of the general design standard, and also just the quality of materials that we use at Lifetime.

And then also our alignment with the master development this is a general design standard but we also sit within the Sky area plan so I just wanted to speak to some of those things and then lastly this is one of three clubs that we're bringing to the broader market in late twenty twenty seven so we're super excited about that and just want that strong brand alignment when we bring those three clubs together. You can click to the next slide there. So these are the elevations that you've already seen and you know just to speak to the consistency here these haven't changed since we were here in September so now that this has been brought to our attention that's the reason why we're coming back at this point would have loved to do this in September versus four months away from mobilization but that's where we are today to speak to some of the elements we're proposing here, first and foremost, I think some of the breaks in the massing are really important to address this commentary where we do have the larger portions of eaves, you know, that's where we're dealing. You can see slightly on these elevation steps in the parapet and then color variation in that material.

And then intentionally aligning those two things, I think, what helps really break up what's considered that monolithic wall and give kind of a sense of a reveal in in architecture. Beyond that we've got decorative lighting all over these buildings. There's sconces that flank the entrance. We have a linear light that wraps the corners detail. It's a really cool light that kind of washes down the entirety of architecture and then all of the signage that you're seeing here is illuminated as well so the four larger lifetime signs that you're seeing those are all halo lit and provides a nice accent on the building as well and then to speak to the pedestrian engagement this is where we really highlighted specific elements of the architecture and the elements that pedestrians actually approach on our building so specifically you can see the masonry wraps the entirety of Level 1 and then we go to that eaves material on Level 2 or you're further away from where the pedestrians actually engage with the building and then we have our stone and our glazing that wraps our primary entry.

We've also got some metal awnings on here. They're kind of shown in that bronze color wrapping the corner and then of course at the primary entrance. So this slide is just a few representations of some of the materials that we've used on recent clubs that we've built and I wanted to highlight a couple of things here. So first the image on your left is an example of one of our main entrances. So this is kind of where all the materials come together.

You got the stone masonry that wraps the entrance, the glazing of course, the canopy on that entrance. And then off to the right of that image you can kind of see the design intent where the the brick comes up the first level and then you have the eaves above it. The top middle image, I think, just shows the amount of detail and quality that's in our metal awnings and how that engages with some of the stone materiality and you can see the eaves above that as well and then the image on the right I think is a good representation of when we have these larger quantities of eaves on a bigger mass on the building and you can just see how clean and crisp that material is and one of the things I want to highlight there is the scoring and the patterning in that scoring that we have. Taking that scoring top to bottom on the building and then also having breaks in it horizontally aligning with the windows helps with a lot of those durability concerns kind of localizes that cracking and you don't see some of the damage that you typically see in eaves over a long time because of the intentional scores that we have in our building bottom one is just an example this is our most recent installation.

That's an active construction site that we have. It's actually in Southwest Las Vegas. At a smaller scale, you can see how the different materials kind of tie together and the different colors work together. So here to speak to how we fit into the Sky Area Plan these are three different examples actually we got from Gardner Group they're the master developer of the retail parcels here. Three examples where I think we have a lot of similar design elements you have the white material you're seeing here obviously at a smaller scale but is the base building eaves and then they're using the metal awnings the brick material and highlight the focal elements of the architecture.

So I think there's a lot of little elements here that tie to things we're doing specifically on the first level of our building. And then the next slide I think is just yeah this is an excerpt from the sky area plan these are the design guidelines or a piece of architectural design guidelines and I just highlighted a few of the bullet points down at the bottom so I think that that's really what opens up the opportunity for us and for you all to even entertain this exception hopefully the things I've noted speak to quality architecture and design and an emphasis on simplified design and then the last bullet point is really the whole reason we're here focus on style of the architecture over codified specific requirements so getting alignment that we like the overall look and feel of the building and it's something we're proud of versus a general but specific requirement. Then the last slide, thanks Brittany, this shows the three clubs we're bringing to the market we're super excited to bring these together all of these are I hinted at this but they're within six months of mobilization the Herriman club we're mobilizing within the next couple of weeks that's going be the first one we're really excited about that and then we have our club in Holiday and then ultimately in Lehi and you can kind of see the similar design qualities in each and we'd like to maintain that so when we come to a market like this we can really grow that brand presence so that when people go to a lifetime in Lehi or Herriman or Holiday they feel like they're getting a similar member experience.

That's really all I had for slides today and appreciate the time and consideration of this and want to answer any questions that you guys have.

Any questions for the applicant?

I have a question. Of course. So the holiday one looks different. Yeah. Is it still stucco? Is it looks like the or the entrance has popped out a little bit, the overhang which I think that looks great, the little overhang makes it not look like a box.

Yeah, it's a it's a site specific change for that one. That's a much smaller site. It's only about five acres. So we're actually doing a custom club there. But to answer your question, yes, the materiality is all the same. It's got the stone and the masonry that wraps Level 1 and then around the main entrance and then yeah eaves up that second level. But the Harriman Club and the Lehigh Club, they're actually the exact same prototype that we're bringing to both markets.

I have a question for you. Are are those different retail outlets on the Bottom Floor or is it all

It's the same

All Lifetime.

Well, it's the same in each club. It's our Life Cafe and then our Life Spa. So they're amenities that we provide within the club. So you actually there's one singular point of entrance. It might look like there's different entrances there where you go in at the primary entrance and you access those elements from the

interior. So

the exception is asking for the ability to use more than 40% stucco.

Correct.

So why do you want to use more stucco instead of other materials?

Yeah, I mean for all the reasons I outlined but I think the biggest Sum it up for me then. Yeah. Biggest one is these are steel buildings so that kind of guides what materials we can and can't use. And to take brick up to the amount that we would need to to meet this requirement was just a crazy amount of brick. It would have to go above the head of the upper story windows and just aesthetically we didn't like the feeling and the mass of that. And then also with these being steel buildings makes it super heavy with that amount of masonry and then there's implications to our whole steel structure as well.

So besides masonry are there other materials that you could use?

I think metal panel is the other material that we have on the building as well but to do that across this scale is just cost prohibitive. There's concrete materials but these aren't precast buildings. It's the steel structure that's guiding some of the materiality that we can do.

And potentially you could put more windows.

There could be more windows. The reason we have the amount of windows that we have a lot of it's driven by what's happening on the inside. There's actually floor plans in here if you want to flip to it but with all of our fitness programming up on the 2nd Level that's why you see slightly less windows on the 2nd Level because we've got the larger, you know, squat racks, mirrors, etcetera that take up that wall space. And you can see there as well the pickleball courts on the lower left corner.

Are they outside the building?

No. Those are interior.

They're gonna be inside? Yep.

While you're still up here, I think Ken and I are on the same page. And that to me, this looks like a nice monolith. And it it seems like the purpose of using East or stucco is, to your earlier point, to keep costs down. And so one of the purposes of having the East minimum is to make the community look really nice.

Mhmm.

I do think this still looks nice, but it looks like a nice monolith still. Mhmm.

And I understand that concern, but it's a building that we're proud of. We think it's gonna look really nice. I think some of the things I spoke to you, like the standard and the quality that we hold our clubs to, it's going to elevate what you might think of when you normally think of an EFS monolith. And then it's something that we're going to take care of over time. We're the owners of these buildings, but we're also the operators of these buildings.

So it's not a situation where this is gonna go get sold to a different operator and then who knows what happens to the maintenance of the building. It's gonna be lifetime that's responsible for this building. And we know that the look and feel on the outside is the first step to a quality member experience and we never wanna compromise that. So I certainly hear the concern but we still feel like this is something that's quality architecture and will look good over time and especially day one when we install it, we like the clean crisp look of the eaves. Feel like it's a little bit more modern than doing the whole thing just in masonry.

The last time we had a request for this exception, which has happened, not from you, but that it's happened Mhmm. Was the sanctuary. The sanctuary is a high end luxury apartment complex. I don't know if you're familiar with it. I'm not. It's here in Lehigh. They came to us and they basically begged. They pleaded and said, we would like to do this and here's why. Right? And then they laid out, I remember many different things that they said and they said, this is not a cost efficiency.

Right? The way that they were going to put on their stucco was stylized in a way that it did accentuate the building. It did give some variation, although it was in excess of our code. But they did outline something that was compelling and gave us or gave me, at least when I was on the commission a reason to consider. I haven't heard that from you other than we just want to. Please compel me.

I think the things we're doing we're spoken to mostly in my second slide where we're providing that color variation the score joints and the eaves it is really intentional what we're dealing with that installation so that it doesn't look like a standard eaves installation you know it doesn't read very well on this but we have score joints that run horizontally and vertically that align with all of our windows. They do help break up that mass and be really intentional design.

You have the percentages. One of the comments from DRC was provide the percentages of the stucco to the other stuff.

Yeah, it varies by facade but generally it's about two thirds, one third. So around that 67%. The front facade is less the sides and backs are a little bit more.

I'll say one more thing. Sorry I pointed. I'm not in favor, right? I'm not liking what I've seen.

And if there's certain things we can talk through to

You showed some great examples of other buildings that you've had, all of which would meet our code. The examples that you showed. Right? They had facades that had more windows. They had more granted, I didn't see the sides of the building, which is really where we're talking about. The front Yeah. Facade is probably two criteria.

It is.

But the other sides are not. But you showed examples of a quality that look nice but also meet our code.

And I think it first might of all, I don't think they would. They're very similar in the amount of, you know, glazing and eaves and other materiality that we have. It's just a function of how those images are clipped but I do think you know part of it is just the way this is rendering versus when you you're seeing the actual product and how good it looks like that's the quality of this building would get built to so part of it may just be a function of how a digital rendering is showing versus quality of the imagery of the build product

should we wait till Herriman's We

do need to Just kidding. I'm not in public hearing. Any other questions?

What sides do these face? Now, it just looks like it's in the middle of an empty field.

Yeah. So

So which which is facing

So the front faces north, and then our poolside is west, east is the opposite. And then the backside of the building is south, which faces the highway, which I think is another important consideration. The only buildings that are really anywhere near us are the retail buildings that I showed examples of that I feel like we have worked with Gardner Group to get a cohesive design. To the East, you have Texas Instruments. And to the South, there's a regional detention basin that you look across ultimately to the highway.

So the bottom of the page is north.

Top of the page is north.

Top of the

page is north.

Yeah. That's

the front of building. You've the front of your building, you've got a parking lot, and then you have 2100 or not not 2100. Timpanogos Highway.

Timpanogos is on the bottom.

Timpanogos is

to the

south. Yeah. And it's farther south. The white space that you're seeing there is the start of the Retention Basin. You cross that and then get to the highway. There you go.

So it's like right here in Yep.

Front would face north up towards the low hills. Oh, okay. Up. Mhmm.

So most people are seeing it from the back.

Right? Yeah.

Which is very rare. Yes. Right.

Seen it from the back, but So so from a highway that's

The back is the third one. Is the back the third? That image right there.

Yep. So we do have those relief elements there, the drops in the parapet, the change in the color that I think help break it up and provide some interest. And then you can see the glazing that we have on Level 2 as well. That kind of balances where we have our illuminated signage up in the corner.

So on this facade, you're looking at 67% stucco.

Yeah, around there. Yeah. More?

I think more.

These are ones that are going be slightly more. It's probably around 70. And then the front is lower. The front's like 60%. They kinda averaged it out when I said it's about two thirds one.

Okay. Thanks.

Any other questions for the applicant? Thank you. You. This is a public hearing. If anybody is here to speak to item 3.4, we'll open the public hearing now. Come on up.

Yeah. Hi.

This is not actually the agenda item I came for but I don't know if this is on. I'm going to have this back for a second. I spent eight years previously in Las Vegas and Lifetime Fitness is such an asset and everything they do is luxury. You know it is going to be the most beautiful building. It's going

to

be have a feeling in it that is high end that's going to attract a lot of money into our city it's going to help us out a ton and I know there are like certain standards and codes for all of your buildings I actually just finished a commercial building myself and I know what the hurdles are I also know that there's not a lot of nuance for different types of buildings and I think this gym is beautiful I think it's going to be a real asset to our community and I think as far as a gym goes it looks incredible and I think it's totally proficient and excellent and I fully support the current design as a resident.

Thank What's your name?

Oh, what was your name?

Carly Johnson.

Did you get that? Alright. Anybody else that would oh, come on up.

My name is Bruce Alphon. And I actually didn't come for this either. But as I look at it, it looks like a warehouse. It looks like a nice warehouse. I've been all over the world, all over The States, and it does look nice to the front.

I would say my opinion would be to make the east or yeah. The east side the least desirable side because it's facing Texas Instrument with just industrial space and then make the highway side a little bit more pretty or make sure that there's enough green. And although he claims that they'll have no problem staying with it and that they'll always be in business and they'll always own it and operate it with the same care, you that's you can hope in one hand and do stuff in the other. I mean, it's really it's not worth anything unless it's written down in a contract. So that's my opinion. Thanks.

Thank you. Anybody else who would like to speak to this item? Seeing none, Brittany, I'll confirm no comments online. We'll close the public hearing and bring it back to the commission. Did you want to address any comments you heard? I think just to speak to in

response to some of your commentary about us as operators we've been in business for thirty ish years and we've closed less than a handful of clubs so I think we have a track record showing that we do hold on to these assets and that's proof that we will stand by that commitment. And I think the only other thing I want to say is if there's any discussion we want to have around emphasizing certain sides of the building and completely open to that discussion versus just a blanket requirement on every single facade understanding the site specific elements of this building.

Any other questions for staff or for the applicant?

No questions. But to that point, I agree with what Bruce said that if you which I think I'm gonna vote shocker, I'm gonna vote that changes be made. And so to that, I agree with Bruce that if you were to leave a side as is, the east side probably makes sense, but then make changes to the back so that as people pass it on the freeway or in their homes as they're looking in their backyard, they see more variance than what's currently there.

Are there any sort of guidelines we want to talk through to what

We'll discuss that. Okay, sure. You'll hear it, I

promise. Any

other questions? Craig, I do have a procedural question. With the kind of hinting or leanings that Bo had discussed, can we give a yes per side per facade and a no per other facade? Or what are we are we allowed to do here?

Legislative item, so you do have a lot of leeway. It's administrative. Oh, it's just the Yeah. It's just the exception. It's the administrative or legislative item.

But does that exception go for the entire ask, or could it be per facade?

Like per side? Yeah. The

entire request.

Yeah.

Yeah. Think with regards to

the building, like I said, it's an administrative item that if it meets the code, it meets the code.

But where it doesn't meet the code, which is why they're asking for an exception.

That's a legislative item. And what you're to look at is does it meet the vision and purpose of the general nonresidential design district? The proposed exception has enough or does not have enough justification to grant the exception and three additional findings based on the information presented

Thank you, Craig. So he mentioned something about the general plan, but that area has the Sky Area Plan. Does it have a stucco requirement?

The Sky Area Plan supersedes. And and that's what we're talking about here. The Sky Area Plan is the 40% has the 40% limitation.

So they it's the general non residential that has the 40% because if the area plan doesn't specifically say otherwise, then it goes back to our existing code. The only thing and this was actually approved after they submitted. So I don't know exactly what would be if it applies or not. But Gardner did change a little bit of it to permit drive throughs. The glass percentage can be different if it's not if it upgrade differences.

And I think that's it. I don't think they changed anything with yeah. They didn't change anything specific to the EFIS or stucco requirements. So it's just that's our general nonresidential, and the area plan doesn't have anything that would supersede that, if that makes sense.

Thank you, Britney. Any other questions for staff?

And Tyson, I just wanna make sure you're you're saying you you wanna know if within the 40% exception if they could do that on one side but not the other side.

Yeah. Like, could we say, hey, maybe we are comfortable on the east and west but not the South. Could we say that?

I mean, I think you could. You just need to reasonably articulate why you're making that change to their request.

I think for me,

It's at least an exception. So do we I I I feel like the burden of proof is on them, not so much us.

Yeah. And our findings have to happen.

Yeah. Your findings on why you're only granting an exception to

Or not. Some, but not all. Not all facades. So

and and I apologize if I misunderstood your your question the first time.

Well, for and I'll speak to my at least my opinion here. The high amount of traffic, the visibility would be a reason that I think that the South Side should have should meet or at least come closer to our standard. And where I'll acknowledge the public. I think it was Bruce was his name. Made sense.

Right? The the east and west, which are gonna be less visible, not invisible, but not as prolific, prolifically visible. And so that would be my reasoning for why the South Side, I think, should have be held to the higher or to a higher standard. Whether 40% is the number, I think we can discuss. But definitely not 80%, 70%, whatever we're at. That's my opinion.

Not only can you see it from Timpanogos Highway, you can because it's up on a hill, you'll be able to see it from down below. I we we can see where I live way up on the West Side and it blank walls are kind of not great.

Brittany and Kim, how quickly can an applicant reapply for an exception? Can they reapply if being denied an exception, I guess, is better first question?

You could. As long as when they reapply, if it's substantially different, which I would think, you know, if they came back with a you know, if it was, you know, 1% different on their new application, we say that's not substantial. But if they came back and said, okay. You know, we are gonna cut in half the area that we were asking for. But, yeah, I think along with what Craig was saying, I I would think you could give partial. Or if you're inclined to deny it, maybe you articulate what you Want to see. Would want to see, and

then they could come back.

Yeah. But, yeah, it's exceptions. They'd they'd file a new application and go back

to DRC. We'd rereview it and then back here. So it'd probably take three weeks to a month. K. Thank you. Because the applicant can reapply for an exception, I would lean toward not giving them, like, a partial pass. I would rather them just go back and redo. And let's say they drop it down to, like, 50% stucco, then I feel like we could have a better conversation. I'd like to see that within our guidelines, 40% or lower, but they do have the option of reapplying if they so choose. And so because that, I'd I'd rather not do a partial pass.

If we go that route, I would like to give the applicant some clear instructions or guidelines of what we would expect to see or hope to see. That way they're not spinning their wheels and wasting time. With the understanding that it does have to come back. Mhmm. You're not guaranteeing it. Absolutely.

I think for me, like, 40% is a standard and he's asking for 67%, that just seems like why have the standard in the first place? Feels closer to, like, a 50% ask. I think I'd be in favor of it. But where it's almost

67 is generous. I think it's higher than that. Don't know. We don't have the figures, but agreed. I hope the applicant is paying attention and hearing some of our concerns. Any other discussion that you wanted to have before we move towards a motion?

So one other idea, process wise, I I think I'll see if Craig agrees. I I think you could table it and give some input, and they could come back with a revised request without having to start. Without reapplying. Mhmm. I I think that's an option.

Do they have to request the table, or do we table it?

You could table it, give them some direction, and then they can always withdraw their application if they if they just say, you know what? We we disagree or yeah. We're we're just gonna go back and meet the standard. Yeah.

I I like that better. I don't necessarily wanna force the applicant to go through another application process with a fee and everything else that comes with that. I they've already paid a fee. I I feel like we could potentially table it and provide some guidance of what we might be expecting to see.

I love it. The applicant has a comment.

Would you like to comment? This is your this is your item, so come on up. I guess the other avenue

I wanted to ask if we could go down is is there an opportunity to do a conditional approval and then delegate to staff so we can continue moving through our process just with where we're at in our timeline. Like I said, we're already in for building permit as well and

Mobilization's around the corner. Trying to mobilize.

So like having to come back to these meetings puts that whole schedule at risk and then ultimately when we can deliver this club to the market. So if there's guidelines we can set today with a conditional approval, you know, setting a percentage that we'd all be comfortable with on certain facades, I'd be happy to do that and then talk through the process of how that goes through.

Procedurally, I don't know that they would be allowed to approve an exception if it's over our code. So even if we said, hey, if you come back with something for staff, show it to them at 50% or whatever. Right? If you did that, I don't know procedurally if they could still do that because it still would need to be voted on by this body. Is that correct?

You had very clear if you approved it subject to them meeting 50% or something. If you made it so clear so that we could look and see and say, yes, they've met it. But it would have to be a very clear like this is the standard that they have to meet for your approval. I do think it'd be cleaner for maybe you to see it again.

If it was 40%, does he still have to come back?

No, if they meet the requirement.

And that's the standard. Like, we already have it in the code.

Sorry. Do the conditional approval where it's 40% on certain sides and then as is on other sides, I'm just looking for ways to move this forward. But I completely hear concerns.

Postpone and it would not be a table. You postpone it to a

specific to a specific meeting.

I appreciate and understand that you're working under tight deadlines. To the other commissioner's point, I I don't like that idea. I think the standard would just be 40%. If you wanna move this through faster, get to 40% below, and then you don't have to come back at all. But others may feel differently.

Soonest we would be able to see it again is April 23, right?

Yes, because of spring break. Right.

I will comment and say that this is not a reflection of lifetime. We've heard from the public, and I agree. You make a quality product. Right? This is a qual we know that it will be a building that you'll be proud of. We just want to equal that. We want to be proud of it too. Sure. And I struggle with lowering our standard just because. And that's kind of what I felt that the ask was, is just because.

And that's where maybe we don't see eye to eye. And I'm not trying to diminish your work because, again, I appreciate I know the work that goes into these and what you've brought forth. I just don't feel like I've seen enough to to say, oh, okay. Because then I have to do it to the next guy and the next one and the next one. And it just cheapens our code.

Yeah. A 100%.

And we're excited to have you in our city. We would like you to meet our standard.

Yeah. And, you know, I was hopeful that the points I made on the other design elements we were doing made it a lot more than just because. I wasn't trying to have that message come across at all. That's not our intent.

Sure.

You know, we're just we're proud of this aesthetic. Aesthetic. You know, it's one that we think is clean and a little bit more modern, and that's the reasoning.

For feedback,

me personally, I'm not speaking for my the commission here. I am not uncomfortable with the east and west k. Facades. I am uncomfortable with the south facade.

Just the amount of visibility from the highway and then, of course, our front facade.

Yes. Understood. Take that as you will. J. Doc. It's cute.

We need to have a motion to what did you call it? Not take the name. Postpone. Which would be April 26. Correct?

Twenty third.

Twenty third.

Excuse me. Third? I thought so. Okay.

I will entertain a motion. Do we have a number in our minds that we would be comfortable with?

40%.

You can

do it 40.

You know? But then then they wouldn't have

to come back. I'd like

to see closer to 50. Between forty and fifty? Are you comfortable with 52? I mean, let's give them some guideline. So close to 50.

I would say less than 55. It's I mean, we're splitting errors now. I don't know what that means on this building.

Right. Even with the understanding, even if he comes back at 50, it's still, like, still need to feel good about it. Right? It's still an exception. And so it's not a guaranteed pass even if it is 50. Right? 40% is the guaranteed pass. And

I think it it would have been nice to know the percentages on these facades instead of, like, I'm sitting here trying to conceptualize well that is that 60%, 70%, 40? It's hard to tell. So that would have been nice to have that number right there. Do you have it?

Yeah. Close numbers. I mean, I spoke. Sorry.

That's almost terror. Sorry.

Please speak.

Yeah. Thank you.

Spoke to it slightly earlier, but on the front, we're at 60%. And then this is by code that excludes excludes the glazing. So it it excludes windows and doors. So that's also what inflates these percentages. You take that out of the equation. So 60 on the front, we're at 73 on the east and west, west and and then then seventy seventy five five on on the the back. Back.

So on the back, 75% of that is stucco.

So if you wanna see 50, what roughly gets you there, I think it's closer to 55, is we take that masonry up to the sills of the second story windows.

I would even be comfortable saying matching the percentages on the front, giving you more flexibility for a beautiful design. But I'm not speaking for them, and that's not a vote.

That was 60 on the

The front.

On the front.

Yeah. It drops a lot lower when you include the glazing, obviously. But with that taken out of the equation, it's just thieves versus masonry.

And and glazing is looks like window, but it's not a window.

Right now, it's the windows and doors, glass.

The glass. Okay.

I appreciate you working with us and wanting to talk about it. Again, I don't wanna be overly difficult, but I also Yeah. I understand. I like our standards. I like what we have in the city, and I Mhmm. Wanna protect them as much as we can.

Yeah. Appreciate all of you working through this with us. We know it's it's a big ask we're doing here, and just wanna keep it moving forward. And we want a quality product as well. So appreciate that sentiment for sure.

Did someone want to present a motion?

Okay item 3.4 public hearing consideration of Dan Beaver's request for approval of the lifetime fitness site plan exception to the 40% maximum EFOS stucco being that we postpone this item until the April 23 meeting. Was that was that right? April 23 meeting

With

the feedback to the applicants that they come back closer to the 40% maximum EFOS stucco requirement, requirement. Hopefully, you said 60, I said 50, you said 55. So we'll split hairs at 55 with the understanding that there's no guarantee pass until 40%. And please include

that. We'll to And point

five. Then

Alright. Item 3.5, public hearing and recommendation of Terry Bishop's request for a general plan amendment on 7.1 acres located at 2424 West 900 North, changing the designation from very low density residential agriculture, VLDRA, to very low density residential VLDR. So you saw a concept plan of this one earlier as well. The proposal is to go from half acre lots to third acre lots. The surrounding area is all VLDRA but the lots in College Farms College Farms was a PUD so they have reduced lot sizes because they did open space.

So a lot of the lots are closer to that 15,000 square feet. So the applicant is proposing to match those surrounding lot sizes by doing that. By going from r 122 to r 115 it equals going from 12 lots to 17 but there's probably no way they could ever get 17 lots just without you know meeting the minimum lot width and the roadways that need to go in and everything. So it really wouldn't increase the density as much. And, yeah, they aren't wanting to do as a PUD because they'd have to provide open space and there's not really enough land to make that feasible but yeah with that I'll turn it back to the commission for any questions.

Thank you Brittany. Any questions for staff?

It looks like these plans at the end of the packet, it, I'm seeing 11 lots. Is that accurate? So, what they're proposing is 11 lots and not 17 lots. There is one that's 13. The one right above that. Thank you.

Yeah. So I guess this is just the proposal for general plan which changes the zoning it's kind of a exhibit layout not necessarily the final but it it would be really hard to get more lots than what they're showing and have them meet their requirements so that's probably what you would see come through after.

Okay thank you.

Nothing else for staff. Any is the applicant present?

Davis from the neighboring county. I'm representing the Bishop family.

Which neighboring county? Salt Lake. Thank you. Yeah, North.

Thank you, chair and commissioners. We came before this body and I actually thank you to the public that stayed so long. We didn't have any say on being last on the agenda close to the end so hopefully everyone's still awake. We came before the planning commission, the last planning commission in December to get an idea on what could be approved in terms of hardship that we feel that comes as a result of where I think it's called college. I only see the DGE, the road that comes in from the West.

And so, Bo, what you're seeing on the 11 Lot subdivision is what we'd have to design if we didn't have some flexibility in doing the other one that we're proposing. The reason we wanted to show that is when we came before the group in December, we didn't have a visual on what those lots might look like in terms of really big frontage and some things like that. We took to heart what you shared with us and it meant a lot that you took that time. We since have been back to visit with Kim and Katie and we actually took time to meet with four of the five city council members because we're very serious about wanting this to be something that the city is proud of and accommodates So the 13 lot subdivision is one lot more than what the zoning would allow for on the 12. And the reason we're asking for that is because of that hardship.

If that roadway would have lined into the subdivision at a little different place, then it would be much easier to be able to develop. There's a couple issues that I believe that will come from these wonderful people that have joined us as neighbors. One is that the roadway width changed from that early subdivision to our new one. And Gary, if you maybe can help us describe, they don't want to have a sidewalk that goes in and then moves two feet. If we're allowed to come in at an angle, then we want to make that the transition that accommodates that street and it doesn't just become something abrupt.

So, that'll be one of the questions. The other question is, if this is approved would we sell the land and have somebody come in and try to get more than 13 lots to try to get to the 17. You've addressed that Brittany. But we would actually welcome a provision that locks us into just 13 lots and nothing more. Our ambition is 100% pure on having no more than that 13.

That 13 matches quite well the subdivision both going from the neighborhood to the South up to the North. So we match the sizes and it gives a really good flow. The Bishop family has owned this property since 9th North was a dirt road. And they're the last to leave. They've accommodated the neighborhood really peacefully.

Didn't oppose that road location. I don't know that they would have been in a position to do so. But that's a hardship that was placed that was unintentional, unseen. They've been very accommodating to what's been developed around the area and donating land to electrical use and things like that. And Mr. Soa Philo, we have water. So I'll prevent you from answering that or asking that. Mike's question I think that answers. And I hope you haven't run out of yeses. We'll find out soon.

Yeah. So we appreciate a positive recommendation. Thank you. Thank you.

This is a public hearing. If anybody from the public would like to speak to item 3.5, we welcome you to do so. We'll open the public hearing now.

Hi, commissioners. Appreciate your service tonight and all you do for the community, for keeping our city great. I'm Robert Allred. My wife and I, Cindy, own the house to the west of mister Bishop's property. We are always concerned when neighbors are going to develop, and we think this is an outstanding plan, makes a lot of sense. We're highly in favor of it and we encourage you to go ahead and approve it and recommend it move on. And we think that it'll be an asset to the neighborhood and match what's there. We appreciate the Bishop family and what they've accommodated. Thank you.

Hello, I'm Del Clement and I live on the east side of the property line on the bigger piece of property. And I too think this is going to be a great subdivision that they're trying to do. And I still own horses. Some of you were here last time I was here. And I really think it'll be a great subdivision and the size of the lots are really good for that area and thank you for letting me speak to you.

Absolutely. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Brooke Brill and this is going page. The I'm animals and the land, and to we think he does a phenomenal job at trying to preserve the neighborhood, and we're really excited for his plans. I know that

he has put a lot

of thought into this plan trying to make sure that all of the neighbors feel seen and heard and we hope that you approve what he's proposing. So, thank you.

Quick question. My name is Jeremy. Neighbor. You said something about the curb

Please speak

this way. Okay. Speak to us and we'll address your questions after the hearing.

Sounds good. I'm not good with formalities.

No problem.

Appreciate that. So with the curving gutter, what was the proposal there? I guess I didn't quite follow that.

Great question and I also want clarity. So we'll get some in just

a moment.

Okay. Sounds good. I guess my recommendation would be consistent.

You.

Bruce Olfin once again. I'm just the neighbor just to the south of it, like one door down. And I think the proposal of the 13 is consistent with the layouts that the college and the Bellcore neighborhoods have provided. And I know there's some adjustments with the roads that it'd be nice to know. But I think, like they mentioned, having some kind of ironclad, they're not going to develop into 17 lots. But to keep some of that larger size lots and be congruent with the neighborhoods is ideal for our standpoint as neighbors. Thanks. Thank you.

Anybody else would like to speak to this item?

Yeah, I'm Austin Beckham here. And I'm the house that's literally just at the bottom there in the middle. And I think the plan is fine of the thirteen thirteen lots as

long as it's in stone that it can't be moved to 17. Thank you. Hi

again. Carly Johnson. I am a neighbor directly to the north of this property that the bishops own. And I love their proposed plan of 11 to 13 lots. I feel very confident in either of those layouts. I think it's very cohesive. And we'll just really kind of finish off our neighborhood really well. I'll be sad for the horses to be out of my backyard eventually someday but I I think it's great and I think that the ships have, you know, every right to to develop their land and choose what to do with it.

Thank you. If anybody else would like to speak, we invite oh, here we go.

I'm Katie Beckham. I'm also to the South. My husband just talked. My concern is the roads. Like, agree that mister Bishop should be able to do what he wants on his land. But why do the roads have to be bigger is kind of my concern because we back up we're on twenty five fifty. And so we're gonna have like, a jog. And I think that's really that's weird to me. Also, I think we should get rid of one of the roads. I know

that it's probably too late for that,

but I think it's ridiculous that you guys are making input two roads,

and I think it should be just like a cul de sac. Thank

you.

Casey Williams. I also live in the neighborhood. As you can tell, we have a very passionate neighborhood. I'm not gonna say anything that you haven't heard, but I'm definitely in favor. It feels like it already fits within the community. The plan, yeah, fits, coincides exactly with how community already feels, feel very in favor of Mr. Bishop and family being able to develop the land. My ask would be similar to others that know more than 13 that's been proposed

thank you

everyone who wants to speak please come speak don't hesitate

your pressure I'm Andrea Egbert. My house is directly to the west. It will be like my driveway five feet and then the road change. So I am also concerned about that size of the road change. It will be like just such awkward right by my house. So that's my biggest concern. Otherwise, I love the layout. I love the plan. And I'm grateful that he's willing to make it consistent with our neighborhood.

Thank you.

Good evening. I'm Nate Skousen, and we live also just right on the West side there of of this property. We also my kids love the horses. They're gonna miss those horses. But we just share the same concern of just making sure the road is that's our most important thing. Make sure the road is consistent, and then reducing just keeping that number of homes to 13 or less would be ideal for us to match the size of the lots and the neighborhood that's there. But we do support this in general. So thank you.

Thank you. Oh, peer pressure. Got it.

Jamie Benich, I have nothing else to say, but I support it as one of the neighbors living in it. And I appreciate you guys doing your do not gonna that.

Last chance. Anybody else? Seeing I'm none. Britney, were there any there were none on this one. So we will close the public hearing and bring it back. There were some questions. Let's address those. Gary, maybe you want to talk about the road width?

I thought you'd ask. The old standard that the city had had a 57 foot right away with that's from back of walk to back of walk. Our new city standard that was adopted not too long ago, maybe a couple years ago, now has a 60 foot right away with. Some of that's the pavement, some of it's the the sidewalk width in the park strips as they all add up to that. Some of them got a little bigger, a little smaller, a little wider pavement there.

So now, it's a 60 foot right of way width and we're this has happened several places around the city and what we do is we just have a gradual taper out to it. It's not going to be an abrupt change or anything like that. It won't be on a square thing. But yeah, we allow that long taper into it. And we work with the developer to make sure that's a smooth transition.

Sorry. Just to add to that, the the old standard had 34 feet of pavement. The new standard has 32. So it's actually less pavement, but then the park strips go from five to seven feet on each side. So so we're losing some pavement, so it doesn't feel quite as wide. Still allows parking on both sides. The park strips get a little bit wider. We've had a lot of issues with trees and those especially in the four foot. We used to have a four foot planter, then it went to five when College Farms was developed. Now it's seven just to give the roots more space and, you know, so people can actually plant trees and not have as many problems with the sidewalk lifting and things.

So, anyways, it probably you probably will it'll be very smooth. You know? Just taper it over fifteen, twenty feet, I'm guessing. So Yeah. Something like that.

Other question. Applicant, would you like to come speak to anything you've heard?

I would like to thank neighborhoods for renewing my faith in society. Terry Bishop and his wife are wonderful people. And they're the last people out. But to have this support from the neighbors, I'm sure, touched your heart. They're sad to leave. We've named the subdivision the Final Spur for appropriate reasons. But we want to do everything we can to have this be a legacy, which includes the number of lots in the road.

To that request, that is not a request that we can grant, but that is something that we can recommend the city council. And that is something that you can formally request the city council in lieu of a development agreement, which is something outside of our purview. But we we can give a recommendation to the city council to hear that, and you would have a chance to formally request that type of an agreement. Any other questions or

deliberation? Can we can I see on the plat map, Brittany? If you can go back to the platinum, I'm just curious about how that road will widen, how it affects, it'll affect them those first two lots in your in the final spur.

I think this has all just been like kind of more conceptually laid out so. Right. There's not really the final plans for how that would all go.

Because it's only, it's just a few feet, the angle so. Yeah. I just.

A foot half on each side.

Foot and a half? Okay. So, it's not really that. But it's not going to cut out a huge swath of, sorry, I'm in your space. A huge swath of lot on that first of ground on that first lot.

It'll actually add ground to the first lot because as we taper, we'll get more footage. But I'm sure our engineer, Gary, can work out something that is very palatable to the neighbors. I wouldn't want to live on a one and a half foot dead end either.

And also, what we are seeing tonight has nothing to do with the layout. What we are hearing is strictly the general plan amendment. We are grateful for visuals to help us Yeah. Conceive and see what you're you're planning, but we are not voting on the layout tonight. We are voting on the general plan amendment.

I would entertain a motion. Don't make me do it again.

I can do it. But oh, Steven wants to do it.

Oh, I'm way too nervous to mess

it up.

I can attempt. Yep. Okay. Please correct me and sound good inside

the thing.

We will. Okay. I make a motion that item 3.5, public hearing and recommendation of Terry Bishop's request for a general plan amendment on seven. One acres located at 2424 West 900 North changing the designation from very low density residential agriculture to very low density residential. We move forward with a recommended approval of the proposed amendment to the general plan with and then I just go through these.

Any that you would like to include?

Any that I would like to include. I'd like to include all of them in the DRC comments.

Say say all the findings. Oh, all the findings. Sorry.

All the findings and the DRC comments.

Can I add one thing?

Yes, please. Because you suggested it, because you said that you would be okay with it, I would like to put in there that we, as part of this recommendation, we would like to hold you to the 13 lot limit and not go beyond that. Thank you. And, of course, this is

go ahead. I would disagree that it'd be in the motion. I formally am excited about that, but that's not what we're hear we're not hearing anything about lots tonight. We're hearing just about the general plan, and that's all we're voting on.

But it does relate to the general plan.

Agree but we we can. If you it's your motion. So.

You could recommend to the city council doing a development agreement to restrict it to thirteen months.

Or to consider here.

Yeah. Their request. And we add that we recommend to the city council that they do us.

Development agreement.

Development agreement to limit it to 13 lots.

Second. Motion and a second. All in favor. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. And thank you everyone that came out. Yeah. We.

It's nice to see neighbors coming for a positive.

Yeah.

Thanks for coach Peter, that one. No. You're So nervous to do it all. I learned something new.

From now on, I'm just gonna say

All's finding I'm like, wait.

I didn't read all the findings. No. We could spell it.

You can't. That was way better. Personally. But Right. You can't.

I like to to pick them that when there's so many like this

Right.

Right. No. Thanks. Can

I make a motion? We have a one minute stretch break.

You sure can. One minute. Minute.

Have just one item left. Yeah. Let's power through. Alright.

Let's go. But this is the

one that had,

like Motion to

Can we invite everybody out to the hall that is no longer wanting to hear? You're you're welcome to stay and listen, but we'd like to move on to that.

This is the one that got all the online.

Yes. But it looks like none of them are here.

Yes. Brittney, let's move forward to 3.6.

Alright. Item 3.6, public hearing and recommendation of Georgetown Development's request for a general plan amendment on 2.8 acres located at 41 East 900 North, changing the designation from low density residential to mixed use. So this parcel currently, so it actually is low density and then there's also a little bit of it that is ESA because part of it is in the hundred year floodplain. So a lot of the DRC comments, if you saw, kind of related to that. There's not major concerns by staff.

It's part of the one hundred year floodplain. So there's a little bit extra steps they have to go through in the development process to make sure they're compliant with FEMA's one hundred year floodplain requirements. But that's not a huge concern for changing it. And I guess changing the designation also wouldn't eliminate the need to do that because it's part of FEMA's mapped areas. The general plan states that mixed use areas provide transition of uses so that might work in this area you could consider that with you know going from I-fifteen in the frontage road to the existing single family.

Applicant did provide provided a concept plan showing proposed layout with 20 units. The front 10 being a live work unit. So, it's townhome style with the commercial on the Ground Floor and then the back 10 that would be closer to residential would be just be more typical townhomes. So, that would equal about seven units per acre. Our Rtwo zone is six units per acre.

So, it's a little bit more than Rtwo. Just kind of give you a reference. As a reminder, the mixed use zone, the density comes from what's allowed by the mixed use and TOD map. So, doing a general plan amendment to mixed use would also should also probably include amending that map to show however many units. So, something you might want to recommend to city council is the number of units and then I guess with their of the general plan, they could designate the exact number of units that would be allowed.

This area is also just over a quarter mile from a future transit stop. So, it is close to that area where we are saying in the general plan that we want to add density to support transit. And with that, I'll turn it back to the commission for any questions.

Thank you. Thank you, Britney. Excuse me. Any questions for staff?

Can you point out where that transit station is supposed to be?

The transit stop, it's right down in this area. Do you know exactly where it's supposed to be, Kim?

So it's on it's on the other side of the freeway.

Right here. Mhmm. Yep. Where the old train depot is. Yeah. So it is on the other the other side of the freeway, but, you know, pretty close through 100 East.

Brittany, I'm sorry that I'm sure you probably said this and I just missed it but help me understand what's mixed about

Oh yeah. This. So it's these front 10 are proposed as this is actually a project in Pleasant Grove that the developers done so this Ground Floor is commercial and then above it is the residential. Is

the ESA area the updated FEMA plan that

just No. Came

Yep. So our ESA I think maybe it was on that I'm trying to remember for your included on the DRC comment sheet showed the updated and it's not really exactly the same place as where our ESA is shown.

Okay. Yeah.

This is

The latest of the Yeah.

This is the actual FEMA map of the and I think it's the brown that's the hundred year floodplain, if I remember correctly. It might be the blue. Might be the blue.

It's blue. It's the blue.

Thank you. It's

the five hundred year. It's the hundred.

Oh, okay. Yep. The hundred year, May. Yeah. Yep.

Any other questions for staff? Applicant, please come forward and tell us anything else you want us to know.

Well, I actually emailed a presentation to Brittany. You don't need to pull it up. In the interest of time, and I'll keep it somewhat brief.

Can we get your name?

Sure. Brandon Mills, Georgetown Development. So our company is located in Provo. We've been around for a while. So approaching forty years building and developing here in Utah County.

This is a unique project in the sense that it belongs to my uncle. So, Glenn is his name And hence, the name Heritage Glenn. So there's a tie in there. In looking at it, as as far as a triangular piece that's a little bit unique and how to develop something like that. And what we've come up with is rather than well, yeah, Brittany.

This actually shows seven. You could probably squeeze eight lots if you were really trying to squeeze things in there. Because of the floodplain and the area, basements really wouldn't be feasible and so they would be kind of those size lots with without basements making a pretty high price for a single family home. So we went from that. We stacked if you'll go to the next slide, we stacked some townhomes in there to get a sense of what you could fit.

Our approach is never to seek maximum density. That's not something that our company does. So you could squeeze 30 in there, but that's not our intent. We've backed off of that. And that was the 10 live work units in the front and 10 normal townhomes in the the back.

So next. That's the colored site plan that Brittany showed earlier. We can forego the other portion of it but that gives you a pretty good idea of the intent.

Oh

yeah. I I wanted to ask you a question about the Pleasant Grove. Uh-huh. The whatever this is. What?

Sure.

How how has this been working out?

It it's worked very well. So the the most recent makeup of people with businesses on the lower level. There is a barber shop. There's a vector optics, which they were importing scopes and other other notepads. There's a nail salon. One, There's the a preschool. And there's also a photo studio.

Thank you.

Is the intent to phase it? Would you do the back phase first, then the front phase?