Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

all right waiting for the exact seconds yeah yeah i mean yeah i agree with that it's uh it's only right yeah about 22 more seconds you know All right, we can get started now. Thank you. I want to welcome everybody to our planning commission on this July 9, 2026. We will call this meeting to order. And I will entertain discussion or a motion over the consent agendas.

I'd like to make a motion that we approve item 2.1, approval of minutes from the June 4, 2006, and the June 11, 2026. 2006 was a great year, by the way.

I will second the motion for those meeting minutes from 2026. Motion and a second.

All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? All right. Katie.

Okay. Item 3.1 is consideration of trademark visuals request for conditional use approval of two pylon signs for the collective commercial development located at 3700 North Morning Star, Morning Vista Road. and requesting exception for greater height and sign area. So this item was tabled from the 6-11 meeting. And let me just pull up the plans here. There we go. There will be two signs. The first sign will be located at Morning Vista Road and Timpanogos Highway. It is proposed to be 45 feet tall and 457 square feet in size. This is reduced from the original proposal of 70 feet and 595 square feet. The second sign will be located behind the apartments on the west side of the collected development, and it is proposed to be 35 feet tall and 285 square feet. And this is also reduced from the 70 feet and 595 square feet. Both will still require an exception to the development code, chapter 23 of the development code, as they require, the code requires a maximum 25 feet and 200 square feet unless the planning commission finds other considerations. There were four red line comments from the DRC, including to provide scaled and dimension detail, foundation drawing, showing the public utility easement and clearances. But please consider all DRC comments in your motion. This is a conditional use. The Planning Commission has discretion in granting exceptions for the development code. This is not a public hearing item because there was a public hearing at the last meeting. However, you can open public hearing if you wish. So with that, I turn it back to the Commission for any questions.

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

Sorry, it's way down there. Last person was really short, and I'm short. Justin grew up with Trademark Visual here representing our client. And I'm sure you guys have had a chance to see these new drawings or whatever. That east pylon, much more well represented now. As before, it was very poorly represented because there was nothing really to scale it from. So I think that'll help a little bit. There are two options in there, though, for that east pylon. We actually want to pursue the 40-footer, and it's all due to square footage and letter size. Like, that's what we're really after. is the viewing distances. Also, the second side of that east pylon is it sits back about 100 feet further than the west pylon, we'll say. So we're pursuing that for it to be at that 40-foot height. It's about 397 square feet, which will give us about 1 foot 4 tall letters. Like that's what we're looking for is try to maximize that but still kind of taking in consideration height, location, everything else. So I know there wasn't a whole lot of questions about the west pylon. We were kind of a little bit in agreeance on that on the last kind of meeting, but I don't know if there's any talking points that we want to go over about any of that.

Any questions for the applicant?

I know there was a little bit of a question, too, about kind of ambient light or light pollution, per se, against the apartments. And I can say with this thing, you know, this sign, like on that previous rendering it was very ill-represented. It looked like it was right next to the building, whereas in reality it's nearly 300 feet. I think it's like 285 feet away from the building. let alone it sitting back that 160 feet per se to get over the wall, but it needs to be in to stay out of that easement. So those are kind of those things that we're fighting, but at the same time, that's why we're looking for that 40 foot so we can get those 1 foot 4 letters because our readability distance right there in that corner. So as far as the light pollution goes, I don't think that's really a key thing because this sign isn't going to be a big flashy sign, and more of the the kind of street lighting and the apartment lighting that they've got out there, that ambient light is going to overpower that sign. Just the natural light that's going on around there. So not natural light, security light and whatnot that's going around with the development is going to be equal or greater than what that sign's really going to produce.

What time would this, forgive me, these are backlit. The illumination in the sun, right? Fluorescence inside?

No, LEDs. It'll just be... Right, right, right. Forgive me. Yeah, just little low-voltage LEDs and only the lettering of light.

And what time would these turn off?

That hasn't really been discussed. I mean, that's something I know that we deal with with some of these different cities. With it being on the highway, I'm sure they'd want it to go from, you know, dusk till dawn. But I'm sure it could be negotiated that there's that time period in the middle of the night. Maybe this thing shuts off at, I mean, development's closed everything up by midnight. So maybe it's shut off from midnight to 5 AM, 6 AM. I mean, because most of those places are maybe, you know what I mean? But they want to do have the opportunity to have peak hours, right? But I'm sure that's something that could be easily negotiated to shut down during those midnight hours.

I know the questions.

There was discussion of the orientation of the east sign, the one that's closer to the apartment building, to turn it a little bit towards the road. And so it did not face directly to the building. I didn't see any movement there.

Well, we thought with really kind of recognizing the actual distance from the building, like I don't think it's necessarily going to change anything or help anything, especially with the due to it being set back. We did talk about trying to maybe, I mean, view it a little bit. Not necessarily view it, but only view the apartment side. So it does kind of create more indirect lighting. But with the distances, it's not going to make any difference realistically. I mean, it would actually kind of benefit us to direct it a little bit more the other way. But we're trying to stick with the concept of the design. That's the whole thing is struggling and losing height, proportionately shrinking. It just gets so, it changes so drastically to maintain the design integrity at the same time.

Two of the DRC comments were about the sign facing the same street, like they both face Timpanogos Highway. Is there, do you have an answer for that? Like why you need two signs on the same road?

Well, it's just the viewing distance between them. You know, we have that 1300 feet of frontage. And what we're trying to do is being able to capture enough tenants for that frontage. One of the DRC comments was, yes, we're allowed to have the sign. It doesn't necessarily direct orientation. So I mean, there were comments that we could twist that sign. But it kind of doesn't do a whole lot of good either way. So, I mean, it's kind of a gray area right there. I mean, we're trying to do what's the best thing for the development and not necessarily, you know, twisting stuff up to go up and, like, point up that road that is the side road.

Okay.

Going back to the lighting, does it have a dimmer on it? I know a lot of signs seem like they get brighter. They're on during the day, they just get brighter at night.

Do you have that? You don't usually do that with just plain channel lettering. They do that a lot with the big electronic LEDs because of daytime light versus nighttime light. They don't really do that with, you know, standard populated LEDs. But like I say, part of the big differences, too, on this is that, you know, we're not going with those big backlit graphics like most of the signs you see, kind of like the terrorists and stuff that is further up the road or further down the road. you know the other where they have the big white backgrounds and then dark copy for legibility like we're just lighting up only the copy that's the point of this you know simple clean tasteful as I feel like the 40 feet is more in line with what's already on that road up there I think the one to the east is about the same 45 50 feet there's one to the

west near the breakfast place. What's that place called?

Original Pancake House?

The Terrace, I think, is the name of that development. I wasn't able to look up what that height is there, but it's definitely not 70, so I appreciate you coming down to 40. I think that's much more manageable. I'm not sure I'm convinced with having two signs at each corner. have the one at the one corner, if I'm coming from the east going west, I'll see that before the turn. And I'm not sure if one by the apartment buildings. So I don't know. I'm open. If you want to convince me there, that'd be great.

Well, I don't know if you kind of took a look at those new conceptuals kind of really that were portrayed properly with the distance, the viewing distance. You know, we're actually able to go out there now that they've put the wall in and survey that and actually see all of how far away that sign really is, so that we're gaining the readability at the distance that it's just basically set at. So it's kind of set at that kind of impact distance. So the moment it's seen, it's you know, being able to be recognized and it just gets better until you drive by it. So like I say, the whole purpose of it too is the amount of tenant spaces. This client is not interested in having an electronic sign out there, you know, a big flashy LED rotating tenants through it. That's the opposite of what they want to try to do with this development. Like they're trying to stay away from that kind of big flashy stuff. So we're trying to stick with that and keep the signs simple, clean, and easy, and uncluttered. So, I mean, if we broke this sign in half and put double the tenants, you wouldn't be able to read them. And so that's why they're trying to chase the second pylon in order to be able to capture and advertise for all the other tenants that are going to be in the complex.

So the pylons would have different tenants on each one? How far is it from the apartment buildings?

It's about 280 feet, I think. 280? It's on the plan, yeah.

Right east side?

And our client representative would like to, if you don't have any more questions for me, he would like to be able to speak.

Thank you.

Is that right? Yeah. Thank you.

Welcome back.

Thank you, thank you. So I think I can answer the Vice Chair's question. If we go to the site plan, page nine, One of the main reasons we need two pylon signs in the same road is, first of all, the code's ambiguous. It's not clear exactly that you need one on each road. A1, which is the Western one, if we were to orient it to Morning Vista, it would kind of defeat the purpose of having a sign on such a busy thoroughfare, because we would be essentially trying to cater to the traffic turning into Morning Vista, whereas we're trying to cater to the traffic going through a temp highway and then a To call it a to on the east side. We're trying to cater that sign specifically to the building that's perpendicular to Timp Highway. And the reason for that is, as you can see, there's limited opportunities for signage on the back of that building, because it's facing the residential. So for the tenants that are in that building, for them to survive and thrive, we want to provide a signage opportunity along Timp Highway that the tenants in buildings A, B, and C don't have. So that's really the intent behind this, as to why we need two signs.

So the buildings, can you see those buildings from Temp Highway, and do they put the name of their business on the back like they do at the Harmon's? I can tell what's there.

I believe that's allowed by code, yeah, correct. For buildings A, B, and C, the ones that are... parallel to temp highway you could do that but for building D which is the one up north plan north and down you couldn't really do that because they're all facing the apartment complex so a 102 is for the ones facing east or sorry they're facing west but they're not facing Tim highway correct those tenants don't have any signage. So our plan is...

So the sign by the apartment building, that one is for those tenants? Correct. The one A101 is for the ones on Temp Highway?

It's for the pads.

Okay.

which don't have visibility to the freeway, which poses a leaseability challenge. So we're trying to maintain healthy tenants by creating signage opportunities for both of the tenants that really aren't along Timp Highway.

Is that east sign? I remember from last time it seems like it was below the retaining wall.

No, it's on top of the retaining wall, which was one of your guys' comments. Like, why do you have a sign on top of a retaining wall asking for 70 feet? So we brought it down to 40. And as Justin stated, we're okay with going down to 35. But below 35, it just becomes kind of a point where... you can't really see the sign that well so why have it so uh anywhere between 40 and 35 would be kind of the sweet spot for that sign and that's the east side correct there's roughly a 10 foot differential in the grade when you account for the wall between the west side and the east side which is why we went lower

I'm still struggling with the west sign, the orientation being east-west.

The west sign?

The west sign. Okay. Being oriented where the signage is east and west, right? Because we've already talked about how close it is to that apartment building, which... That would be the east sign. Excuse me. Correct. Thank you. Even if we're at 300 feet, right? So we have a small window of when you could capture some visibility.

I think we took a picture, I think it's 14, that shows where you would have the visibility. Where's the other one? So that's the west sign.

Both of those were the west sign, correct?

Yeah, that's the west sign. I thought we had something in the document that showed

Sorry, let me find it.

There you go. That's the window where you could capture it. You have to get past halfway through the last building in the residential complex.

So really we have a 300 to 400 foot space that you're trying to capture the eyeballs there, right? Correct. Traveling at 60 miles per hour, you're looking at a four second window or less, right? Correct. That sounds like a distraction more than it does help. It sounds like a distraction to drivers. It sounds like a problem that it could potentially cause safety issues, especially if you're trying to draw their attention. So you're bringing that there. It just doesn't feel like an effective mode or medium to get the eyeballs. Now, the other direction, I understand. So eastbound traffic. Just for knowledge of what's there, not necessarily for wayfinding, because again, they're going away from your development here. Correct. But westbound traffic is going to not have the opportunity to really see that sign for what it is.

It's a beautiful sign. We've acknowledged that.

And I do appreciate the design of the sign. But as far as it being an effective medium, I'm just struggling to get there of why that location or that orientation is needed. We did talk about potentially turning it so it did have a little bit more visibility as people pass.

But I think angling would kind of create even worse of a distraction, which is why we didn't turn it.

So again, the burden of proof is on you guys to help us get there. I don't believe or I'm not hearing too much concern with the west side. I appreciate the size and height limitations that you brought back. But the east side, I'm struggling with.

Yeah, we did bring the height down and obviously took pictures to show you. Because I think one of the initial concerns was you just have a sign tucked back where you can even see it behind the apartments, which actually isn't the case. There's an angle where you can see it, which is what we're trying to elaborate here. other than bringing the height down and lowering the square footage at this point, we can make the sign smaller. You take it out altogether? What's that?

You just eliminate it and just keep the east or the west?

They're allowed to have two pilot signs, right? Yeah. You're correct that the code is a little ambiguous about where those signs need to be located. It's our interpretation that they shouldn't be on the same street. Understood. Your interpretation is... a little bit different than that, and that's why we tried to clean up code. But the question there is, is this the correct location for the sign? And I have yet to feel that it is.

OK. The thing is that there's nowhere else to put the sign, right? So you're essentially just asking us to get rid of the sign, which Going back to the site plan, we're killing a third of the tenants in the development.

I didn't say those words. But essentially, I just think that there might be somewhere better to put it. And maybe it is on Morning Vista. Maybe it's somewhere up towards the other end of the property.

Forgive me. Remember your name. Juan. Juan. I just want to be able to address you by your name, sir. Thank you. I take Juan's point. I don't think it's going to serve as a wayfinding sign by any means, but if I were him, I'd want to spread them out. I appreciate that he's not looking to crowd the sign. I think that having two separate signs that are actually legible is better than all of it being crammed onto one, or having to scroll through the different tenants that is more... I'm thinking about this myself as a driver, though I would, again, love more data. And... All I'd say, I take his point. I appreciate that he's come down where we've discussed how nebulous our signage, I think we're all frustrated with our signage situation in the city. For me, not treating this as a wayfinding sign, but as something that will be seen by People who, like myself, who live in this area and will commute back and forth, yeah, I'm going to be aware of what's in there. I'm not going to turn in immediately, but I'm going to see it and go, okay, so that shop's there. That's duly noted. And next week, two weeks from now. If we're weighing out sky pollution, I'm not sure that's a term, but I'm using that now. Well, I'm talking about just signage in the sky, right? I think that this is as aesthetically pleasing as I could imagine seeing, and the two, I think, makes for a greater symmetry and beauty than what we would otherwise have if it gets crammed onto one. So I think Juan's got some OK points. I guess I'd rather say I am mostly sold on this, other than I would want to know now light pollution. I want to know what amount of light we're actually going to be giving off. The one that's closest to the tenants, I'm not worried about the other one. That's fine. But whether or not that either needs to be turned off sleeping hours or what level does that need to be set to? I don't want someone excitedly checking out this apartment at 2 o'clock in the afternoon and not realizing They sign the lease, and now they move in. And they feel like they can never fall asleep at night, because that's where I'm at on.

That makes sense. We can definitely evaluate lighting controls. I don't know how that would work personally. I can't answer that here in front of you guys. The one thing I do want to point out There's a development down the road that's currently being built, and it got two pylon signs approved on the same road, way closer than what we're showing here, just because there's a road that bisects them. So they're also showing two pylon signs on the same road. The only difference is that here we don't have a road that bisects them, but we have way more distance between the two. So that's kind of where I'm struggling here, trying to answer your questions, because I get where you're coming from. I think we're trying to be as good neighbors as anybody else that's developing the city right now. And these signs aren't cheap either. So it's not like we're cheaping out on signs, which a lot of developers do. that sign on the east side is vital for the development to survive, especially that building that goes north-south. It really is. I'm not going to have an easy time leasing it if I can't tell tenants, hey, you're not on the freeway, but here is a pylon sign that you can utilize to get some visibility to your store. We can definitely evaluate lighting it at different times so the apartments are not impacted. I think that's something we would definitely consider. But getting rid of the sign altogether, it's a really tough pill to swallow, candidly.

I'm with you on that one. I think you probably get that. And I'll add that this is all part of the important work that the commission suffers through and tries to do is um worrying about precedents that we set uh worrying about i hear you here you are pointing out other things that happen in the city trying to ascertain whether or not those things speak to a precedent or not because every situation has its unique components and also enforcing code right so i i um anyhow i i take your point um the commission also has the right to you know be hard-nosed i can't speak for the rest of the commissioners here um and uh anyhow i don't know if there's anything more to add at this point any other questions do you know how high the uh buildings that are backing up the timpanogos highway will be how high the buildings what their finished height will be oh man so it's 15 internally so call it like 22 feet

I'm just trying to proportionally, right? If you've got the sign, if you've got a building, what's that going to look like? Yeah, it's probably 22 feet, I would say, with parapet and everything. Okay, thank you.

Do you have a time constraint here? Like, do they have to go in at the same time? Like, could you put the west sign in and see if there's another... once things are settled and everybody's there and see if there's another spot that you could put that second sign.

So as far as another spot?

You've already researched.

So the site, I wish I could show you guys, but the site's encumbered by six different retaining walls because of the grade.

I feel like we talked about that and we talked about the easements.

The easements to the south. So there really is not another location for us to put it. I think it was Commissioner Kenneth who brought up maybe putting it between buildings B and C. We need the space to have the anchor tenant turn around WB67s. So that's, it would be very difficult to put it elsewhere.

And you've ruled out Morningside, Morning Vista, sorry.

Putting it, there's a wall that goes along Morning Vista that holds up Sunrise Way. So it would be very difficult to find some space with the PUEs and everything else to put a sign along Morning Vista.

So the answer to my question of do you have to put them in at the same time is yes.

Yes. OK.

As a condition of lighting, do both sides operate independently? Could you turn the lighting off on one side of the sign and still eliminate the other side?

I'd have to go ask the sign experts.

I'm Zane Latimer with Trademark Visual. So as far as turning off one side, yes, there is a way that we could do that. It's just a little bit different build, but it is a possibility. And ultimately, both of these signs are going to be on an energy management system. And with that, the energy management systems have the capability of shutting the sign down at certain times and independently of each other. Now, the faces. Like I say, that's a different build and it couldn't be done there. And with that east side, given the location and the distance that you will be able to view it, you should be able to view that at least at the very least about 400 feet when you're hitting that. And that 400 feet, for a sign and the letter height of that is really kind of the optimal point and getting that letter height to where it is on the 40 foot sign. It's I believe one foot two on there. With all the studies and everything that's been done, you know, and that height of the letter, even though you're going to see it one or two seconds, you will be able to read it without being a distraction. and as you're going down the highway. I mean, ultimately, we're wanting to obviously let people know that these tenants back here are in there. And also, when they're coming down there, you have several shopping centers to the east and the west. And if they're looking for a particular place, which shopping center I'm going, oh, there it is as they're coming by. Partially why we're wanting to get this sign and prior to the other sign is give them optimal time to get over and into the lane that they need to without causing a huge traffic distraction.

My thoughts is that we would put a lighting restriction from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. Is that something that you think could be achieved? Yes. Just on the one, even if you keep the other side illuminated at different times. Just the east side of the east sign. Just the east side of the east sign.

On the east elevation, yes.

That would also, I think, relieve really worrying about the angle. So DUA is optimal for visual impact for the driver. Right.

And one thing about that east sign, it actually sets back a little further than that. apartment complex. So it's not going to be directed directly into any of the windows. So it is back further than the building itself. And partially, I mean, that's why we're looking to, you know, get the height and the size of the sign is because it does sit back 160 feet from the street. And, you know... Mm-hmm.

Thank you. I will say I've come around a little bit. I do have a strong opinion about signs and trying to protect some of our visual clutter, I guess, right? Or trying to keep some of our visual corridors as open as possible to protect some of the natural beauty that we have around us. I think one of the things that I came around on, to be honest, is I was discounting the ability for you to be able to keep tenants and attract tenants. I do know that's important, and we want this to be a successful project. And so I have come around that it is necessary to have that opportunity to attract tenants. Tenant and you know away from the i-15 corridor because you're removed from that space I Am feeling pretty good, I appreciate all the work that has come in I just want to make sure that you guys understand that we know that We I I'll say I have a strong opinion about these. And we do try to break them through the coals a little bit. We want them to be well thought out and well planned. And I appreciate the work that has gone into this. If anybody would like to present a motion, I would entertain it.

Sure, I'm happy to. For item 3.1, consideration of trademark visual requests for conditional use approval of two pylon signs with the collective commercial development at 3700 North Morning Vista Road, requesting an exception for greater height and sign area. Let's see here. We approve the signage as presented with the condition that the east side of the east sign that is closest to and facing The condominium complex will be off between the hours of 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. And if I would, so they present two options on the east side, so a 40-footer and a 35-footer.

If they're going to give me a smaller option, I would go with that one, if everyone's okay with that. So we go with the 35-footer on the east side.

I'd say Juan's been a good partner. I don't think that we're really holding much back to give them a 40.

I'd say up to 40.

OK, up to 40.

If they were up 37, they can do it.

Right, so up to 40. And the DRCs and all the things. All right, I'll second that.

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

Juan, go get yourself a treat or whatever you're into. OK.

Item 3.2.

Item 3.2 is public hearing and consideration of Andrew Ward's request for approval of an exception to an eight-foot fence located at 1337 South, 1880 West. The code allows for up to an eight-foot fence. Any fence over six feet requires an exception to allow that eight-foot fence. The applicant is requesting the additional height to help with safety for the usability of their corner lot yard. The lot borders 1300 South and has seen an increase in traffic. There were four DRC comments, including to verify that any fence taller than three feet is at least 35 feet away from the back curb along both frontages. Please consider all DRC comments in your motion. The Planning Commission has discretion in approving the exception. This is a public hearing item, and there were no online comments, so I turn it back to the Commission for any questions.

Thank you. Any questions for staff?

Yeah, I'm just looking at the DRCs. Number four, is that Kim's comments here?

Yes.

Okay.

Okay.

Is the applicant present? I'm Andrew Ward. Welcome, Andrew. Did you have anything you wanted to add or any context you wanted to help us with?

No, I mean, ideally a six-foot fence would be great to preserve views, but that is our primary yard for our children, and I had a lot of issues with speeding and traffic along there despite the calls to the police department and the planning excuse me the traffic division and i haven't received any feedback from anyone there so this is a way just to keep balls in the back of our yard keep our kids from having to go out on the street to get anything essentially so i assume you'll have other fencing yes that you're putting in so six foot um in the front so on the west side and then right now a six foot fence along the back side But that may change, and we may tear it out, depending on what ends up being developed to the east of us.

Do you have intentions to taper down to six feet at the corners, or would you keep it at eight foot solid on that side, all the way to corner corner?

It would be eight foot on 1300 style.

What materials are you going to build with?

It's a vinyl fence. Any other questions for the applicant?

Have you thought of putting a net up to help keep the playground equipment inside the yard?

That would be an option as well. But I think part of it too is road noise. I've probably developed a relationship with some of the teenagers in my neighborhood. that they like to actually accelerate and rev their diesel trucks as they pass my house now because of the dirty looks I get when they go above the speed limit. So this way, it would block their passing vehicles and then hopefully reduce that noise and then keep my angst down slightly.

Any other questions? Thank you. This is a public hearing. If anybody is here for item 3.2 and would like to speak, this is your chance to do so. Seeing none, we will close the public hearing and bring it back for further deliberation or a motion.

Let me just kind of get this better sense. I'm pretty... You guys, of course, don't need to agree that this is why we have a commission, different views. I'm pretty quick to feel okay with allowing people to go to eight foot versus six on their private property. The real matter on extending fences up... Tyson, you've been on the commission long enough. You've heard me tell the story of Charlie Crocker's spiked fence, right? We're not looking at a spiked fence here. We don't have someone who's looking to literally throw shade on his neighbor in perpetuity with a 40-foot tall fence. So the only real question to me is if there is a significant, meaningful mitigation of safety. So on the corners here at 1,300, that's it. That's the only thing I wonder about. And that is, I guess, where I'm just asking. So I'm looking over the DRCs.

And I don't think I'm getting that sense from them.

Staff, did you have anything here? We're good?

We just put the code language in to keep you aware of the requirements of, you know, approving an exception. It's really up to your guys' judgment.

It's okay. Very good.

so you just to be clear gary's comment that it needs to be 35 feet away from the back of curb is that being met is that 35 feet away the line well i don't know how it's drawn but yeah that is in the development code that's for site triangle of course coming around the corner so it needs to be 35 feet away from the back of the curb yeah so you take the back of the curb and come parallel

perpendicular to it that needs to be 35 feet.

And that's on the corner, right? For a sight triangle? Yeah, for the sight triangle, just on the street intersection there, not 35 foot off the curb.

Okay, that makes more sense. Okay, yeah, yeah, yeah. I'm sure that's not 35 feet. So you're saying 35 from the corner.

Yeah, it would be like a, I don't know what 35 feet is, but it would look something like that.

want to maintain visibility for the sidewalk and turning traffic but yeah so we're good yeah so we've got the side triangle okay fantastic then i have i have no concerns yeah i'm gonna put full promotion for item three point two one second just i'm sorry um this is a driveway on the on the other side oh here yeah is that a road or is that a driveway

I believe it isn't like a track.

Sorry, guys.

So this guy's got to be able to see. Yeah.

You should have sat on the front row. Sorry.

So that initially for the Clark residents, they owned this lot, and then they owned one across the creek. And that was a driveway to cross the creek to get to their previous property, which they sold to a neighbor who butts up to that property. So he doesn't need access to it anymore. I submitted pictures to the planning committee about it being completely overgrown. The house is empty while they're waiting to develop it. So the planners considered it abandoned.

Yeah, there was a concept to the east there that the council had approved. So yeah, I think it looks like it's going to be developed so that driveway shouldn't be a concern for the site triangle there.

All right. Motion for item 3.2, the motion being that we approve the proposed exception to the fence height with the findings being that the proposed 8-foot fence will allow the applicant added enjoyment of their yard and will provide adequate justification for why they want or need the 8-foot fence. and it will not have a negative impact on the neighborhood or the community, and please include the DRC findings.

Second.

Motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? No. Did you get that in the room over there that we can't see? Okay. Item 3.3. Thank you, by the way. Okay.

Item 3.3 is public hearing and consideration of JDH's development request for approval of Vivian Estates Phase 5A preliminary subdivision, including two single-family lots located at 2070 North, 600 East in the RA1 zone. One lot is approximately 30,500 square feet, and the other is 35,000 square feet. Both exceed the minimum 15,000 square foot lot minimum. They also both have over 100 feet of frontage. There were seven redline comments from the DRC, including to provide a detail of how driveways will cross the trail. Please consider all DRC comments in your motion. This is an administrative item, and this is also a public hearing item. There were no online comments for this, so I'll turn it back to the Commission for any questions.

Thank you. Any questions for staff? Is the applicant present? No applicant present. Tsk, tsk. Did we have any questions for JDH development? This is a public hearing. If anybody is here to speak to item 3.3, we'll invite you up to speak to the item now. Seeing none, we will close the public hearing. And I'm willing to entertain a motion on this or discussion if there were no questions for the applicant.

Just in case staff knows, did the applicant provide any sort of justification for their proposal? I'm assuming not. Just asking the question just in case.

Just for the two lots subdivision? Yeah. Just that they can develop.

Was this the one that didn't have the trail connection or was that the next one?

This one has the trail on the front edge and that's all that's on our master plan for this phase. So there's no issue with that on this plan.

Is access is going to be off of 6th East or the open?

Across the trail, right? Not my favorite.

Kind of a continuous design. I believe one of the DRC comments is to even wrap the trail around it a little bit so that cars will have to slow down to cross it so they're not going to be flying past the trail.

So you're content with this, Mike? I caught about every other word of what you said there. Sorry.

I don't know how low this microphone is. There it is. There it is.

Now you're acting like the rest of us.

Now, basically, the trial is one of the DRC comments that we should make sure we're doing the access points right because they don't know where the accesses are going to be yet until they do the building permits. They haven't showed it on the plan. The ask was to have a detail to show how the... The trail would stay at grade and be continuous, but then cars, when they go pulling their drive, will have to go up a flared approach, just like we see around town. But that helps slow things down. So when cars cross the trail, they're not flying past that point.

And in your professional assessment, are you saying that it is not properly detailed?

No. We're saying the trail, and it's actually being built. It's already got the road base and everything. But when they bring the driveways in, if they follow the detail, we'll be OK. OK.

um i confess i really am a little bothered that a development of this level has no applicant present but i am also not seeing any way in which it is not meeting code correct and we have no public comment so it moves forward am i wrong yeah okay Item 3.3, public hearing and consideration of JDH development's request for approval of Vivian Estates Phase 5A preliminary subdivision, including two single-family lots at 2070 North, 600 East, the RA1 zone. I move that we approve with the findings that there's no Public concern expressed, and the applicant appears to be in complete compliance with code. And please keep those DRCs in there.

Second. Motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? All right. 3.4.

Item 3.4 is public hearing and consideration of JDH's development's request for approval of the Vivian Estates 5B preliminary subdivision, including 10 single-family lots located at approximately 600 east and 300 east. That's not right. Sorry. That's what it says. The lots all exceed 15,000 square feet, which is the minimum lot size requirement in the RA-1 zone. The smallest is around 20,000 square feet, and the largest is over 64,000 square feet. All lots also exceed the 100-foot frontage requirement. There are also parcels that will be dedicated to the city, including portions of Dry Creek, the Dry Creek Trail, and a small park space. The DRC had 25 red line comments. Many of these were technical just to clean up for the final plat. But some of note include to clarify if there are areas of steep slopes greater than 30%. If so, we need to identify them on the plan as they would be subject to the Chapter 12A hillside preservation. And to add a note to the plat describing what is happening with parcel A and parcel B. Please consider all DRC comments in your motion. This is an administrative item, and this is a public hearing item. There were no online comments for this, so turn it back to the commission for any questions.

Thank you. I had a quick question for Mike. Are we good on block length on this?

This one would require the exception because of the creek there, which there was an exception given on the phase three and four next to this. Just because there's so much grade going down to the creek, it would require a bridge and then grade back up. So it does require an exception to be approved as part of it.

And we did grant the exception on the other side.

Yeah, it was granted on the other side.

Any other questions?

Yeah. There is, on a report analysis, there's a question about the steep slopes greater than 30%. Is this what you're referring to, or is there any other place where this is a concern?

That is something we want clarified on the final is showing where the steep slopes are because anything over 30% You're not supposed to be able to build a building on so we want to clarify that this is the preliminary So like he said there some of these comments are kind of more final type comments But we do want to see once this comes back to final where those areas of 30% slope are so it can meet our hillside grading ordinance Okay and

What about on DRCs? Gary, this is under yours, number 19. This development will need to detain on-site and release at a rate of, well, I'm going to read it wrong, but can you talk to that?

Yeah, that's a requirement for all developments that they need to retain or detain on-site their own stormwater. And then according to the code, you can release it, in this case, 0.2 CFS per second.

Can you lean forward, Gary? It's hard to hear you.

Oh, sorry. It sounds good to me. But yeah, so that is required to all developments that they retain or detain on site the stormwater. And if they detain it, then they are allowed to release at that rate 0.2 CFS per second per acre. So that's just a requirement that we have. And the way the original drawings were shown is it just dumped right straight into Dry Creek without being detained. So that is a requirement of the cities.

So that is an outstanding concern at this point?

I think it'll be addressed when it comes through for the final. They'll have to go through the system and get this checked off before it can move forward. So they'll have to provide a way to retain or detain that.

All right. Then what about the gas easement? Do we know if that's been added?

So that comment was if there is a gas laying running through here, it is going to be vacated. If it's vacated and gone and the easement's vacated before they file the plat, then they don't need to show it on the plat. But if it's still there at the time they file the plat, then the easement still needs to be shown on the plat.

Any other questions for staff? Is the applicant still not present? OK. This is a public hearing. Anyone here in the public that would like to speak to item 3.5 will open the public hearing now.

My name is Greg Smith.

I'm here representing Robert Smith, who's just on the south side of this proposed development. We built this house 51 years ago, and we've got a septic system. And we've been kind of waiting for the Development to come so that we could tie into the city sewer, so we're interested in having Having that made accessible to us. I know Mac we can't obligate obviously this developer to to bring us in But we want to make sure that it's it's developed in such a way that infrastructure is done in such a way that we can tie in easily Because we don't want to stay on the septic system forever That was that was my main concern

I'm representing myself and also my mother, Beverly Smith. I'm Sarah Christensen. My question is just as far as the park space or whatever, is that on the north side of the creek or the south side of the creek?

Great question, and we will get an answer to that.

What was that?

We'll get an answer to that and address it. Okay.

We don't know that? Not yet. Okay. Just looking at the road, how is that going to tie into the existing road? You don't know that yet? Are we too far down the road on this?

Just by way of how things happen, this is a hearing. We don't go back and forth. You ask questions, and we'll try to get the answers before we make a motion.

Sorry, I just... Oh, but it's good.

These are good questions.

And then I'm just going to state... The issues that we're facing, we have runoff issues on that road already. And I know that this development is going to have to contain their runoff. But also, I'm just not quite sure how it's all going to work out. So it's an area to look at, because the road is being undermined there. And it's coming across the road. So it just needs some attention.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anybody else would like to speak to this item? Seeing none, we will close the public hearing. Normally I would address some of those questions to the applicant, but engineering, did you have any of those answers as far as where the road's going to tie in? Or are you concerned that they will be able to retain their own water?

I'm not. I think it might cost them a lot to do that, though, or a smaller lot anyway to provide a basin for that. They'll have to address that when they come through for the final, for sure. Okay. But that will be a requirement.

But per code, it is required that they have to create some sort of a retention basin.

Yeah. They're not allowed to let water run off onto adjacent properties. That's the requirement.

I feel like we have questions, and at least I do, that I really want to hear from the applicant before I would give the green light, even if this is early on stuff. I'm inclined to table it.

I'm inclined to hear a motion. Great. This is 3.4.

Sorry. Can I just say one thing about the park to address that question?

Oh, please do. Yes.

So it will be on the south side of the creek, kind of on the northern portion of the property. It will be kind of where the two roads intersect up here.

Clarify it is a small open space, but they have a little open space there that they're putting on that south side of the creek But you can see that little sidewalk on there and right where the dry Creek Trail will come through And to the other gentleman's question it does look like sewers not quite making it to the south property line But it would be much closer to try and access for them within about a hundred foot That green line right there is where the proposed sewer line would get to you right there. I

All right. Motion? Yes. All right. For item 3.4, public hearing of JDH development's request for approval of the Vivian Estates 5B preliminary subdivision at approximately 600 East, 300 East. I move that we table this. Do we want to set a date?

The next meeting that is available will be the August meeting. August 13th great.

Let's take a move that we tail this till August 13th with finding that We have a number of questions that would really be We need the applicant to be able to speak to and if if I may let me include that we specifically like addressed a um availability of uh sewer development um being able to be accessed by a neighbor and uh we want to understand impact on roads um other things get into a little bit of a plans for retention yeah yes plans for retention as well as slopes um any parts of the development that are more than exceed 30% on slope that we're still unclear on. And of course, any other questions that may occur to us at that time. But those are the specific reasons why we are tabling it tonight.

Can we note that we do recognize this as preliminary and not final?

Yes, absolutely. You note that it's preliminary, not final. Nonetheless, those are adequate cause for us to want more information.

Love it. I'll second it. Motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay. So we will hear it when? August 13th. August 13th is the next meeting. Okay. Item 3.5.

Item 3.5 is public hearing and consideration of Kevin and Sarah Gordon's request for approval of the Lehigh Child Care Facility Site Plan, located at 808 North, 2300 West, and requesting exceptions for buffering standards and building footprint size. This is in a development agreement, and the child care facility is the only permitted use per the 2022 Gordon Development Agreement. The applicant is requesting two exceptions to the development code. The first is to increase the building square footage size beyond the 5,000 square foot allowance in the neighborhood commercial zone. The proposed footprint is 10,500 square feet. The Planning Commission will have to determine if a larger building for a child care center meets the intent of the neighborhood commercial zone. The second exception is to waive the landscaping buffering requirements on the north and east property lines of the child care property. The buffer may be waived or modified as deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission. It should be noted that they're the same owners for both the childcare facility and the flag lot. The DRC had 11 red line comments, including to show park strip landscaping and to add plant material to achieve 50% plant coverage at maturity. Please consider all DRC comments in your motion. Exceptions may be approved at the discretion of the Planning Commission. This is a public hearing item, but there were no online comments for this, so back to the Commission for any questions.

Thank you, staff. Any questions for staff? And just for legal, we can look at the exceptions independently. It's not an all or nothing, is that correct? Let me check your possible motions.

This one's development agreement, so it's a little more interesting.

Let me text Ryan real fast. Please do. I'll get back to you.

They are requesting multiple exceptions. I believe protocol allows us to look at them independently and not necessarily as a joint requirement, but just want to confirm. While you do that, we will open the public hearing for item 3.5. If anybody is here that would like to speak to item 3.5. Applicant. Applicant. Applicant. Excuse me. I'm all out of sorts. Please come forward.

You're just excited here for the public. I'm very excited. Respect that. Very excited.

Hello. I'm Sarah Gordon. This is Kevin Gordon. As you know, this has been years in the making. And we're so excited to finally be here. We've been working really hard to design the building to meet the neighborhood and make it look really nice. So we're asking for two exceptions, the first being the buffering standards. But since we do own the other lot, we'd like to waive our rights if possible for those standards. And then the other one is the square footage size, the footprint. So it's very similar to another childcare center size that we had built. It's 289 North, 500 West. Yeah. The only difference, because we had come back to the city before and we had asked for 8,000 square feet and we had gotten approval. The only difference is we've added on a large room in the back that is like an indoor play area for the kids. So when it's like really hot, really cold, really windy, They have a place to play and run around, because obviously kids do better when they get to run around. So we've added a vaulted ceiling room in the back. And so that's why there's a difference between the original 8,000 we'd asked for versus the 10,000 we're at now.

Am I missing anything?

No.

OK.

Sorry.

Questions for the applicant.

So where is the 8,000 square foot? I only saw 5,000 on the .

Oh, from our original concept plan that we got the development agreement.

So 8,000 was part of the development agreement?

No, no, no, sorry. That was just what we were proposing at the time when they asked us about how much square footage we'd want the building to be.

Yeah, when we had asked for the agreement and when we came to explain what the plans were for the property. And so we had asked for the 8,000 square feet.

We hadn't designed the building yet, and that's where we come up with this indoor play area. That's what the big change was. It's very similar to our other center. It's across from the rodeo.

The rodeo grounds? Yeah.

Yeah.

What's the square footage on that one?

That one is also in the neighborhood commercial. It's 8,000 square feet.

Call for the building house.

Are you still going to have some kind of buffering between your property on the back, on that east end, and the campus? I mean, you're going to have a fence. You're going to have something there.

Yeah, we'll have a fence, and we'll plant, like, trees and stuff. But we don't necessarily need the 12-foot buffering standards. It doesn't really matter to us in the back lot. Sure.

I just think, what happens when you sell?

Well, actually, I mean, I never plan on selling it. No one ever does. I understand what you're saying, but I do not plan on selling it, no.

So what's going to happen to all of the RVs that are parked?

Oh, they're gone. They've been gone for a long time. That's a really old picture. That's been gone over.

Sorry, they're still in the picture. Yeah, for a long time.

Yeah.

That was hotly discussed last time Right Craig did you have sound looked like you were making some wild calculations over there?

Yeah, well a few things going through my head First I realize it is our purview as the Commission to approve buildings At a larger size I guess this gets back to our dear legal friends if texting is going on as well. That is included with development agreements? Development agreements are hashed out with city council. You guys aren't going to put things before us that aren't our thing. It just strikes me as a little odd, I suppose. With regard, sorry, if you're ready for me, Chairman. What's that?

If you're ready. So they, neither of them had answered. So I did a quick search. You are given broad latitude as long as you're complying with state and local laws. It seems that you would be able to consider these exceptions separate from each other instead of an all or none package based on what I can tell. I believed that to be the case, and I think that's how we've acted in the past, but just wanted to confirm.

Okay, and then the adjoining property is the A1, is that right? I want to make sure I'm reading the...

Sorry, are you talking about the Ascent Academy, or...?

The flag lot is the... The flag lot is...

R-122. R-122 zoning.

Oh, apologies.

OK. OK. R-122. Got it.

OK. Do you have any plans for what to do with that flag lot?

We're planning on building a house on it.

Yeah, I guess my concern is, yeah, I appreciate that you don't plan to ever sell. It is, again, that... No one ever does. Yeah, they are nonetheless separate properties. I guess what was going through my head is that they were merged as one property. I mean, I like... I like... Ty goes to the runner when it comes to property owners. I'm inclined to always, within reason, within the code, to want to facilitate people being able to use their property as they want. And I guess I'm not saying that it's the deal breaker. I'm just trying to think this all through still. Where are my comfort levels at on this? Okay, I think my wheels are still turning here. I'm sorry. I've got no specific question for you at this juncture.

We'll invite the public to speak if they'd like to. If there are other questions, we'll invite you back up. This is a public hearing. We will invite anybody from the public that would like to speak to item 3.5. We will open the public hearing and invite you to come up now. Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing and bring it back for further discussion. We've looked at several of these throughout the city over time. Not necessarily daycares, but neighborhood commercial. There's often a question of the size that comes up in, it seems like, almost every one of these that gets come up. 5,000 square feet is fairly limiting, but it was intentional. We were looking to make sure that we keep the scale to a neighborhood level. We have approved others in the past to be larger. I struggle with doubling a little bit the size.

I suppose that's where I want to understand. So 5,000 is what is permitted in this zone without, so nothing whatsoever. Clean. You could hate it. It wouldn't matter. Property owners have the right to do it.

That's a 5,000 footprint. I mean, they could do 10,000 square feet, two-story, 5,000 square feet. Right. And that's permitted as well. But the footprint, the regulations in the code talk about a 5,000 square foot footprint.

And then the development agreement in 2022, yes. And they proposed 8,000 or were approved 8,000?

It was proposed. There's no mention of the square footage of the building in the development agreement itself.

Okay.

The development agreement was to allow for what specifically? What was that agreement?

was to allow for this use because it is neighborhood commercial on the general plan same with the flag law and that's why they can request the exception on the buffering because they're both neighborhood commercial and they own them and then this site rather than zoning a neighborhood commercial for any use that's allowing any neighborhood commercial basically this was the council and Gordon's saying we're gonna allow this use but not you know we're gonna limit the neighborhood commercial zone just this use basically instead of leaving it open So there was a lot of concern just having houses on both sides, but they felt like this use was compatible, so that's why they still changed the zone, but made sure that the zone only allowed for this particular use.

The lot in the rear, the potential residential lot, does it need to be rezoned before they could build a home?

It's R-122. So their rezone included both of those. So they left it R-122. But because it's neighborhood commercial on the general plan, that's what allows them to. And the buffering and screening exceptions just between that property and theirs, not for the neighbors to the north and the south.

So the exception is only on the east side?

Yeah, the east side, where that boundary where they own and where they're building.

Okay. Okay.

Isn't the exception on the north as well?

That's what you read.

It's the exception specifically for the flag stem itself, because it is technically- Because it is right against the property. Yeah. So there would technically have to be a 12-foot buffer to the driveway, essentially. Right. Okay.

Okay. This is getting clearer.

Any other questions for staff or the- Probably just not yet.

Okay.

I I'm disinclined to grant the exception to the buffer just because yes now there are Same landowners, same owners of both parcels. But again, we're not necessarily looking for just today. We're looking to future proof as much as we can. And although there is no intent to sell, that's not in our purview. We still consider the future and what use may potentially go in that rear lot. And I would be... more favorable at protecting that buffer and maintaining what the code states. I don't believe just because they are currently owned by the same owner that that's a justification to go outside of code personally.

Greg has lots of thoughts. I'm sorry, you can see my wheels turning, can't you? As far as a 10,000 square foot footprint, I'd rather see that in this situation than having a two-story building on these neighbors to the south in their backyard. Yeah, in a neighborhood. 10,000 square foot footprint, and it looks nice. It's a good-looking building. The buffering... I don't know. It is theirs, but it also, I mean, we all have the intent to stay and never move, but eventually we all do. So I don't know.

On the north side, I mean, I feel okay with not needing to put that 12-foot buffer against the flag stem. But on the east side is where I would want to protect that buffer. Greg, please speak.

Yeah, all right. All the years we've been on this commission, Tyson, this is unique. I don't think we've had this exact sort of... At this point, like 98% of things, we've seen it. We have seen it. We've seen it. Having the property owner looking for an exception between their own properties, I don't recall.

Can you guys all hear him? Sometimes he mumbles a little bit. Can you hear him okay?

I'm mumbling into the mic. I'll use my booming voice. Thank you. You're welcome. Yes, I'm just really weighing out here the... this oddity of giving the property owner an exception to obligations to themselves. It's an intriguing one. Absolutely take your point. And I know I initially started there. Where I think I'm halfway on the fence here is if we grant them this exception, they own the property, that this makes more sense for them to be more efficacious in operating their business. And it then turns into an albatross that ultimately is... You know, they do want to sell. They think they don't today, right? Tomorrow that does come about. I mean, part of the reason that we put the buffering is because it's going to make the property more attractive to someone else. Basically, it would be an albatross of their own making that would actually perhaps lower the property value. I guess I don't know that I... I'm debating if that's really... have a problem with not protecting someone from themselves. I feel like government's kind of getting in the way at that point. And this is just an intriguing scenario to have to weigh this out. I got all philosophical on you.

So to me, it's not a question of land value. It's more just that person that might potentially live there one day, I want to let them have less of a nuisance of being next to a commercial property. That's what the buffer is for. It's designed to give some buffer to, in this case, would be future residents. And so that's my thought there. It has nothing to do with the perceived value of now or in the future.

Sure. I guess what I'm saying, though, is it's not like anyone would have a gun to their head to buy the property. Someone would only buy it if they said to themselves, this is, I super want this. And they would want that because either one, for some reason, they don't want to buffer it. Or two, the price points come to a place as a result that they go, yeah, I can live with that to get myself into that home.

Will this always be a child care facility? Or could it change? No, and it could.

There are several uses within the neighborhood commercials on the day.

So they could change.

However, the development agreement may specifically state that it has to be a child care unit. Is that correct? Does it? Child care facilities.

It does, according to the development agreement. So unless the development agreement dissolves, it will remain a child care facility.

But in a normal situation where there wasn't a development agreement, yes, it would be open to all of the users.

Then it would change, and then you might want that buffer if it would change ownership. Anything else, Craig?

Not just yet. This is a fun one. Well, I guess I will say I think I agree with Bo and Ken on, in this situation, I would rather approve the exception than push the applicant to say themselves, well, then up we go. I think that the layout makes sense. It's a beautiful building. I think I'm pretty on board with the exception on the footprint. So I guess it's the buffer that's the one I'm mulling. Does anyone else have any thoughts?

Yeah, I think having it be more than twice the size of everything else around it is defeating the purpose of neighborhood commercial. That just means more kids. And that's more traffic. That's more maybe potential nuisance to the neighbors. They're surrounded by homes. I think they should stay with the agreement that they made or even ask for 8,000. Like the one on 300 West is I think there's houses on one side, and they're pretty far away.

So it's a 5,000 square foot footprint. Right. So they can't do.

They're asking for 10, but not a second floor. So the footprint is actually more than twice as big.

Yes, but I guess what I'm seeing is that they could go that big. They just would have to make the footprint smaller.

They would have to do a second floor.

Correct. So it's not. I would, without question, be in agreeance with you if it was about total square footage of the structure. But this is the square footage of the footprint only, meaning that they could still build a 10,000 plus square foot structure. It would likely go up.

Right.

Which would be worse for the neighborhood. Yes.

But those homes over there are also two-story, right?

Yeah, the surrounding homes are one- or two-story homes.

Yeah.

Just a quick note on that. If you're exploring increasing it to two stories, our buffering requirements do state that it increases by, I can't remember off the top of my head, but

Every additional foot of height over 20 feet is an additional foot of buffer. That's right.

So it would be increasing the buffer if it's over 20 feet.

Any other discussion or a motion?

By way of discussion, before a motion, I think that I've landed on leaning toward approving both exceptions because they are the property owners and I want to give them the ability to be able to do what they want with their land.

Sounds like the beginnings of a motion.

Okay, I'm anticipating a few nays.

If I may just add, I am in your same campo, but I want to be clear that it's because I'm not seeing pushback from the community. I'm not seeing negative externalities that we are protecting against. Does that make sense? If I were seeing negative externalities here, then granting the exceptions would very much be an issue. But where this is all...

same property owner it's internal no negative negative externalities yes i'm with you and those are good points so i like those okay uh putting forward a motion for item what are we 3.5 3.5 public hearing consideration of kevin and sarah gordon's request for approval of the lehigh child care facility site plan located 808 north 2300 West requesting exceptions for buffering standards of building footprint size the motion being that we approve the proposed site plan with the findings being those that are laid out in the report and Please include our D all DRC comments second motion in a second all in favor aye any opposed nay

Carries. Let's go to 3.6.

Item 3.6 is public hearing and recommendation of Symphony Homes request for review of the Fox Trail subdivision concept plan requesting nine lots and a development agreement located at 2850 West, 1500 North. Symphony Homes was previously approved to have an eight-lot subdivision located at this location. They are requesting nine lots to better match the surrounding existing development of College Farms. The current zoning of R-122 connectivity requirements and layout of the parcel do not make it possible for nine lots. The lots do not meet the minimum R-122 zoning requirements. Therefore, Symphony Homes is requesting a development agreement. The justification for the extra lot is to better match the surrounding existing lot sizes of the college farms, additional funding and amenity contributions to the college farms HOA, and an additional housing unit. Symphony Homes is also willing to complete a section of sidewalk along 1500 North that ends short of the Jordan River Trail to create more connectivity to the Jordan River. It is up to the Planning Commission to determine if a development agreement for an extra lot is justified. There were three comments from the DRC, including to provide an explanation of how this ninth lot benefits the city, which they included a narrative for that already. But please consider all DRC comments in your motion. This is a legislative item. The Planning Commission will give their recommendation to City Council. So this is not the final meeting. It will be scheduled for City Council, where it will be either approved or denied. This is a public hearing item. There were 14 online comments for this, which I can summarize during the public hearing period. But with that, it turns back to the Commission for any questions.

Thank you, Katie. Any questions for staff?

Not yet.

Is the applicant present?

Thank you for having us back. As they said, we were approved prior for eight lots, so this has been a discussion prior. But for a little history on it and why maybe it's back at the table, recently Symphony Homes released the control of the HOA to the residents. And shortly afterwards, they approached Symphony to ask about Fox Trail, this current subdivision's name, to be included into their HOA. As I understand, there's several reasons for that. This is one of the main interests and will be one of the main entrances in and out of the College Farms or Riverwalk subdivision. So in a lot of ways, geographically, it is part of their neighborhood in most regards. So having them in their HOA, having them in their community and not awkwardly excluding them as they have a pool and open space and things like that, that likely they'll use anyways. And with that, instead of excluding them or having them use it, they can be a part of it naturally, but then also contribute dues. So nine more homes that contribute dues to that neighborhood. And then, as was mentioned, part of it with Symphony getting the benefit of an extra lot in what we think more cohesive lot sizes to the neighborhood, we've agreed that, hey, if we can make this work, we'd love to turn around and add not just nine homes to the amenities and the open space, but some amenities that we come to figure out what those look like, some improvement to their open space and their community areas like the pool and park. So another thing I want to clarify, I don't know if there's a map of the currently approved subdivision, just to give that contrast of really what's changing. So, to clarify everything on the cul-de-sac, so on 1450 North, none of those homes will change. The right of way, the road, everything there will stay exactly the same. It's the lots on the west side, lot one and two, that are fairly excessive in size right now, that would be the ones that split into three lots, from two to three. I did a little math just to help kind of understand really what that is to not leave any confusion as to, you know, we asking for small lots. It's really we're asking for lots that do match. So College Farms and Riverwalk, or Riverwalk, whatever you call it. There's many names now. But there's 98 lots in that current HOA in that subdivision that Symphony built. Their average lot size is 18,276 square feet, smallest being just over 14,000 square feet, and the largest being just shy of 23,000 square feet. These currently approved lots one and two far exceed that in their square footage. And their frontage as well. Being 154 feet wide, it leaves a lot of space that typically isn't utilized in the building, the home, unless it's a massive home that would far exceed any of the square footages and profiles of this neighborhood. So when we go to, if we can go back to the proposed subdivision, what we're proposing would be an 18,258 foot square foot lot. a 19,423 square foot lot, and a 22,902 square foot lot. So those still either meet or exceed the average size of college farms and surrounding area, and the largest of which still will be incorporated the largest lot in the neighborhood so just want to make that small clarification as we are asking for more Lots it's not to get small Lots it's just to kind of conform the neighborhood and hear the HOA hear their complaints or not complaints necessarily but their new desires in the direction they want community to go as the builder developer all of that we agree with all of their desires to improve their neighborhood and improve the HOA funding. And we agree with lot sizing here and obviously have the benefit of an extra building lot to go along with it. But as mentioned, we'd like to conform, if at all possible, to any requirements to be able to improve the public benefit in some way or another. There are, as mentioned, I think a lot of comments from online, and then I've heard there's a few people here that might be commenting as well. So my thought was maybe I can turn it over to the public, let the community speak to their thoughts on it, and then if there's any more questions, I'm happy to jump back up. Or if you have questions now before that, I'm happy to speak to it as well. Any questions for the applicant?

Yeah, I guess I'd be curious to know, and I want to be a I wouldn't kill the thing, but am I to understand that Symphony Homes would not hand this neighborhood over to this HOA, a lot permitted to join if the additional unit was not granted?

It was not the plan for one reason or another when we had the eight lot scenario. So it wasn't, I don't think it's something that wouldn't happen. But it was kind of what happened when they approached us. The first time we came around, I think there was some miscommunication. The neighborhood wasn't as excited about it. took control of the HOA and looked at it maybe through a different lens, and there was maybe more communication and discussion around all of it, they changed their minds. And I can't say every single neighborhood, but it felt like the large majority of the neighborhood. So I think there is a possibility that, yeah, the HOA could still maybe absorb it. It would change the dynamic of the agreement that they've come to with Symphony Homes at this point. But it's still possible.

I'm sure I'll have more questions later, but I'm good for now.

So I have a similar question. So with the nine law and some of the benefits that were outlined, one was the curb and gutter along, I think it's 1500 North. Is that right? 1500?

that's not i don't think it's part of the application but it was something that has been discussed in and out just like some we're open to it's another thing it would have to be just kind of just in your narrative it says you know these are the benefits so similar like well if you only do the eight lots are you not going to do the trail in the curb and gutter correct yeah we're approved for the eight lots regardless um the idea is that giving us the ninth lot gives us the funding to be able to do these other improvements, not just to the HOA. But if the city said, hey, we want to do, I think it's just sidewalk, a sidewalk connection that made it safer for pedestrian access to that trail system, that would provide us an ability to do it. Right now, we've already kind of maxed out financially what we can do here. And this is our avenue to be able to explore further public benefit.

and fund that.

Why go this route with the development agreement rather than ask for zone change?

I think the HOA had interest in bringing it in. I think we were denied a zone change prior.

A zone change would require a general plan amendment. And so it would have to go through the general plan amendment first and then the zone change application. Did Council Symphony homes and stating that it was?

Unlikely to happen because zone change in the past have tried to come through on this property and they have been denied so I Mean the zone change would grant you potentially more lots not that that's where we're trying to go Yeah, and to be clear too.

We've already started construction. That's one reason that among many, that the road wouldn't change and those cul-de-sac locks wouldn't change. I mean, we feel like we've optimized the site. We're not a builder who searches for high density. We just search for quality, beautiful neighborhoods that the residents like. So that's why we've listened to further comment from the residents to continue that direction.

Any other questions for the applicant?

You mentioned additional amenity contributions to the HOA and you said that you haven't fleshed out exactly what those are. Can you just give me some ideas of what those might be?

Yeah, it comes down to what we can do, really. I mean, it's kind of been discussed that, hey, maybe if we have to extend that sidewalk, that's part of the funds going from one bucket to another. But they have a large open space area within the community that we built for them. There's a pool, a playground, but then a really large grass area. So within that large grass area, a lot of things could be done. I really can't speak to what those could be. any kind of park amenity that is agreed upon between the HOA and Symphony and that funding is available for. But it sounds like they've had quite a few conversations that were enticing and interesting to the residents that they could fulfill. I don't want to say the wrong thing. I wasn't in a lot of those discussions, so if I start setting expectations, I can't say that.

Okay. Thank you. We'll invite the public to come up. Okay. This is a public hearing. If anybody is here that would like to speak to item 3.6, we will open the public hearing now and invite you to come up in an orderly fashion. Thank you.

Good to meet everyone. Putting faces to names, I should say. My name is Neil Farrell. I am the HOA president for College Farms. Just want to share a couple things. So I, myself, and our board engaged with Symphony Homes right after we got the HOA turned over to us and we were put in place. My home is lot 52, just south, just bordering this. So we've had open space and obviously planned for it to get developed at some point. I'll share a couple things. I think one question was about the connection of the sidewalk. I personally actually use that connection probably three or four times a week when I'm walking or running. Just so you guys know, when the sidewalk ends, there's enough... Unusable space where you just can't walk straight So you actually got to cut over and you're you know four or five feet away from the actual road and with oncoming traffic And so it's a bit of a safety issue and that was actually an idea that I put forward with Russ Wilson who I think works with the applicant here The other thing too is that when we went around We wanted to make sure and Symphony also wanted to make sure that there was broad community support for this They don't want to obviously override or use their authority to override community support. And so we went through and created a digital petition and ran it around for people to look at and sign. And we have over 70 signatures recorded on these papers here I can provide to you if you like. So we've had a really broad community support. I haven't spoken with anyone who's been against it in our community HOA. And Symphony's been a really great partner. So just wanted to share that. And we've got a number of other neighborhood members and HOA board members here, too. So thank you.

Thank you.

OK, sorry. I just got back from a family reunion about 20 minutes before your meeting started, so I'm not dressed great. I want to thank the planning commissioners. My name is Candace Jones, and I reside at 2784 West River Parkway. I'm also an adjacent property owner to this agenda item. I attended, you might recognize me from before, and multiple planning commission and city council meetings in 2024 and 2025, because I originally opposed the ninth lot proposal. My opposition was to keep the development consistent with the existing surrounding lot sizes by limiting it to half acre lots. I just want to say that I love our neighborhood. I love our Symphony home. I believe that they are wonderful home builders, We've lived in Lehigh since 2012, and when we looked to build our now forever home three years ago, we wanted to stay on the west side because of the schools and the community and the larger half acre lot sizes. In August and October of 2024, I spoke in opposition to a previous zoning change that was already mentioned. where a previous developer tried to change it to VLR, allowing the owner to take the lot sizes down to 0.18 acre. And that was not in consistency with the surrounding area. We were in support of Symphony to procure the land, creating cohesiveness to our neighborhood. By adding Symphony homes to this property, it allowed the lots to be held to the same feel that we enjoy. However, my opposition came because The only benefit offered to the existing homeowners was land for an entrance, and the smaller lot sizes in the cul-de-sac, as you see, were smaller. Residents also opposed the city's decision to strictly enforce the connectivity ordinance requiring a road to 1500 North. Lehigh City required three closely spaced access points onto 1500 North, which is a very busy road. There was an accident earlier today, which not only forced smaller, less compatible lots, but more concern for traffic. So why do I support the current proposal? The city changed their outcome in February after we made significant progress towards more compatible lots. The planning commission reversed course Symphony submitted multiple eight-lot layouts that were better matched for the surrounding neighborhood, but Lehigh City repeatedly rejected them. Left with few options, Symphony returned to the original layout much closer that's being shown today, and combining the three lots into two, we call it the jumbo lots, I guess, to meet that eight-lot requirement, which I was very much But now I am voicing my support because I kind of feel like that we're all in a lose-lose situation. The advocacy that we did for the past year was not taken into consideration. There's still small lots behind us. But now to meet the eight-lot requirement, we have the jumbo lots, but we still have the same lots behind us. But our HOA board is now turned over or the HOA has been turned over to the homeowners. They've gotten lots of feedback. They've been vigilant in maintaining open communication. They've surveyed all the residents on how the community can move forward. In negotiations with Symphony, they have created a development agreement to secure tangible neighborhood improvements. I'm sure Symphony would have preferred the additional value that came with the nine lots. But with the development agreement, at least there are now commitments for the neighborhood enhancements beyond just an entrance. As an adjacent neighbor, I support that we graph the nine lots into the HOA to maintain continuity and covenants. This proposal provides benefits to the neighborhood that was not previously offered. Thank you.

Hello. Thank you for hearing us out tonight. My name is Janessa Baker. I also am a resident in the College Farms neighborhood. I am much more south than they are, though. I'm also on the HOA board and have gone door to door and talked to several, several people in our neighborhood. And I do know that there's neighbors outside of the HOA that may not support this. And I understand their point of view, too. But I also think that the people that are objecting are mostly a lot more south and they won't even really be driving that road at all and it won't really affect them as much as they think it might. And as far as setting precedents for future developers, I actually think this is a great precedent that the homeowners worked with a developer and came to a plan, came to a point that worked well for both of us. And it wasn't just the homeowners getting run over by a developer or a developer just getting whatever they wanted, and we actually are making them give us something in return. I think that's actually, like Candice said, it is kind of a lose-lose situation, but we're making the best of it, and this is how we can see a path forward. And I think if developers worked with homeowners more, then there would be a lot more happy Lehigh residents. So... That's why I support it is because it's one more lot, and our neighborhood is great, and I would love to welcome one more family into our neighborhood. And as far as letting the other eight homes into the HOA when talking with people in the neighborhood, the reason for letting the nine lots in is because our HOA is seeing a benefit. Our pool and our playground really aren't that great, like that big, so seeing an enhancement of the amenities is kind of why they want the nine homes. If it's just going to be eight homes and we don't get an enhancement of HOA, they don't really want, I don't think it will be annexed in. Just because to get two-thirds of the owners to annex them in just to add eight more families to the pool probably won't happen. But with the enhancement of the amenities and everything, that's why we would let the nine homes. I think that was a previous question. So it will come up for discussion and it will be voted on. But from my point of view, it's less likely to have eight homes annexed into the HOA compared to the nine homes. So thank you.

Thank you. Hi. My name is Katie Beckham, and I am one of the residents who's not part of the HOA but live, like suggested, a little further south than everybody. And I oppose. And I know it's probably going to go through anyways. And I can see the benefit for the HOA. And they're getting the $65,000 and the sidewalk extension. I recognize all of that. But we were recently in here with Terry Bishop's expansion on 900 North. And it feels like, you guys, why do we have zoning laws if we're not going to be following them and just constantly making amendments as they come up, is what I think. I think every lot should be 22,000 square feet for the whole entirety of 1500 North all that's zoned are 122. So I know that my comments probably will make little to no effect. But I think it feels a little bit like pay to play. They have their list of 76 people in the HOA who they talk to, which I think is great. And if they all like it, and I'm not opposed to people being in the HOA or out of the HOA, but of course they're for it. They're going to get $65,000. How would you not be for it to increase your own amenities? But that's kind of what I have to say. So I think it's lame that we don't follow the rules. So thank you.

Thank you.

anybody else would like to speak to this item before we close the public hearing can you give us a synopsis of the online comments yes so there were six positive and eight negative most of the positives were a lot of the same reason said here tonight the additional amenities the sidewalk connection and The eight that were opposed were also echoed from what we've heard tonight, just concerns over, you know, we have zoning for a reason, and having larger 22,000 square foot lots is what a lot of people move to this area for. Thank you.

back for further discussion. We'll actually invite the applicant up to speak to anything they heard. Was there anything specifically you wanted to address that you heard from the public?

No, I think they voiced the same kind of opinions and thoughts we anticipated, so that's kind of the opinion. I will say I think I was maybe misleading on the trail. I wasn't aware that it was fully in the application, that sidewalk connection. So yes, that is something that we're looking to do as part of this, it sounds like. So being only 400 feet away, we feel like it's directly impacting this neighborhood, along with the college farms. And it'd be something we'd be happy to do for the public and the city in part of this.

Is that regardless of the ninth lot?

No, that is in connection with the ninth lot, funded through the ninth lot, along with any other amenities improvements.

Gotta ask. The north of 70 signatures, I'm just curious, does that represent 70 separate households? Does that represent... 20 households. Do you have any idea there?

I think the gentleman who presented those numbers could probably answer that question. How about a thumbs up or thumbs down?

It's roughly between 50 and 60 households.

Thank you. For the record, if they could not be heard, that was 50 to 60 households with the 75 signatures.

And then this would not go forward then, if I'm understanding. The implication from the CC&Rs would be that 2 thirds of the current HOA needs to approve. Is that also correct?

I believe so. Now that the community runs the HOA, they would be voting that through. And I think that's part of why they did the polling to make sure that we didn't go through all this effort and then not have it happen. But that is something they control on their end. All right.

OK. Any other questions for the applicant?

All right. Thank you. I will say, I do have some photos of the trail or the sidewalk trail connection gap, if at any point that's relevant or helpful.

Not at this point. Thank you, Bill. Further discussion? We've seen this many times, like they've alluded to. Some of us have been here on the commission for several years and have seen and heard many different layouts, designs, pros and cons, and questions, and heard lots of negative. And tonight we heard more positive, which was different than we have in the past. But I would entertain a motion if someone is ready to present one.

Gary has something he would like to say.

Gary, with that proper introduction, how could I not?

So if you remember the history of this, when this came through as a base density layout, it only could be approved for seven lots, right? And according to the code and the zoning and everything, according to the code, they were allowed an extra bonus density lot and some lot flexibility for improvements along 1500 north. So according to the zone and according to our code, they would only be allowed eight density units in here. And I think it's engineering's position, too, is that we would stick to the code and only allow the eight density lots, just for whatever that's worth. That's our position in engineering there.

Which is why they're asking for a development agreement with the city council. I appreciate that, Gary. Yep.

I think I hate seeing us overstepping the code. The codes are for a purpose. People move in. They rely on that for their property, knowing that there's something consistent. And then on the other side of the coin, I like the three lots better than having two giant lots. I don't know. I've driven through this area. I don't know of a lot of horses or cows that are being... raised on these lots. So to have a 22,000 square foot lot seems a lot. Sorry for that. Thanks, Bo, for the whatever. So I would love to hear some discussion as to why some of you think that this might be a good thing or why, if there is anybody that doesn't think it's good.

I have a few thoughts here and inquiries. Gary, would you expand a little bit more? I understand your position from engineering. Would you like to go just a cut deeper?

Yeah, I don't know that there's a whole lot more to say other than that's why, as was stated earlier, that's why we have zoning and that's why we have laws and stuff is to stick to those. This development agreement was kind of a shock to me. It kind of came out of the blue. I didn't know this was coming up. It just kind of seems a little bit of an end run to kind of go around the system. I mean, they have the right to ask for it. I don't fault them for that at all.

They have the right to ask for it. I want to understand why. more scientifically, if you will, explain it in a way that will land with us, us common folk, the engineering trepidation at going from eight to nine.

don't know that I mean there isn't any like utility issues or anything like that that would do that it's just that normally when these things kind of come through we stick pretty hard to the guns that we need to stick to what is allowed we don't when we go through and we figure out the bonus densities for this I mean we need to be able to justify that to the City Council and to the Planning Commission to that this is what it is and so We like to draw kind of a hard line on this that, you know, we stick to the code and this is what it is. And I don't know if that answers your question at all, but...

So am I. want to understand is if there's look we're talking about the rules and that that is an important thing um we come up with codes laws whether we're talking about in the city level state federal because these are things that we as a society through our legislators or whoever that body may be have determined that we all agree we as a whole benefit and we don't need to debate really uh you know we all want to go ahead and say murder is just not going to happen I'll give up my ability to murder to ensure I'm not murdered. And we all go, yeah, that's a pretty square deal. I mean, it's the same reason we've amended the Constitution 27 times. It's the reason we have an ongoing legislative body is because life continues to present new situations. So we do need to deliberate. That doesn't mean you just up and change everything overnight, right? So yeah, it's noteworthy to see an entire community perhaps speaking to wanting to see this added unit. That's a value. Nonetheless, is there a negative externality coming from an engineering perspective that would lead me to say this is actually going to be so detrimental to the health and welfare of the community that we need to not have it, which is why I'm digging a little bit deeper, wanting to understand is there a really, this is going to completely screw up sewage or whatever the case would be. That's what I'm going for there. Because really the question is, in our pursuit of happiness here, to go really big picture, are we using the codes, are we using the Constitution, all these tools that we have for building society to move toward what is serving the greater good? That is the framework that I come from. That might be a really big thing to talk about when we're talking about adding one unit to a neighborhood, and yet that is what it comes down to. so i i need to know about negative externalities um if they're insurmountable uh if because if they are then that would kill it even if you know the whole neighborhood is in favor um meanwhile i would also say that you know we're not you know respectfully we're not throwing the rule book out if an entire community is saying yeah we would like to see one unit added because we also didn't go wild wild west it's not like uh we just approved a skyscraper on that lot uh in fact what happened is the even if this is approved which it may not yet be well we'll see when we get to the vote but the fact of the matter is that the zoning um as it has been has even put the infrastructure that's already been put in place has made it such that They wouldn't even try to ask for more. So the bounds have, in fact, played a major contributing factor. Now, perhaps not everyone will be happy with how those bounds ultimately play out because one is added or not. But they've played a very significant role. They've shaped this entire neighborhood. And the question that anybody that's serving the people should be perpetually asking is, what are we doing that is best serving people? the whole and moving us toward the best for society. All those are the questions that go through my mind when I debate if we need to go from A to 9.

I have a question for legal. Well, actually, let me ask you guys first. But I'm coming your way. Really, what are they asking for? They're asking for a ninth law in lieu of what? What are we really talking about here? Because the HOA stuff, is that really involving the city? That's not. That's not what we're giving. That's not part of our concession at all. That is something between two private parties. So what are we giving or getting in lieu of that ninth lot? Which is in our purview. All that HOA stuff is not in our purview, right? We're getting sidewalks for how many feet? Trail for how many feet?

Yeah, that would be the only thing that we would be getting is the sidewalk connection to the Jordan River Trail.

How many feet are we talking?

And we're getting a strip taken over, right? 85 feet?

Approximately.

Yeah, I think a drawing would have to be put together to come up with actual square footage or linear footage of any connection. We'd have to determine where does the city want the trail connection concrete to go. There's aged asphalt that of just it probably isn't exactly a standard it was just put in so a lot of design would have to be put in to understand all those points uh i think the question is can we are we going the direction that we want to go to be able to calculate that and make it happen i think another benefit that might be overlooked is the idea that currently the city is taking over maintenance of all of the landscaping in the park trip you know i saw that in the packet yeah that to me is a so that's It's something that I think long-term does put a strain on the city's resources, and I think that would be another piece that would be considered a public benefit. There is debate on HOA being separately public benefit versus all that. So you guys can weigh out the neighborhood. Well, HOAs are not a public benefit. But I mean, the residents are there doing something. So I know that's how they feel, and that's how they've approached us is all I want to voice for them. So we're really talking sub-100 feet. I don't connect to the trail, roughly. Because I don't know where the connection would be to. I know that there's a gap between asphalt and sidewalk.

Which is why I'm giving a buffer, right? If someone said 80-ish feet, I'm saying sub 100. Is that roughly what you think is probably correct? I think it would be minimal to that, yeah.

Depending on where it connects, it could exceed that. I don't know the state of some of that asphalt slopes. There's a lot of city standards that go into trail areas. building as well so if they want to improve it I don't know how far those improvements would stretch or how far you want them to stretch that part is that scope is up for I think debate and decision still okay to meet that kind of qualification to public benefit thank you yeah so really that's what we're ultimately that's what we're considering though sidewalk and some strips

And again, it's not our purview, per se. We are a recommending body. But that would be up to the city council to decide if that is a worthy endeavor to pursue. And that's where the development agreement would come into place. It was brought up that why do we go outside of the rules, per se. I understand the sentiment of the question. But these are the rules. They can ask for these things. They're allowed to ask. Doesn't mean they have to be granted, but they're allowed to ask. So these are the rules. We're not trying to break rules here. And it's within their right to ask for that consideration. And ultimately, it would rely on the city council to earn away the outcome of what that would look like, or if that would be granted at all. The eighth lot, which has already been approved, was in, already came with the condition of the sidewalk and gutters to be done on 13th, or 15th, correct?

Well, technically it was for the road widening of the extra property. The curb and gutters were already required to be put in.

Right, okay, so the widening of the road there. And so that's not being changed no matter what we're discussing here tonight. so really it's just the additional connection to the trail system which is a value i don't want to discount connectivity and opportunities for recreation and safety that come into that but ultimately it's we're a recommending body and we will give our recommendation shortly here to the city council and they will ultimately decide the outcome of what this is to be Any other questions, comments, concerns? Mike, did you have something? You looked like you might have something to say.

I don't know if this is helpful or not. I just wanted to read out of the code about development agreements, because we have a chapter on development agreements. But basically, it is a negotiation, and it is ultimately up to the council. So the Planning Commission can just make the recommendation. But the I guess just to think about your recommendation the code does say Obviously it's the City Council be recommending on it Determines the best interests of the city and its residents are advanced by the adoption of such agreement So you just maybe think about the city and its residents are advanced by the agreement So that's probably maybe some of the criteria you want to think about when you're doing your motion Thank You Mike Any other discussion

Or a motion.

I think I know where I'm at, if you want to hear it. Or I'd rather just make a motion. Whatever you want. Given that the HOA requires two-thirds of some understanding approval, and again, I do look at the multitude of people who are in favor of it. Personally, I think, with respect, HOAs are the worst. I recognize that they exist and play the role that they do. Given the excessive buy-in that's required for this to actually have legs, I see the additional connectivity. I see the positive impact on the city here. adding a unit if the city council is in favor. So I think I would, I know I'm using softer language, but let's not beat around the bush. I'd say that this is an overall, though I can understand some being opposed to it, I'd say the net gain.

My only comment to that, if I may.

Please.

Is that... I would want to hopefully gear our recommendation to be completely separate from what happens with the HOA because that's not in our purview. This is basically us giving a recommendation to the city council. In my opinion, it's a recommendation to the city council, yes or no, in lieu of that trail connection. Right. And sidewalk. It has nothing to do with the HOA because that's a completely separate thing. So the recommendation basically is city council, yes, we think this is a – positive direction or no we do not think this is a positive direction irregardless of what happens with the HOA so is this a recommendation or yeah it's a recommendation no this is a development agreement this is City Council so it's not correct there's a typo in the report it is you are recommending to City Council yeah we don't we don't get to approve these things as above our of our pay grade

get paid? Yeah, apparently.

That was my only comment, is that it's a completely separate issue. Because the city council will likely vote on it before the HOA does. Right?

I guess what I'm pointing out is rather the safety lever in there, if you will, if we're thinking about the will and interest of the community and the people is that the HOA members themselves, especially since it's not the board, it's two-thirds of members that the residents in this area by and large could effectively reject it if they were deeply opposed, which I think is a unique piece. I completely am with you, though, as the city's board. representing the city. It's about the connectivity.

But even then, that rejection would not be the nine lots, right? The nine lots would be decided by the city council beforehand, or likely beforehand. Their rejection would be allowing them to join the HOA or not. It has nothing to do with the ninth lot at that point. Although that's what it's being proposed as and kind of positioned. Their vote is, do we want them to join the HOA or not?

Thank you. Solid point. Unless I'm incorrect.

But that's how I understand what their vote would be in the HOA, which is, again, outside of what we're technically discussing.

I'm with you. How many strips will the city be relieved of if this goes through? How many strips? There were landscaping strips that were mentioned in the packet that would be taken over.

I don't know. I'm not aware of that.

It's just along 1500 North. This whole section here would be turned over to maintenance of the HOA.

other side okay but again that's also but that's a that's an HOA vote if they're gonna accept that is not

think the vote could probably be before I mean they could probably do something prior and prepare themselves to be ready to be able to say yes it's coming in if you approve it but I think also if it's approved that Park strip would be our obligation as Symphony in our development to take over the maintenance currently with the eight Lots it's been agreed that the city would maintain it and take it over With this, we're saying, hey, we're taking it over. We will give it to a HOA. If it has to be created because tides turn, that would be what happens. So I think it could be weighed in, irregardless of the existing HOA's decision when that comes.

OK.

Sorry.

Thank you. Just things that I also think about when we go from 8 to 9. Absolutely. Absolutely.

I don't know if I feel strongly enough on it. I have also made a number of motions tonight. Is anyone else feeling it?

You're good. I don't think anybody's keeping score.

Oh, I am. You are? No, I'm kidding.

All right. I'll make them all.

Yeah, let's hear it. All right.

Take a swing, Ken. Since it's a recommendation and I've been down here thinking I'm reading over here. It's said approval right like Changes a little bit All right public item 3.6 public hearing and recommendation of Symphony homes request for review of the Fox trail subdivision concept plan Now requesting nine lots and a development agreement located at 2850 West 1500 1500 North I move that we Provided positive recommendation to the City Council with the findings that there is Outstanding community support and there is a benefit to the neighborhood and to Lehigh City And please include all the RC comments Would you specify?

Those benefits are this trail connection Park strip and perhaps it so as part of the benefits to the city the trail connection will be I think they are the benefits Full stop.

Well, and the vacation of the maintenance.

Yeah.

So with the maintenance of another benefit to the city, right? The maintenance of that strip and the trail connection.

Yeah. I just think it's worth specifying. Sure. What it is.

We have a motion. Include DRC comments. I'll second it.

I think I did, but yeah, include them again. Double include.

Does your second stand? Yeah. Okay. We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? When will this go to the city council, so the public knows?

Yes. Let me see. So this will go to the city council meeting Tuesday, August 11. Tuesday, August 11. OK. 3.7.

OK. And thank you for that motion. It was very eloquent.

Item 3.7 is public hearing and recommendation of Gardner Plum Group's request for review of an amendment to the Gardner Plum Development Agreement requesting to transfer 124 equivalent residential units from the northern portion of the development agreement to the southern. The Gardner Plum Development Agreement was originally recorded in 2015 and created a northern and southern portion of the development agreement that permitted a certain number of ERUs in each portion. The original agreement also set up zoning along the 2100 North Corridor that deviates from city zoning, namely that there are residential overlays allowed in commercial areas. The first amendment to the development agreement was recorded in 2019 to transfer 181 ERUs from the northern portion to the southern portion. In both versions, no ERUs were allowed to be transferred between the northern and southern portion, so an amendment to the agreement was necessary for this to be allowed. The original number of ERUs, 1,933, remain the same. In this amendment, the applicant wishes to transfer 124 ERUs from the northern portion of the development agreement to the southern, specifically to the parcel directly west of the Willow Point townhomes. 36 ERUs were allocated for that parcel, so the total amount that can be built there would be 160 ERUs. As with the previous amendment, the total ERUs for the entire agreement remains the same at 1,933. There were three red line comments from the DRC, including that a circuit study will be required. Any development will be limited to the ERUs that can be serviced with available utilities. This will require studies to determine the capacity and to include a map with updated ERU calculations showing the northern and southern portions to be updated. Please include all DRC comments in your motion. This is a legislative item. The Planning Commission will give their recommendation, and this will be scheduled for a city council meeting, likely on that same August 11 date. This is a public hearing item. There were seven online comments for this, so I can summarize those during the public hearing. But I turn it back to the Commission for any questions.

Thank you, Katie. Any questions for staff? He's the applicant. Oh, sorry. Sorry, go ahead.

Was there an explanation for why it wasn't in the original agreement that they could move lots? Or is it lots? Or what are we calling them? ERUs, yeah.

ERUs from north to south? Unfortunately, I was not here in 2015. But I believe the applicant can speak to why that was. not included in either version, or I don't know if Mike knows here, but.

I don't know if it's top of my head on this. I believe I know. I think part of it was the infrastructure, right? That we had planned sewer capacity and power and everything that They were kind of divided in ways that made sense for the planning of this area, and we didn't want them to be able to move those around.

Yeah, I can't speak to the reason why it wasn't included in that, but that is one of the comments that we had on there, that that needs to be studied. That's a very real issue, so that needs to be studied.

I mean, I'm not going to definitively put that as the reason, but I'm pretty sure that was the reason. So, anyway. Is this 20 minutes here? You know it's 2100 years here. Thanks. All right. Sorry, applicant, please come forward.

Good evening. My name is Steve Maddox, Edge Homes. I think as I have gotten older, I have gotten nostalgic. On my drive over here, I count 11 cranes that are being constructed on the east side of Lehigh, putting together Legoland. Which is overwhelming to see and hope somebody knows what they're doing over there because that is overwhelming. And then certainly we have had the great privilege of building a community on the other side of town, which has kind of grown together with Saratoga and all of the road construction and When we first started out there, 2100 was kind of a small road, and now it's standing room only and Pioneer and then Main Street. So it has been interesting to watch. And then this is our first time in the building here tonight. So very, very nice. I brought everybody with me tonight out of respect to council or... Commission, just in case there are questions, because we are going back almost 15 years in an agreement that was done, and we find ourselves with one section of ground left, essentially two sections, and there's been some swapping back and forth. So Walt Plum is here tonight. He's been on a three-year vacation in Brazil, so he's here for any questions to kind of walk down the history of the Ys, and that was one of the questions that we had to answer. Second, the Hardman family is here, and then we took... the opportunity to go meet some of our community at Willow to see what their position was in disposition. The property is zoned heavy commercial slash residential, which is kind of a flex space that allows both commercial applications. But it's a very broad zone, which we found out Willow is still zoned that. And so we need to kind of work on some things to clean up. But there are some heavy uses there that would potentially impact. And then we understand that we are not adding a single unit. Katie has tirelessly gone through and counted every single doorstep that has been built on that section of the south side to which we agree with. And I think we have audited it and feel very comfortable with your findings. And thank you for doing that. So we have kept in check with that minus a few units that we weren't able to construct because we sold some property to the LDS church. But I think that we have fulfilled. Gary during DRC had indicated that we need to do a study on all utilities, which we certainly will do because now we have a better vision of what has been built out. Lauren and I argued early on what the capacity was going to be. And we knew we'd be at this conversation 10 years ago. So we kind of wanted to walk through history. I understand tonight is not a zone change. It's not a land use it's not are we adding extra density and my overwhelming thought tonight was the amount of time that is spent on one lot is impressive to me when i know you guys have commercial pieces that you're working on i can't even imagine what texas instruments went through to get to the point where they are but i commend all of you for having the patience that walt and i don't have so um thank you for your time tonight sincerely and in this venture that we are trying to do and then i will address the final reason as to why we want to do this so walter

It was Peru, not Brazil. But I would love to learn Portuguese as well. So roughly around 2000, I don't know, 13, 14, is when I first met the Hardeman family. And they were in a development agreement with a company named Anderson Company, Gerald Anderson. He had entered into an agreement with the city And he was taking the position that he had over 3,500 er use and so the city was taking a different position it was getting pretty confrontational and That's where I first met Paul Hardman up at his house on the hill working on his tractor and We talked We looked at the agreements. We met with Lehigh City, and we came up with something much lower than what his agreements were, what he was ascertaining on his agreements. And so we came up with a unit count with the city, and we settled on that of 933. There's different property owners in all of these areas. And so it really didn't have anything to do with infrastructure at the time. There really wasn't any infrastructure. The only thing that had been put in was the big corridor down 2100 North. We built all of the water tanks. We ran all the lines. We did all of the power with the city. We did substations. We did all that. you know, as we've gotten further along, the uses on the north side lend itself to bigger lots. It's also kind of a historic area and Paul built his home over there and he just didn't want people over there. And so that's why we first initially moved 181 units over to the south side. And then as we've looked at it further and the uses. This particular piece that you're looking at tonight has some challenges. There's a canal that separates it from the upper piece. And yeah, we just feel like the best use is to finish off it as a residential community and then move up to the retail portion of the project. One thing that I think that's interesting to note, because I saw it in the notes, the piece up there in the yellow that's to the west of the green. Yeah, thank you. That piece was owned by the Hardmans. And in around 2021, the University of Utah came to them and wanted to move the big armory up there on the hill at the University of Utah. And so they didn't purchase the Hardman's property. They exchanged it for the property that they owned on the corner. And no ERUs were given to the armory. We've given copies of the agreements to the city, to Marlin, to Kim, but no ERUs were given to the armory. It was just an exchange of property. So, yeah, there's a lot of history. I'm happy to answer any, fill in any tidbits or any questions that you may have.

Any questions for the applicant? Well, I hope not. He just walked away. No. Did you want to add anything else?

Fully understand tonight that we're asking for units. We understand that we would go back to the very beginning of the process, which is preliminary. Concept, actually, go back to DRC traffic study. It's one of those uses of property which is super restricted now as far as accessibility off of 2100 because of UDOT and the use of that road. So it really is going to be a challenging site. Commercial is going to be on the west side of the canal, of which Walt and his company will be presenting at some point in the future when this is kind of built out. But we appreciate your consideration in this tonight, just trying to fit the last piece of the puzzle in on the residential portion here. The upside to that is, as was indicated by Walt, is that the lots that are in the green would become estate lots. Those are much larger in scope, so we're not adding to the density.

That's the equestrian streets, right? Yeah. Wasn't there some kind of a development going on there?

And this would sit until the Hardmans are ready to develop that, and those lots would just be significantly larger in scope. probably more in harmony with what is in that area. And we would just continue what's essentially lower density because we don't have the unit count that we did at Willow and new product because of the topography because it's very steep in nature. So we have laid this out conceptually. We presented that to DRC. But we understand there's a lot of road to cover here.

You mentioned that you would get to the why. Why are we wanting to move this many units? Yeah.

There's two families that we've had the privilege of dealing with here, the McLaughlins and the Hartmans. Part of this is legacy. And the day that we were tearing out the road of trees to the Mink headquarters for the McLaughlins, Scott called and asked when we were doing it and wanted to be out of town while we cut down trees that he planted as saplings. And it's just a reminder that although this is perhaps our business as a totality with the city and me as a developer and builder, that this is an emotional parcel. So part of this is to preserve the legacy that's on the Hardman piece with larger lots and congruity with what they see for that little vision of the land that they had controlled. So that is the real purpose of what we're trying to do here. In closing that, last chapter, if you will. Thank you.

Did anybody have any other questions for the applicant? All right, this is a public hearing. This time we will open the public hearing and invite anybody that would like to speak to item 3.7.

Hi, I'm a resident there at Willow Point and just came to vote against that just for two obvious reasons. Can you state your name, please? Increased traffic. Can you state your name? Oh, sorry, Kyle Sheffield. Thank you. Sorry, it's my first time ever coming to one of these. Me too. I've learned a lot. Thank you for coming. You're wonderful.

We're glad to have you here.

Yeah, I live in that area. So having more residents there will increase the traffic, obviously, and then decrease the parking. Traffic will be increased at the 2100 intersection and 3600 right there, right next to our new beautiful grocery store that we just built. So we're already getting a ton of new traffic with that there. The parking right where that's highlighted is already super full. It's overflowing on Hardman Way, almost all the way up the hill every night I see it. And so with extra parking happening there, that's just going to push back all the other cars along the whole neighborhood. Those two reasons are the things I wanted to bring up here. Thank you. Thanks.

Beautiful new building. My name's Lisa Hardman. I own property on the far north of the North Peace, right adjacent to Camp Williams and right before the gate, the road that goes to the water access. Anyway, one thing in the preservation of the area is that area currently is designated animal rights. And one of the things that we would like to preserve in the area is making it possible for people to have animal rights and have horses. The property I currently own there is historical. It is where the pioneers crossed the river. You can still see where the wagons crossed. It makes more sense not to create more traffic for the other side, but it does make more sense to move the ARUs over to the other side in order to preserve this north end, as they call it, but to preserve that property as well as the rights and, anyway, preserve that access. So that's my comment.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Dennis Beatty, and I am the HOA president in the Willow Point neighborhood. And I... Yeah, I want to start by making something clear. I'm not opposed to density at all. That's why I chose to live in Willow Point. I spent a year of my life living in various cities around Europe, and I actually really like density. That being said, one of the... One of the issues that I have with this is that I think that density needs to be planned and it needs to be really thought through. And as, I don't remember your name, but as was mentioned, the parking is one of the biggest issues that we deal with as an HOA. Every single HOA meeting, it's one of the things that we hear about the most, people complain about. We tried to speak with the city about trying to add more parking on our streets. One of the issues in our neighborhood is the grading in Willow Point was done such that many of the units have to have stairs in the garages that only allow for one car to be parked in the garage because of the length of those stairs. And because of that, many of the garages can then only fit one car. And many of those units only have a shorter driveway. And so there's no space in the driveways to park a vehicle either. And so many of the townhome units in Willow Point only have one off-street parking space. Because of that, we have two city streets. We have 4100... I have to think about directions here. 4100 West that cuts through the Willow Point neighborhood. And that one has, unfortunately, Google Maps does not have maps of it. If you look at Bing Maps, Bing Maps should have satellite images if you want. Thank you. Anyway, so 4100 North is always full, but because of visibility issues, the traffic engineer, Luke, recently painted the curbs red on one of the main corners in our neighborhood right next to our clubhouse. And so 4100 North no longer has much parking. And so now the other city street, Hardman Way, has cars parked basically all the way up the hill, as he was saying. You can see a lot of these during the day, but at night it really fills up. And so you can see kind of the pool for Willow Point there. 4100 North is the street just west of the pool. and so basically we've had a lot of issues with the parking and so Hardman Way west of Willow Point which is bordering this parcel that we're talking about adding 116 more units to is basically already used as kind of overflow parking for Willow Point but then across the street on Hardman Way you have condo complexes that Edge built as well and those condo complexes most of them have one garage space and then one driveway space and so when you have a unit that has more than two cars and or when one of the owners is storing things in their garage and only has the one space, you end up with the city streets being that overflow. And so basically what we're seeing is that our parking situation is already really bad. We've tried to do everything we could to work with the city to try and improve that. And basically what we've been told is because of the needs of fire engines to be able to turn around. There really isn't anywhere that we can add parking inside of our neighborhood. And so my biggest concern with adding more density in this area is that we're going to have these parking issues exacerbated even more. that the residents in the new neighborhood are going to have nowhere to overflow to that isn't already being used as overflow parking. And so I would support adding some density, but not to the degree that they're applying for.

Let me see.

Did I have anything else I wanted to say? Yeah, and also I did want to say too that this, I just heard about this last week. Our HOA board was asked to share a letter from Edge, and I really appreciate y'all reaching out to us about that. But I wish that we had been given a little bit more notice to be able to discuss it and to be able to talk to Edge, to be able to see if there was something we could do about including additional parking in the plan or something like that. In my mind, the arguments for this proposal have been so that we can preserve the nicety of this other parcel and just move that density over to this one. And in my mind, yeah, it's great to preserve that. but do we have to move those to this parcel to be able to do that? Could the developer not choose to forego some of those ERUs that they have over there to create a better situation for both sides? So, thank you. Thank you.

Thank you.

Anybody else would like to speak to this? Katie, would you mind going through the online comments?

Yes. Yeah, there was one in support, citing that they would rather have residential units instead of heavy commercial. And then there were six against, which were, again, for a lot of the same reasons that were shared here tonight, just concerns over traffic, parking, and infrastructure.

Thank you. Seeing no more comment, we will close the public hearing and invite the applicant back up.

As far as density is concerned, we are somewhere around 130 units is what we're proposing. I think the plan that you had in front of you was 168. There will be some uses that the ERUs would go to which are needed to facilitate commercial portion that will be done on the west portion of this property so the density would be um willow is somewhere around 16 we'd be somewhere around 10 units of the acre so the parking should be contained if that lends credibility to what we were proposing tonight i was hoping for clarification you'd mentioned the west side of this canal yeah would be commercial yeah

So really we're looking at all of these units on the east side of the canal. Is that correct?

Correct. Yeah, that's all we're talking about tonight is everything east of 2100. It's essentially landlocked with the canal. And Hardman and 2100. Everything else would be commercial.

The image that we saw earlier showed the entire parcel, but we're really only looking at a little less than half of that parcel, because the other half would be commercial.

Correct. Yes. The total acreage is 12?

For the residential portion.

Yeah, everything that's on the east side of the canal, I believe, is around 12.68 acres. Yeah, it's around 12. Yeah. So we're proposing the 130 units. And the balance of the ERUs would be transferred to the other portion for uses that require a little bit higher ERU usage.

Any other questions for the applicant? Or was there anything else you heard that you wanted to address?

Okay.

Thank you. Thank you. Further discussion? Deliberation?

So can the – this isn't a site plan. This is just a request for a development agreement, right?

It's an interview of the amendment to the area plan.

It's an amendment to the development agreement.

To the development agreement.

So can the city council require more parking on the – when they come with their plan, can that be part of the development agreement?

Amendment? It could be, yeah. Development agreements are very fluid. And they could put that in, yeah. Got me screwed there.

Development agreements are just a negotiation between the property owner and City Council but what it comes down to but that comes with your recommendation with the public input That's been here tonight As far as my input or feedback I appreciate bringing more units closer to commercial and

I know we often try to avoid that in different parts of the city, but when we're in a more dense situation, I like the idea of bringing more units closer to that, which should potentially cut down on further trips and cars, et cetera, in theory. That's the intent or the idea. Similar to someone discussed living in Europe. It's often discussed that Europe brings a lot of commercial opportunities closer to the residents. So I do like that. I worry about the precedence of just moving it around. We've done this before with this same development agreement where they were moved or changed in the past as well. So there's a history of this type of a request. I don't love that part of this, to be honest. I wish there was more foresight and thought and knowledge put into it before because there was a lot of There's been a lot of planning that has gone into this area. But obviously, I don't need to tell you, right? You guys understand that very clearly. So I don't love that we're looking at changing it again. But I also understand that things change. And yeah, so I see pros and cons.

A couple of thoughts I had. I love the idea of protecting your land up there, that river crossing. That's important that we remember that and what happened up there. I'd love to come up and see the wagon ruts. So if I'm swimming while wading across the river, don't shoot me. Because I try to golf as much as I can, but anyway. So I love that part. And I would love to see this area not have those short, little, stubby driveways. I know that's outside of what we're talking about right now, just moving the units. But in the future, hopefully we can get away with it. Because we all store our stuff in our garages and park on the street or in our driveways. So if we can somehow stay away from the short, little, stubby driveway, it would be great. But I know that's outside.

I don't know if this would help with that. I think this might hurt the agenda, to be honest.

Question for staff, just to make sure I'm getting this, I'm able to visualize this. So one ERU is equivalent to one, sorry, one residential unit is equivalent to one ERU. So as you're showing here on the screen, I'm equating one townhome to one ERU. Correct. That's accurate. Yeah, please.

That is correct, except like on the commercial use, for us to do a hotel on the corner, like a Hyatt hotel, that's calculated differently. So to do like a 100-room hotel, we would use 31 ERUs on that corner. And Mr. Maddox alluded to, there are uses on the west side in the commercial area that we're trying to do that require us to move these units over And we really think by doing something like a hotel there, it helps the retail pop and fill in. So the canal is a natural buffer. We can't do anything about it. It's there. And then there's a hillside. And so, yeah.

Are there any intentions to bury it?

No, I don't even think we're allowed to bury it. You would know that. Yeah. It's quite a steep pitch up that hill to that canal.

Do you by chance know, or staff, do you by chance know how many ERUs are just in that block section west of the clubhouse? So just that one block that's being shown here on the screen. Would that be like 100 ERUs?

Like right here?

A little bit bigger, so north as well.

Oh, this?

Yep, that, yep. I don't know how many... I mean, a guess, would that be like 100?

I can pull it up here in just a second.

Thank you. The density there is almost 15 units more per acre than what we are proposing. So when we're talking about parking and open space. When we designed Willow, part of the design there was to front homes on the streets, which creates alleyways, which is kind of a double road situation. So that's why we went away from some of those driveways. In hindsight, probably really nice aesthetically, probably not the best as far as parking is concerned. So we will work with staff on coming up with a site plan that's more harmonious, but we also have more land to work with and more parking would be allowed in that because the density is reduced significantly and we're still held in the same open space. So I think parking will mitigate itself just based on density. Awesome. Thank you.

Yeah, that's what I was getting at, just trying to better understand how dense it would be compared to the surrounding areas.

To answer your question, that block there has 161 units. And I have talked to the canal company about piping that ditch before. They're open to it, but you've got to come up with some money. Yeah.

But it's not a cheap project for sure. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions, comments, concerns, feelings?

I'm sorry. Can I just clarify one thing because it's come up a couple times tonight? So when this development agreement came through originally, it not only set up designated ERUs for each area, but it also set up specific zoning for each parcel. And so when we're looking at this parcel in particular, this is actually designated as commercial with a high-density residential overlay. So our zoning map says heavy commercial, but this development agreement overrides it and it's actually commercial with the overlay. I just want to clarify that. Thank you.

And Katie, forgive me, we've talked through a lot of numbers here at this point. want to make sure I'm clear on Kim's comment in the DRC's he seemed to be taking issue with the the count of units sounds like you've been in the nitty-gritty on that though is is this old did Kim not follow what was

Yeah, so when this came through DRC, I just had the question of where that 124 ERUs was coming from. Because in our calculations, the armory piece that we're talking about transferring down had 119. But Steve Maddox explained that it was about five units left over from the IHC development, the primary children's development, that they're kind of pulling and putting in this calculation. Okay. Is that accurate?

Clarify I mean the the armory doesn't have any er use units. They were never given any er you units They don't own any er units there. They weren't required to their federal their federal entity and so forth When the Hardman's exchange parcels, no ER units were included in the transaction. And we've given copies to the city of those contracts. So I think there's just some confusion on that point.

Just for clarity, I think the 119 is what? parcel they traded. So the 119 were transferred to the parcel that they gained in trading the armory. But the armory didn't gain anything, or the Hardins didn't lose anything.

Well, there's 200 units on the north side, and so we're just asking for 124 to be transferred to the other side, so 76 would remain.

Thank you. Did I misspeak, or was that accurate?

That was accurate, yeah. Thank you.

I'm ready to make a motion.

Unless you want to keep talking.

Go ahead, please.

I'd love to hear it. Item 3.7, public hearing and recommendation of Gardner Plum Group's request for review of an amendment to the Gardner Plum Development Agreement requesting to transfer 124 equivalent residential units from the northern portion of the development agreement to the southern. I move that we give a positive recommendation to the city council with the findings that the proposed development agreement amendment aligns with the goals and policies of the general plan. And please include all DRC comments.

Do I need to be more specific about where those units are going? Or is it already kind of implied?

Is it in the thing? You can just say from the north to the south.

Yeah, the development agreement defines what the south is, so as long as it's within that.

But are we trying to define that it goes specifically to the parcel that we've been discussing, or are we comfortable with it being anywhere in the south?

You could recommend the specific parcel if you wanted. That's something that could be.

Forgive me, I don't think that development agreement is necessarily, it's not contrary to a general plan, but it is an agreement specifically to kind of, Circumvent the general plan.

I just I'm not saying I mean we're looking at this one spot, right is that in the Specifically put it in there Either the council could say we'll approve this if you put on this parcel or they request it and everybody agrees and it's okay, but The property is almost completely built out so I

We're just requesting that it goes from the north to the south side. This is the only parcel that we're allowed to do residential for-sale product on, according to the zoning that the property has. So there's no other place we can put it. We are asking that it goes just from the north to the south. So we have the option on the west commercial property to do a hotel on the corner.

thank you so the zoning per the development agreement is in alignment with the general plan at this point because we were discussing earlier portions where it's different from general plan um yeah the majority let me see if the map is working that that's where my my question is coming in about

And I guess to his point, de facto, by moving it to the south, there is just that one left that has the R3 overlay. So it would de facto go to that parcel.

Yeah, sorry, my map is not working. But the majority of the properties along this 2100 North corridor there, like right here, there's this piece that is zoned commercial. However, all of Willow Point and this portion here are zoned heavy commercial. With the overlay? What? With the overlay? So that is our city zoning, is that it's zoning it as heavy commercial. But the development agreement overrides that and designates this specific property that they're looking at transferring those units down to as having commercial with the residential overlay.

So it's legal, but in contradiction with the general plan. I don't see that as a negative thing. That's exactly what the development agreement is meant to do, is it can override the general plan.

Yeah, and that's how this has been since 2015.

So we don't need to specify in my motion, I don't need to specify where they can move these ERUs. Just from the north to the south.

Because the ERUs, they apply to both residential and commercial. You don't need to specify which area. except the north and the south.

Nicole, if you wouldn't mind addressing parking, I'd like to make sure that city council's thinking that parking traffic, which residents have spoken to, I just want that addressed within the motion.

Yeah.

I'm sorry. You're trying to make a motion.

No, can we add it? You said it.

What's that?

Sure. My motion addresses the that the parking in the now Willow Point, thank you, will have adequate parking so that residents don't have to park on the street.

Yeah, there'll probably be a lot of parking on the street, just adequate parking.

Adequate parking, period.

second motion in a second all in favor any opposed thank you I'm gonna ask for a quick two-minute recess yes please please step away I make a motion that we have a two-minute second three minutes let's let's say yeah all right second all in favor aye any opposed

Mr. Jackson to come back up here. Thank you Katie let's go on to 3.8

Public hearing and recommendation of Lehigh City's request for review of a comprehensive development code amendment to chapter 23, signs, updating requirements, and simplifying the text. This update comes after noticing there are several conditional uses required as part of the signs chapter. And after local companies and the planning commission have pointed out issues within the chapter, that required further examination, including tonight.

Who's done that?

This update seeks to simplify the approval process and have less signs requesting exceptions. The DRC reviewed the proposal and had no comments. This is a legislative item. The Planning Commission will make their recommendation to the City Council, and they will make the final decision. This is a public hearing item. There were no online comments for this item, so it turned back to the Commission for any questions.

Can you give us the highlights of exactly what you've changed?

There's a lot of highlights. There's a lot. I see a lot of red. Yeah, we have decided to remove the definitions and move them into Chapter 39, the definitions chapter. Let's see. We removed a lot of redundancies across the entire chapter. We removed exemptions pretty much across the board. Let's see. Yeah, we just kind of changed some definitions around as well, like civic institution signs were exempt from permitting requirements, but we figured they should actually be uphold into our regular permitting requirements. So yeah, those are kind of like the high-level highlights.

We didn't tighten up on pylon signs, right? Just making sure I read this right.

One thing we do have is we removed the conditional use from the pylon that meets the code, but if you ask for a toler exception pylon, then you have to go through conditions. So there's a little bit more incentive to meet the code with that.

When was the last time a pylon sign came in that didn't ask for an exception?

The 12th East, just south of S-192. There's a pylon there that's like 25 feet.

The date was 2016. That's when, not where, Mike.