Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Item 3.5, which is the Traverse Mountain Area Plan, has been postponed for this meeting. It will go to the next meeting. However, if there are people here that have come to speak to this item, we still want to hear you and give you the opportunity to be heard. And so we will be rearranging our agenda a little bit. We will be moving. Do we need a motion to move that? I will entertain a motion to move item 3.5 to the beginning of our agenda.

Motion to move item 3.5 to the beginning of the agenda.

Second. Motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. At this point, we will open the public hearing for item 3.5, which is the Traverse Mountain Area Plan Amendment. If there's anybody that came to speak to this item, we invite you to come speak to it at this time. If anybody is here to speak to item 3.5, which is the Traverse Mountain Area Plan Amendment, if anybody would like to speak to that item, this is your chance. We'll open the public hearing now. Seeing none, we will close that public hearing. That item will be on our next agenda, at which point it will be presented for a vote.

Do you want to make a motion to table it to the next meeting? Yes.

I'll make a motion to table item 3.5 for our next meeting. Second.

Second.

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

I probably should have asked this before you made the motion, but all the public comments that were submitted online, I guess you could do the public hearing at the next meeting as well. Okay.

Yes. Okay. We did skip around the consent agenda. We'll take a motion on that.

I have a couple items for the consent agenda.

Okay.

On item 3.7 on the consent agenda, Steve Maddox, his name is spelled incorrectly. I think in the On the notes, it's spelled Maddings, and it's Maddox, M-A-D-D-O-X. And also 3.11, there's a typo in the motion where it says he, and it should be the. So the T was forgotten somewhere. There's a lost T out there, and it needs to be found. Other than that, I move that we accept the consent agenda.

second motion and a second all in favor aye any opposed Tisha did you get all that I can see you barely okay all right we will move forward to the regular agenda now and turn time to Jacob

Oh, and I guess maybe just in case anybody's here for this item as well, 3.2, the eight-foot fence for Schumann Homes also has to be withdrawn, not tabled.

Okay.

I don't think there's any. If anybody's here for that, they won't be here and not coming back. Okay. Item 3.1 is public hearing and consideration of JDH's, JDH Development's request for approval of the Vivian Estates 5B preliminary subdivision. including 10 single-family lots located approximately 600 East and 300 East. This was tabled at your last meeting. There's no updates that were made since getting tabled. I think part of the reason for tabling it was the applicant was not present and you had some questions. So beyond that, it's still 10 single-family lots that meet the RA1 requirements. And with that, I'll turn it over to the Planning Commission for any questions.

Is the applicant present? Would you like to come forward and share more about your project?

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Nasha Franco, and I am here representing JDH Development for this subdivision PLATS preliminary approval application. So in front of us, we have a piece of ground that is right next to Dry Creek. And we are proposing 10 lots, which is actually lower density than what the acreage would ask for. So the lots are bigger than the minimum size. And we have several lots that abet up against Dry Creek. And then we have some lots that are across the street, as you can see. Part of the annexation agreement in 2017 for this area was that we would, the developer would put this public trail along Dry Creek behind some of these lots, behind lots 512, 511, 510, 509, and dedicate that to Lehigh City. And in return for that trail, the city allowed there to be engineering and work done on the grading for this area. Because as we all know, it's pretty steep as you go down into there. And so the city and the landowner felt that was a pretty good trade-off for the lots to be put into this area. And so as part of this, we know that there is an urban wildland fire interface. I'm sure I just botched that. But it means that there's a lot of forage in this area, as you can see, and that there is an elevated fire risk here. And so as part of the plot, In those areas that Lehigh City has helped us designate as kind of higher fire risk areas, we are putting on the plot that those homes need to have outdoor fire sprinklers. So then anyone that buys this lot, it's going to show up in their title search that yes, if you buy a lot here and you build here, you need to have the appropriate outdoor fire sprinklers just to mitigate that hazard. And so we've worked really closely with planning on this and all the other DRC comments. When it comes to the grading and the slopes, part of the Hillside Preservation Code says that as long as you have an engineering analysis that's worked through with the engineer and the city council, then the slopes can be disturbed. And so we are working on that. We don't have a final vision of what that could be, but we're very aware of that, and we want it to be something that the landowners and the city can be proud of moving forward. I'm trying to think with slopes, the fire hazard. We also have a sewer that's coming through this area. This may be some of your questions. In the packet that you have, we have sewer coming down 300 East, and then it cuts through these lots that are abutting up against Dry Creek and the future trail. Oh, perfect. This green line that you can see, the sewer cuts through. lots 510 and 511. It gets to the back of those lots, and then we have it under the public trail, and then it's going to go out and connect with Lehigh's system. What we're working through right now with Gary and his team is how to make sure Lehigh City can have really good access behind those lots so they can bring in their equipment, maintain anything. We're working on sizing for that, but we're very optimistic. We're going to figure out how to make sure Lehigh City can always have access through there. Those are the main points I wanted to hit.

What questions do you have? Any questions for the applicant?

One of the comments from the water and sewers provider, Hammerhead Turnaround, for the big vac truck, is that along the trail that they're requesting that, or is that along 300?

So what's kind of unique about this is we have dry creek that kind of divides this preliminary subdivision plot from another phase that's not shown here. And so how do I? OK, so how I'm going to explain this is so this green line that cuts down behind the lots, if you keep going to the left on your image or west, that's where it crosses Dry Creek. And then on the other side, it picks up and goes out, keeps going west, and connects to the system. What we're designing right now is we're trying to figure out, do we have turnarounds, like hammerhead turnarounds, on each side of Dry Creek where that pipe goes over? Or do we want to have a straight through road and bridge over the top? Those are the things that we're working on with Lehigh City. Because we're trying to figure that out with lot size, make sure we have appropriate frontage. That's what our team is working on right now. And so we are very conscious of that. We're not sure if it's going to be turnarounds on either side of Dry Creek, or if it's just going to be a bridge. And if we do a bridge, is that going to be the bridge the public uses? How do we keep them safe? We're working through all of those things. Sounds good. Thank you.

If I remember from the last time, one of the concerns was the residents that are just south, as you kind of hit up that hill there, about them tying into the sewer.

Do you guys remember that? Yeah, I remember that one.

Are they going to be able to do that, or is that an option? It looks like the sewer is going to split off to the west before it gets to those residences. I think mainly especially the one that's on the east side of that road as you just kind of go up to the turn.

Yeah. We've done the engineering so far so that all of the lots in this subdivision that you can see on this map, and including lots 501 and 502, they're kind of in the bottom right-hand portion of this. We've engineered it so far where we can get sewer figured out for all of these lots, and we're still in ongoing discussions about, okay, could we extend the pipe here, extend the pipe here to make it work? We're still in the engineering of that, but I haven't heard no yet from our engineers. So that's where we're at currently. It's all tied into this sewer of how do we size it right? How do we angle it right to get it across Dry Creek? How do we work with the grading on this? They're just kind of connected at the hip until we get more into the engineering analysis after the preliminary approval.

Okay.

Thank you.

So I hate to like half answer it, but I'm acknowledging we're working on it.

Yeah, which is great. I think the citizen that was here, that was his concern. He just wanted an off. That might be an option. Could he do that? Because they're just right on the south end of your property.

Exactly. They're really close. If this goes forward, they're going to be so close. It's a no-brainer.

So we're working on it. Thank you.

You're welcome.

Any other questions for the applicant? We may have more in a moment, but you can sit down for a moment. Oh, OK.

Sounds good.

We did a public hearing on this, but we will open the public hearing again and invite anybody here in the public that would like to speak to item 3.1 to come up and speak at this time. Seeing none, we will reclose the public hearing and bring it back to the commission for further discussion or a motion.

I'll make a motion if we're ready. Item 3.1, public hearing and consideration of JDH 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. I move that we give approval. With the findings that the proposed subdivision includes dedicating Dry Creek and a trail to Lehigh City as well as park space, the proposed subdivision meets the requirement of the Lehigh City Development Code in regards to subdivision approvals. And please include all DRC comments.

Second. Motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Aye. Thank you. 3.3? Yeah, 3.3. 3.3. Okay.

Item 3.3, public hearing and consideration of Mike Green's request for approval of a conditional use permit for the green flag lot located at 2001 West, 1500 North. This is a fairly straightforward flag lot. Both of the lots will meet the R-122 requirements. And with that, I'll turn it over to the Planning Commission for any questions.

Any questions for staff? All right. Is the applicant present? We invite you to come up and give us a little more insight on your project here. What would you like to know, I guess?

You got some questions?

Any questions for the applicant?

It's pretty straightforward. What was your name, by the way? Mike Green. Mike Green. Yeah, it seems pretty straightforward.

I'm assuming you live in the front?

I do, yeah.

In that front home there?

Yeah.

And are you a dozen there? All right.

Well, thank you for being here. Thank you. Looks like we have no questions at this time. Thank you. Excuse me, this is a public hearing. If anybody is here to speak to item 3.3 and would like to do so, we invite you to do so now. Seeing none, we will close the public hearing, and I'll entertain a motion.

I motion let's see I move sorry I Move that we approve The proposed conditional use and site plan for item 3.3 The proposed use will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements to the vicinity the proposed will be located and conducted in a manner of compliance with the goals and policies of Lehigh City General Plan and the purpose of this code, that the property on which the building or other structure is proposed to be established is of adequate size and dimensions to permit construction of facilities and conduct of the use in such a manner that it will not be detrimental to the adjoining properties. And I move that we include all DRC comments.

Second.

Motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? All right. Moving right along.

3.4. 3.4. It's a busy night for flag lots. So this is public hearing and consideration of Nathan McBride's request for conditional use approval of a flag lot located at 1175 East, 900 North in the RA1 and R18 zones. So the front, the existing lot, is zoned R18, and then the back of the lot is that RA1 zone, the third acre lot zone. The access would be onto 1200 East for the flag stem through the existing access. The large lot, or the back lot, is a little bit interesting. It's narrow and long, which limits the construction options somewhat. So the applicant proposes to face the house south part of that, which is okay. So anyways, with that, I'll turn it over to the Planning Commission for any questions.

Any questions for staff? This one's a little unique. Yeah. Right?

Yeah. Usually you'd see the access come, you know, through, I guess, facing south past the existing lot or the existing home, but in this case, the access was available and engineering was okay with it.

Great. The access is across the public use.

utilities Right is that what it's public utility easement and flying a lot access So cities okay with that it feels good yeah, I think that's indicating that the flag stem portion is a public utility easement and Technically according to the code it is yeah, okay So those aren't gonna be separate driveways then Sorry the access is

Just went out of focus, sorry. The access is going to be right next to that driveway on 1200 East, is that right?

That is correct, yes. In the event that utilities need to be dug up, how do they access there?

There won't be any public utilities in there. It is just labeled as a PUE space in there so that they can get the utilities back to the flag lot. Understood.

Is the applicant present? Nathan, I presume? That's correct. All right. Is there anything else you wanted to add or any?

No. I think just the only other piece of color, which I think Jacob had touched on, is the orientation of the home. The south facing is really kind of twofold. First, they keep kind of a more traditional front entrance, larger rear lot. If it was any other orientation, they'd be two kind of fragmented side yards, which would just be kind of a quirky layout. And then in addition to that, having kind of the primary orientation being the south for the front, north for the rear, it keeps all the main viewpoints within the lot versus having the home face neighboring properties or whatever it might be. So no, no other questions.

Any questions for the applicant?

How wide is the parcel? It's about 100 feet. 100 feet? Yep.

We'll invite the public in a moment. Great. Any other questions for the applicant? Thank you. Thanks. This is a public hearing. We do invite anybody from the public that would like to speak to this item to come up and speak now.

I'm Chris Briggs. I live on 925 North and 1200 East. When you look at the nature of the plats of the neighborhood, they're all long, deep agricultural lots, three, two farther behind his lot that he's trying to subdivide. And the people who presently own it bought it as a speculative interest. And he's under contract as a speculative interest. And I don't know if it's going to be me or the lot to the south who will lose their view of the mountains. But someone's going to lose their view of the mountains for him to speculate on a piece of property. And that's not how the neighborhood is oriented presently. It's agricultural lots behind us. Three deep agricultural lots. So it's going to be intensely disruptive to how everyone sees the neighborhood now. Everyone knows everyone. I just learned of something today, just talking to people in the neighborhood to make sure everyone knows what's going on with this attempted subdivision. And there was a lost baby in the neighborhood. Everyone knows everyone. And it's a tight-knit community. And I think this will be disruptive. And I also want to restate, this is presently owned by a speculative interest based in San Francisco, a family trust, Ann Hong Trust, LTD, whatever. I just looked at the the recorder's office. And they've owned it since 2024 and kind of shifted around between the trust and family members. But it was bought as a speculative interest, and he's attempting to buy it as a speculative interest. And it's going to shift the dynamics of our neighborhood a lot. So I'm hoping that you guys will reject his proposal to subdivide this from the existing house, number one, because it was once a farm lot, and it should remain as a farm lot. And the second item, I don't think they've checked on the engineering, because no one on 1200 East has plumbing in their basement in our section of the neighborhood. because of the drops of the waste. So I don't think he's going to functionally be able to make the waste without making bellies. I don't want to smell sewage. No one in the neighborhood wants to smell that. And I don't know if it's gone through engineering. And if it had? Someone would have put that probably in their proposal, and I don't think it has gone through engineering effectively to make sure the drops are going to happen. Standard houses now, they're like three stories, and it's definitely going to push the interest to get their square footages above ground. It's going to be a monstrosity that's 40 feet tall that blocks probably two houses, mine and my neighbor to the south. So I'm not very interested in having this thing happen. So, I mean, it's basically the gist of what I have to say.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anybody else that would like to speak to this item?

My name is Val Tucker. We live on the north end of that lot, that pasture. There's a lot of sentimental value in that property for many of us who live around that area. That property was originally in my wife's family three generations ago. We would like to see it used for a family need, for example, a child, grandchild, someone who needs a home to be able to use that if it's going to be a flag lot. We realize we don't have any control over that. We do have a couple of concerns because of the animals that are on the west side of that property. We have horses and livestock there. They would need to have a fence. We'd be interested to know what the proposal is for that as far as fencing that property. There is a tree, a giant elm tree, That's about halfway down that on the west side between the Christofferson property and this proposed development. We would propose that that not become an expense to the Christoffersons. If that tree has to be removed, it ought to be removed by whoever owns that lot and develops it. We also are always frustrated with the amount of traffic on 1200 East. We don't think it's a good idea to have that narrow driveway with a cement block wall on the south side for people to pull in and out of that. If it is developed, a home goes in there. Those people are coming out onto 1200 East within, probably less than 100 feet of the intersection, and that road is so busy, the traffic is, the speed limit is ignored on 1200 East. There are a lot of things like that that affect it, and we're concerned about it. Thank you.

So public hearing, it's not a back and forth. We just listen to you.

OK.

Thank you. Did you have anything else you wanted to add?

Well, I've probably forgotten what I was supposed to say. We've got a group down here of us, those of us who live on that surrounding property, who would be affected by it. And maybe some of them would like to take a minute.

They're more than welcome to.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Gina Christofferson. I just wanted to just ask one question. So this property is landlocked, right, except for an easement. So when you buy a piece of property that has a certain zoning on it, those things are allowed for that particular zoning. So without changing the zoning, it's not an option to put a home there. Is that correct?

Public hearing, we don't go back and forth. We hear your questions, and then we'll address them at the end. Oh, OK. All right.

So basically, that's the question. This probably cannot be approved without changing the zoning. So when somebody buys a piece of property, they have the right to build or use that land as the property is designated for that zoning. So without changing it, this wouldn't even be on the table. So there has to be a change. So I agree that people have a right to use their property the way it's zoned. But when you start changing zoning to meet the needs of a developer or a landowner without consideration of how that affects everyone else, I just don't see that that is the thing to do. Thank you.

Anyone else would like to speak to this item?

Hi, guys.

My name's Mawani Burke. I live at 1155 East, 900 North, which is just next door to the property in question. To give a little history on this property, like they had mentioned, this is actually a Hutchings home, like from the Hutchings Museum home. And this is the home that he originally lived in when he started the museum. And in Lehigh, we're very proud of our history. We're very proud of our history here. And I think that it's very important to keep this little piece as is. It is landlocked. There is a very tight-knit community here. It is very difficult to go in and out, up until Arthur and Lisa Pan. bought the property six years ago with intentions to move in and retire there. I am very well versed. I know exactly what has happened. I know that Lehi struggled with the permits for the remodel of the main home, but they worked it out, but he isn't going to keep it, and now he's selling it because he can't, whatever he's doing. But I just, I really... It's a high concern. I think it's dangerous for people to be coming out of that little skinny driveway, like they had mentioned, the sewer issue. And Arthur and Lisa could tell you that they had very many sewer problems in the main home themselves, which hopefully got fixed with the permitting and the remodel that they did. It's very quiet. It's a nice, quiet area. I have five children that walk to school between the... They go to Sky Ridge, and they go to Lehigh Junior, and they go to Sago Lily. And I would love to see another family move in there and use it for what it was intended on with the goats that they used to have back there and the horses and the farm stuff that just really brings this community back to its roots and isn't just another development. It's just another big house going in. And... messing with the dynamics and the space that we have left of land in Lehigh.

Thank you. Anybody else that would like to speak to this item? Seeing none, we will close the public hearing and invite the applicant back up. You're given an opportunity to address anything that you've heard?

Certainly. Well, I do appreciate the comments and everyone coming out here. And I think it's an indicator of a good, strong neighborhood. And I think that's kind of the intention, is to try to add another home into the neighborhood, to be part of this community that is so strong. And I respect that. I think just a couple items that came up, the first being height-related issues. There is, with the RA zoning, there is a two-story max. So there is already limitations in place to account for the RA zoning, residential agriculture. As it relates to the fence on the west side, agreed. There are animals on that west side. And the intention here behind keeping the RA in place is so that the owner of this home could have animals and have it be equestrian or other farm animals there on the lot. And so as part of the proposal, there is a six-foot fence put in place on that west side already contemplated for the separation of those potential animals that would exist. As it relates to zoning, there is no zoning change proposed here. It is just a subdivision, no change in zoning. And that's all the responses I have. Anything else I can answer for the commission? Any other questions for the applicant?

Did you address the sewage?

Sewage, so a topographic study has been done. The grade is relatively minimal. So in the instance that there is plumbing that goes into the basement, there will likely have to be some sort of pump or other sort of system put in place per code, nothing abnormal. odd, but that may be a consideration. This is only a CUP meeting, so when the engineering and it kind of continues down that road, we'll certainly learn a lot more, and that'll be a very involved and a process that we're all part of.

Any other questions for the applicant? Okay, thank you. Thanks. I have a couple of questions for staff, particularly engineering. Obviously, we're not seeing a site plan. Can you speak up? Yeah, we are not seeing a site plan tonight. This is a subdivision, which is what we're seeing. However, there have been some questions that came up that I think are relevant, particularly about sidelines on entering and exiting the property through that drive aisle.

um there was a mention of a cement wall etc has engineering evaluated the sight lines and the capability of a viable driveway access there so first of all on the fence or the cement wall where it's there that they claim to be sight distance when this comes through for a site plan that would be looked at for sight distances through there and it may need to be cut down to the three foot but a certain setback distance. But that would be caught at the site plan. As far as access, it's the same owner that owns this. It's not just an easement or access easement through there. It's all the same owner that owns this piece. So it wouldn't need an easement there. But it's all part of the same parcel, or two different parcels, I think. But at least it's all owned by the same person. So they wouldn't need an easement to get through there. And as far as the sewer is concerned, I don't have access right here to how deep the sewer is through there along 1200 East, but there are homes north and south of here that have connected to that line there. I don't know exactly how the grading is and through there. If the sewer line's not very deep, they may not be able to have a basement with plumbing in it. They might be able to just have to have it on the main floor and second floor. There's areas in the city that have that. They can't have basements and sewer flow out of it. It has to come from the main or upper floors. So I think they probably could make the sewer work in one way or another and not have to have a septic system at all.

Any other questions for staff? What is the max height of a home that can go in there?

It is two stories. What does that mean?

Fifty-forty-five.

who's answering this question for me please keep it down out there thank you yeah I can even pull up the chart if that'd be helpful yeah yep yeah so you're looking at this re one zone it's two stories or max 35 feet So I guess that's the answer to your question. It's OK if I just mention a couple other things that I heard. The six-foot no-climb, agricultural no-climb fence is required. So that would be caught with the site plan. We, again, just haven't seen the site plan yet with the fully engineered plans. We do allow flag lots in every zone. I think that's probably just a good thing to point out. And because it's such a big lot, as long as you can meet the size requirements, We are legally required to approve it. And so that's kind of the situation you're in, I guess. So anyways, I thought I'd just add those two things.

There was a zoning question.

Oh, in the zoning? What is the zone like actually currently here? So the front part of the lot is R18, and it will still meet the R18 standards, even with the split. And then the back half of the lot, or back three-quarters of the lot, is RA1, which is that third acre lot requirement.

And so... And how big is the proposed lot?

Yeah, the proposed lot, I'm pretty sure... Oh, it's like 82 feet wide. Thank you. Yeah, he's got it at 1.27 acres.

1.27 acres. So well above the minimum for this lot.

And he'll have to work within the confines of setbacks. I mean, that's the thing with a flag lot. You're allowed to have the reduced street frontage, but you still have to work, again, within the confines of what the setbacks are for the zone. I think he's going to run into some challenges with trying to fit home on on that property but that's his job to figure out not your job or necessarily my job that is not a consideration thank you for the question though sorry we've closed the public hearing any other questions for staff

Yeah, there are also two other parcels to the west that we're going to have the same kind of issue with potential access, skinny, long, skinny lots.

Yeah, I mean, that is a possibility. The issue is that with how those homes, without measuring this, you still have to have the 20 feet of drivable space on the side of the home to get the access back. With this one, There's not 20 feet on either side. And so that's, again, why that access is coming off of 12th East. I haven't measured those two lots next to it to see how much space you have between the garage and the property line. But they may not be able to do it because there might not be enough width.

Yeah, to me it looks like they'd have to go to the north. Yeah.

Any other questions for staff?

Yes, I have some thoughts. First of all, my heart goes out to you that live on 12th East during the pipeline, the traffic. I live a little bit further north of there, and I go 30 miles an hour on that road, and I can see the whites of the eyes of the people behind me. So I figure I'll go 25, and we'll become close friends. So my heart really goes out to you folks. And this one's difficult because it is the rights of the property owner. How do we protect the citizens that are there at the same time the rights of the property owner? And it is interesting to me that I guess the purchase of this property might depend on whether or not this is approved tonight. I don't know if that's a question we can ask, if it's in our purview.

It's not in our purview.

So I don't know where to go from there. We've approved other flag lots on 12th East. This one also concerns me because that drive aisle is so close to that intersection. Again, getting out of those homes right now, even before the construction of the pipeline, that close to the stoplight, no traffic gets backed up.

Any other thoughts? The sight line driving onto that doesn't concern me as much because there's already someone's property there. There's already a concrete wall on that south end with minimal sight lines, so please please don't address yeah sorry just closed i got you just explaining my thoughts on it especially when there's already a concrete wall on that south side of their drive aisle you know go ahead

concrete wall you mentioned that it might need to be taken down once you know if this moves on to the next phase is that the owner of both of these Lots owns that concrete wall or is that both wall belong to another lot and whose responsibility would that be actually not sure whose property that is

But that would have to be addressed and looked at for sure. You'd have to maybe work out a deal with the neighbor if it is the neighbor's wall. It looks like it probably is the neighbor's wall, yeah.

Yeah, okay. From that view, yeah. I was looking to the side. Sorry about that. No, you're good, you're good. You can continue.

Any other questions, concerns, comments? This is one that I don't love. I don't love it, but it does meet code. Our purview is to make sure that what happens in Lehigh meets the code. They're not asking for a zone change. They're not asking for variance here. I think this is going to be a very difficult lot to develop with the size constraints as far as the width of the lot. and the setbacks that they will have to meet per code. We are not evaluating a building. We do not have a building to evaluate. We are strictly evaluating the subdivision of this lot, which this is the process to do that. And they do meet all the requirements that our code is presenting, whether I like it or not. Sorry, we've closed the public hearing. Any other discussion? Or I would entertain a motion. Views are not a protected right. Should a development come forward, they would have to meet all of the code. How that gets done, that's between him and the adjacent landowners, as well as the code. They have to meet code. So if they're able to, they are absolutely within their rights to develop this land. If they are not able to, they are not able to develop this land.

I will make the motion that we move to approve item 3.4, public hearing consideration of Nathan McBride's request for conditional use approval on a flag lot located at 1175 East, 900 North, in the RA1 and R18 zones. That, where do we go here? What's the next spot I need to read? Oh, there we go. Move to approve the proposed flag lot meets the requirements for a flag lot conditional use. The proposed flag lot represents the only way to subdivide the property. The proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. Include additional findings and all DRC comments. A second?

Motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Nay. Did you get that, Tisha? Thank you. All right, we'll move forward to item, just as a reminder, item 3.5 has been tabled to the next meeting for any of you that arrived after we started here today. And we'll move on to item 3.6.

And just to clarify, 3.5 is the Traverse Mountain area plan in case you don't have the agenda.

Thank you for your input, and thank you for coming out.

OK. Item 3.6 is public hearing and consideration of Kairos Land Development's request for review of the Belmont Flex Suites condo plat condominiumizing building into 10 individual units located at 1552 North Boston Street. So there's already an approved site plan for the office warehouse building. But this proposal, again, like I said, proposes to subdivide it to 11 lots with individual ownership, or 10. Okay, I guess it's 10 lots, and then there's a parcel, A, which is the common area, so 11 lots. With that, I'll turn it over to the Planning Commission for any questions. Condominimizing is a fun word. Yeah, yeah, it is. I thought you made it up.

I would have had to spell check that one.

It's a real word.

Any questions for staff? All right, is the applicant present?

Good evening. Good to see you again. My name is Dustin Carr with Kairos Real Estate. Yeah, pretty simple request on this one, which I realized later that I should have done in the beginning. I thought I submitted the right application, and I didn't. So this was always our intent. We do intend to hold these buildings, but due to financing circumstances over time, we always set up our warehouses or really the majority of our developments with as much condominiumization as possible for the flexibility in the future of whatever needs we might have financially.

Don't support that that word is real.

so that's really all this is is just to split those up we don't have plans to sell them immediately but the the opportunity and flexibility of that is what we're looking for okay any questions for the applicant it looks like it's pretty easy to easy on me thank you very much everyone have a good night 3.6 this is a public hearing we would invite anybody in the public

who would like to speak to this item, we'll open the public hearing and invite you to speak now. Seeing none, we will close the public hearing. Bring it back for...

There was one comment on this one online. We will reverse that closing, reopen and read the comment. This maybe is a good question for legal, though. For a public comment, I think we're supposed to require that we're actually given a real name. They gave us the name John Doe. We actually have a similar issue on a later item where they just said a concerned resident. Can we legally accept a comment without a name?

That's a very good question. Thank you. I've always wanted to ask a good legal question.

Okay.

What does the comment say?

Yeah, the comment, yeah. I think it largely has to do with what would have been covered at the site plan. I think this person's concern was primarily about parking availability and like the impact of access to the property. I was going to say, I did send this over to you ahead of time. It does seem like their biggest issue is the parking. I guess I would say with the site plan, they met the parking requirements. I mean, it's a potential issue with almost any commercial business, right? Like if the commercial business is doing really well and is successful, are you getting more tenants and then you don't have enough parking? And ideally, they would just resolve that themselves, especially since they're going to maintain individual ownership over each of the suites. So anyways. But, yeah, that is the comment. I probably shouldn't have addressed it, but I did.

Any clarification? I've been informed by a venerable recorder, so they just need to provide a name, not necessarily their name. Okay. John Doe is okay.

Then we will accept that into the public comment. And then we will close the public comment. Any other discussion, questions, motions?

So can we discuss the parking just for a second? I'm sure nothing's there now, but I'm sure construction is being built, and we don't know what kind of businesses will go in there, what kind of parking will be necessary. We all know that there could be 10 retail companies that come along and they rent the same spot and they all want 10 spots for their cars. Is there a way for us to ensure that there will be adequate parking?

Parking is based off of square footage, not necessarily use case, correct?

Well, it is based off uses, but when this came through, it was approved as an office warehouse, so it would have had a set number. I can't remember off the top of my head. Dustin probably would know how many total parking spots this has, but they'll have to manage it. I mean... Yeah, it is a delicate balance, right? Because sometimes we don't know the exact use. You don't know if it's going to be a CrossFit studio or a focaccia place that comes in. And that would maybe need more parking. Or you might get an HVAC contractor who just needs one or two stalls. Yeah, it's hard to predict. You don't want to overpark it, but you don't want to underpark it. It's a tough balance.

Because this one's just plot approval, not site planning. Correct, yeah.

You're just looking at essentially taking the... one mega building and changing it to ten mini buildings.

Which I kind of like individual ownership. Yeah.

Any other questions for staff or amongst ourselves or a motion?

I will make a motion. All right. On item 3.6, public hearing and consideration of Cairo's land development's request for review of the Belmont Flex Suites condo plat. Condominium. Really? Turning this into a condominium complex. A building into. I'd like you to say the words. Making this 10 individual units by condominiumizing. Ridiculous. Condominiumizing.

At 1552 North Boston Street.

I move that we approve the condominium plant with the findings that the subdivision does meet the requirements of the development code. Please include all DRC comments. Second. Oh, James.

You got it.

Motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? All right. Thank you. Second. Thank you for bringing that word into our realm.

Item 3.7. Okay. Item 3.7, public hearing and consideration of Brent Ventura's request for approval of the Temple View Villas Platte B flag lot conditional use in preliminary subdivision approval for two single family lots located at 337 East Ohana Way in the RA1 zone. Yeah, both lots on this will meet the requirements of the RA1 zone, both over half an acre, which is kind of, I think, partially why they were looking at splitting it. And with that, I'll turn it over to the Planning Commission for any questions. Thank you, Jacob.

Any questions for staff? Was there, like, a request for flag lots this meeting? I guess so. It just happened, yeah. Okay. Is the applicant present?

I have the next item also.

Okay.

Yes, the request was actually two months ago. My contractor's been sitting on his hands for two months, excited to get done. We didn't want to finish the rest of the subdivision and pave the road and then come back and ask for two connections and cut the asphalt. So we're excited to get to that point. We've We've taken it to DRC and addressed the issues and brought in the fees and realizing we still had to come to this body and get approval. But everything's in place to do that should we get approval to move forward. So just excited to get these things done and get this subdivision finished. And I hope everybody here isn't for this item. I heard word on the street that someone thought we were coming in to request 20 units. I don't know where that came from, but we just want two more lots. So the original seven units that were approved three years ago. Any questions for the applicant?

Is there any, there's no connection between your development and the schools, correct?

No. No, not at all. Besides, it used to be their practice soccer field, and they sold it when the bond didn't pass. But no physical, actually, entry points and connections that way, no.

I know this might be off the rails a little bit, but is that the school that decides that? Is that the school district that doesn't want access?

Yes. They actually, during DRC comments years ago, they wanted a 15-foot corridor and back in there, and the principal wrote a letter and said, we have another gate over on this east side. We already keep it locked all the time. We don't want secret access points for random people to come into our school. Like students. It's just they want them coming into their entrance points, and that's it, not having to watch multiple points around the field.

Thank you.

Our connectivity standard doesn't require a pedestrian connection?

Are you talking about up to the school?

It would have, but they got an exception to not have that because the school weighed in. Got it. Okay.

Any other questions for the applicant? All right. Thank you. This is a public hearing. If anybody is here to speak to item 3.7, we will open the public hearing and invite you to speak now. Seeing none, we will close the public hearing. Actually, there is one public comment.

There is, yeah. Okay. Yes. That's from, is this 3.7? Okay, actually there's two comments. So first one's from a concerned neighbor. I guess that goes back to the other question. Is concerned neighbor a valid name versus John Doe?

I don't know that that's a name.

I mean, we are in Utah County. It could be. It could be.

could be only if you spell it with an X sure yeah I just wanted to be a little challenging do you want me to read it or do you want me to summarize summarize it please let me just quickly read through it then

I think this person, this concerned resident neighbor, is just generally concerned about In other words, forcing in two additional homes unnaturally into the new subdivision. They're worried about the traffic and the stress, and they'd like those lots to stay as one-acre lots versus having two half-acre lots on each of those former one-acre lots. But they just feel like it's an unnecessary change and extra density is being forced on them. So that's the first comment. Joanna Dixon submitted an e-comment as well, and I don't know if there was some sort of issue with the e-comments, but she thought the e-comments were removed or disappearing. I noted every e-comment that we got, so I'm not sure. Maybe Tisha would know more. But anyways, she is also feeling like this is smashing more homes into odd spaces, and it's only benefiting the developer.

We will close the public hearing. Thank you. Let's talk about density. Let's talk about the zoning. Obviously, this was approved for a certain amount of lots, which was, you know, we went through the process. Now, this is the new owner of the lot, not the developer of all of the lots, correct?

It actually is the same.

It is the same. It is the same. How do we do this? This feels like a sneaky circumvention.

I think originally, I'm trying to remember, they probably could have asked for this from the beginning. And, I mean, I don't want to put words in Mr. Ventura's mouth. It might be best for him to answer this. But I think part of... The concern was with the group that was buying and developing the subdivision, they wanted the larger lots. And then after the fact, things turned one way or the other, and maybe not everybody's involved anymore. And so the idea was to now go back and fix how it probably should have been or could have been from the beginning. I wouldn't say it's really sneaky. It's just necessarily something that they could have legally done from the beginning.

But they didn't.

But they didn't, yes. I guess that is always a qualifier. They didn't do it that way, but they could have.

I think with the design of this, you could have easily slid the cul-de-sac to the right and then had the seven lots that way.

I'm not trying to slander the developer. I don't believe there's anything underhanded happening here.

I see what you mean. It's weird. You expect one thing when you You live in the neighborhood, right? They didn't, not necessarily people that bought into the neighborhood that are complaining, but they maybe expected five, but now they're getting seven. But yeah, I guess at the end of the day, the lots still meet the zoning requirements and the density still is what is allowed in that area. So, yeah.

Any other questions, comments, concerns, deliberation, or a motion?

Oh, the new lots do, they're both half acres. They split that. And so they match what's in the existing, well, the other lots in the cul-de-sac. And then the lots on the back side to the east, they're third acres, about third acres. So they're still larger than those lots on the east side of them. So density, I mean, you're going to get the density anyway, but you're still going to have a half-acre lot, which is, don't we allow horses on a half-acre lot in Lehigh?

We do.

One. One. How about ostriches? Just wondering for friends.

I don't know. I don't know.

Those are exotic animals. There's a special process for that. Just curious. That's another meeting. maybe should have asked this from the beginning do you also want me to talk through 3.8 since it's connected so close to getting I know okay any other questions ready to make a motion item 3.7 public hearing and consideration of Brent Ventura's request for approval through

of the Temple View Villas Platte B flag lot, conditional use and preliminary division for two single-family lots located at 337 East Ohana Way in the RA1 zone. I move that we give approval for the request and with the findings that the proposed flag lot meets the requirements of the A1 zone and the flag lot requirements in Chapter 12. Please include all DRC comments.

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

Now we will move forward. Okay. Public hearing and consideration of Brent Ventura's request for approval of the Temple View Villas Platte C flag lot conditional use preliminary subdivision for two single family lots located at 326 East Ohana Way in the RA1 zone. Okay. So this is the southern big lot. Again, both lots still meet the RA1 requirements. These lots are just a little bit smaller, .45 and .47 acres, so not quite that half acre, but that's okay, just in case you were wondering. With that, I'll turn it over to the Planning Commission for if you have any questions, and there's the one public comment on that.

I was wondering if it was okay, so thank you, Jacob. Any questions for staff? Happy to clear up a little misconception.

It was actually approved for seven lots originally. I felt dirty. I sat on the city side so often that I felt dirty getting called the developer. Just the property owner, and it was Buddies, and they wanted an acre, and I used to make fun of them because it's ridiculous. I told them I'd drink a lemonade while they were mowing their lawns. So when the thing fell apart with the Buddies, I still want to build in that subdivision, so I needed to sell those lots. So we wanted to split it back. I wanted to split it back to seven that it was, and unfortunately we moved the road to where it's not convenient to have all the frontage that it was originally. So nothing sneaky.

the people that were there were in those meetings and they know it was approved for seven so I feel unfortunate for them in those comments but that that was the original approvals and I just I just want to get it done that's all understood any other questions for staff or sorry for the applicant thank you this also is a public hearing we will open the public hearing at this time and invite anybody that would like to speak to this item to do so now Jacob, do you want to address the public comment?

Yeah. This is also from Concerned Neighbor. I do appreciate this one brings up some different points. They mentioned that it looks like on, I don't know if this one, it must be on the county records, that it appears individuals have already purchased some of the lots in the new subdivision. So I guess this comment just wants to verify that those people know that this change is happening. And it's, again, something Mr. Venter is going to have to answer. And, again, kind of discontent. They feel like established neighbors were expecting one thing and they're getting another. But they also don't want any hard feelings with their future new neighbors. So, anyways, that's what that comment says. Thank you.

We will close the public hearing. I guess my first question is noticing. How was this noticed? If neighboring parcels that were not developed but are still there, how are they notified of this item legally? I guess Tisha may have some insight to that as well.

I mean, planning would probably have some details on this as far as letters that went out. It was a public hearing, but I don't know what your requirements are for those letters.

Yeah, the 300 feet public noticing. 300 feet. Yeah.

But what if the parcels are not developed? They're just owned by somebody who lives somewhere else, but they own it. How do they get notified?

How do they get mailed? They go to the mailing address that is on the county. So, I mean, yeah, Brennan-Turow owns these two lots, but, for example, the Williams and the – Lingwalls and the, those are the two that live in those other two lots. If whatever their mailing address is showing, I mean, I could click in, but maybe I won't do that since we're in this meeting. Sure. Whatever they've got as their mailing address is where it would go. So if that mailing address is in California or Timbuktu or Harriman, it would get a letter sent there.

So we are willing to put on record that we followed the notification process that we are held to.

The city sent the letters based on the envelopes we were given by the applicant, and we double-checked the list of the people that it's supposed to be sent to.

Okay.

Thank you, Jacob. I guess, yeah, again, you never know if the mailing address has been updated by the people that live in those lots, but there's only so much we can do as a city based on the information that we're given.

Okay, thank you. Yep. Applicant, you are able to address anything you heard from the public comment if you would like.

It sounded to me like the question was that some of those lots were sold, and they are. When we recorded the plat, lots 1, 4, and 5 were legal lots. They weren't being split. And there are people that have bought them and are excited to build, and every one of them is aware of all the splits, and they're all excited that there's going to be 18 kids in the cul-de-sac. It's anywhere from 0 to 15 years old, and they don't know each other, but they know of each other.

Okay.

Yeah. And I think that's what they're referring to is those were sold after the notifications were probably given and recorded, but they're well aware. I'm in touch with them weekly. Understood. Thank you.

Any further discussion or a motion?

I will make the motion. Item 3.8, public hearing and consideration of Brent Ventura's request for approval. Temple View Villas Platte C flag lot, conditional use in preliminary subdivision for two single family lots located at 326 East Ohana Way in the RA-1 zone. I move that we approve the proposed flag lot as it does meet the requirements of the RA-1 zone and the flag lot requirements in Chapter 12. And please include all DRC comments.

Second.

Motion and a second. All in favor?

Aye.

Many opposed. Thank you. Moving forward to 3.9. Okay.

Item 3.9 is public hearing and recommendation of lehigh city's request for review of the nancy walker development agreement on 2.581 acres of property located at 915 west state street allowing certain restricted heavy commercial uses on the property and other site restrictions for commercial development i guess on the history of this you saw the zone change for this um a few meetings ago and when i got to council they were asking for heavy commercial based on the general plan. But I think when they got to council, there was some concern about buffering the existing neighborhood and some of the potential uses in the heavy commercial zone. So the city council asked staff, well, they tabled it and they asked staff to work on this development agreement to kind of put some protections in place for surrounding residents, neighbors, and also probably to give some guidance to the developer and the landowner. That's some of the background on that. In terms of the development agreement, like I said, it limits the CISRN uses in the heavy commercial zone. We've been working with the developer and kind of based on what they are anticipating doing, updating the table of uses that's at the end of the development agreement. And then it also adds some guidelines on access and landscape buffering that are kind of in line addition to what our code would have typically required anyway so with that I'll turn over the Planning Commission for any questions I have a good question so with the council's direction

you mentioned specifically that there was some discomfort with setbacks or something along those lines?

I don't know if there was as much on setbacks. Buffering? It was landscape buffering. There was a lot of, yeah.

Does that mean the council is going to appoint staff to look at how our code is written? No, yeah. So it's just specifically for this use case. They're not comfortable with the requirements of our code.

We have made some updates to the buffering, I mean, in Chapter 12 recently. So I guess in some aspect the council did ask us to make updates to that. But that happened a few months ago. Like now we would require an eight-foot fence, whereas before we required a six-foot fence. But I guess, yeah, this is specific to this property.

Does that answer your question? Yeah, I just, any time, I'm... Development codes are useful, right? And, or sorry, development agreements are useful. They do help kind of protect and put things in place. But when the reasoning is because discomfort with buffering, it makes me think that our code is what needs to be looked at, not necessarily.

And this one is a little bit interesting. I think the buffering and screening that's been run in. Because we haven't actually seen a building proposal for this one, right? Like part of the reason the development agreement came about is I think it was more for the uses. But I know legal and Kim were working on this and just trying to think ahead to what are some of those potential concerns. And just to write it out really clear in black and white, you know, you're going to have to meet this landscape requirement or your access won't be allowed onto Trindamon Lane. It will have to be out onto State Street.

And again, I understand. development agreements, and we've seen plenty of them over the years. I understand that they're often ways to help a landowner that wants to develop and also protecting some neighboring rights that the code maybe doesn't give the same protections that we would like to see in certain areas. so I understand I was just that point was question for me like if they're not comfortable with it here are we comfortable with it everywhere else that the code would allow this type of development or do we need to evaluate the buffering requirements of this type of zone everywhere not just here any other questions for staff all right is the applicant present

Hi, my name's Deborah Walker. Hi, Deborah. And yeah, we took all the input that we got from neighbors and tried to come up with something that would be agreeable to everyone, including addressing the view. And so we're hoping the details will, including instead of a wall, a berm. limiting the uses going forward and tied to the land and not to the owner. So in the future, it also protects that area.

Thank you. I do have a quick question. Technically, Lehigh City is the applicant, correct?

And it is nice. We've had communications with, I guess, it's maybe not a co-applicant, but with the developer on this and a potential future developer. So We've had lots of conversations back and forth on the writing of this. We just prepared the initial draft, I guess, is the big thing.

Understood. Nancy, we do appreciate you being here and your input, though.

Thank you.

Or Deborah, I'm sorry. Nancy, Deborah, sorry. Any questions for Deborah while we have her here?

So you mentioned that you're trying to limit the uses of the property through the land and not the owner Do you have an idea of what those uses are for that you can share with us?

Yeah, they're actually in the in the In the chart that's attached, but it would for example limit to say it becomes an area very much like everything else around us where it's a warehouse, there would not be allowed anything outside. And the parking is going to be on the Trinnaman side, but we'll have no access to Trinnaman. It would all come in on State Street.

So the access will come from state, and then the parking on the property will kind of be in the back of the buildings on the tramway side?

Right, so that the building's away from the residential and towards the state street.

All right. It's an interesting area. There's all kinds of stuff going on down there.

I know. When I had to fill out the 22 little envelopes, it was like eye-opening to me to see that, you know, actual residential homes and everything else is some kind of business. I didn't realize there was that much business around me, but I guess there is.

Any other questions? Doesn't look like it. Thank you.

Thank you.

This is a public hearing. We will open the public hearing at this point and invite anybody that would like to speak to this item to come up at this or come up now.

Hello, Lawrence Snow. And can I answer your question? We're looking at, I'm the developer in this thing, and we're looking at office warehouses, more smaller, 2,000 to 4,000 square footers for the smaller, like the contractor, the carpet cleaner, those kind of mentality. In our other properties, we don't allow overnight parking outside. It's rare. I mean, we allow it, but it's rare to have a permanent parking Sorry about that. We don't allow overnight parking in the parking lot other than, yeah, no long-term parking. So we worked with Ken and his group and the agreement. I think we've come up with an agreement that's applicable for everybody. We're okay with it the way it is. It doesn't change our thinking on what we were going to develop. It just makes it clear so it protects those around the neighborhood.

Anybody else would like to speak to this item? You're invited to come up now. Seeing none.

I just thought I would come and talk before my kids have a meltdown because it's their bedtime and my husband works. everywhere now. But I'm here. I live two houses down from the property. We bought our house when all of these surrounding properties were residential or agriculture. Our biggest concern being the traffic on Treneman Lane. It was a little fast for us. You guys closed that up, and now it looks really nice. But the last two meetings, we've heard a lot of comments like, this property owner should be able to do whatever she wants with her property I'm also a big believer that people should be able to do what they want with their own property but I mean you guys are setting rules and regulations I would like to have I would like to have a milk cow or sheep but I bought the property knowing that I wouldn't be able to do that because it's residential status and there are restrictions in place for other properties surrounding my own And so whether we like it or not, there are city governors that use city laws govern uses on properties that we own. In the last meeting, we also heard a council lady say, if you care about the property, why don't you buy it? Those types of comments are unproductive and elitist. We bought our property based on the means of the facts that we had at the time. those comments also suggested the council and its general plan are more important than young families like us and homeowners these this issue is very important to us as you can see my husband travels a lot and i'm here with four kids and we We thought it was important to talk on this issue just because of where we are in proximity to it. Under the parcel, the Walker property would be changed to heavy commercial with heavy restrictions, meaning more property tax for the city to collect. However, how can we trust the city to follow through with these heavy restriction requirements? In the last zoning meeting, or in the last council meeting, it was brought to everyone's attention that the property, when I say everyone's attention, I mean including the council members, that the property behind my house was changed to heavy commercial just 18 months ago. My family has lived here for two years, and we never got notice of the change. For a long time, we thought all of the equipment being brought in was the resident building a basement. Slowly, more workers have been added. Large dump trucks and excavators showed up. And the once grass-covered ground is now a dirt bed that blows dust straight into our backyard. The only thing separating our property and the chain link fence is there is a heavy machinery being operated all throughout the day. This is relevant to the Walker property, I promise. There is a code in Lehigh section 12.08080 that states if heavy commercial property backs up to a residential property, there must be a minimum eight foot wall separating the two properties for obvious reasons. It has been 18 months now and no barrier is even in the process. How now are we supposed to trust that Lehigh will protect our rights as property owners and require their Walker property to build a barrier once it's changed when it hasn't done so with the property it just recently changed? We are led to believe that families are safe and safety matters to Lehigh. But where is my family's safety in this body's most recent heavy commercial decision? Where are my kids' protections from dust blowing into the backyard during playtime? Where is my safety easement when... cement paneling gets stacked up over 10 feet tall right on the property line. Again, where is the safety in any of this for my children? It's in code in multiple places, but where is it in practice? At the very least, this body should amend its general plan by creating transition zones. for intensity of use. It's not only good policy, it's good for safety. Please consider keeping the Walker property in some form of residential use. I would like my children to grow up in an area that is safe for them to live and play.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else that would like to speak to this item?

Gosh, this is such a... I'm Jennifer Black. I live directly across the street from the property. And it's just such a hard thing for us because we love Debbie. And we realize that this puts her in such a bind because she needs to sell her property. But at the same time... It's just so hard because it just totally changes the feel of where we're at as a neighborhood. And I brought this up last time, but if you could all come to my house and sit on my porch and see what I see every morning, and then think that You go out and you sit there and you're going to watch people and cars and big buildings. And even though, I mean, I know that they've worked. I know that they've tried to appease the people. It directly affects our home. And people parking across the street from us, I mean, it destroys our peace. It destroys everything. the quiet, you know, whatever. I mean, so it's just so hard because they can plant trees and make it nice and make it look pretty, but it still doesn't detract from the fact that there's going to be not attractive things across the street. And it's hard because they're, ideally it would be nice if we could separate it and put houses in front of us and do like they've done on other areas of State Street where the bar is. And there is houses behind that. But that faces that way, and it's still the neighborhoods in the other areas. And so it's just hard because even with the changes, it doesn't really affect the people on the street physically. It's more noise. It's more light. It's more cars. It changes our neighborhood into not a neighborhood. So again, I know it's hard because we love Debbie. And we're not wanting to be contentious. But we're the ones who have to live there. We're the ones who have to deal with the repercussions of all this. And nobody else does. It's us who live there who have to deal with it. It's not something any of us are very excited about. So thank you. Thank you.

Careful. Thank you.

My name is Chris Breitenberg. The one thing that I just wanted to address is the historical Zoning for this property prior to becoming the current zoning was actually a commercial zoning You know and I know there's been a lot of discussion in the past that's been saying well It should stay residential stood should stay agricultural whatever, but this is actually a zoned a commercial property Thank you Well as a race, okay, I

My name is Kathy Sunderland. I live kind of kitty-corner from the property. And I understand I've read chapter 12 in the development code and all of that, and all of this agreement. But I do have a couple of questions, and I don't know if they could address that. But we're not really sure what is happening on Trenman Lane. We know no access, but I don't know if there's buffers. I know there's buffers between the property and the homes. Will there be buffers? between tournament lane and the parking? And will the road be finished with curb and gutter? And those kinds of things are still questions that I really didn't see answered in the development code. So I know there's some, it's just a different situation. And so I just wondered if anybody could address that so we could get a picture of what that will look like from the Truman Lane side, where all of the residents are concerned about.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Barbara Hollingshead, Barbara Walker Hollingshead. And I just wanted to point out, if you look at the plat, and you look at that west side of State Street, this property is the last residential property. Everything on the east side of State Street is all commercial. Right next door is high industrial commercial. It was in the master plan for this to be commercial. There's a UDOT easement on Trinnaman Lane, so we've talked to residential developers, and there's no access for them to build homes on Trinnaman's side of the property. So it kind of limits what the ability is to use the property for. So I just wanted to bring that up.

Thank you.

I'd just like to address my neighbor's concern about the the noise that's going on next door.

Please address your comments to us, though, not your neighbor.

OK. Thank you. But my parents bought that place 60 years ago. And from 1500 north, that whole section was just one big piece of a big open field, except for the two houses that were right there. And now you've got gas stations and warehouses. and everything. But anyway, my point was that next door, they're in the stage right now which I call moving in. So yeah, there's going to be a lot of dust, and there's going to be the big machines and everything. And that happens no matter if you put in a house or if you put in a business. You're going to have that until they finally get get settled in. And so that'll probably, you know, he spent last year bringing in dirt. This year, he's over there kind of moving things around and getting things where he wants them to be. And I would bet if I stayed there another year, it'd be like all those others around me, that it would settle down and they'd get into a rhythm of things. But right now, they're still building.

Thank you. Tisha, for the record, that was Deborah Walker. That was your name, right? I was just giving her your name for the record so she can make the record clean. Anyone else that would like to speak to this item?

I apologize. I'm a little out of breath coming up the stairs. State your name, please. My name's Dean Kazarian. I've been asked to read this statement on behalf of Kyle and Sheena Welch, who live directly behind the property. They live on 1708 North Trinman Lane. They're out of state tonight. Their home's entire north boundary adjoins the Walker property, and they are most directly affected in this decision. And these are the words that they asked me to read. We support the development agreement approach, and we thank the council staff and the Walker family, who we understand turned down a higher offer to protect this neighborhood for the protections already in the draft. Our primary request, implement the concept which Councilmember Harrison proposed at the July council meeting. Structure the parcel in two portions, the Trinnaman facing portion next to the existing homes, limited to residential uses consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. And the state street frontage is used for commercial purposes. This needs no parcel split and no new application. The estate keeps a folk commercial site on the frontage where the commercial value is plus marketable residential land beside existing homes. Under the heading of property rights, they say, The owner holds every right to use and sell their property under its current zoning. A rezone is a grant of new rights. We are not asking you to restrict anyone's rights, only to not create new ones in a way that damages the rights of the rest of current residents. Finally, their closing statement at the heart of the matter. The Welches bought their home a year ago, putting their life savings into it, checking the zoning around them. It was not until last month's city council meeting that they learned that the person directly behind their home had been rezoned to heavy commercial in April 2025, two months before they purchased. A changed zoning map still do not reflect. They had no way to know. Sitting in that meeting and discovering they already lived beside heavy commercial was devastating, and they have seen what the first rezone delivered. No wall or buffer, and a lot of these comments were echoed earlier. No wall or buffer was added. Today, industrial materials stand stacked above their back fence, inches from it, and they smell chemical fumes in the yard where their garden grows and their children play. They cannot undo the first rezone, but they are asking you to make sure the second one is different and not right next to yet another side of their property. with written enforceable protections. That's all their amendment asks. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else that would like to speak to this item?

There is a public comment. Yeah, I was going to say, and actually there was another one that came in after I emailed these to you, but conveniently it was from the Welch's, so thanks for reading that almost word for word. That was great. Save me some breath. And then the other one came from, let's see, Craig Madsen, who's the owner of J&M Steel Solutions across the street. I actually talked to him on the phone about this, but... It sounds like he's okay. He wasn't able to attend tonight. He doesn't oppose or necessarily support it. He's kind of neutral on this, but his neighbor a couple years ago was looking at doing a concrete manufacturing place next to him, and he was opposed to that business. He just didn't want like a noisy, dirty business going in next to him, and he was trying to say he would oppose this heavy commercial development agreement if it was going to be for a noisier, dirtier business, but that he would support office and warehouse space that would kind of be similar to some of the office warehouse that's in the area. So, yeah, that's just kind of the recap of his comment. He's okay with it as long as it's more office warehouse and not contractor storage yard or heavier equipment for manufacturing so We will close the public hearing and bring it back for Questions for staff, I guess it's okay if I add something to Nice thing with this is it's going to the City Council. There'll be the final decision-making body. They can make Changes to the draft they can add things take things out there's uses that they're worried about um and so that will go to council in the beginning of september september 8th depending on what you do here at this meeting tonight i guess if you tabled it then that would change things but if you give a recommendation then it would go to council in september um yeah it's i appreciate some of it i don't know if i'm going to say this i appreciate some of the comments about the the property next door We actually just realized that it changed a while ago, but it's not reflected there. They were going to submit a site plan, and they didn't. So it's nice that we have a code compliance officer now. We're going to have a conversation with him on Monday morning. So I appreciate the comments from that.

Yeah, I had questions about that, because there absolutely should be buffering.

Yeah, definitely.

Whether it be in a solid wall, typically between these two uses.

Yeah, even if it was a contractor storage yard, which isn't allowed use in the heavy commercial zone, he would still need to have the wall and the landscape buffer.

Right. And that is still enforceable.

Yep, that's enforceable.

Yes.

And so we're going to look into – he was looking at submitting for DRC months ago, and then I think it just – he didn't move forward on it. We can look into his business license and a few other things so that we can start moving forward on some code enforcement. So definitely appreciate that feedback.

Okay.

These are always interesting. They come forward to us with a recommendation. The request comes from our city council for us to review. We give a recommendation to them on something that they already participated in the negotiation of. So it puts us in kind of an interesting spot, right? So, yeah, I mean, any thoughts, questions?

Can I ask some more thoughts to the applicant? Yeah. And most of this is just to clarify, because I'm pretty sure what the code says about this stuff, but I think it'd be great to hear it. Fencing on the tournament side.

And I did not word this as well as I should have in the initial presentation. If you look at 1.4, it is pretty explicit that all applicable requirements of the development code, specifically the buffering and screening requirements in Chapter 12, are required. And then I think for purpose of clarification, we then specified those requirements that are in 12. So these aren't additional things. These are the buffering and screening requirements from Chapter 12, the 8-foot-tall masonry or concrete wall where the property is adjacent to an existing residential use. So that would be on the south side and also on the west side along Trinnaman. And then I guess this would be easier if I just pulled up the map. So the wall would be required along Trinnaman and then along this stretch where my cursor is, where he's heavy commercial, it wouldn't necessarily be required there, though they could work on putting up some sort of wall or something there. So as part of it, this would definitely happen.

The agreement does... So the wall along Trinnaman for sure is required because that's against the road, not against a residence.

Yeah, so the... Yeah, along Trinnaman... And that's where I think the berm was mentioned, but to get the berm, it would have to be approved by the adjacent neighbors on Trinnaman Lane, which would be, there's like four property owners that would all have to sign off on if they were preferring a berm to the wall. But yeah, like you said, that's right here. I mean, that's about as close as you can get to those neighbors, right? Because there's Trinnaman Lane in between them and this property.

Another point that is brought up with the on trim and land would there be curb and gutter Shaking his head.

Yes that covered in the all required landscaping.

I would be required in a future site plan And then dust mitigation during construction and Yeah, that's required as far as for larger. Yeah are the greater code.

Thank you want to Clear yes, no absolutely make sure everybody understands And the dust coming from the property The the other the other property that's code enforcement at this point Yes, I there might also be some other

options of things to look through for enforcement, not necessarily just the city, but also other groups. So, yeah, again, that's kind of high on our priority list now that we've had this discussion.

Is there a way to do this without an agreement, without a development agreement?

That's what they tried to do at first. then the council just tabled the zone change request, and that's why it's here. So I guess, yes, there was a way to do it that way, but the council wanted the extra protections put in place.

So if the council was not comfortable with all of the table of uses that the zone change permits?

Which has happened before. We've had a few like this, right, where they're comfortable changing the zone because that's what the general plan shows, but maybe there's a concern about a certain use in the table of uses. And sometimes we've talked about maybe we need to update the table of uses, but there are also some heavy commercial zones in the property or in the city where it would make sense for some of the uses that are there. So it's sometimes hard to make a wholesale change to the table of uses. We've done it, but that wasn't the direction we were given at this point.

Any other questions for... I guess the applicant.

I'm a little curious. I didn't hear the details on what Councilman Harrison's proposal was, but it sounded like it was maybe split and do the commercial on State Street and homes at the back. That's only two and a half acres. That doesn't, like, how many homes could you put on that?

Well, it would be the homes facing Trinidad. Right. That's right.

I don't know how many there are.

Yeah, it would be a little limited. It would definitely throw a wrench into potential site layouts that I know the applicant has looked into. I think you could fit a couple of residential homes, definitely, but again... I guess that's not, I don't know if there was enough direction besides Council Member Harrison's.

Was it just something he kind of like threw out? Yeah. Maybe as a possibility. I wasn't at that meeting. Okay.

Was he the only one who brought that up? Yeah. Okay.

Well, that's fine.

And they could talk about that at council in a couple weeks and make that. Yeah.

I don't know if that makes sense to me, but that's me.

So if I'm understanding this right, our motions are, for this should be a positive or a negative?

Recommendation. Yeah, recommendation that you're comfortable with the text that's in there. If there's something you want added, we could add it in your motion if you said that. Or if there's anything, if you wanted us to make changes to the table of uses, that's also in your purview.

Yeah.

I mean, technically anything is in your purview on this. You do have discretion, but you're just the recommendation body.

That's again why we're in kind of a weird spot, because the negotiation really happens at the next stage. We're just recommending yea or nay, right?

Which holds very little water. And it's interesting, back in the day, it wouldn't have come to you, but then state code was updated, so that's why you're seeing it now. Whereas before, it would have just gone straight to council.

The big benefit in my mind of this is giving the public more opportunity to speak, be heard, understand a little bit more of the concept rather than just a one-shot go. There's multiple steps where the public can put in involvement, and I appreciate everything that we've heard tonight. That being said, I would entertain a motion or further discussion if you have it.

I will move on. Item 3.9, public hearing and recommendation of Lehigh City's request for review of the Nancy Walker Development Agreement on 2.581 acres of property located at 915 West State Street, allowing certain restricted heavy commercial uses on the property and other site restrictions for commercial development. I move to recommend approval of the proposed development agreement. The proposed development agreement aligns with the goals and policies of the general plan. Include any additional findings and DRC comments.

I'll second.

Motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Nay. All right, this moves forward. When will it go to city council? September 8th. September 8th. Tuesday. At 7 o'clock here. And again, I just want to say I appreciate, again, all of the input. Definitely helped give me some clarity on thought. And again, we welcome this level of discussion at every meeting. But thank you again for your input tonight.

And if you do have additional comments before the council meeting, or if you have other neighbors or residents that are interested, you can send those comments to the city recorder or to the mayor and council, and they'll take those into consideration.

All right. Thank you. Item 3.10.

Yeah, I think we've gotten to all the Lehigh City items. So 3.10 is public hearing and recommendation of Lehigh City's request for the J. Peterson zone change, changing .406 acres, located at 3455 North Center Point Drive from public facility to transitional holding 5. When there was an annexation that happened a handful of years ago, and when that went through, the property was mistakenly assigned the zoning of public facility. It's privately owned. So the city talked to J. Peterson and let him know that we were going to file this zone change on his behalf to switch his property to transitional holding so that in the future he can rezone it to whatever the general plan shows. I think it's commercial.

But he can dedicate water and rezone it when he's ready to do so.

And with that, I'll turn it over to the Planning Commission for any questions.

Thank you.

Seems like a little bit of a goof. Oops.

Yeah. I think it was with the annexation. I don't know if the city did anything. I think it was just when there was a land trade that kind of caused the oops. Understood.

Any questions for staff? This is a public hearing. We will invite anybody in the public that would like to speak to this to do so now.

My name is Jay Peterson. I am the owner of the property in question. When I was annexed back in 2017, the city of Lehigh sent me a letter saying that since I was zoned agricultural in the county, that I was zoned and would remain the same. It has never remained the same, and they have changed my relationship to my property, and then chose to prosecute me, threaten me with prosecution based on my relationship to my property, which is the kind of thing that happens in Eastern Europe, not the United States. The obligation of contract shall not be abridged, and I considered a contract when they made me this offer to be annexed under agricultural. Anyway, while it may be possible to substitute one contract with another, I have not been presented with a contract to my liking yet. So therefore, I say, if you want to prosecute me in the future, go through the procedure. I asked the court to order the city to zone it agricultural and then show a chain of due process to whatever zoning you want to change it to. Now, some people want to make it commercial. At the time I bought it, I was thinking of making it commercial because there was this The Utah County trail system showed a boulevard trail right through there. The city has since changed this. Back in 2019, the city approved high density housing down behind Smith's Food King, right on top of the trail that was going to provide me the commercial business for my property. In as much as they have cut me off from my traffic, I would request that the city zone it high density, just like they did for my neighbors, and allow me to do what they've done. So I've tried to talk to people in the planning and zoning department rather than you, but I haven't got much traction there. So I'm talking to you in front of everybody else. And that's all I have to say. I think we can work this out, but I don't want to be pushed back and forth. I don't want things arbitrary. In fact, everything can be said to be arbitrary until that original contract is kept, no matter what you do. So anyway, that's all I've got to say. I think we can work this out, and I'm willing to work it out. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else that would like to speak to this item? Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing. Applicant, would you like to address anything you heard?

Yeah, I think we're just trying to fix something that was, again, done mistakenly and give Mr. Peterson back some options with his zoning. Again, whether he wants to apply for high density or commercial or something else, that can be his prerogative in the future. think part of the agreement or the contract was it wasn't to put it in public facility it was to annex it into the city again i don't have all the details of the contract but either way really it is trying to take it back so that he has control of his zoning options please please sit down please sit down the public hearing is closed we we will address your questions that you have had

I know you don't have the contract in front of you. The resident has brought up a contract where he brought up language that was assumed that it would come into the city with a certain zoning. I'm not saying whether that is or not, but I think the city really needs to cross their T's and dot their I's to make sure. If there was some agreement that's not being made, transitional holding does not make sense. there wasn't the agreement and then there's something else there that's obviously different but I'm I'm curious with you saying you don't know the details of the contract I am not wanting to make a motion towards this my best to try and address it yeah so yeah when this was annexed this is when we were trying to develop the

basin from flood control to where it was actually part of lehigh city's irrigation and so this property along with everything else was annexed and this mr peterson's property should have been transitional holding five which is an agricultural zone so we're just trying to rectify what his understanding was at the time for whatever reason when the plot was drawn up everything got put into the public facilities his property should have been th5 that's that's our default agricultural designation and like jacob said once you know we we think this is what should happen the last time I I haven't heard from Mr. Peterson for a couple of weeks. When I've talked to him, I explained that's what we were doing. And I thought he was agreeable that this takes it back to what he felt like should have originally happened with the annexation. And like Jacob said, in the future, the transitional holding zone is just that. It's an ag zone. Things stay the way they were when he came in from the county. state status quo, and then at some point when he's ready to do some kind of a development, he can bring forward whatever proposal he wants. The current general plan has it as commercial, but Mr. Peterson has every right to ask for a change to the general plan, and that would be considered when he's ready.

If it's just a paperwork goof on Lehigh's part, why do we have to vote on it?

Because it is zoned. When the annexation plot was recorded...

But it shouldn't have been a zone change in the first place. We're not changing a zone. We're changing how Lehigh drew the line by mistake.

We are changing the zone because right now, today, it shows public facilities... So when the annexation plat got recorded, it also established the zoning. When it came in from the county to Lehigh City, all of the property went into the public facility zone. His property should have been shown on that annexation plat as TH5. So we do need to rezone it because as of today, if you go by the legal record, the annexation plat, it shows his property as public facilities. And it's not part of the public facilities that I think most of it's owned by North Utah County Water Conservancy District. Yeah. And so that's why everything else was owned public facility has just got swept in by accident or by oversight or whatever you want to call it.

So isn't that a title company problem?

whatever the company that are the lawyers that looked over that isn't it their problem well to fix initiated the annexation we prepared the plat so it really was just an oversight or an error from the city his property should not have been designated public facilities on the annexation plat and then if it gets changed back the the letters from the code enforcer will stop

Like he's getting code enforcement letters on his own property.

Yes. He has some equipment.

For having equipment stored on agriculture land.

Yeah. Yeah. And he's in the process of cleaning some of that up. There are some inoperable vehicles, whether it's public facilities or not. There are some code issues that would need to be cleaned up either way. And he's working on that. Yeah. Yeah, it actually went to a legal proceeding. There was, I guess, an agreement or a settlement. Maybe our legal counsel can speak more to that.

That's the first question I've been prepared to answer in this body. Hey! So he was charged with, and I was the prosecutor that worked with Mr. Peterson. I remember, I feel like we recorded the whole time, so... He was charged for improper storage of some vehicles. We came to an agreement. He showed me some good faith efforts that those were being cleaned up. Pursuant to the code, it looked like even if it was transitional housing, it would not have been. Or transitional holding. Holding, holding. It wouldn't have been allowed to have those vehicles there. So I did dismiss those charges. I'm not planning to refile them. anytime soon because he's made some good efforts to come into compliance with the code.

I have a hypothetical question, if I may. If we had goofed and instead of public facilities it was granted a zone of heavy commercial or whatever, any other zone, right, what would be the applicant or the

mr peterson's rights if we were then trying to change his zone that we had given him even if it was in mistake yeah i would think if if we recorded the annexation plat and it showed x zone whatever that is we would need to honor that and so yeah right now he the public facility zone is for parks schools Basins it really he's he's very limited. I mean he'd have to do some kind of a public facility So, but yeah, I would say we would honor whatever Regardless of what the general plan is regardless of what if it got recorded and it was a legally recorded document I think I guess there's scribe nurse errors and things like that there

gets into some legal nuances but i would say if that's how it was recorded we would honor what was on the plot so again that was more hypothetical i was just curious because again we don't run into this very often if ever and um yeah the th5 zone is a technical residential zone although it has no rights to development is that correct yeah it's primarily agricultural yeah right um and that is i mean over the nine years i've been on this commission that is the standard usually of what things when they get annexed when they come in that way there's no necessary water dedication at that time that way the individual being annexed has a time to continue using the way that it has been used without having to go through the process of dedicating water and whatnot. So that tracks for me that possibly the intent was TH5 when it was annexed. I would just like the city to comb through any agreement or contract that has been stated to make sure that there was not some other perceived interest that there was some developable zone promised, whether written, I guess written. We're not going off of a verbal situation here, but if there was something discussed, and again, I still have some level of discomfort when staff says I'm not sure what the contract says. So, I mean, we can give... recommendation but that recommendation for me would need to have some level of before it gets to City Council that needs to be thoroughly combed through to make sure that there is it wasn't something promised addressed written where there was some understanding that you know if th5 is appropriate great if there was some understanding that it would be something different than that and it is in writing, we need to just make sure. Any questions on that? I mean, that's just my thoughts.

Yeah, my thought is if it was, what was it previously before being annexed in?

It was county.

So when you brought it in, naturally it has to go under.

We have to designate it.

It would have gone under TH5, or could it have stayed agricultural?

has their own A5. So it would have been whatever Utah County had it zoned, it's just like if property was an American Fork, we have no jurisdiction, we don't control, we're not the governing land use body. When they annex it, we designate the zone and that's what sets what's allowed and what's not.

So that's when the confusion happened.

Yeah. His should have been designated as TH5 on the annexation plat. And it wasn't. I will say we have looked in our records with the annexation, and I didn't see any separate written contracts. Now, there may be a contract when he did a land. There was a land swap, and I'm not really that knowledgeable about the details, but there was some kind of a land swap. With the North Utah County Water Conservancy District and Mr. Peterson, I think there were some pieces that were traded. But yeah, anyways, that would be a contract between him and the Conservancy District, not Lehigh City. So they wouldn't have been able to say, we're going to zone your property X or Y because they're not Lehigh City, if that makes sense. But we've looked, I know at one point, Mr. Peterson feels like there was a notice, and he alluded to that tonight, that there was some kind of a notice that was mailed. We've looked. I can't find anything in our records. Maybe it was the notice when the annexation was being taken through the process. So I'm not aware of any other contracts. We can look again if you want to make that part of your motion. But the only legal documents I'm aware of are the annexation plat. it got recorded, it zoned his property as public facilities in error.

Any other questions, thoughts, motions?

I'll make the motion. Item 3.10, public hearing and recommendation of Lehigh City's request for the J. Peterson zone change, changing .406 acres located at 384-55 North Centerpoint Drive from public facility to transitional holding, TH5. I recommend approval with the conditions that, as Commissioner Ehrer said, maybe go through the documents again just to make sure that when the land was annexed into lehigh city that it was properly discussed disclosed so that mr peterson just alignment with whatever the documents say yep okay because this will clean up the mistake because this property should not be in the public facility preserves the property rights for the owner he'll have the opportunity to do what he wishes with the property, much more favorably than he would if it's a public facility. And the proposed zone change does not remove water dedication requirements in the future. And if there are DRC comments, please include them.

Can we include that this is to clean up an administrative clerical error? I will second that. No, that's good. Motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? When does this go before the city council? September 8th. September 8th. That would be the final approval. City council does final approval on this. All right, three point...

City Council would approve the zone change Yep, they'll review our recommendation and then they will vote for the final decision on this item 3.11 Okay, yeah 3.11 is Public hearing and consideration of Lehigh City's request for approval of an exception to the water department storage building and located at 2548 North, 300 West, requesting an exception to the glass requirement. That glass requirement is a 20% glass requirement. And the applicant worked to provide as much as they could with the layout. There's some grade issues, and they may be able to provide the exact percentages of where it's at. So some of the wall is not visible because of the grading. But I guess the total wall, it's just one of the walls, falls short of the 20%. It's at 7.7%. But I do not know the percentage of glass if you're just counting the visible part of it. So that might be something they can clarify for us.

Does our code identify it as visible wall or not? It does not. So is this a discretionary item?

I would say so. It's an exception, kind of similar to some of the other exceptions you get for these. Sorry to cut you off. No, you're okay. Similar to some of the other design standard exceptions. Part of the reason for it, it's a storage building, so I think part of the request is for security and safety of some of the things that are being stored in that building as well. Well, we are the applicant, but the architect and engineer could also give a little bit more information on that. So I'll turn it back over to the Planning Commission for any questions. Great.

I assume you are the architect or engineer in the back.

I'm neither, but I can answer questions.

Let's move forward. Jacob? Jacob brought up a great question. Is the percentages that you are looking at, is that considering the hidden portion of the wall, or is this strictly just the visible portion of the wall?

Yeah, so my name is Taylor Smith. I'm with Galloway & Company. We're the architect. So I just handle permitting. I'm a development service person. But let me describe this. This is for a vehicle storage building. So obviously glass is not going to be ideal for that because they're inside working on their vehicles. The base will be open sometimes. Just the heat, cold, everything, windows are just the type of building. Windows aren't going to do any good for it. You can't dress up a barn, really, with a couple windows. So I think we're at just about 17%. So we're just shy of it, 17%, 18%, I think we want to say. So we're just shy of it. We did our best to make it. Again, it's not that visible because of the grating. We're actually having to take out 25 feet of fill there, replace it, a lot going on here. And so did our best to make what we could. But the type of building it is with the vehicle storage, more windows, is just actually going to cause more issues for the building is the biggest thing, is looking at the inside of the building with the bay doors open during the summer or can't really have that windows create more heat in the winter, going to create cold there. So more of a functional use there, but did our best to try and make that work.

The 17%

that of the visible portion of the structure or is that of the entire structure it probably more visible because the windows are going to be towards the top there just because the way against there's also the safety concern of windows on the lower with vehicles in there entering and breaking and windows a lot easier that also you have that safety concern too so the windows are more towards the top so we probably could create some elevations of what ground would we would see from the ground looking kind of out of it kind

You used the word probably. Are we not sure how the dimensions were calculated?

Yeah, well, no, we had it calculated. We didn't do a visual line diagram, but it is towards the top, though. That's not my job. Sure.

Again, my question is just more on were those percentages where you were meeting 17%, is that of the entire structure, whether it's visible or not, or is that of strictly just the visible portion? Okay. Yeah. Okay.

The windows are all on the visible. Like, I would assume if we did a sightline view, they would be looking right at the windows. There we go, right there. So you can see there, if we did – it's those top windows there we're looking at there. So there's really no way to do more windows there if you're looking at the top one.

Are those windows in the garage doors?

Those are the garage doors below the bay doors, yes.

But they have windows?

So they – Would you say those people windows through? He's the contractor. He's going to be able to speak more on the materials.

Were those windows on the bay doors, were those included in the 17%? I believe so.

The 17% is only concerning this street-facing side. The second one. The second section right here.

So I believe how code reads, it's street-facing walls. And so we're only looking at those bay doors will not be street-facing. It's only this one right here.

We hear a lot of exceptions or requests for exceptions a lot.

I love it when we do.

I particularly don't love it when we, the city, request exception to our own code. That always makes me feel wonderful. For sure. I feel like, I mean, I'm not an architect or an engineer. I feel like there's an opportunity in two spots that you could add some either real windows or glazing, which would be the parapets on both sides above in that small, narrow area. Again, it does not even need to be real windows. It could be glazing that looks like windows, right? I just feel like there's ways to get creative that doesn't compromise security, but allows the city to say, hey, we meet our own code, so we have teeth to make other people meet our code. When we don't meet our own code and we ask for exceptions for the same reasons that we roll our eyes when... private developers come forward to do as well, it just takes our knees out. And they point to it and say, well, you guys didn't hold yourself to the same standard. I'm speaking for myself. I'm not speaking for the entire commission. Again, 17% to 20% is not a huge deal. But man, I wish that we would not just meet, but exceed our own code where we can absolutely point to it and say, we hold ourselves to a standard in our own facilities that we build. So we can then have a little stronger position to push back when others are trying to circumvent some code. All that being said, 17 to 20, fairly negligible. I just feel like saying it can't be met is incorrect.

It could be met. The hardest part to me is with our structural and MEP. Made those windows, as far as structural integrity of walls and everything, that's the biggest issue is the structural integrity. The more you add, the different materials you're going to have to start in, prices start going up. The structural integrity goes up as you add more windows.

And that's where glazing that looks like a window that is not structural, doesn't need to be supported, might be an option, right, to look into something. We've done that before. We've even helped other people to that same standard in the past. I mean, I've been on this commission for nine years. I've seen a few things that we've done. We've seen requests like this. Sometimes it's been granted. But for our own facilities, I don't like to bend our own rules for us. Like, why are we doing that? That totally takes out our needs. I think that's why there is the variance process, too. For sure. Willing to ask? Absolutely. But again, I feel like we should hold ourselves to not just the minimum, but exceeding if we can. Let's show that it can be done. So when other people say, oh, it's really hard, or I don't want to do it, or I can't do it, or please let me do this differently, that we say, hey, we held ourselves to the same standard, and we made it work. I understand.

Any pushback against me on that? We've gone through DRC. We've gone through three rounds with them trying to figure out the best way possible. And this is what we've come through. We've gone through very instant research with it, other stuff. So no, I totally get what you guys are saying. I understand that the city wants set the standard, as they always do. You want to set the standard and make sure, as you said, you don't want your knees taken out. I totally understand that. So that's why we're here. So we can talk about it and see what options there are. So we're all for it.

With some sort of a glazing that looks like windows that isn't windows, that's not structural, something that you can put on, obviously you want it to look okay. You want it to be still a beautiful building, et cetera. Is that something that you have considered?

We have considered glazing. I think the biggest thing is code.

Does not. To my understanding, Kim, it does not.

Is that correct?

Glazing still counts.

Is that correct? Any kind of glazing? Is that what your question is?

Yeah, even if it's not a real window.

Right, if it's a faux window.

I think the biggest thing is reworking structural is going to be the biggest thing. Even though it is a faux window, that still does affect structural in a high sense.

I have a question that's maybe a little bit of a clarification. We're talking about this code only applies to sides of the building that face the street. Does it technically only apply to the portion of the building that is visible from the street? Because if this grading is down below,

I think that's how we've interpreted it.

All those windows are... Because then it likely would meet the 20%, right? Because you're saying the 17% is the whole... Whole building, yeah. That whole wall.

Oh, I see.

So, like, if I'm standing at the street and I'm only seeing, you know, from that mezzanine level up, does that count? Does that technically meet the code? Or...

The code says... Totally gray area. Take the whole area, 20%. But... if you want some findings if you're if you're saying okay this is an unusual circumstance that could be part of your findings that you know what only that top portion is even visible yeah so that could be a reason that you might approve it here but not if it's on main street yeah if it's something that's totally visible i would be less likely to want to allow that exception but given that a portion of the building is lower and most likely not going to be seen

But I get Tyson's point, too.

I totally understand where you're coming from. For me, it's just strictly a ethics. We want to hold ourselves to the standard that we are self-set. We made this standard. We wrote the code. We put it in there. Yes, there is a process for you and anyone to come and ask for a variance. I just hate that we give ourselves a variance. We have a code. Why would we design outside of our own code? Or why would we allow the design to even go outside of our own code? I think that's just because this is a glorified storage system. I don't care if it's a metal air hanger. I don't care. Whatever. We have codes. Why don't we follow our own codes? We have questions about sidewalks in the city where the city has developed their own property and not put the sidewalk in. We have questions about this. Things like this come up where we haven't always followed our own code to perfection.

We've heard that a lot in DRC.

I think we as a city should hold ourselves to the standard that we ask everyone else to follow.

The building is going to look good. It's just not your basic concrete. It's going to be a nice dressed up, as he said, glorified shed. It's going to be a nice dressed up shed. We're going to do our best. It is a city building. We want to make it look best. Hughes does a great job with all their projects and all their materials. So ultimately that is, we've worked with staff very diligently on this to try and come to an agreement here to see what we can do. And their recommendation was to bring it to, staff felt comfortable bringing it to you guys at this point.

I have a question about, it looks like you have two other doors. You have the two man doors. Are those doors as well in the middle? Are they metal? Is that what you asked? Are they doors? Yeah, those are doors, yeah. Could you make those? Put a window on them. Put a window on them, just like the other two, and you probably hit your 20%. I mean, I don't know. I don't know the calculation. But put your glass, even if it's fake glass, right? But put it so it matches the other two doors, and that maybe gets you to the number you need.

Would that get us to? I don't know if it does. You have to do the calculation. I'm not saying. I think would that get us to an approval?

Does it get you to 20%?

Is that what you're asking? I mean, that's my question. Would that be a good... I would be pretty close, but...

If it gets you to 20%, you don't need approval.

Yeah, we wouldn't see you.

Right? That would... Work it. Get to 20% and then you got it. I don't know if...

I don't think that's going to get 3% in those low windows, let's be honest, but...

Oversize them. Make them a little bit bigger. I don't know. I don't know. And again... I'm not an engineer and I know there's a lot that goes into this. I'm not discounting what you do for a living.

We appreciate your comment. Again, this is a public building. This is a facility there. We want to make it the best possible and working with you guys and We are going through the proper steps. We're getting building permits. I know that sometimes doesn't always happen in all the cities. So we're getting every permit possible, every checklist. We're going through every protocol that needs to be done to make sure that this is when no one can come back and say, hey, they didn't do the proper process. That is not what we want. If we get granted a variance, we went through the proper process with that variance. And there was a lengthy discussion. We got every permit. We got every checklist. We got every inspection. We're going to do this the right way. We do, as we use in Galloway, we do a lot of public infrastructure, and so when we pardon anybody, we want to make sure we're doing stuff the right way.

We'll figure it out.

I think I agree with Commissioner Ehrer. It's just weird. That doesn't happen all the time. It is kind of weird. Please put that in the record, Tisha. We have to hold ourselves to the same standard, and I remember a month or so ago, whenever some buildings up on Timpanogos Highway, and we pushed them and pushed them, and I think they came back and were able to do it. I know it's a pain on you guys, and it creates... It just creates heartache, but at the same time, that's what we've agreed to do as a city, and I think it's our job to kind of say, okay, unless there's an exceptional... reason which I Don't know if there is one on this one.

Yeah, the only thing is there that there's not really an HVAC There's just it's hard to cool and heat these buildings from there You can't put HVAC into these the MEP and then the structural like like he says glorified shed for the the storage for these vehicles. And so every little window you do add adds temperature in each. And we have very extreme temperatures here in Utah, as we saw this summer, too. And there's your city employees working in these buildings under these conditions. So that's another thing. That's probably the biggest thing we have is less windows, the better conditions we can have for the city employees to work in.

know and i would say the buildings up on tippin willis highway had the same issues right they were like oh we got people working in there the sun's coming in all these different things and oh and if you're asking us to use that as a finding give us the data if you added one more window how many temp what degree of temperature are we talking like if you want us to use that as a finding i need facts i need some data on that And I'm not saying that it's wrong, because I'm sure adding a window could potentially add some challenges. But if you have data, give us data. If you don't have data, then don't use that as a finding. What's the next standard window size up?

So you have 16 feet by 5 feet or 6 feet. What's the next standard window size up?

It jumps pretty high after that.

Part of it, too, is the top you filled up there.

Mm-hmm.

I hate to be difficult to be difficult, but I don't feel like it's difficult for us to pull our own code and just say, hey, we ourselves need to meet our own code.

I understand that, yeah. But again, there's a variance process for a reason. Staff felt comfortable with this. Staff is one who reviews codes every day, so if they're comfortable, that's why we were comfortable moving forward. We can look at adding windows to those two other doors. Going back to your comment about facts and stuff, I think we can do a study on that, but then we're out several more months.

We're out, I think it's kind of common sense, more windows at T. But again, asking us to use that as a finding, a fact, I need the fact, not just the finding.

Okay, I can agree or disagree on that one, but...

It makes me wonder, too, if the city, if we can't meet our own code, do we need to look at the code? That's a whole other discussion.

Right? It's a whole other process that's already going on. We're working on that. Chapter 37 is already getting updated. It just can't take a while because it's 100 pages.

We like our code. We created this code. We thought this code through. Staff put a lot of effort into that code. I'm not necessarily going in that route yet. I mean, but maybe. It's worth a discussion for sure if we ourselves, as we're looking at a building that we, the city, are looking to erect within our jurisdiction of our facilities. Maybe 20% is not the right number.

Well, I think it depends. Because we've done another building on this road before for a credit union that we're still working on through the process. And for that, yeah, adding glass is super easy for a business like that. For where the code was probably written for, for those type of businesses, credit unions, your normal businesses that are along there. Yeah, 20% is pretty easy to get by, but when you're doing tilt up, that's where the variance process comes in. It's like, okay, this is not your normal business. That's just kind of the point, I think, that we're trying to say here is that this is not your normal business along this road for this code. That's one of the main reasons we're here for this is It's a tilt-up. This affects structures. It affects the law part of the building. Just adding 3% does affect quite a bit. And so we can look at those doors happy to do that. But expanding those windows up there is going to be very challenging just because of this integrity.

Any other questions, comments? I feel like we are splitting hairs. Oh, yeah. I get that. I mean, 3%. This has been stated, but I just go back to that one.

Well, I mean, they're coming from the perspective of, oh, my gosh, it's just 3%. We're really close. We're coming from the perspective like, oh, my gosh, it's just 3%. Make it work.

We're just on the different sides of the coin, right? I think there's just different sides. We're looking at this as this is more of an industrial use, not a business use. This is not where the, I don't think, looking at you guys, I don't think the code was meant and written for buildings like this.

yeah that might be something to consider in future code changes is if it's an end because this is a big much bigger building than like a bank or something else is smaller so three percent on a smaller building isn't nearly as much as three percent on a building of this size so i can understand public facility yeah is it on public facility zone yes that might be something to look at maybe public facility has a different

standard yes that is what we're working on currently something like that yeah does it doesn't help us right now tonight if this wasn't a tilt up but it was the what is it the galvanized side sheds that we have in the rest of the our shop area there would it have the same standards of 20 because none of those have 20 in that area it was prior to the code

This road has any, it's just that, the code for this road. So if we were a street over, we wouldn't be having this issue. This is kind of how it is. There's a code for that road. So if we were a street over, we wouldn't have that issue.

That makes me feel even stronger. Yes, this road and the surrounding area has a standard. And we that are building on the same location should hold ourselves to the same standard that we would hold the neighbor to. I don't know. Anyway, thank you. Did you have any other questions for our lovely staff?

I appreciate the discussion and having straight conversations.

Thank you. This is a public hearing. We will open online.

I think technically they were the public, weren't they?

Didn't you already open the public hearing? I don't know. We will formally open the public hearing for item 3.11 And invite anybody that would like to speak to this item to come forward and do so now Mad rush big wind We will close the public hearing Further discussion or emotion I have a loud voice. Do not necessarily fall in line with what I say. You guys have your own thoughts and opinions. You can make a motion.

I will, if you want me to.

I'll make a motion.

Do it.

All right. For item 3.11, public hearing and consideration of Lehigh City's request for approval of an exception to the water department storage building located at 2548 North, 300 West requesting an exception to a glass requirement. I move that we deny. The request with the findings that we, the city, need to hold ourselves to the same standard of our code, and there was not enough of a reason to deviate from the code that we ourselves made and hold everyone accountable to. I will include all DRC comments.

Second.

Motion to second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed?

Nay.

Roll call. Was that 3-2 or was that 3-3? Okay. 3-2, so it does carry forward. It doesn't carry. It's a stance.

I guess take it back and see what you can add. Yes.

Yeah. Correct. 3-12. 3-12.

five-minute recess? Five seconds. Sorry.

I'll be quick.

Five-minute recess. I'll second that.

Motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Aye.

It drives me nuts. It's where you can't see.

People did, but they, yeah, Rob Ludlow was here. I assume that's why he was here for, because they left. I don't know. I have a stick up my butt with the city right now, so I'm just kidding.

I'm just kidding. Yeah? What's new with you?

Did I see you on a trip?

Yes. You went to San Francisco? You went somewhere? We went to Hotspur.

That was a little early.

Not charging my computer.

I've got it. Why do we have to vote on a zone change that wasn't supposed to be in the first place? Because it was required. You want to make it? Okay.

Even though legally it shouldn't have been?

It's an administrative, necessary administrative step. Okay. And then being egged on the phone? Why can't he park? Wait, are we back? No.

Because transitional holding doesn't allow for that use. Interesting. Yeah. Okay. I hate our code. I'm just kidding.

Okay.

Yeah, that sounds good. Because I was like, I don't know if this is good for Gary or not, or what he wants to do with this.

Is that correct? Yeah, before I told him that it was good, I was like, I want to talk to Gary. Because I'm like, why am I getting... Like, why are we sending letters to this? When I was like, how's he going to get?

For parking on his land. He had the three duplexes. I was like, you're not going to get six. Like, that's egg land. I would imagine from, like, you go drive past any other leg, egg land, and there's broken down equipment.

Kind of similar to all the ones we've been seeing recently. I don't think our code enforcement is going around hawking. Not necessarily.

that's it but our code enforcer sent sent me a letter or sent our work a letter and i just wanted to laugh back and send uh send the agreement that lehigh city has to help take care of our trail system so but i got a big kick out of that one when we got the letter but but as far as like i i agree with you that yeah we have to vote on it but it's a necessary administrative action okay it's the way to fix it right there's no one here let me think otherwise what would

I'm calling this meeting into order. I guess the staff chair.

I'd like to make a motion. So then from here, he goes to city council. And then city council has to say yea or nay. And then he has to come back to the whole process. We're ready.

We are back in session. We need to get Ken to bed. So call us back to order. Jacob. Based on what I've seen.

312. 312.

Public hearing on recommendation of Lehigh City's request for review of Development Code Amendment to Chapter 19, Renewable Energy Systems, updating the maximum allowed KW for residential systems. I'm going to turn it over to the Planning Commission for any questions. I don't really have much more to say. They changed it from 10 to 15, I guess. That's about it. Okay. Was this in anticipation for charging and everything? There was some background that I can't remember. Jim knows.

I think as, I guess, power systems have evolved over the years, this is the new industry standard. It used to be that nothing really ever exceeded 10 kilowatts, and now a lot of systems go into that 15. So the power department just said, let's update this. Does this have anything to do with, like, solar capacity, like if they're generating power? Yeah, any of those renewable solar, wind, yeah. I'm assuming there's just better technology that produces more kilowatt, so they just want to keep up with current standards.

And forgive me, I did not comb through this as thoroughly as I normally would have liked to, but does it address anything as far as batteries and storage? Capabilities? Do we limit what they can?

Yeah, just replacing anywhere there's 10 kilowatts, it goes to 15.

Was this a request of something or just us being proactive? Power department.

They don't ask for too much, so.

Okay. Any other questions? 3.12 is a public hearing. We will open the public hearing at this point and invite anyone to speak. Seeing none, we will close the public hearing and entertain a motion or discussion. I'll make a motion.

Item 3.12, public hearing and recommendation of Lehigh City's request for review of a development code amendment to Chapter 19, renewable energy systems, updating the maximum allowed KW for residential systems. move that we give a positive recommendation and with the findings of the proposed development code amendment is in conformance with the purposes intent and provisions of the general plan and its various elements please include all drc comments second motion in a second all in favor aye any opposed

313 public hearing and recommendation of Lehigh City's request for review of a development code amendment table 3780 table of off street parking requirements adding new parking requirements for preschools and daycares offering specialized therapy with higher student-teacher ratios this probably is obvious but there's a lot of context to this one so the Fabian house projects There's one up near Bellevue, 12th West, that's had some parking issues. And there's a new one that's going to be going near the Karl Malone gym thing near the outdoor pool. So the council has been worried about the impact of those types of uses versus our regular preschool daycare or school. Yeah, school and daycare uses on the table. Just because their ratio of teachers and aides is just significantly higher. It's like one to, I don't know if it's one to one or one to three, but it's significantly higher than what our code would typically require. So anyways, we adjusted to help meet that demand.

And this is another one where the council kind of asked us nicely to update it. So yeah.

And with that, I'll turn it over to the Planning Commission for any questions. Any questions?

I mean, where at least one of these is existing, does that cause them a problem? Like, are they going to have to work to figure it out?

They are set and sound like it's grandfathered in. So this will just be in the future.

This is just going forward. So anyone existing right now, if they're not meeting this required, is grandfathered in. Correct. It's just going forward.

Okay. Okay. This is a public hearing.

if anybody we will open a public hearing and invite anybody that would like to speak to this item to do so now seeing none we will close the public hearing bring it back for further discussion or a motion i'll make a motion if i may on item 3.13 public hearing and recommendation of

37.080, table of off-street parking requirements, adding new parking requirements for preschools and daycares, offering specialized therapy with higher student-to-teacher ratios. I move that we recommend approval with the findings that it is in conformance with the purposes, intent, and provisions of the general plan and its various elements. And please include DRC comments. Second.

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

There are less items on the meeting on the 27th. However, the one that you table tonight most likely will have quite a bit of discussion. So I can't promise shorter. I can promise, well, I can promise you less items. Can we get more flag lots? You could, yeah, if you bought the property and decided you wanted to develop it. The only other thing that maybe is interesting, we did that comprehensive update to the sign chapter that you guys looked at a little bit ago. after some interesting back and forth with the council there was a brief moment where they were going to take away all signs from the planning commission but i watched that meeting yeah but then they decided to add it back in so you will still get to review signs but then you'll forward it to them for the final decision so you will just be a recommendation body which might be nice yeah sure anyways that's the only kind of interesting code update i was going to give you i mean it's just adding a step for them i'm surprised that they want to do that yeah but uh but maybe it will result in less requests for exceptions now that you get to go to Planning Commission and City Council maybe maybe I think that's all I have all right make a motion to adjourn second all in favor