Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

We'll start with the consent agenda, items 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3.

Make a motion that we accept the meeting minutes. Second.

That's a motion and a second. All in favor?

Aye.

Aye. Any opposed?

That was all.

You're good.

Okay, motion passes. Motions? All right. We're ready for our regular agenda items, starting with 3.1.

Okay. Item 3.1, public hearing and recommendation of TN contracting LLC's request for review of the pressed-width zone change on 1.09 acres located at 2004 north, 900 west, changing the zoning from RA1 to R2. This is consistent with The general plan designation of medium density residential R2 would allow six units per acre. And so with the 1.09, it would be six units. It could be attached or detached units. And yeah, with that, I'll turn it back to the commission for any questions.

Can we see anything? There we go. Thank you.

So there you go, there's the zoning, current RA1, and then this is the general plan that has medium density in pretty much that whole area.

Okay. Does anyone have questions for staff on this? Is the applicant here? Okay. Do you have anything to add? No. Okay. Is there anyone here? We'll start the public comment. Is there anyone here to comment on this item? Please come forward. OK, seeing there's no comments and none online. Yep, none online. OK, thank you. We'll close the public comment and bring it back to the commission for discussion or motion.

Given that this proposed change is consistent with the general plan, I'm good with it. I don't have any issues, unless anyone else wants to discuss anything. All right. Let's put forward a motion for item 3.1, public hearing recommendation of TN contracting LLC's request for review of the press switch zone change on 1.09 acres located at 2004 north, 900 west, changing the zoning from RA1 to R2. This is we're just recommending approval here. So the motion being that we recommend approval with the findings being that this change will allow for lifecycle housing and diversity of housing types in this part of the city consistent with the goals stated in the general plan land use element. The proposed zone change is consistent with the general plan designation of medium density residential. And please include those DRC comments. Second.

Motion and a second.

Aye. Aye.

Yeah.

Okay, we're going to turn the meeting over to Tyson.

Sorry I'm late. All right, did I miss anything too exciting?

No? We got to, we're at 3.2. All right.

You caught it from the side of the room there.

Let's move forward to 3.2. And I'm at 3.2. Public hearing and consideration of trademark visuals request for conditional use approval of two pylon signs for the collective commercial development located at 1050 West Sunrise Way and requesting an exception for greater height and sign area. And there were, some online comments that we can get to during public comment. But I think the addressing for this confused a lot of people. This whole parcel was addressed, the 1050 West Sunrise. And the pylon signs are down here on either corner oriented towards Timpanogos Highway. The code allows for one pylon sign per collector arterial road, which is how they have the two. And so it's coming before you because all pylon signs are conditional use, but they're also asking for an exception for the height and sign size for both of them. So the code allows 25 feet and then an exception up to 70 feet, and they're asking for 60 feet. They did bring it down from their initial request of 70. And then the Maximum sign size is 200 square feet with the ability for you guys to give an exception up to 600 square feet, and they're asking for 595.88 square feet. justification that they gave for the additional height is the speed that people will be going on Tipino's Highway, wanting to give them enough time to be able to make adjustments. Also, for wayfinding and that there is an existing monument sign. and the view apartments that obstruct visibility a little bit. So they provided some visual examples of what it would look like and how some of it's obstructed. I think this is the view from the view apartments. It should be noted that the grade, the signs will be on higher grade than Right next to Timpanogos Highway. It's it's pretty steep going up to it This is from the site plan showing you the grade lines. So this is where that Traverse Mountain Monument sign is and then this is where they want to put their pylon sign. So You know, there's a decent amount of grade that it will be up and I believe the other one as well is kind of up on, and I'm not sure exactly where it is on this side, but up on some grade as well.

But with that, I'll turn it back to the Commission for any questions.

Any questions for staff?

Yeah. We had a work session a few months ago. We talked about signs. We talked about things other cities are doing. We talked about everything pertaining to this. Hate to then dive into this when we know this is a thing that we want more information on as we make decisions for the city. I'm curious. I realize you guys have a million other things to do as well. I'm not trying to put you on the spot, but do you have anything more for us from that night?

I mean, we've been working on amending the sign chapter and We do have changes in mind with that, but I don't know if there's a lot more information or anything than what was presented then.

Obviously, we've made these decisions before. We've done this a million times over. Just love to know if we've got anything more substantive to deal with this evening. Okay. Thank you.

Questions for staff, I'll also pose it to the rest of the commission. Remind me, what other signs do we have there along that road? I know that there's quite a few in the monstrous sign that we have there at the point of the mountain, but what other signs do we have?

Along Timonogos Highway specifically?

Yeah.

Yeah, that's it. Oh, where am I?

You have to go towards the freeway. Oh, I'm going that way? Yeah.

Yeah, so this area has this sign. Then if you pin, yeah, just keep going in.

Does anyone remember how tall is that Chick-fil-A sign? Was that like 45 feet? Is that taller? Do you remember what that?

I don't remember.

Yeah. I mean, some of the things you might want to consider is this site is lower. So, you know, some of the sign height is taken with the change in grade with it being lower.

Right now there's no stop signs next to? The other pilot, the one that is proposed right here. There's no... There's no stoplight. There's no intersection.

Oh, we're at the one that's proposed. It is next. Well, so the one over... Sorry. There is a full lighted intersection right here. This one, no, because, yeah, the apartments are all right here. It's kind of tucked in behind them.

How far away are those two signs from each other?

That's a good question. Pretty much the whole width of the site, which I'll tell you. Not if you're driving really fast.

Really fast.

So the site is 852 feet wide, so the distance between the two, I don't know, probably 700, at least 750.

Thanks for entertaining the question. I'm good.

Did you find it? Yeah.

Well, not the number yet, but I'll tell you when I get the number.

Oh, so I found the Lehigh Point sign is 60 feet.

Oh, which one?

The Lehigh Point sign, the first one that we saw. Oh, okay.

Okay, that's 60.

And how tall is the target sign?

The target was approved at... That's a good question.

It was 50, but I'm not...

It was 40 feet.

Any other questions for staff? Is the applicant present?

Hi, I'm Justin Grubb. I'm with Trademark Visual here representing the collective project. So I've got a little bit of information kind of towards some of this stuff that's going on down the road like you were asking about. I'd be happy to provide that. You can show it on Google. But to answer your question as far as how far apart are those signs, they're approximately 1,200 feet apart. The frontage is about 1,300 feet. where they're set in and then that's all part of our visibility problem, but they're also Part of what we're asking for in the height and the size is also because they're set way back from the property. And that's just due to the easements that go across the front of the property. We don't have any other choice. There's two large easements that go across through there. So actually, the furthest east sign is actually set back even further. But the corner sign is set back about 50 feet. From the road? Yeah, from the edge of this road. The similar signs that are right down the street from this right there is like, well, you looked at the ridge. That one I know is somewhere around like 60 feet tall and about 500 square feet. And then you go up the road to the terrace. And then that sign is, I think, is somewhere around 50 feet tall and about 400 square feet. And then the newest project, Skyview, that's further east. has also been approved, and those ones were approved at like 53 feet, I think, and like about 400 square feet, like 360, 380 square feet. So, I mean, we're kind of trying to be very comparable to what's going on, but also at the same time, all those signs are actually right on the street, whereas we're pushed clear up into the property. So we're trying to get our visibility back with the size and the height and also be at the – corner sign on Traverse Mountain there for that thing blocks the whole bottom portion of our sign and we don't have any choice because There actually is easements on both sides So we're kind of splitting the easement like the Traverse Mountain sign and I know Brittany said it but please remind me the base of your Sign that you're proposing there on the corner is how high off the road?

What's the yeah the base of the sign will be so the base of the sign I think there's

Probably, maybe, but I couldn't guarantee this, but there's probably about 15 feet difference.

Well, there's your visibility makeup, right? Because you're asking for a sign to start at 15 feet taller than the others, right?

Yeah.

Any questions for staff? Or, sorry, for the ops?

Not at the moment. Okay. Thank you.

This is a public hearing. We'll invite the public that would like to speak to this item to move forward and do so. Seeing not a mad rush, I will close the public hearing. And we'll bring it back for a motion or a further discussion.

Sorry, Tyson. It's probably good to bring up the online comments.

There was online. Sorry. I will reopen the public hearing to read the public comment.

Okay. Yep. First, please keep signage boards for the new development on Timp Highway and not in the residential area, i.e. not on Sunrise Way, Sasha. Placing a 60-foot sign in our neighborhood on Sunrise Way makes no sense. Why wouldn't it be placed on the Tipitoes Highway side where it can be clearly, be seen clearly for most traffic? This will not only be an eyesore for the homeowners in our neighborhood, but bring even more traffic as it will appear like it is a main entrance. Plus, what kind of bright lights will this bring to our homeowners? Signs are on all night, so I imagine that will be a problem as well. I'm not opposed to these shops and development, but this developer and the city are not even. Considering the voices of the neighborhood, they are significantly impacting. Please don't let this get approved. We have all signage to the highway and the other entrance on Morning Vista where it belongs. Please listen to what citizens have to say and encourage the developer to be a better, more thoughtful neighbor. Kate Chavez. Isn't this right in the middle of the neighborhood behind the apartments? Who's going to even be able to see this? Shouldn't the sign be along Timp Highway, not placed behind large apartment buildings and in front of residential houses? 1050 West Sunrise Way is right between homes. It seems like rather bad placement and like rather large signage for the area. Please reconsider pushing it for it to be moved near the highway and near the actual shopping center. Don't encourage visitors to use neighborhood roads to cut to a large shopping center generally. That's it.

Now we will close the public hearing. Any further discussion?

Can I ask the applicant about lighting? Can we bring that down?

Hey, applicant, please come back.

Sorry to make you make the walk again. Would you mind just talking a little bit about the lighting?

Yeah, so these signs are designed. They're not going to be fully big backlit signs like the terrace sign or the ridge sign. They're actually meant, if you look at the design concept, they're going to be opaque black panels and only the lettering will light up. So they're not intended to be these big, bright, flashy things. They're going to be clean, classy, and simple. That's how they kind of try to go for it. As far as you look at even the collective lettering, only the little white portions in that light up. So it's going to get a little bit of a halo in there of orange. But the intention is with those developer and stuff like that, they're not going for necessarily flashy. They just want to cleanly represent the names and have them out there for those tenants. But no big backlit, bright backgrounds or anything like that. Awesome. Thank you. You're welcome.

Why the sign that's in the neighborhood?

So it's not in the neighborhood. I see what their comments were because they're saying on the Morning Vista Road, but that's the thing. They're both down on the... On Timpanogos Highway, that's the point. I think most people are afraid that because that neighborhood's way up in the back, on the back of the development, and I think they're afraid that there's going to be a big sign up there and there's not. The intention is they're both down on Timpanogos Highway.

Were they just reading the map?

I don't think they...

I think they maybe misunderstood the... We realized that when you put it in Google Maps, that address took you to, like, right in the middle of the neighborhood street. And I think it's just because it's a new development. It's not right in Google Maps, so it was just misinformation. Okay. Thank you.

All right. Any other questions? People will, like, drive up that road to get to their homes, right? So I think that they're saying, this is the road to my home. So they can serve their aim, right?

The easement that you're running into, whose easement is it?

Well, there's Rocky, I think it is Rocky Mountain Powers easement, but there's also a gas easement and I think a communications easement out there. And if you look at the map, and I don't know if it shows it on that map that you've got pulled up, but... It doesn't really show it, I don't think, on the parcel map. That might show it right there. There you go. But yeah, that large easement shoots all the way across through there. That's why even those Traverse Mountain signs are clear up on the hill. It's because all of that ground down across that frontage in front of them is all in that easement.

Any other?

Yeah. So I'm sure you guys looked at just doing one sign instead of the two. Can you explain why you're going with two instead of just one?

They're going with two because they're trying to capture the audience from both directions. So the point is that they're directing the audience to Morning Vista. So we're trying to capture the audience headed east before Morning Vista. But then we're also trying to notify the audience before Morning Vista from the headed west so that they can see that. We're also, with the large development and plans that are set forth with all the anchor tenants, There's not the – we don't want to muddy up the signs. That's why there's only, I think, five or six tenants per sign, to keep them clean and simple. Like, we don't want to put 30 tenants on a sign because it does no good. Nobody can read it.

So you're going to split up the tenants between the two signs?

It's intended for it to be split up for the tenants to have space for the development. Instead of trying to stuff – you know, you constantly see it, I'm sure, that you get all these signs out there that people, like, take and they start with maybe four tenants and then they – They break it into eight, and then they break it into 16, and pretty soon you've got all of this stuff on there going on, and nobody can read it. None of it's big enough to read, but it's all muddied up so much, too. It's too much. You can't process it in the time that you have to actually go buy it, right? So that's something we try to avoid with this.

Right. Brittany, can you go to the one page where it shows coming from the going westbound, there's a

with a view of the apartments over it a picture of the sign on the east end of the property just peeking over the one i think it's one more yeah i mean that is a very bad photo but we were trying to properly represent two because in that section that sign is actually pushed back quite a ways and this picture is taken from about 600 feet away sure in the traffic lane right and we took it from kind of the worst area

So that's an approximate location where your sign will be? It won't be closer to the road?

No, it won't. In fact, you can see that. And then if you look at the original site plan where they have that big, huge retaining wall, it's going to be clear up behind that because of all the easements that run through there. Where that pathway is, that pathway represents part of that easement area. And so, yeah, it's going to be clear up there. on the back by their dumpster enclosure there. You kind of see that little triangle, or that little box right there.

Yeah. So, Brittany, go back to the one with the apartment building and the sign just peeking up over the edge. So, in this picture, I'm thinking, well, why don't you go for a 100-foot sign? Because even if it's 60 feet, you can't see it above the building.

Well, we were going to ask for what we weren't allowed to have. Right.

I'm thinking, well, why even have a sign there?

Because it only takes about 100 feet, and then you can see the sign. 100 feet forward in those traffic lanes, and you can visibly see that sign pretty well.

Could you push the sign toward the middle of the property?

I could get with the client and see if they'd be interested in doing that, but I think due to the way that property is and how it's cut and they have to do that retaining wall and that whole, I think, rear area is their receiving area. I don't think they have room to accommodate the size of that. It would completely block off their receiving area.

What if you went to a smaller sign and put it in the middle? Then they would have more room for their spacing?

I think it's just the space because that whole top area is a driveway. If you look at their site plan development plan, it's just a driveway that goes around the back of the building.

Okay. So if it's a smaller sign, then you'd have more room for that driveway instead of a big sign like this?

Potentially.

Because I look at that picture and I'm like...

But part of what we're looking at, too, is we're also trying to have a quality for the tenants, so that's why we can't. We can't, well, can, I guess, I'm sure, but the intention is that they all get the equal tenant spacing. So that's part of the deal. That's part of what we're going for. So, I mean, we're not necessarily opposed to, we're understanding the height issue, and we're understanding that, you know, there could be, there is a discrepancy between the grade and all that, but there's also that large setback, and that's where we're trying to kind of make up a little bit, but I mean, we'd be willing to come down in height and sacrifice some of that because we do know that it's sitting up higher, but it is something we'd just have to work out with the tenants going like, well, you're going to have restricted viewing from here and here and here, and that's something we work out with them. But that's something that we'd be willing to say, hey, maybe we only get 55 feet. Maybe we only, I mean, you know, it's just the difference is we're trying to get those lower tenants up a little higher because they sit so far back.

Thank you. Appreciate that.

Ultimately, the sign closest to the apartments is not a wayfinding sign. It's strictly advertising. It's helping people know that they're there, which I can respect.

However, it doesn't really help you.

You're not orienting it to capture that eastbound traffic, right? It's in a way that you're right. There's a very limited window. Just like you said, when you're driving past that at 60 miles per hour, the people go on that road or even faster. It's muddy. What is that? They don't see it. So I would almost say no to that side, flat out, because it doesn't help you. It doesn't help the tenants. I would definitely say no for it advertising towards the apartment building. That's light pollution. I know that there are things and controls that you'll put in the way. However, it's still annoying and it's a nuisance to the tenants next door. At which point then it would only become a sign for the eastbound traffic on the other side of the road for advertising purposes, not for wayfinding again. at which point I don't know that that's needed because they have the bigger sign or the sign that's out on the corner that already does that. So I just feel like it's duplicitous. It doesn't really help with what you would be looking to achieve there other than just building a big sign, right? For purposes.

It's more, yeah, the spread of the tenants.

As for the height, you're saying it's roughly a 15-foot increase or above the road. I'm okay with 60 foot, but I would want the sign to be 45 plus the 15 height that you already get. That gives you your 60 feet. That would be where I would come to to give you the site. I agree that you do need to have some visibility up higher. You're getting that with the advance there. These are my opinions. I'm not speaking for everybody on this staff or on this commission here. But I just feel like we built these and we sprinkle them like candy around and they're ugly. I do appreciate some of the design that you've put forth. It kind of looks retro. It's kind of neat. It's different, right? It draws attention to that. So I applaud being different than just, you know, the stick on a pole and a couple of signs. But... Yeah, I don't see the need for that one that's really close. And I would be curious if you could argue it even further. Help me get there, because I just don't see the need.

Well, like I say, it's still more of a spread of the tenants and accommodating how many tenant spaces we need without cluttering up one sign and making it illegible. But at the same time, I can see your point as if there's a way or room that we can shift that thing further west, It's a possibility, something that we can get with the client on and go with. But they've specifically chosen this location due to the site restraint. And so we're just trying to work through that. But like I say, it makes a big difference in 100 feet. That is a bad picture. But within 100 feet, you get to see that sign completely. And especially, like I say, we took the picture from that closest, furthest north point, too, kind of. So it isn't a very great representation.

still looking to be able to get the sign for the tenant spread so justin um yeah it was justin right yes um to give you some thoughts here as well um i do uh tyson and i are on opposite ends of the spectrum of signs on this commission And I'd have to agree, though, I worked in signs myself in a previous life. I just couldn't see that sign doing anything effective. I can see it being effective when you're talking to a tenant about a lease. in terms of telling them that there is signage, but in terms of it actually being effective signage. I want to see it there. I would be more inclined. I do think that the signage you put together, the retro look, is actually nice. I like the aesthetic. I think it's beautiful work and well done on you. I assume that was just your shop. Well, they have a design team as well. It was kind of collaboration. Pass along the compliments, sir. My thought suggestion would be that you would be better running with the one sign-in. I'd be more inclined to make exceptions for one sign-in. I know it would step away from some of the retro look that you have that I do like, but I would go with LED that you can... Swap out which tenant is getting It's basically getting advertised and then you've got a fair Quote-unquote representation rotation the sign is visible and the truth is that this you're not at the by the freeway The people who are gonna drive by this these are daily commuters It's not like you're gonna have a lot of people who are shocked at you know, what's there within a matter of months and People who live in this area, including myself, I'm going to know what shops are there. I'm going to know if they interest me. And it's not going to take more than a few trips taking my son to school down this very highway before I'm going to catch every different tenant that's rotated through on that LED sign, if you want that route. Those would be my thoughts. I think that covers the issue that you're raising about readability. I think it gets away from the light pollution that would otherwise be bothering the people next door. And to me, that is a very real consideration. You have an absolute right to build the sign within the parameters that the city permits without exceptions, right? So you could put a sign there without question if it's 25 feet or shorter. um before we go and make exceptions though i really need to be convinced that it's in the welfare of the city and i would struggle to to see that when we're making an exception for a sign with such low visibility so close to where people live those are my thoughts i can understand that um can i invite up one of the other owner representatives you'd like to speak sure yeah i'll step down thank you thank you justin

Hello, so my name is Juan Montoya. I represent CenterCal and PERI, the joint venture developing this project. Thanks for the compliments on the architecture of the sign. I was actually sitting in the other chambers, by the way, congrats on the new digs, beautiful, when Skyview got their pylons approved. And I think one of the comments you all had was that it just looked like every other pylon sign. So we actually took that to heart and we're developing somewhat of a mid-century modern kind of design and aesthetic and try to match that sign to the architecture that we have for this project. So as it relates to the comment of moving this sign towards the middle, if we could pull up the site plan, I'll show you why we can't do that. Mostly it's a function of that road that bisects buildings B and C, and the fact that I need WB 60s to get to the anchor tenant. And then there's a wall that has tiebacks all the way up to 15 feet, and therefore I can't actually place the foundation of the sign on that area. It's a function of just the infrastructure and how the site lays out. So the only logical place for us to place the other sign was in this side of the property, where there's actually a little bit more room. As it relates to the height of the sign, I think Brittany and Kim can attest we've been very collaborative throughout this entire process. So I like to just spend some more time with them, thinking through what we can do on that side of the property to get you guys more comfortable and not affect the residents next door. Because I understand where your concern is coming from. One thing that I'm just considering just off the top of my head right now. And I'd have to talk to tenants. There's a bunch of different stakeholders, right? But instead of orienting it this way, maybe shifting it a little bit and try to getting it as close as possible to the wall as we can in order to not have light pollution go to the apartments next door, for example. So if you guys would at least consider tabling that side of the request for right now, we'll come back in a few weeks and kind of hopefully provide a solution that works for everybody. As it relates to the sign on this side of the property, I completely understand where you're coming from. If we are already higher in height, why do we need 60 feet? So if there's anything we can do to approve that pylon sign today at 40, 45 feet, given the 15-foot grade change, I think that would be kind of the change request right now based on the feedback we just heard. But appreciate you letting me come up here, and that's all I wanted to say.

May I ask you a question? Yep. With that going down to 45 feet for the height of the sign itself, which again would be roughly to 60 feet of height you're wanting, do you feel like you could get the tenets on there in a way that is aesthetically to your design?

I think I'd have to ensure that the square footage we're asking for remains. But as long as that's the case, yeah, I think the 45-foot should work fine.

I wish you would have asked for that to come in the door, to be honest. Okay. Anyway, that's fine, though. Thank you. Thank you.

So one more question. Go ahead. But you still want the square footage of 598 square feet, even though if the sign were that... much shorter, or would you shrink the square footage as well?

We'd have to look at the design, like at the proportionality of it, right? But it's all about maximizing, for us at least, maximizing the tenant name so people can actually see it. Tenants, at the end of the day, I understand the residents are going to know what's there, but tenants always want signage. And for this to actually function and be a successful development, I need to maximize the square footage of the sign. And in relation to the comments that were posted online, we definitely don't want to have a pylon along Sunrise Way. So this is the only place that's logical for us to put one.

So if we pass, if we make a motion today, I don't know if we can make a motion as to the square footage of the sign.

We'd have to table the entire thing, I believe.

Yeah, but I'd be happy to. I realize perhaps you've got a timeline you're trying to hit. I know how construction goes. But I'd be happy to table this for whatever brief window you're looking for so you can take this feedback, rehash, and give it another crack.

Is it getting tabled because of we can't bifurcate essentially the two different approvals? Yes. Okay. It's not a square footage thing. Just so I'm clear. I'm trying to understand what the...

I think the square footage, well, if you've got a 40-foot sign and your square footage is still at 500, I think proportionally it would look better. So I think that I would love to see a new... You're going to largely keep this mid-century...

I'm keeping the same exact sign. I'm getting this done.

I think that's gorgeous. I like it.

Thank you.

But yeah, that would be the case. It's not in our purview to split up this into two different, I guess, requests. Got it. It's a single request. So that would be probably the best case for you. What is your timeline? When are you trying to target this?

Well, it's a very good question. So if you've driven by there recently, there's a wall actually getting built right now. So I need probably in the next month to have a sign approved so I can go design the foundations so it doesn't conflict with the wall infrastructure, et cetera, et cetera. So month, month and a half is probably the time frame I'm under.

Is two weeks enough?

Yeah.

We can have you back on the 25th.

We don't have a meeting on the 20th.

Well, I guess we won't have you back on the 25th. Sounds good.

But I'm glad to know that you could.

Yeah. No, I will scramble and get this done. It's super important for the success of this project.

Goodness, right. That's rodeo. Just lock in on those regular patterns. Yeah. Okay, so then July 9th is our next regular meeting. Yeah. Goodness.

Okay. See you guys July 9th.

July 9th it is. If I can, I don't know, just some feedback? Yeah, please. I'm 40 feet. Height for me is great. I know the monuments. that is out there that has a traverse mountain, whatever that is. Yeah. I think we decided it's about 25 feet, the thing that looks like an old-time fire lookout. So, because I do, I drive by that thing right there. Yeah. So I was kind of comparing those two things. So I think 40 feet for me is great. And if you angled that sign on the east and... And I'm getting away from signs because we're all on our phones and our cars tell us where to go anyway. So I'm kind of like, signage to me is... No, I understand. Anyway, that's my feedback.

Yeah, one other thing. You're never going to get a tenant if they don't have a sign. I get that. There's that psychological piece.

Exactly. Yeah. One of the things that... Part of the reason we requested the 60 feet is that there's a fine balance between... the height of that particular sign, which is the Traverse Monument sign, and how many actual panels I can put. Because if I go below a certain height, then I'm just essentially, for lack of a better term, wasting a panel that's going to get blocked by the Traverse Monument sign day in, day out. So that's one of the issues we're running against. Obviously, bringing it down and reducing the square footage slightly would probably solve some of that. But that's why I think probably we'll come back roughly closer to like 45 feet, to be honest with you. Okay.

Okay.

Thank you. Appreciate your willingness to work on this. Of course. Thank you, guys. I'll entertain a motion to table. Yeah.

I'll go ahead. For item 3.2, public hearing consideration of trademark visual's request for conditional use approval of two pylon signs for the collective commercial development at 1050 West Sunrise Way. I move that we table this item to the July 9th meeting with the finding that there are just a few more things to work out. Second.

Motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. 3.3.

Item 3.3, public hearing and consideration of Grow Development's request for approval of the Cortese Preliminary Subdivision, an eight-lot residential development located at 1450 West, 1220 North, in the R-122 zone. This includes, yeah, the eight lots, all of them meet the requirements of our 122 zone. So 22,000 square foot minimum, 100 foot lot frontage. When this went for the zone change, city council asked us to do this. eight-foot accessory building easement, and so they included that, so that'll be a setback, like no buildings can be in that, just to help with access. And also in that, the city council required that this preliminary subdivision would go to them for final approval, so even though this says consideration, it's actually a recommendation, and it will have to go to city council for final approval. Preliminary. Yeah. Well, final approval of the preliminary. And with that, I'll turn it back to the commission for any questions.

No question. Just a comment that I think this is the first development plan that's come to us that meets the minimum lot size and isn't asking for exceptions that we've seen in a very long time. That's all.

Yeah. Agreed. Any other questions or comments for staff? All right, is the applicant present?

Hi, commissioners. Thanks for having me. Jake Hone with Grow Development. Yeah, we're excited for this one. Pretty straightforward. We like the half acre lots. We've had a lot of interest from people ever since we started doing this one. We are keeping the Cortezzi's home on that front lot, lot eight. And so it will still continue to front the main road to the south. The challenge is it's a pretty nice home, pretty decent shape, and so there's some good value still in there and it makes sense not to knock it down. But all their equestrian outbuildings and barns and sheds, those will all come down and the site will be prepped and ready to build and develop into the neighborhood. We did have a couple things we did address on the preliminary plan. One would be that setback for structures along the north. There is a ditch along that property. And so we're making sure that we're keeping that out of there so that any accessory buildings won't be at risk as that ditch is maintained and taken care of. The next thing is there's a ditch going north-south along the west property line, and so we've got an irrigation easement there. That ditch is piped, but not up to the standards of the irrigation company, so we're going to be re-piping that. The last thing is obviously we have existing agricultural ground around us since we did the farm analysis and made sure that we meet all of the requirements with our bordering properties being agricultural. So, yeah. Any questions or things I can address?

Any questions for the applicant?

Okay. Thank you very much. Appreciate it.

Item 3.3 is a public hearing. We'll open the public hearing now and invite anybody that would like to speak to it to come and address with the mic.

Bart Peacock.

I live on 1220 North, 1533 West, just kind of across the street and kitty corner to it. I do appreciate the bigger lots, too. I think that's great. But... We do have some concerns with the ditches. I do appreciate the setback on the north section. I would like to have seen that the non-climbed fence has to stay in versus putting in later. Somebody comes in and puts in one of them fake styrofoam fences. They burn. They're not fireproof. And I've got to maintain that ditch. But we can work probably around that if the property lines in that line up. But the biggest problem is on the west side, lot seven, six, and five. There's already a chain link fence that runs the whole width, the whole run there. I was always under the understanding that that was property line. Apparently it's not. The property line is the heavy dotted line, so it's 20 feet over from the chain link fence. So like the applicant said, they've got to do work on the ditch, which can be done. Because you can't go in them lots to maintain the ditch, so it's got to be piped and stuff. But one thing that has not been addressed yet is, right not too far up on Lot 6, I believe it'll be, there needs to be a headgate put in there. Because Zach Trapp has water, and he needs to water his property first. With that said, they put a head gate in there. How are we going to access it? So I think it's far from ready to be approved. I would like to see this tabled and tell them things can be resolved. The other thing is I need access to access the north ditch. I've talked to Grow Development, and I gave them the option of on this road that stubs in, they could put a gate there. They'll have to put in a couple of sections of pipe and a gate so I can get a tractor in there or whatever to maintain the length of that ditch. I did bring up my concerns of the easement and stuff over here, but I have not heard back from them as yet of what they're going to do. I can't rely on going through Trapp's property to get to that head gate. Right now, maybe it would be fine. Why, he owns it. But I wonder if he sells it and gets somebody that says, you're not coming through my property. So, and they need to follow the, which they will have to follow the Lehigh irrigation requirements and stuff. But you put a head gate in there to service SAC, he will have to have access and so will I. And that's not been resolved whatsoever as yet. I notified Tony Train about it. I notified Grow Development, and I notified the seller of it. So not heard back from anybody.

Mr. Peacock, your property is where?

Mine's across the street to the south. So where Austin Measel is, I'm next to that. Gotcha. So the ditch comes down, comes across the road on a diagonal. So really, and really there's three people that use the north ditch. There's me, Zach Trapp, and Mike Dubois.

Right, so as long as Zach Trapp's there.

And I, you know, looking at this plan that I got from the city, I believe what I was told, if I remember everything, the northeast corner of the property line is basically pretty close. As you head west, it kind of veers more into the ditch. So until that's surveyed and we know what's going on there for sure, they may have to pipe some of that ditch. But my request is I think it needs to be tabled until we can get some answers and find out what's going on.

Thank you. Anybody else would like to speak to this item? We'll invite you back up as the applicant. Seeing none, I just want to confirm, were there any comments online? OK. Then we'll close the public hearing, and we'll invite the applicant to come back up.

Yes, thank you for having me back. Mr. Peacock and I did speak on the phone three times this week, so not hearing back is not accurate. We were very aware of the ditch. Obviously within our property boundaries, we have to take care of those things within our boundaries. We are piping the ditch. As far as a head gate going out to the west, that's no problem. We do have the preliminary plans into the irrigation company for review. We have not received red lines back from the irrigation company yet. That is a requirement for final review. Obviously, we're at preliminary engineering items right now. As far as the property lines go, we are aware that there are discrepancies with existing fences that have been in place for years and years and years and the actual property line. And so if there needs to be adjustments for those, we'll make those, but they're actually fences inside of our property line that our landowner established and put up. And so, yeah, we are reflected here as the actual property lines that are in place right now. So, and we've also shared with staff, shared with Mr. Peacock, shared with the ditch company, we're here to work together and to figure it out. But it is the property owner's rights to be able to sell the property and develop it. And so we'll meet the city requirements, we'll meet the irrigation company's requirements to make sure that everything's accounted for. So, thank you.

Any other questions for staff or the applicant?

Can I speak to Ian?

Not right now. Maybe in a moment. Let us talk for a few minutes, please. I have questions. Obviously, this is a big concern. We've heard this before. He's brought this up several times, Mr. Peacock. And I do hear you, I promise. He obviously has a legal right to the water that comes through to his property. bounds does the new development have to ensure that passage of water? Obviously, the passage of water has to take place. But what are we really dealing with here? Water is a tricky, always makes these things tricky.

So I'm not exactly sure what your question is, but he does have right to water come down through there. They can't restrict that. And I don't think by any means they are doing that. If there is a requirement to have an access out to the west and a head gate there, sounds like they're working through that with Tony Tran and the irrigation company to make that. There'll have to be some easements or something so that they can have access, both parties can. I don't think anything that I've seen is restricting water to Mr. Peacock or anybody else on this line, and I think they're plenty willing to work with them. from what I can see and make sure that it's amenable to everybody on the system. I don't think they're trying to block access from what I can see.

What would happen if someone else moved in?

They would have to have an easement or something across through there, through his property, the property to the west, or through this development here some way to get to that head gate, I guess is what you're referring to. So the new head gate, it isn't shown on the plan set here, but it sounds like they're working on that. So they would have to have some way to get to that, either an easement, cross-access easement or something, so they can get to the head gate.

And easements run with the land.

And they do, yeah.

What was that? Say that again, Brittany.

A recorded easement runs with the land. Right. So it wouldn't change with ownership.

Right. So to me, it's not so much an access to the walker getting to their properties, more access to the gate or the head gates, maintaining the ditches. Has there been a survey done? Do you guys know that? I don't know for sure.

They've surveyed the property and the boundaries, and I think it's probably pretty accurate as what's shown on the plans that they've submitted. So I don't know exactly where that ditch falls in relation to the property along the north property that Mr. Peacock talked about. If it does fall property line right in the middle of the ditch, they might have to move it or something. But I think they'd be willing to work with them on that.

And then also, I'm sure Lehigh Irrigation, they have an easement through there. So if you do, they don't?

I don't know that they do, actually. I think that's what Mr. Peacock's concern is. It's my understanding that this is a private lateral. and it's not owned by the irrigation company. Unless I've got that wrong, but that's my understanding.

Gary, I can confirm that. We did get an email this afternoon from Tony Train, who's the engineer, the contract engineer with Lehigh Irrigation. He did confirm that this is a private lateral. The main Lehigh Irrigation ditch is over by the railroad tracks, so this section that we're talking about is a private lateral. Now that We still have to make sure everybody can get access. The Lehigh Irrigation Company, he's trying to help them come up with an agreement, but it's between the private owners to figure out what the best solution is. Again, Tony's trying to coordinate and facilitate that because he knows a lot about the irrigation system, but it is a private lateral. Thank you.

If it weren't, the irrigation company themselves would maintain the line, is that correct? But right now he goes out and he burns and But if it were the irrigation company that owned it, they would maintain that line. Is that correct? Correct.

So the private lateral is owned by the property owner. So what obligation does the property owner have to maintain that private lateral to ensure that the water is getting to Mr. Peacock? I think that's where we drill down to the crux of the matter, right?

So I guess it's the Du Bois property across the north, if I'm not mistaken on that. And I don't know that they maintain or work on that. Or I don't know if Mr. Peacock, I don't know what their agreement is. But the three people that, I guess, use the water need to come up with some agreement as to who maintains it and how they do it. And there does need to be access for Mr. Peacock to get back there to clean that ditch and work on it. Or anybody else, either Du Bois or anybody else that uses that, too.

Ultimately, that is something that is protected because they have right to the water. So that would have to be figured out before any development could happen anyway. Is that correct?

You know, I'm not a water rights expert on that and what their rights are. I know this ditch runs across Mr. Du Bois' property, and I don't know if there's an agreement or... What do they call that? A prescriptive easement that they have because it's been there so long it's just established that there is an easement to get out there and clean that. Sometimes the city uses that for roadways where we don't technically own the property. So there might be, I don't know if there's a prescriptive easement in water rights that they have access to across the property there to clean it out. Maybe Mr. Peacock would be a better one to answer on that. Mr. Crane from .

I will just remind you guys I'm the prosecutor. So with regards, there's likely a prescriptive easement that would allow him access to the water. And so he'd have his water rights still, and he should be able to access it there. I don't know that that's been recorded. I don't know. how that's been done in the past, but there likely is kind of an implied or a prescriptive easement in place already. But again, Mr. Peacock could probably answer that question better than I could.

So in summation, we're establishing that Mr. Peacock has rights to the water that comes through this private lateral. which the city does not maintain, which probably has an easement, which probably isn't recorded. And I'm going to say I think I can see where the man feels a little nervous. With no disrespect or disregard to what I think is a wonderful development agreement, that really should move forward.

Well, as far as the north ditch, the one that runs east and west, nothing changes on that with this development. It is just the way it is.

Oh, yeah.

So as far as I can see, I think I don't know. He's had access to it before, and he's been maintaining it before. I don't know that that changes. Maybe he could speak to that. But my guess is there is a prescriptive easement there, just because he's had years and years of working on it and doing it, that he just has a right to clean and maintain that.

I have a question to legal, to the prosecutor. He does have a right to the water, but it is a private ditch, so he doesn't necessarily have a guarantee to access to the ditch. If for some reason that access to the ditch, which is on private land and it's owned by a private landowner, if that were to be removed and his access were to be removed, would the irrigation company then be responsible to Or put in some other method for the water to get to his property.

I don't know that the irrigation And I'm just spitballing here I don't know that the irrigation company would be then required to to provide that access that would be between the landowners where they're the ones owning the land and those you know implied or prescriptive easements are against them and It would likely be, I guess we'd call it a civil issue in the criminal world. You're going to go to court and argue about who's going to access. And so we would be removed from it because we're not holding the easements. And unless we're taking over the easements, which I don't believe we're doing, we're not taking over anything, it would likely be just between the parties.

Any questions?

Are we certain that the ditch is on Du Bois' land? Because it sounds like there's some discrepancy about where exactly the back fence line should be and where the ditch is.

staff sounds like a formal survey has not been done is that what you're saying here are the applications you can come up do you have the preliminary plan set that you can pull up there is a record of survey that's been done and just to state we are not restricting anything we're actually providing actual easements that will be recorded, new piped lines, access that will be recorded and provided. We're not taking away anything from the right to have their irrigation come through those private laterals across the property. On the preliminary plans, we do have a satellite image. On the northwest corner of the property, it does butt up to the edge of the property. Again, we have an easement there, and there are many times when this field work happens, you do have to do an in-the-field change to ensure that there's proper connectivity, that our head gate at the end of our pipe is accessible from the open ditch that's on the northern property. As far as the maintenance of the ditch off our property, That is between the users and the property owner to identify the maintenance of that ditch. I have no problem providing access through the edge of the public road. It would actually be Lehigh City providing public access to go up and do that ditch once it's a recorded, dedicated road. And so as you can see there, that's where the end of our ditch, the end of our property, we would pipe to where the ditch turns the corner and then comes down the property line. So, again, we've done everything to facilitate a use of these private ditches across the property once it's developed. North of us, we can't control that. That's north of our property. We've even set back and impeded our lots by providing a no structure easement across the north to be built for the maintenance of the ditch that's not even on our property on that northern side. We're doing everything we can. We're not restricting. We're workable. We're in with the irrigation company to meet all the irrigation improvement standards here. So I understand the concern for Mr. Peacock, and we've done everything we can to address that within our property boundaries.

You mentioned that the current piping is not to standard. And it will need to be dug up and re-piped?

Yes, and so that's what we're proposing, the RCP pipe going north-south, yep.

Is it the entire distance, the entire length?

The entire length of the western property line.

Any other questions for the applicant?

Thank you. Thank you.

Any other discussion?

I sympathize with Mr. Peacock and understand that he's in a tough spot. But for the purposes of this request, I feel good about it. And I'm down to put forward a motion. Unless anyone has any other comments? OK. Item 3.3, public hearing and consideration of Grow Development's request for approval of the Cortese Preliminary Subdivision 8 lot residential development located at 1450 West, 1220 North in the R1-22 zone. The motion being that we approve the proposed preliminary subdivision.

It says consideration, but it's going forward.

That we recommend approval for the proposed preliminary subdivision with Findings being that the proposed subdivision does meet the requirements of Lehigh City's Development Code. And please include the DRC comments.

I'll second. Motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. When does this go to City Council?

Yeah. Yeah.

July 14th. Mr. Peacock, July 14th is when it will go forward to City Council. When does it do? They have a lot more leeway than this body does. I would recommend that you show up and talk to them.

It's been discussed with city council. It's been discussed. We're not going to get nowhere. I think that Lehigh City would like to see anybody that owns these properties gone. Not him.

Let's move forward with item 3.4.

Item 3.4, public hearing and recommendation of Deborah Walker's request for review of the Walker zone change on 2.58 acres located at 915 West State Street, changing the zoning from R18 to heavy commercial. So this, again, meets the general plan. This whole area is shown to be heavy commercial in the general plan. It is currently R18 and by some other residential properties. We do have our buffering and screening requirements. So where it's right next to the residential, it would have to have an 8-foot fence and a minimum of 12-foot buffer. And I know the applicant doesn't have any use in mind right now to just rezone it and I think sell it after getting it rezoned. So with that, I'll turn it back to the commission for any questions.

Thank you, staff. Any questions for staff?

I have a question. Would there be only entrances on State Street, or would they have access to the property on any other side?

Yeah, we don't have anything in our development code that would restrict access from another street. If anything, it'd be restricted on State Street because it's a more main arterial road. Thanks.

They recently changed the traffic pattern over there, didn't they?

Yeah. Yep, they closed. It's up here, right on this end, like the... There's a monument.

The more northern end, yeah, or southern end, northern end, yeah.

I think it's up here that they closed it off so you can't connect right through.

1800 has a monument right there. So that's not going to be a road. There's not room for it, right?

The monument? Yeah. Access from 1800 would never be a thing, right? Yeah. Yeah.

So looking at the zoning, the purple is mixed use. And there's that little strip of heavy commercial there. But this parcel, they want to go heavy commercial. Why not mixed use?

Because the general plan, they couldn't really request it because it's not, this area is planned to be heavy commercial, not mixed use. And the uses currently are kind of more the heavy commercial type uses. And mixed use for a while was kind of an interesting which is kind of more commercial, heavy commercial type. So even with our general plan and our mixed-use areas, we have our designated densities, and this area doesn't have any designated density if you're mixed-use. So it could only be commercial uses anyways.

So in the future, are we going to see all these parcels come through and want to change from mixed-use to heavy commercial?

We might. I mean, they could because that's the plan we came up with. We have, so on State Street, it's the heavy commercial in this area, so you get close to the intersection and then it goes down and it transitions to commercial and then neighborhood commercial and TOD as you head down on it.

Thanks. Any other questions for staff? Is the applicant present? Please step forward and state your name.

My name's Deborah Walker, and just right next door to me, that is heavy commercial. That was a Scott Trunson, I'm not sure what their whole name is, but yeah, they're heavy commercial right next to me, right there on State Street. And everything else is, as far as I know, commercial on State Street. As the heirs to that property, we need to sell, and so we're just looking to change it to match the master plan of the city, and that's why we're requesting for a heavy commercial.

Any questions for the applicant?

Somewhere in there, there is a sign for sell. Is that on your property already, or is that the next door?

That's right in front of our property.

That is in front of your property. So you already have it for sale.

We put that up like three weeks ago.

Okay. It doesn't. I just drove by there the other day, and it says commercial property.

Yeah, it says in progress.

In progress, okay.

Yeah, because we'd applied.

I was only going 80 or so. It was great. It was a little muddy. It should have been a bit. Yeah, it was a little muddy.

Any other questions for the applicant? No. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. All right. This is a public hearing. We will invite anyone in the public who would like to speak to item 3.4. And I already know there is a comment online that we'll get to in a moment. But we will open the public hearing now.

intimidating. Hi, I'm Sheena Welch. Good evening commissioners. I live right directly touching that property. That is our house. So right below that blue light. Yeah, correct. And we moved in loving the area with our neighborhood. And I have my yard backs up to The other guy that I didn't see that was commercial when I looked it up, he definitely does not treat it as commercial because it's like two feet against my fence line, so there's definitely no boundaries there. But I'm going to read this because I'm very nervous, so bear with me. Take a deep breath.

You haven't been in so many months.

There's only one of us that might.

This is my second language, too, so this is hard. And he's not here tonight.

Which one?

My property shares a direct boundary line with the acres that we're talking about. And I'm here tonight to ask you to protect our established neighborhood. I've talked to 25 just near neighbors the last two hours here, and they're all devastated to hear that this is the plan. We're in a community. Kids walk, drive, go up and down here with bikes every day to the park. We use it constantly. And I'm hoping that you guys will vote denial on the Walker zone change from R18 into heavy commercial. And while I do understand that State Street is a commercial corridor, heavy commercial zoning I find is completely inappropriate for that lot that goes directly and touches our single family homes where our children play in our backyards. The H, sorry, the CH zoning permits high-impact uses like 24-hour operations, heavy vehicle idling, intense lighting, and severe noise. And there's no amount of fences or eight feet of this that will cover any of that. Like, it will just not be enough. It will not mitigate heavy commercial operation running right against our property lines where our children play. Furthermore, the applicant's narrative openly states that this rezoning is speculative, meaning simply to inflate land value for future sales. Lehigh's general plan is supposed to protect the integrity of established residential neighborhoods, exactly like ours. It should not be used to maximize seller profit at the direct expense of safety, privacy, and property values of longstanding residents that live around here. We have a vibrant, safe neighborhood on Trinnaman Lane. And please don't compromise our safety and quality of life for speculative commercial expansion. And I urge you to recommend denial for this application. We also have the farm side over there. They're also worried about their animals. We have a lot of people who are just really sad to take away what is our neighborhood right here and a road that we use a lot for our children.

Yeah, that's what I had prepared.

I don't know if you want to ask anything. Do I go down? Can I ask? You're good.

Can I ask you a question? She's not very out of protocol. She's not. I'm just out of sheer curiosity.

I'm way overstepping my...

I don't know.

I've never done this before. You can blow them off if you want to. There are three residential homes on your side of the street. And then what is going on right behind?

So there's a guy who has his concrete business. I'm not quite sure. I've never actually spoken to him because we don't connect with that side of the road. We're so our own thing. But he has stacked, I think it's metal concrete plates, like ginormous, weighing tons and tons, stacked up. And so I think that's a whole other issue that I have to probably address.

Yeah, I don't want to bring up another can of worms.

Because it's not safe, like, my backyard. If it falls over, I mean, my kids could die. But, yeah, he does have that. He bought that land, I think, seven years ago or something from an older lady who sold it. Okay.

Thank you. I appreciate it. Chair, thank you.

I apologize. You're welcome. Thank you. Anybody else that would like to speak to this item?

Okay.

I'm Kathy Sunderland. I live on Trinnaman Lane, which is...

Very close. Very close.

Right there. Anyway, my concern is very simple. This heavy commercial is a high impact intense rating, and what we have Here is the property on the one side, residential. All those R112, A1, those all have homes on them as well. They're not just agriculture. They're homes, the R1 flex. All that area is residential. So my concern is that's a drastic, very drastic change from residential to heavy commercial. And... In your land use document, one thing that, as I studied it, that caught my eye as it discusses heavy commercial classification, it's intended to provide locations that do not impact existing and planned residential areas. So even though the master plan can go to heavy commercial, That's not the best thing for the residential areas that are already there and have been there for a long time. A lot of the homes have been there for a long time, including ours, which is Kitty Corner from the proposed property. So my concern is that's just too drastic of a change. Like you can see, there's a lot of mixed use. There's one heavy commercial, but there's no residential by it at all. So that's my biggest concern. That's just too drastic of a change of classification at this time. Thanks.

Thank you. Anybody else? Don't hesitate. We're excited. We want to hear from all of you.

I'm Kyle Welch. I'm Sheena's husband who came and spoke here first. I agree with everything she said. I also wanted to point out one additional thing. I recognize there's a variety of outcomes that could result from this, and along the outer edge of the property, the two sides that form the right angle there that directly border the neighborhood, There's two lines of trees that are along the outer edge, and they're some of the oldest, tallest, most mature trees in the neighborhood. And I'd request that if, no matter what happens, if those could be included in the buffer that was mentioned in the proposal.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Hi, I'm Andrea Hanson. I live right under, right south of Sheena. So I'm two down. Yes, right there, exactly. We just bought the house a year and nine months ago. And we're really looking forward to raising our family there. We have four kids, four little kids. The Trinnaman Lane Road is already Kind of scary to let them go out and play just from cars. Just today I was on a walk and cars were speeding down the road. And so just thinking about having that lot be heavy commercial and the more danger, a more dangerous land for my kids to be living around. It just scares me that whether it's because heavy commercial can include gas stations or any number of construction sites or anything, and it could be open to all sides, and Trenum and Lane is already a small road, and people already go fast on it. I just hope that you guys consider small families and being family friendly and continuing to help the neighborhood be family friendly. So thank you.

Anybody else? Brittany, there was an online comment.

Yeah, so one of the comments was from Sheena and Kyle Welch that already spoke, and I think it was a lot of the same things that they said. And then there was this other one from Steve Johnson said, hello, my name is Steve Johnson. I am the owner of Johnson's Medical and Barbecue Pit Stop, both of which are located near the Walker property. I'm writing to express my concerns regarding the proposed zoning change and to request clarification on how this land will be developed. Recently, the property between our location and the Walker property was transitioned for use by a construction company. This has resulted in significant noise level that impacts our businesses. I am seeking reassurance that the Walker property will not be used in a similar fashion. While I do not object to the property being zoned for commercial use, I am concerned about a heavy commercial designation. I would like to better understand the specific development plans and advocate for the property to be developed in a manner consistent with the surrounding State Street area. Thank you for your time and for addressing these concerns.

This time we'll close the public hearing. I invite the applicant to come up and speak to anything you heard, if you would like. Or we will engage in a conversation up here.

The general plan.

Yes.

The one I'm finding online was 2011. So I know we super updated from that. Does it call for a heavy commercial here at this point?

What she showed us does. Yeah.

I just want to confirm that.

Brittany, can you pull up the general plan? Yeah. Prosecutor?

Yes.

May I ask you some questions? General plans, I've always struggled with general plan because it is a general plan. It's what we anticipate or foresee or would like to foresee what goes in this area in the future. Does it vest any rights to a property owner? Does a general plan give them rights to that zoning?

I would need to check with Ryan on that, and I can text him right now. But if you have any other questions to ask me, you can ask those.

That would be the main one that I have right now.

Okay, if you give me just a minute.

Because obviously we do withhold property rights as crucial, right? And that's something that we're also here based on the code. This body, just for a little lesson, I guess, for the crowd tonight... Our job is to make sure that things follow the code. It does not mean that we like it, we love it, we want it, but it does mean that we are looking to see if what is being requested follows the code and if there are exceptions that are being asked for or if there are some variances to the code that we adjust, that we look at those and see why and there has to be some good justifications for that. My question.

Waiting for a response. Sure. I will note within the scope of approval in your agenda packet, it may address some of that concerns. So it does read zone changes or legislative items. However, the city sets an expectation. Oh, Ryan just said no. It does not vest anyone with rights. But with regards to the scope of approval, It does, the city does set that expectation of zoning pursuant to the general plan designations. And then it goes on to note that this is consistent with that. And Ryan is typing more, so I'll tell you what he says in a minute.

I hope he's watching. Ryan, are you up there? I'm pretty sure he is. He has nothing better to do. The question that I have there is that It's been my impression over the years that I've been on this commission that if somebody is asking to move towards compliance with the general plan, that our hands are essentially tied. And I would like you to confirm or deny that.

That's the way it appears. And so Ryan has also stated zone changes are always discretionary decisions. But I imagine those need to be made by the city council, not by you, because you'd be right.

Our body is black and white. Their body is gray.

Yeah. So no vested rights in any particular zone are allowed within the general plan designation.

This is a legislative decision. We are, by and large, black and white. I will say, four motions made, my reading is that, yes, the general plan designated this as heavy commercial. I expect it will become heavy commercial. I don't know if that happens this year or if it happens in 10 years. But my guess is that that is the route of the development of Lehigh City. In my mind, what we're seeing is ample evidence that the region is still far more residential than perhaps the general plan anticipated or reflected. And that leads me, if there is not a vested right in changing the zone, which is what I heard, to not make the zone change at this point in time. That's, of course, not a permanent decision. It is a legislative decision. And furthermore, we are a recommending body. So even if I were to get my way, if the commission were to vote with me on that, the city council could still nonetheless do otherwise. Though I like to hope and think that they do indeed pay attention to our recommendations. So that, I mean, to me, the decisions that we make are to conform with code and to do what we see as within that code, within the best interests of Lehigh City, while respecting property rights. For instance, Mr. Johnson, I appreciate his comment, but, you know, asking for what the plan of development is is absolutely a non-starter. That's not a factor. If a zone is what it is, a property owner has every right to develop the land within any specification that fits that zone, period. And so when we look at a zone change, we don't actually, in fact, we try to stop this. We're not worried about what the plan is for that zone. We're first asking if that is a good idea. Because once that zone change happens, we no longer have any right to tell them that they can't build whatever is in there. So it's not really for us to sit here and say, well, do we like what you're going to do? Then we're going to do the zone change. No, that gets away from it. Now we are, I mean, being a planning commission, the name itself is a little, I'm not going to say it's disingenuous, but there's sometimes this impression that we're master planning like puppets the city. This is America. We believe in free enterprise. People buy property and they develop it. The limitations we place are zones. So that's where making zone changes are big deals because it is Pandora's box. And that's why we try to make a general plan. We try to hold it to that general plan. As I look at the specifics of this, I would be disinclined to make the zone change at this point as I see the specifics. But That's where I'm at, and I absolutely respect my fellow commissioners. If you feel more that the hands are tied on this one, I'd love to hear a motion. There's no place to call for it, and I apologize.

Will you read what you texted and then his response again, please? Yes. Into the microphone. We're going to FOIA you.

I know. Yeah, I'm sorry. I'll censor some words. No, I'm just kidding. So I asked Ryan, does the general plan vest any rights to property owners, for instance, if they want to change the zone to what is allowed under the general plan? Ryan replied, no. A zone change is always a discretionary decision. No vested rights in any particular zone are allowed within the general plan designation. And then I just point you again to your scope of approval, specifically that second. It's not really a paragraph, that second sentence. the public can speak to this item understanding that it will be approved unless there are significant legitimate concerns.

So one of the two was quoted twice was the section on Lehigh City and helping the residents and thinking of the residents first, essentially. And I think that's where I'm a little bit worried.

I mean, remember, the property owner certainly has. But the question here is if there are vested rights.

Right. There's not.

I'm not seeing vested rights. And that leads me to look more at what the general area is. If there were a vested right, if Ms. Walker were applying to build a structure, And our code calls for it, right? And it feels like a nuisance to the neighbor. She wants to tear down a tree. It would be her right to do that. Sure. But that's not the question.

My concern is that the neighbors in the area, this could potentially be.

Yeah, so once it's heavy commercial, whatever, if Ms. Walker wants to sell it, of course she can. She's the property owner. She has that right. If she wants to develop it, she can turn around and do that. It would be her right. And whatever our city code permits under heavy commercial, it would be her right or any future owner's right to do anything and everything under heavy commercial.

Got that. But my concern is, is this detrimental to the residents that are still there? Is it still a residential neighborhood because of those three homes that are

in between all this commercial that's my read can i point out to all of you what the code says about considering general plan amendments this is the criteria it says the applicant shall identify in the city staff reviewing departments planning commission and city council will consider the following the effect of the proposed amendment on the character of their surrounding area consistency with the goals and policies of the general plan consistency and compatibility with the general plan uses of nearby and adjoining properties the suitability of the properties for the uses requested and their suitability for the uses identified by the general plan, whether a change in the uses proposed for the affected properties will unduly affect the use or proposed uses for nearby and adjoining properties, the gain to the public health, safety, and welfare from the existing classification to the proposed amendment, and the overall community benefit of the proposed amendment.

Yeah, that's all great for a general plan amendment, but that's not what we're looking at. We're looking at a zone change. Can you go to the zone change?

Yeah, right.

What are we supposed to take into account for a zone change?

Yep, so it's an amendment to the development code or zoning district map shall not, oh, that's just authorized. Is it up here? Yeah, so it's, yeah. The effect of the proposed amendment on the character of the surrounding area consistent with the goals and policies. Yeah, I think it's pretty much the same language. Yeah, it is the same. It is the exact same list.

So it talks about consistency of nearby properties but not current. It says consistency with the general plan.

Yeah.

General plan, not the current zoning.

Yeah.

That sucks.

And I think the biggest thing is this unduly affect the uses or proposed uses for nearby and adjoining properties. So, you know, again, it's kind of what Nathan had shared, that last statement of is there something above and beyond? Is this unduly impacting not? Will there be some impact? Because every development's going to impact the neighboring properties to some extent. But is this an undue effect that would happen?

Can you, Brittany, could you remind us what OS stands for?

For what?

For the designation here. The heavy commercial?

Oh, the OS is open space. Open space.

Okay, so that's a part. Yeah. So she's surrounded on... Three sides by not residential.

And this is where it was, I understand what general plan has proposed, but we're talking about an area that is surrounded by a park. It's got residential. And when I look at the general welfare, which is one of those seven points, for me, there is substance to deny the request.

But the residential is behind this property. There's not going to be access other than on State Street. There's no access from Trinnaman on this other side.

We don't know that. We don't know that.

They established that they don't know that. OK. It's a super narrow road, so I would think it would be harder for them to get into their space if they turned on 1800 North, which is not even 100 yards, and came in through the back.

Yeah. I hear you. I would be surprised if they weren't given some access to Treneman Lake. But I'm not an engineer. I'm very torn on this one. Letter of the law, letter of how it's written, I believe, states that this is something they can ask for and that we should give a positive recommendation to. It meets the general plan. I would be encouraged to recommend to the city council where they do have the purview to look outside the lines that we don't. they evaluate if this is truly the right choice for this area.

Well, and the good news is they are going to do that regardless of what we recommend. True.

I'll entertain a motion if anybody has one. Can I ask one more question? You may.

That is a question. To staff. What is zone A1? Because I think Go to the zone map for me. And that A1 parcel right there, that's agricultural. So on Google Maps, there's a semi-truck pulling out of there.

It's kind of a junkyard. My kids hate that I call it a junkyard, but it's got a lot of cars.

So this neighborhood's already... turning into this heavy act but i think i'm with you or i don't think these these folks still live there and they just purchased a home a year and a half ago i i feel like i'm it's transitioning i just think that it's not transition as quickly as the city may have anticipated what was that i think it's transitioning just not as quickly as the city might have anticipated it would

well general guys the general plan is 30-year plan it's not a two-year plan right um so this may be the first step in that process that the city sorry public hearing is closed thank you though um but i i i don't hear that argument where yes maybe it's transitioning slower but i mean we just barely did this what a year and a half two years ago So, I mean, we're very early in the general plan process of what it was. Like, we anticipate in 30 years that it might look like this is kind of what that general plan is.

I have no doubt that that's right. 23 years from now, of course, these residents choose not to sell, right? They can be like the gentleman in the movie Up. They can hang in there. Yeah. And they would have every right to do it. But my guess is, yeah, it probably will be heavy commercial down the road. And maybe that down the road is soon. That will really be city council's decision, and we'll give a recommendation. Anyhow.

On the other hand, the Walkers have been here for 40-plus years, and shouldn't they have the advantage of, being able to change the zone instead of having to sell it as residential and get a lot less money for their property, and then have that person sell it for heavy commercial, shouldn't they have the advantage?

So I don't think that the city should really wade into deciding which private residents get advantages.

No, but in that case, do their property rights have 40 years outweigh the ones who have been here for a year and a half?

So the property rights that went out are the ones that are vested. Right now we're considering a question that doesn't really get to vested, which is where, in my mind, you can pull back to thinking more just general welfare. Because we're not looking at it. Look, if walkers had vested property rights, the pitchforks could come out. It doesn't matter. That's just not the case here, at least as I see and understand this.

I'm saying if it's going to eventually turn to heavy commercial.

Absolutely. But also, there's no one putting a gun to the walker's head saying that they have to sell it right this minute. They can hold on to that. Also, we could vote, and I could be the lone vote who disagrees. And maybe it goes to city council, and they all say, you know, Commissioner Jackson's nuts. So you want to follow where the vested property rights are. And the fact of the matter is 90 plus percent of what we do is purely administrative. This one is not. This is legislative as it identifies so very clearly on the commission report right in front of us. And I think that there are very valid reasons to disagree with me, just as I feel that the validity leans more toward not seeing this zone change happen today. It doesn't mean it's a wrong zone change down the road, but to me, the weight stacks up against it. We'll still be friends if you disagree with me, Nicole. I want you to know that. There's no bad guy in any of this. The walkers are right to ask for.

I appreciate the discussion.

Yeah. No, it's good and important. You are the bad guy. Well, sure. I'll take that. I can be the villain.

Any other thoughts, questions, comments, concerns, feelings?

I speak a lot less from Greg's. I miss you. I wholeheartedly agree. Yeah.

I feel the same way.

As? As you. Oh, okay.

I would entertain a motion.

I'm genuinely curious how this is going to go.

I'd love to hear your motion.

Mine?

Yeah.

All right. Ah, geez, this is item 3.4, right? Yes. Yes. Okay, item 3.4, public hearing recommendation of Deborah Walker's request for review of Walker's own change at 915 West 8th Street, changing from... the zone from R182 heavy commercial. I know that we sent a recommendation of denial to the City Council with the findings that there are no invested rights to the zone change at this moment. That the zone change may yet make sense down the road, as it is called for on the general plan, but that in weighing the concerns of adjoining properties and residents that is not currently in the general welfare of Lehigh City to make this zone change. I'll second that.

DRC?

Yes, DRC comments.

Motion and a second. Oh, does your second still stand with his DRC? I'll keep him. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Nay. Okay. It does carry forward with a negative recommendation to the city council. 3-2. July 14th.

And you know it's truly legislative because we've really had things to disagree on. Yeah.

Thank you, though. I appreciate the input.

Item 3.5. Item 3.5, public hearing and consideration of Thanksgiving Point's request for approval of the Thanksgiving Point Science Center site plan. located at 2356 West Wheatley Lane, requesting exceptions to the EFIS glass and setback requirements. So this is going to be an addition to the existing red barn, show barn, that's there. Transitioning it to a science center with classroom lab space. So again, it's just looking at those three exceptions. The setback from the street. It's probably actually both on Sycamore and from Wheatley. And a lot of it has to do with where the existing building is. Yeah, just hard to... So there's a maximum 25-foot setback, and they're at like 47 feet. So just asking for an exception for a larger setback from the street. And then... With the building elevations, there's the two exception requests. One is for more EFIS than is allowed. In the urban techniques use, there's 20% maximum. And yeah, they exceed that, but they're asking for it because it's kind of a design choice, trying to make it look more science-oriented, I guess. The glass requirement for the urban tech mixed use is 40% minimum on the facade facing the street. And this one, they're asking for the exception because with the use of having labs and things, having that much glass would make it challenging. And with that, I'll turn it back to the commission for any questions. Thank you, staff.

Any questions for staff? Is the applicant present?

McKay Christensen, Thanksgiving Point. I brought along architect Brad Beecher from Beecher Walker. You get really tough questions. This is Children's Science and Technology Center Museum. We're super excited about it. On the interior of this is a theater. It has a large dome digital theater, which is about a 60 by 60 by 80 theater. And adjacent to that are labs, exhibit labs, where we will have permanent exhibits mounted against the wall, lots of interactive, lots of digital elements. So having less light inside for a theater And for those things is ideal for being able to set up those types of interactives. On the old show barn side, we are actually putting in more windows than there is with the show barn. I think with the show barn there's no windows today. But having lots and lots of windows in a meeting space is also a bit problematic when you're trying to, host a meeting, so those are some of the things that will happen. So on the interior of this, we have five or six major labs along with theater, along with meeting space. The setbacks on the north side, that's against Private Lane, Sycamore Lane, We do a lot of queuing there for field trips, education elements, etc. Having a little more setback room increases the safety and functionality of the space and allows us to do those queuing elements really well. On the south side, The setback is from, there's a parking strip that goes in from the other parking lot, so the setback is pretty close to that existing parking area and will maintain that existing parking area. In regards to the EFIS, the bottom level is not EFIS on the new building portion of this, but there are a lot of architectural elements The EFIS is going to be sculpted and it will have a tech design sculpted into the EFIS along with it will be lit. So it won't look like a square building with just plain EFIS all the way around. You can see these other design elements that wrap the building that are in EFIS. That adds a really fun architectural element to the building along with the dome that is shaped into the building. Those will stand out and be quite attractive. The soffit around the building is metal. Well, the fascia is metal and the soffit's metal too, but look wood. So we've tried to create this building in a way that has lots of architectural variation, design, and says to the outside world this is a tech and science museum. And this building does reside on the interior of our resort. So it is buffered on the west side by Curiosity Farms, on the east side by other elements on our property, and to the north and south as well.

Anything you want to add? Yeah, just generally, the overall aesthetic of the building, we've really studied it and put a lot of care into what's the use of this building, which is a science and tech center, and taking that and carrying that to the outside and creating elements that kind of speak to that so that as public pass, either go by the freeway or on any of the public roads, there's no question that this building draws interest and helps people want to come and visit and see what's going on inside and create a great space for families. And so, yeah, to the Ephus point, we took a lot of care in different planes of Ephus. Each one of the bands that you see in that is a different step in the Ephus to create some relief in the facade itself. So we feel it's conveying our aesthetic really nicely.

Any questions for the applicant?

I have a question. Are you taking the barn down completely, or are you making that part of the structure?

We're going to take the skin off the barn. We're going to put a new skin on it. Obviously, we'll eliminate the steeple in the middle run that's on the barn today. That'll be replaced by the long run of windows along the roof. And then we'll just put a new exterior on the barn structure, and we'll remodel the interior.

So the show barn is a place where you had lots of events. Is there an event space within this building?

Is there a floor plan in here? We'll show it to you. Go to one more. One more. One more, baby. There you go. So you can see that this is the revised space inside of the old show barn. It'll have about the same capacity, but the stage is a little bit smaller than it was. And if you remember right, on the top of your screen, there's risers today that are on the inside of the show barn. We'll be taking those risers out, and so it will be a flat hall altogether. But the roof will remain the same, the restrooms will be in the same location, and it will be approximately the same capacity.

I'm probably just missing this in the report, but for the exterior, how much is EFIS and how much is glass?

Do you have the count for that? I do, right. So we break it down by facade. So on the east side, we have 71% EFIS and 7% glass. On the north facade, 72% EFIS and 4% glass. On the south facade, 66% EFIS. 13% glass, and on the west facade, 81% heathis and 5% glass. The west facade doesn't have a lot of wall space, which is why these numbers are higher.

A lot of that west facade is the roof shape of the existing show barn.

Yeah, it's hard to see in just a straight-on elevation. If you saw it in perspective, it'd make more sense, but the standing seam of that show barn comes down at an angle and turns all the way to the ground.

And that's what you're seeing right there. Again, I'm being lazy. I could read the report, but reiterate for me one more time. The theater or the stage, I'm assuming that's going to get dual use where you can show films, videos, but also it could be an actual stage where children or performers go up and use it.

A lot of our use today is exactly that, performances, dance recitals from the community. Yes, corporations come now and then and use it for presentations. We do show movies in there from time to time. So, yeah, a lot of those uses that require a little bit of a darker room from time to time.

Can I also clarify? There's a difference between the stage area and the theater. The theater is a dome shape that's in the new building, and the stage is in the barn.

Can you go to that floor plan part, Brittany? Would that be okay?

Thank you for clarifying that.

Yeah. So you can see this is second floor. So you can see in the new building is where the Cosm Theater will go. And that runs from the floor to the top of the second floor. So that's a space without a first and second level. That theater will carry all the way up to the top of the second floor.

Thank you. Okay, this helps me. So my thought behind all this is because the theater and the classrooms are closed off, I would expect that you'd be able to have a greater capacity to be able to control light. So because of that, I would expect the window percentage on the outside to increase and the EFIS percentage to decrease because you're able to put more out there because you could have a greater capacity to be able to control light inside the building was my thought process.

Can you say that one more time?

Yeah. Yeah. So because the theater and the classrooms are enclosed, I expect that you have the greater capacity to be able to set the lighting within the building to whatever you want, given whatever lights you install. Yes. So you are able to install more windows, bringing your glass up and your EVAs on the outside down.

Meaning he thinks it's possible for you to get closer to the code.

Sorry, I'm just trying to navigate that area. And how would we control the light on the inside with more windows?

Is that what you said? Yeah, yeah. It sounds like your argument for increasing your use of EFIS and decreasing your use of glass is because you need to control the light... needed for the stage and the labs, but those rooms are all enclosed, which leads me to believe that there's a greater capacity there if you'd be able to get closer to code.

So you could have light outside of those spaces through windows because you still have an enclosed theater, you have an enclosed space inside where you're blocking light coming into that theater.

Is that correct? Well, I don't think so. We would have, let's just take a look at the AI computer lab. So if we put windows there, we would have to build a wall immediately on the inside of those windows to keep the light from entering into the lab. And we want to build exhibits onto those walls. In a museum space, it's very convenient to have walls that you mount your exhibits onto. So you're keeping your center space open and using that wall space for 10- or 15-foot interactive exhibits. So if we did what you said, which is on the Cosmo Theater as well, we'd put windows, but then just a few feet inside of those windows, you'd have to build a wall to keep the light out. Does that make sense?

Totally understand it doesn't make sense to put windows outside the theater. It was more the other space that it probably made more sense to me that windows, I would expect.

I understand now. The AI lab, for example, will be largely digital led. So to the extent we don't have light into that AI lab space, for example, it would also help.

What is the dome that's on the outside exterior of the building to be made of?

Yeah, so that dome is kind of a derivative or reflection of the interior cosm space. It's to kind of help people understand some of the function of the building. And right now we intend that to be ACM metal panels. So metal.

Make it glass. There you go.

And we were hoping to project onto that. and to be able to have some imagery.

Our code doesn't say you have to have windows that you can see through, right? You can put fake windows up. We've done it all around. We made Target do it recently, right? So I just feel like there's more opportunity to put something that meets the code. I love the design. I'm all for it. I love the step in the FS, everything. But I worry about the precedent that it sets. Just because we like this building when we have held other people to the high standard that our code is. And our standard is high. We demand a high level of things that are built in our city. I struggle with being firm on somebody and being less firm on somebody else. And I haven't come to a conclusion or to a Even though the use is great, I love it. I even love the look of what you have presented. But just because I like it, I still can't justify in my head of why give such a great degree of variance from our code. I would suggest that we look at something or go back to a drawing board where even if they are not real glasses, But you put some form of glazing that gets there, whether that lets light through into the building or not. But it gives the appearance that matches the code. That would be my suggestion of what we would look at.

To the extent that we would go on the exterior of those labs and put in glazed glass, we would have to step in and build a wall immediately on the inside of those, because we're mounting exhibits against those walls. Does that make sense?

Yeah.

Can I also just clarify that the city code is referencing the first floor only, correct?

Correct.

So we're not addressing the second floor.

I believe. I'm not misspeaking, am I? The city code is specifically referring to the first floor. The ground floor.

Yes.

Which that also has lab space directly behind it.

No, it's the same thing. We have an aerospace lab. and an energy lab, and both of those will be heavily against the walls inside of those labs. So we'd have to put glass, step in, build wall, mount against those walls.

I'm sorry. It seems like one of our past, when we're talking about the reason for the code having a percentage of glass is to provide variety, so it's not just a solid wall of of one material. And to me, this meets the code in a...

Spirit of the law, if I may. Is that where you're going with it?

Say it again.

Meets it in spirit of the law.

Yeah, exactly. The variety is there. So I don't know that it needs to be glass.

I absolutely take Tyson's point, right, that you don't want to be picking winners and losers. I'm sitting here looking for exactly what you're saying, though, Nicole, because my mind also goes back to when I had lived in an HOA on the south side of the city. My neighbors put in this gorgeous fence, absolutely stunning. And, uh, it was too high a quality for what the HOA permitted. So the HOA made them rip it out. So what did they do? They put up the most piece of crap fence humanly possible, just as a big send a message, you know? And, and that, that is where, yeah, I, I'm pretty hesitant to get into the space of making those sorts of interpretations. And yet, at the same time, I feel like we're looking at, frankly, a work of art masquerading as a building. And those are the tensions that are going through my mind right now.

To give you some clarity from my thoughts, which I've already given, we recently saw The gym. What's the gym? Lifetime Fitness. Yeah, Lifetime Fitness. They came forward. Again, beautiful design. Love the design that they're doing, but it doesn't meet our code, right? It doesn't meet the glazing requirements of our code. But they specifically were like, but we've got these variations. We've got these things. And it looks good, at least in the drawings, right? But we did push back. We didn't. bend our code just because we thought it looked good. And we did. And I really do think this looks good. I just don't know why we're trying to justify away from our code to the degree that we are. You know, and they did. They negotiated. They said, how about we do 15, 20, 30, 15, 25% instead of 40, right? And we did look at those different aspects and asked them to come back with something else. They didn't yet, but I'm aware of it unless I missed a meeting. But that's where I'm having a hard time, especially because of how recent it was that we, it would feel like an injustice and preferential treatment to an absolute great partner of the city of Thanksgiving Point, yes.

but still someone that we would want to hold to the same standard that we hold anybody else chairman do you think it makes any difference where this is located it's located in the interior of this resort property you think that carries anyway

It is interior now. But I know that there's a lot of opportunity that is being talked about and being developed as far as where people will be walking and driving that does not exist today. But yes, as it exists today, I do see that as different. But from what I know is planned in that area, no, I don't see it as different.

I'm sorry to be so disagreeable tonight. I do.

You can't see it from the freeway, and you can't see it from Ashton Boulevard.

I think that's where I struggle, is I feel like we're talking about this massive sprawling space that is Thanksgiving Point. Deep inside of it, putting in a building that, in my mind, absolutely supersedes the code in terms of... Because the code is about... of avoiding the city being run down. It's about holding to a standard. Yeah, Tyson is not without a valid point. I want to be very clear on that. Yeah, I definitely feel that tension.

Did you hear that?

He never says that. that's right but you know yeah I don't know run out of analogies it feels like telling James Bond he showed up in a black tie you know in tux and this is a suit event okay so you're not dressed well enough is that what you're saying I will run out of analogy Sunday I don't know what okay you're right so I'm kind of hearing two different

problems on your side is the light coming in and mounting space on the wall. Yes, sir. To me, I thought, oh, light's coming in, put some blinds up. We all do it at our homes, and there's some nice blinds out there. But that doesn't solve the mounting stuff to a blind. That's something I would try at my house, and it hasn't worked in the past. And all of your walls in your classrooms are exterior walls. There's no Exterior hallways that lead to these classrooms.

There's a few, but the majority of the space is exterior.

And I agree with these guys. Our code is such, make it look good. You've got the movie theater right there that is all stucco and a giant box. The design's great, but it seems like it's so far, I think 4% was on one of the... Facades of glass? Did I hear that right?

7%, 7%.

Yeah, it's all on that chart right there. You want to zoom in on the exterior material chart right there?

Yes, like on the west side, the glass is very minimal because it's really roof is what it is.

And I can see that west sun coming in in the summer is brutal.

i understand what you're trying to do i think it's great things points a great asset to the city and the state really so it's also within your right to ask you know ask for the absolutely and it's within our purview to grant it again i do not hate the design if that design were to go up i would still be proud of that in my city I think it's a beautiful design. I just struggle with the precedent that we have set with holding other people to a higher standard. That's my only beef. It has nothing to do with your design. Well, other than you're not meeting code. This is a public hearing. Did you have anything else to add? No. Okay. Then we'll invite you to sit down. Okay, thank you. Thank you. This is a public hearing. If there's anybody that would like to speak to item 3.5, we'll open the public hearing and invite you to the microphone. Oh, all right.

No, I'm not here for this, but I happen to be here.

We've been involved around Thanksgiving Point for John Peterson. Thank you. For 20-plus years, we actually just happened to donate. We've seen this. This is a remarkable thing. The only thing I would say the difference between a lifestyle, the gym, a Target, and all these others, this is a museum. And this is something that is extremely unique to the area, to the country. Travel outside the country. None of their museums would be built, if you will, to a certain standard. Building codes, yes. But outside of that, and I understand what's happening with those walls. The reason why, because it's interactive. And they have to be that way. So whether there's a design change, I just know that this is an incredible opportunity for not just the city, not just the state, but this is a regional. I happen to be involved in all the Thanksgiving development for the last 21 years. And you can travel anywhere. You can travel to Idaho, Arizona, Nevada. Everyone knows where Thanksgiving Point is because of what the Ashtons have done there on such a first-class level. So that's all I have to add.

Thank you. I don't believe there were comments online, Brittany. No, there were no public comments. Then I will close the public hearing and bring it back for further discussion or a motion. I will say I did not get lost in the use. The use of this is unique. It is different. Our code doesn't say if the use is this, then it's that. Again, I'm just leaning back on what we're asked to do, which we're asked to look at code. We're not asked to love or like. We may absolutely hate it, but if it meets code, we would say, oh, go ahead, right? I love this. I love the use. I mean, I have children in this area, and I also think this is cool for myself, right? This opportunity to bring this into our community.

We approve this.

Yeah, this is us. Yeah.

Tyson, I appreciate that you brought up lifestyle fitness. From what I remember, we told them that were willing to work with them, that they needed to come back and they needed to reduce their EFIS levels and increase their glass, but we would work with them. And holding to that same spirit, I appreciate what the gentleman just shared in that I think this is a very special building. And so I'm okay to put forward a motion of approving it, but very open to also hearing differing comments.

I'd love to hear your motion. Okay. Did you guys have a question to answer first?

oh no let's do this you're ready item 3.5 public hearing consideration of thanksgiving points request for approval of the thanksgiving point science center site plan located at 2356 west wheatley lane requesting exceptions to ethos glass and setback requirements the motion being that the planning commission does approve the proposed site plan with the findings being that the proposed uh at the proposed location the plan will not be detrimental or injurious or to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. In fact, I would suggest it does the opposite, that it will be awesome. The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in compliance with the goals and policies of the Lehigh City General Plan and the purposes of this code, and that the property on which the use building or other structures proposed to be established is of adequate size and dimensions. to permit construction facilities in the conduct of the use in such a manner that it will not be detrimental to adjoining properties in the area. And please include the DRC comments. A second.

Would you add that as a museum, it also merits special consideration as it stands out categorically in a very unique way from effectively any That every museum is going to be quite unique depending on what it specifically does. And this is a nationally drawing structure. Love that. Welcome.

Thank you. Second stands.

Motion and a second. All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Thank you.

I will say it was that last thing you added that got me there.

Look at that.

All right, item 3.6. Item 3.6, public hearing and recommendation of Lehigh City's request for review of development code amendment to both table 05030B and section 12.130, updating the regulations for automobile sales businesses. So Kim worked a lot with the city council on this. This is at their direction. But chapter 12 is updating some of the standards It does add that the dry vials shall be a minimum of 24 feet in width. It removed, which is just kind of summarizing some of this, cleaning some of the things in here that don't need to be, like there was the parking requirement, but that's already in the table of parking. And... The landscape setback and things covered in other places with our landscape requirements and buffering if it's next to residential. The lighting is in our lighting standards, and it's the same language. So it didn't need to be in here. And one of the big changes is getting rid of the acre, one acre minimum. So that's some of the language in here, and then also In the table, it said one acre larger, so eliminating that, because this will allow it on smaller properties, and also adding it to be a permitted use in the commercial zone. And with that, I'll turn it back to the commission for any questions. Thank you, Brittany. Any questions for staff?

I have questions, actually. I remember we talked a lot about that one acre. And it was put there for the reason that we liked the limitations that that created. And now we're removing that limitation that we loved so much. Why? Why?

Guess the best answer I could give is just a different policy that the Newer City Council this was a lot of the one acre and things that was done Seven years ago eight years ago different different thought process on what we should or shouldn't allow and how restricted we should be I know the new a lot of the new council members are you know very pro small business and things like that so but yeah no I I totally acknowledge that this was in here for a reason just so that we didn't have A lot of little small, you know, where you have a house that gets purchased and they turn the front yard into their display. We'll just have to do our best. You can make whatever recommendation you feel is appropriate. But yeah, the... uh this came up that was actually the issue that started this was they said why you know why do we have that restriction let's look at revising it and they directed us to work on that and then as we got into some of the other language britney's done a good job of explaining you know those are just updates that for things that we didn't really need in there so

I'm all for elected officials to be able to put their input. And I don't see a reason. I was just curious if there was a history or if there was a specific application that led to this. But great. Thank you. Any other questions for staff?

I have a question. If you'll go back to the link, there was a, right there, six. So the landscape area shall include street trees. That's being crossed out.

oh is that so it won't need to meet the standards of the city for their trees it will it's still the landscape requirements still apply to it um and the design standards everything so it's just moving it from here so it's just getting rid of from this section yep there's another section which we could pull up if you want but it's it had dual

requirements for landscaping so we're just getting rid of the one but the other one still stands still it's just for general any commercial site has a certain tree requirement so right so i'm all for getting rid of redundancy but is it easier for an applicant if they're looking at this they're oh um there's no landscape i guess they gotta go do their due diligence and find that out

Yeah, so that's under, right now it's under the design district that you're in, so they'd have to look at that anyways because that's the design of the building.

Okay, thank you. Appreciate it.

So is there no minimum acreage size now?

If this is approved.

If it's approved, yeah.

Any other questions for staff? This is a public hearing. Oh, wait. Applicant, did you want to add anything? Okay. This is a public hearing. At this point, we will open the public hearing for item 3.6 and invite anybody that would like to speak to do so. This is why I'm here.

John Peterson again. We own the 23 and a half acres on the east side, referred to as the Ridge. We've had that for 13 years. And I actually have a letter of intent for that entire purchase from a very well-respected car family. There's only a couple of them, so we'll let you figure that out. Currently in the commercial zone, you have the Porsche Audi Garfs and also Garfs have the Land Rovers across the street. And it kind of shocked me when I didn't see this was on as part of the zoning. And so my recommendation is, as many of you have said, to move forward with this because this, like our development in particular, will be done completely first class with this family. And there will be various uses within that 23 acres. And we're excited to see that. As I've read through the changes to the code, I didn't see anything. The only thing I would add, and I don't know if this is possible, I'm not a big fan of the rebuilt title kind of schlocky car lot. That won't affect me other than I do care because we own a significant part of the area with Thanksgiving Park and the retail there. So I want everything protected. And that's why I've been very selective who to put under contract on this land. I've had actually small car dealers come to me and I've just said, what's your use? No. And so I'm very protective of this area, as you can tell with previous comments, to make sure that it's preserved. And I hope the city uses that to some degree in their permitted uses just to protect Lehigh. I have kids. Two of our kids live just south of Thanksgiving now. And I'd like to see it maintained in a manner that's first class. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else? Seeing none, I don't believe there were any comments online. We'll close the public hearing and bring it back for further discussion or a motion.

The only part that kind of makes me, I don't know, gives me butterflies is that reducing or getting rid of the acreage, which would mean if I'm on a three-quarter acre lot or smaller, my neighborhood, could I open a car lot, put a couple signs in the cars, in my kids' cars. Doesn't it still have to be in the right zone?

It still has to be in the right zone, yeah. Perfect. Does this still protect, is Main Street still protected? Because that was a big concern before. In fact, that was one of the main reasons we limited it to an acre, right, was Main Street.

Yeah, Main Street is, most of Main Street is mixed use, and this only opens it up to commercial. So in mixed use, I believe it's still not an allowed use, but we can pull up the table. So yeah. So it's permitted in commercial, heavy commercial, light industrial, and I can't remember what the other one was. Regional commercial.

Any other comments, questions, feelings?

I'm just glad we could take care of a small 23-acre business.

Just teasing.

Anyway, it was a respected dealer family. Well, that's how I know we narrowed it down, was the respected adjective.

Not the disrespected one.

That's a good one. I do appreciate it. I appreciate the distinction. I'll take your word for it. I'll entertain a motion.

I'll make a motion.

Great.

Item 3.6, public hearing and recommendation of Lehigh City's request for review of a development code amendment to both table 05.030B and section 12.130, updating the regulations for automobile sales businesses. I move that we give a positive recommendation with the findings that are listed. And please include all DRC comments.

Second. All right, motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed?

All right, 3.7. All right, item 3.7, public hearing and recommendation of Lehigh City's request for review of a development code amendment to Chapter 12, Chapter 39, Table 05-030A and Table 05-030B, adding a neighborhood exchange structure use. And this one came from the Parks Department mainly. So there's little free libraries that are kind of popping up everywhere, and then also some neighborhood food pantry kind of uses that have caused some challenges being put in the public right-of-way and other places that it makes it hard for them. And so this is really a way to try and show where they are allowed, where they're not, and create some regulation for them. So it permits it in all the residential zones. So if anyone wants to put one in their yard, that's fine. It's allowed in a lot of the commercial areas as well, not in public facility and some of the other light industrial tech manufacturing, those kind of uses. And then just adding the language that are allowed on private property. They're not allowed on public property, including parks or schools, without written permission and approval by the entity that owns the public property. And they're not allowed in any public right-of-ways, including park strips, and then can't be constructed in a way that overhangs onto any sidewalks. Because we do have one that does that currently. And then, yeah, just the definition of it is an enclosed or unenclosed semi-permanent structure for the exchange or distribution of items such as books, food, household goods, or other similar items. And these items may be for sale or free. And, yeah, with that, I'll turn it back to the Commission for any questions. Does that include food? Yeah.

Like if the food is for sale, that's okay? Okay. Oh, it says food. Sorry. You looked at me like I'm an idiot. I was like, I don't know what to ask for something beyond that. All right. Sorry. Any other questions for staff? Seeing none, this is a public hearing. I'll invite anybody in the public that would like to speak to this and open the public hearing now. We'll close the public hearing and bring it back for a motion or further discussion.

You entertain a motion? Great. Item 3.7, recommendation of Lehigh City's request for review of so many things, Chapter 12, Chapter 39, et cetera. I move that we give a positive approval for the reasons listed. Second recommendation. What's that?

Positive recommendation.

I believe I said positive. I didn't? Positive.

Recommendation.

Great. Recommendation. Positive recommendation.

Do reasons listed include DRC comments?

Yes, sir.

I'll second that.

All right. Motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Aye. All right. City business.

So the only thing we were just going to mention is as much of a rodeo that sometimes this meeting is, we want you to go to the real rodeo next. Yeah, there's no other meeting this month because it falls on one of the rodeo nights. Enjoy the roundup festivities if you haven't gotten tickets. It's way too late So for the rodeo, there's still lots of other things to enjoy and then no work session in July Because it's on the second and we figured that's there may be people that want to travel So our next regular meeting would be the July 9th Yeah

Did we get shirts this year?

Yeah, they haven't come in yet. So I hope we got your order. Noreen is... No longer with us. That sounded like she died. That sounded bad.

She's no longer with us.

So it's the barbecue tickets and the t-shirt at the same time? So Danielle will send an email when they come in, and you'll just have to come to the office and pick them up.

Yeah. So yeah, I know that's been a tradition for a while. Yeah, no, thank you for all you guys do.

Motion to adjourn.

Second.

All in favor? Aye.