Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

This meeting is now in order, and we will jump right into the regular agenda.

All right, item 3.1, public hearing and recommendation of Perry Commercial's request for review of an amendment to the Traverse Mountain Area Plan changing approximately five acres located at Timberdose Highway and Mountain View Road from high-density residential to highway commercial. This was previously tabled at the August 13th meeting. So the proposal is on approximately five acres next to the existing Sunrise office building and central bank. Oh, yeah, do you want to display my... So Just be an extension of the existing commercial that's in this area they're not proposing any other changes to The Traverse Mountain area plan at this time. It would just change this to highway commercial Just a few things to be aware of from some of the public comment we got. Both of these were previously changed. There was an amendment in 2013. And when they first came through, it was a little bit ambiguous how big of a property they wanted to change. And so planning commission had actually recommended going up to six acres. And then city council approved it for three acres. And right now it's like 2.6 acres. In theory, maybe there is a little bit that could be still, but not the full of what they're wanting. Also, that doesn't have to impact your decision at all, but just it has been considered in the past. And I think they, since at least 2013, saw that there was some commercial bike opportunities in this area. And I guess a planning principle to keep in mind is, Can we get to separate residential from busy roads? I look at the view apartment and question why we allow them to build a little pocket park right next to a really high busy road. Don't know if that's great for safety and quality of life. So it's one of those things to keep in mind. Of course, there's also impact from commercial. It can increase traffic. And, you know, if it's a large traffic generator, they would have to do a traffic study and make improvements based off of that. But that does also have impact. Yeah, just some things to consider. And with that, I'll turn it back to the Commission for discussion.

Thank you, Brittany. Is the applicant present?

Good evening, Commissioners. I'm Matt Swain representing the Perry Companies that is the applicant for this property. Just a few points to reiterate what Brittany has already stated and what's in the staff report. All we're asking is for a continuation of the commercial zoning that we feel like is consistent with the rest of the frontage that's heading really from this property to the east. And being a complement and echoing reasonable land use and planning to put commercial down toward the commercial corridor for traffic circulation purposes, for noise purposes. Just from a land use perspective, we feel like this is, long term, is the appropriate use for this piece of property. I think is outlined, and frankly, we probably should have just brought this through at the same time that Central Utah Bank was doing their use amendment within the area plan back in 2013. Because the commission at that time was also just considering approving a larger parcel. for commercial use in the same area that would be contiguous with the existing Central Utah Bank. So it's really pretty straightforward. We're just asking for an amendment. I would hope that we could just focus on this. I know that we've been here on other applications recently. We understand where the council stands on that application. We have a lot of interests within Traverse Mountain, right? And in previous dialogue, there's been a lot of other things brought into whatever it is that Perry brings forward that are unrelated to the current application. I would just hope tonight that we can have a discussion based upon solely what is the appropriate land use on this particular application and be able to move forward one way or another. But we feel like in addition to the city, it creates a new commercial property that will obviously produce tax revenue aside from what's already entitled for the property. And we feel like it long term is just the appropriate use for the piece of ground. So happy to answer any questions.

Any questions for the applicant?

I have a question. Yeah. So what does this do with your density cap? Like if this is no longer,

The density in this area, I think, in the staff reports outlined, it's flexible as it is. So it wouldn't do anything to the density cap. There's property where that density can be moved around to. So it wouldn't apply to any density cap. It would just be a rezone of the land use for this parcel. All the other land uses outside of this would remain the same.

OK.

So any residential? opportunities that currently exist for this property would be moved to some other parcels?

I'm sorry, Claire.

So you have the overall general plan for the area does call for certain rights for the amount of units in each different pod. Are you saying that if this were to be rezoned as commercial, the residential units that are assigned to this pod or this area of the plan would be distributed elsewhere?

Well, they would remain essentially here. So right now, this parcel is contiguous with the parcel above this in the HDR zone. And that density would remain. So it wouldn't. And maybe, Brittany, you guys could give some clarity to this as well. But it's going to just push that density or those rooftops. It's not as though that density is going to go away under the application.

OK. Any other questions for the applicant? We will probably have more questions later.

Great. I'll stand by. Thank you.

I failed to give us an opportunity to ask questions to staff. Did anybody have questions for staff?

I'll just reiterate, I think, the same question so we do have perfect clarity. So as I'm understanding this, if this is changed to commercial, and I'm just going to grab a number out of thin air so that we're just using something concrete. Let's say 150 units were currently planned for what is there. We would still have 150 units. It would now be squeezed into the smaller space above while we would then have commercial built on what is being proposed. Is that correct? Yeah. Okay. Yep. Okay.

That's a whole other application? Or do they just get it?

So the way this area currently is, I guess I could pull it up in the area plan. It's designated by the areas is how many units there are. And so it wouldn't change the fact that that area has that many units, if that makes sense. I'll pull it up.

If it were a four gallon jug of water and there were three gallons of water and we now make it a three gallon jug, the fact is the water remains the same. Yes. OK, thank you.

Yeah, so it's part of this Perry D planning district and there's 260 dwelling units here and I think.

260 units. Yeah.

And so, but really this is kind of, this hasn't developed as shown the road doesn't come through like this. And so the line between Perry C and D is a little bit less clear. So, um, you know, it probably does incorporate more of both of these. And obviously some of these units have already been used. The view is in here and is used up, some of these. So, yeah.

So they have to keep their density in this unit. They can't now say, well, we have 150 that we don't have anymore because we made it highway commercial. So we get to use that 150 somewhere else.

So, I mean, it has to stay in this area. It just would be... Yeah, to the land right above it would be, you know, maybe slightly more.

Even more density.

So north of the Sunrise Way is where we'd have to fit the rest of the homes.

Yeah.

Okay. Why wouldn't the commercial development cut into their units allowed? Why wouldn't it be essentially they're asking for a commercial instead of residential?

I guess, you know, you could propose that, that it be taken out for the ERUs. Commercial wouldn't be very many ERUs, equivalent residential units, right? It's looking at the number of fixture units, unless it's a hotel or something like that. I mean, Gary could speak more to that, but most commercials, pretty low on the number of ERUs.

I think the average number is like three per acre, three ERUs per acre for commercial.

Right. And then also, remind me the year that the bank went in, or that we did this for the bank.

So 2013 was when the area plan was amended.

And at that point, the Planning Commission recommended a larger parcel. The City Council elected to go a smaller parcel. Can you give a history on that?

Yeah. I just... Reviewed this, um, the other day looking into it. So, um, yeah, I, sorry. Let's see if I can find what they had actually proposed. Um, cause from what I remember, it was just a little bit vague on what they were actually wanting. They were just saying like, let's amend some of the area along. So I guess they showed a smaller area, but their narrative... Oh, yeah. So, I mean, they were saying 2.3 to 5 acres was their request. Yeah. So I don't know. It wasn't here, so I couldn't tell you from memory what happened, but it sounds like that was kind of what it was. It was just... Maybe not a totally clear quest of, we're looking for this acreage clarity. And planning commission was more like, yeah, let's go big. Let's go up maybe beyond what you think you might need. Maybe they were like, we need up to five acres. And they said, OK, let's go to six acres in case you need that. And maybe they knew more by city council. And so that's why city council went with three. I don't know. It's not very clear in the minutes either.

Sure.

OK. Any other questions for staff? All right. This is a public hearing. We did have some public comments online that we probably want to read first, and then we will have the public come up and speak. We will open the public hearing at this point.

So there was 19 people who left public comments online, and they were all against making the change So they talked about wanting to leave it high density residential, feeling like it was just a benefit for Perry and not benefiting the surrounding neighborhood. Yeah. Let's see if there's anything. Some people were Asking if it could be a park instead and I tried to respond I think it mostly came through email So I tried to respond to them and let them know that that's not a consideration for it to become a park We'd have to buy the land from Perry and they'd have to be a willing seller seller of the land We couldn't just require that at this point Either that or give them more density some sort of compensation for the land and Yeah, again, just kind of overall opposition, feeling like there's been a lot of growth, concerns about traffic, and feeling like it should stay what it is and that Perry's used a lot of their density and just similar to that.

I know she's going through these quickly. We did receive these ahead of time, and we have read them. But we do want to make sure that they get into the public record.

How many comments did you say there were? 19 people left comments. I think there was one person that had two comments, but yeah. So maybe 20 comments or 19 separate people.

All against? Yeah.

Okay, thank you, Brittany. We will invite the public at this point to come forward and add their comment.

My name is Rob Ludlow, and I've been a 20-year resident of Traverse Mountain, and unlike Perry, who's had a significant turnover, I was in the room when this 2012 area plan was negotiated. And when you negotiate an area plan, what we were doing was rationalizing Mountain Home Development's proposal of 8,400 units, because they pulled out an option that the city gave them to maximize the density inside of Traverse Mountain. in exchange for giving Cabela's free land. And back in the day, that slipped through the city council and was approved. And then the city began to realize that we don't have room for 8,400 units. And so a negotiation of vested development rights then ensued. And so let's be very clear about what's happening today. At the end, a three-way compromise was brokered between the city, Traverse Mountain residents who were sold and promised and bought into a 3,500-unit plan. And the developer kind of hid in their back pockets their ultimate plans and were delighted to charge lot premiums for a community that they knew would never materialize. So Lehigh City came in. Mark Johnson came in. We brokered a three-way compromise. Everyone gave up something. And we ended at 5,812 units and a very specific allocation of commercial. And so to say, well, there's really nothing going on here is a fundamental misunderstanding and misrepresentation of this. When we look up here, we see highway residential, high density residential. And if you look and see what's really happened, Perry had 260 units in this whole area, Perry D. They decided to build the View Apartments, 304 units, or 308 units. And so they didn't have enough units inside of Perry Planning D, and so they borrowed 48 units from Perry C in order to put this ultra high density complex together. So what's really happened here is Perry has maxed out all of their vested development rights. So I disagree with Brittany when she says, well, we'd have to buy it. No, there's no more permitted use for this five acres. They've shot the moon. They're done. Yes, there is potentially some fluidity between density, which they've already exercised. But you don't have to approve anything today. So they've maximized, they've gotten all of the commercial value that they were promised in 2012. They've maxed out all their development rights. And so what are they doing now? They're saying, well, I would like to get something for nothing. And we've done it twice before. So let's see if we can do it a third time and schnooker the community into buying it. And the simple answer to that is no. Brittany, if there are no vested development rights on that land, it's vacant. So what is Perry going to do with it? Their option is to hand it over to the city. Or they can continue to maintain it and pay taxes on it and get no value from it. But you're under no obligation. And so when you look at the planned community ordinance, it says that there may be special circumstances where there are extraordinary contributions made. or the applicant proposes to go beyond the standards required to achieve any given density bonus. Well, essentially, that's what they're asking for. They're asking for new vested development rights. And so my question is, well, what is the extraordinary contribution they've made? I've heard one argument from them. And that is, hey, we're going to bring in more taxes. Well, if you look at the other two units that they brought in, all of those are services businesses that don't get taxed. So what we're really talking about for the commercial that Perry has brought to this corner of Traverse Mountain is $14,000 in property taxes that come to Lehigh City. And so I would say that's entirely underwhelming and is not worth approving a brand new vested development right that they're asking you to come up and authorize from thin air. There is no more, they're done with this land. Now, let's also look at the responsibility of a developer in a planned community. It's supposed to talk about and look at the community and the plan as a whole. That's what the ordinance requires. And what did you hear today from the developer? Ignore all of the other pieces. We like this planning by exception piece. We want to carve another little chunk out and not look at the community as a whole, that we have a fiduciary duty to help operate within and oversee as the declarant of the master association. They have a duty to look out and deliver an elevated product, better architecture, better design, better traffic, better integration. And you didn't hear one of those arguments today for why this is good for Traverse Mountain. What you hear, though, is, oh, we'll kind of chunk away and add commercial in. And yet down the road, they are taking away residential and filling it with commercial. So any way that they can kind of squeeze density in to make it higher and higher density and go beyond, and then they'll come and say, hey, you know that 20 unit per acre density cap? Go and ignore that. We deserve an exception. And so what they're trying to do is maximize their return. They're trying to monetize every single last bit of development right that you give them. And so let's be very clear. They have no development right on this land, on this property, none. So I disagree with Brittany's assessment that this is a continuation of an existing commercial area. No, they're asking for a planning by exception to happen yet a third time, where we carve off another little chunk, talk about ethereal property taxes or taxes, which predominantly would be service based, and there's no tax relief revenue coming into Lehigh City for that. And then it's like, OK, well, let's look at Perry C. Do you see that if you bring up the map, there's a half an acre. Well, why is there a half an acre? Well, contrary to the planned community ordinance, they decided that they would move around their park space that they were obligated to deliver, five acres. The planned community order specifically says you're not allowed to piecemeal. What did they do? Well, they gave four and a half acres almost 1.2 miles away near Fire Station 83, which is not walkable from all the density that they've built. What is Lehigh City's neighborhood park standard? I believe it's 0.25 to a half a mile. So we're well beyond. We're 2 and 1 half times beyond where the open space should be. And then they say, well, we didn't have enough land there, so we're going to just gerrymander. We're going to ignore the code, which says we can't piecemeal it, and we're going to tack on an additional half acre here. And then we're going to see if we can't get new invented commercial development rights and convince the planning commission and convince the developer or the city council to just give it to us, because it's the right thing to do. Well, no. The right thing to do, as somebody who's benefited immensely economically from Traverse Mountain, as somebody who is running the mining operation in West Canyon and totally making an incredible amount of money, these guys are doing incredibly well. We don't need to create any more Maseratis for Bill Perry. He's got plenty of Maseratis. What we need to do is say, look, you have to show, that the change, the vested right that you're requesting is exceeding the standard. The code specifically says that they need to convince you that the additional rights that they are asking for are beneficial to that area.

Hey, Rob, I'm going to cut you off a little bit. I love the data you bring. You bring data, you bring code. I need you to be more concise. I can't give everybody as much time as you're taking, so I ask you to be more concise. Say your piece. I do want to hear it. I'm not trying to say I don't want to hear what you have to say, but I need you to be more concise because I cannot give everybody this amount of time. Fair enough. So please be concise.

So my request is a simple no. No more planning by exceptions. The code specifically requires them to take into entirety their planning district. And so if Perry were to come up here and do that, let's talk about where the location of Triant Park is. If they were really thinking about the community, they would even think about, well, what's happening in the adjacent master plan community? And because of the location of the temple, it's sucked up all of the open space. There's not a close by park of significance. And so you know what? We can have a five-acre park. We don't need to buy it. Perry can contribute it, or they can maintain it into perpetuity. They don't deserve to have additional rights because. They need to do something significant. And what's an example of that? And then I'll close. Riverbend wanted to relocate 317 units out of the Riverbend Planning District in Fox Canyon down behind Harman's into a commercial area. They wanted to change, and the code specifically, and the Traverse Mountain Area Plan specifically prohibited that. So they did something extraordinary. They offered 47 acres of open space to Lehigh City in exchange for delivering the exception. And there was a win-win that happened there. And there was a strong argument that said having that higher density closer to SR-92 and minimizing the traffic inside of the canyon actually was in the best interest of the community. We actually looked at the whole and made that judgment as a whole. And they also agreed to enhance hillside reclamation and building out a connector for the Bonneville Shoreline Trail. That is what an area plan amendment ought to be. When you're asking for increase in your rights, you then come with an increased product that you're packaging that for the community. Perry has not done that. They've not done that for any of the two times before, and they certainly have not done that today. And so I would strongly encourage you to deny the application and say no more planning by exception. Let's look into the entirety. Let's be accountable for where you put shoehorned the open space, far away from any density that you built. And do the right thing, and act like a master developer should, and put in the part that's been missing for all of the density that they've been bringing into Traverse Mountain. And I thank you for considering that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello. My name is Erin Ethington, and I live in The Crossing, the residential neighborhood that's adjacent to this area and will be negatively affected by this proposed change. And so I'm here to ask you to deny this proposed area plan amendment. And when I tried to understand what was happening here, the Perry D parcel, I found the exact same thing that everyone's talking about. They're allocated 260. They used all of that plus more to build the view, cramming all their density into only a part of the designated area. So as a direct result of their own strategy, Perry has deliberately left themselves zero dwelling units on this property and zero rights. So having successfully pocketed the profits, and they're coming back and asking for a nice gift from Lehigh City, brand new commercial entitlements on the empty five acres. They're asking the city to create valuable new property rights out of thin air. And new development rights are, I think, a valuable thing that the city can grant. And so giving that away for free to a developer who deliberately exhausted their rights should not be done lightly. Allowing this amendment could set a bad precedent. It tells developers that they can cram their density into smaller areas and leave open parts and come back and ask for more if they already used up all their rights. It subverts the intent of the Traverse Mountain Area Plan to have a planned development, to just change things like Rob talked about. We just think Lehigh City should hold Perry to the standard of developing their existing rights across the entirety of their property, not allow them to cram it all into one corner and do whatever they want in the next section. So how does this get fixed, since Perry was already allowed to use up all their rights? So like Rob mentioned, sure, they could do a park. Or they could just simply be required to use the C rights to cover D also. By the calculations that we have from Lehigh City, they have 75 units remaining to develop across that. It's about 16 acres. And developing that for homes would result in lot sizes comparable to the surrounding community. It would go right along with what's already there. And for anyone worried about residential being close to the highway there, the homes closest to the highway would still be around 200 feet from the highway, which is similar to what's on the south side of Tempe Highway in those successful neighborhoods. It's not anything that Lehigh hasn't done before. And then even better, those lots that back up to the highway would be above the retention basin. They'd all be view lots and have no back neighbors ever. So they'd be desirable lots. So it's not an onerous thing for them to just develop it as it's currently zoned. And I have other stuff to talk about, kind of about the park that moved and the road. This traffic that they'll add is already on a road that they've already impacted. And allowing them to squeeze the density rights into the smaller thing, we get the double impact of not only an unknown commercial impact, adding even more traffic, but also even denser. Just spread the density. They have the rights. They don't need a special gift of any additional rights. So please deny it. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else who would like to speak to this item? Seeing none, we will close the public hearing and invite the applicant to address anything, if you would like to, that you heard.

Yeah, thank you for some time. We recognize there's a lot of history here with the Perry entities on Traverse Mountain. Rob Ludlow has voiced his opinion very strongly. He's well-spoken. He's here every time anything from the Perry Companies is coming forward before the city. There's many things that are being said tonight that are not factual, that are based upon hearsay and based upon vendettas and personal feelings from past events. Why Rob is given, essentially, a seat at the table as a de facto council member and a de facto commission member is lost on me. But the PERI companies just need to be able to work through a rational application, which is our right as a private property owner, to talk about something that is a reasonable land use, long term, If you're an alien from outer space and you come to Traverse Mountain and you have all the information of proper land use, you would look at this property and say, that's the appropriate use for this piece of property. It is consistent with the corridor. It's consistent with appropriate land use policies. It's consistent with adjacent land uses. If you look all the way up and down the corridor, it's consistent with that use. We do have vested rights that remain on this property. The concept that this is an unusable piece of ground is just simply false. We have residential rights we can still put on this property as vested entitled rights under the HDR zone. We can do that. And we will do that. We just don't believe that that is the appropriate use for this piece of property. To say that the Perry Companies have done nothing but profiteered off of Traverse Mountain is also false. We have been extremely workable with the city of Lehi. We have sold property for fire stations, for substations, for well rights, for easements. We have brought enormous job creation into the city through the Traverse Ridge Office Park, the Staybridge Hotel, the development of the charter school next to the park, the View Apartments, and also the Whole Foods Anchored Shopping Center. I'm not sure how Rob forgot that that's our development. We have partnered with CenterCal and have worked tirelessly for years to bring that to fruition, which will bring significant tax base to the city. That was something that was approved by the council and was also looked at as a significant value add to the city as it relates to some tax increment that was necessary to make that project work. The city approved and was willing to recognize the long-term benefit of that project for the city and participate. in that with some tax increment that will help offset the massive infrastructure costs of that project. We have been working at Traverse Mountain for a couple of decades, pouring enormous amounts of money into this project that has built the hillside, that has brought commercial tax base, that has brought jobs. Have we done it for profit? Of course we have. The concept of we're going to design our city and go through land use policy based upon some type of profit margins that should be acceptable to a city and to the residents is poor planning. That shouldn't be brought up as a part of the discussion in land use policy. It's irrelevant. It's indicative of a personal vendetta that Mr. Ludlow has had for years. And it needs to be taken into consideration and put on public record that there are personal vendettas that are irrational, that are not directly related to land use policy, and should not be considered solely as the guiding principle for how your city is going to be developed. We recognize that there are impacts every time a piece of property is developed. We understand that. There are residents that will be impacted. We all live in homes. Maybe some of you live next to undeveloped property. You may have some concerns about what's going to be developed there. There are appropriate uses in each case that are reasonable, that are justifiable, that there are analogs throughout the entire country that would outline proper land use policy. We feel like this is right down the fairway, to use a golf analogy. The staff agrees. There was no comment back from any of the staff based upon utility usage, traffic use creation. There was no comment, even if there is an approval tonight. And there's an approval at the city council level based upon, again, what we deem to be appropriate land use policy and decision making. That does not devoid the city, and I'm saying this for the residents' benefit, the city to go through its approval process. There will be traffic analyses done based upon whatever it is that comes down the line for the commercial use of this property. You will have the site plan approval rights to deny or approve that based upon sound policy. based upon third party engineers, traffic studies, assessments of the utility impact, et cetera, et cetera. All of that obviously remains intact. It will be a legislative action. The residents will have the ability to speak their mind and voice their concerns at that time as well as now. We believe. Bottom line that this is the appropriate use. It's consistent with the general plan of this corridor. We are not spot zoning anything because of those things I just outlined. A park would be spot zoning. And to assume that we are just obligated to dedicate this to the city for a park, again, is simply not true. It's no more true than Mr. Ludlow dedicating his front yard for public use. It's a private piece of property. We have entitled rights to it. They are vested. And we'll either use those vested rights, as they're currently constituted, or if you approve this tonight and the council approves it, we'll use something else. We fully understand this is a legislative action. It's completely up to you and the council to approve or deny this. We recognize and respect that. We're grateful for the ability to go through this process. It's our right as a private property owner to do this. Are we perfect? Absolutely not. I'm not involved with the residential side of the Perry Companies. I wasn't in the room, as Mr. Ludlow outlined. Is there water under the bridge between that point and now? Certainly. Is there any perfect development or developer out there that doesn't get crossways with people based upon whatever the circumstances might have been? No. We try to do things the right way. I certainly personally do. I have been the commercial developer of everything else I just outlined. The Traverse Ridge Center is mine. The hotel is mine. The charter school is mine. The view apartments. Those were the commercial sides projects. We believe that this is the appropriate use for this property, whether it's now or whether it's in 20 years. It puts the traffic down toward the corridor. It creates a buffer between the corridor and residential uses. It produces something that won't be produced from an HDR zone, which is tax base. And we have produced far more than $14,000 of tax base. That is just false. I'm happy to answer any questions. I appreciate you hearing me out. I'm sorry for the emotion, but we have felt like we have been singled out in a lot of ways. And not these applications we feel like we would hope that there would be an objective land use policy perspective when considering these applications. We recognize that the neighbors are impacted. Growth comes with impact on all of us. I'm a full-time Muton. I've lived here my whole life. I've seen it grow. I've seen the impacts on traffic. I don't love it either. I love mountain biking and skiing and hiking and all of the above, and it just seems like wherever you go now there's a lot more people. The fair market directs that. The fair market happens. It's our job as policymakers and developers to do the very best we can to accommodate the market within objective, wise land use policy. So not just today, not just these neighbors, but those people that will be living in the homes in Traverse Mountain in 20, 30 years will drive into their homes and feel like it's a well-planned community, where land uses are where they're supposed to be, where they have access to amenities, where the traffic is where it's supposed to be. That's our hope. We are a legacy developer. We don't just come and go. We've been here for 20 years. I've been coming to these meetings for 20 years. We've been here for the long haul. We're going to be here for the long haul. We want to do it the right way. And we would appreciate any consideration as it relates to this application. And I'm happy to answer any further questions if you have any at this time.

Any questions for the applicant?

We've heard the number 75 is left to develop as far as ERUs in that piece of property. Is there any validity to that from your side? And then is there a fact check from the city side as far as negotiations between Mayor Johnson and Perry Homes and the city?

So yeah, I think 75 is the understanding that we have of number of units. I'm not sure what's... I know that it was mentioned with my Rob Ludlow about it, but I'm not sure exactly what that agreement is.

Okay. So you're asking... Are you just talking about what density is still entitled? Yeah, how many more density is entitled to go on that property? Okay. My understanding is it's about 75. You did that whole spreadsheet. I don't know if you have access to that, and I'm happy to share that because, again, it's just entitled rights. It is what it is. I already see a 75.

Yeah, and so we've been looking at this, too, so, well, a couple things. The park location is conceptual is what the document says, and then also there's a total number for the Perry Home properties, and in the written, it also has... Total numbers for medium density and the high density, so D and C are both in the high density, and they have the total of 718. But there's no written densities. There are for A and B, but not for C and D. And so we would you know, we'd treat those as they were kind of the estimate, like this is what we're going off of, but not a firm, like this is the number with those two. And again, especially because the road hasn't aligned exactly as it was shown and stuff, it's just a little bit more ambiguous. And the way the area plan was written, it allows for that flexibility.

One thing I was going to mention at the beginning of the land use section of the area plan is it mentions density can be transferred within districts. So this is all the Perry District. Those two parcels over there are medium density, and they have a not to exceed, which is A and B. Those are separate. But C and D are part of the same district, and density can be transferred between the two. but there is an underlying zoning that says no more than 20 units per acre. So you have the few apartments, it's right at about 20 units per acre, so that's as dense as they could have got that within the zone, but the area plan does say density can't be transferred within the district. We just can't exceed the underlying zoning district, which is a max of 20 units per acre for the high-density area. That's correct. Not that we should be considering profits or anything like that, but if you look at you know development rights here you have more acreage for 75 units you can make more money per home if you're building larger homes or larger lots so if they're decreasing some home sizes for commercial there's a trade-off there as far as and again not that we should be getting into their profitability this is all really the area plan amendment is we have an existing agreement within the area plan The applicant here is proposing a new agreement to the area plan, and it's up to you as the commission to decide if there's a good rationale to what the proposed change is, and obviously taking the public input and have that as part of your consideration for the application.

So for clarity, if nothing changed, if the city council denied this, how many units can they put on D?

So, yeah, I think our understanding is 75. 75.

On the end, yeah.

Yeah, but C is built. C is built, yeah.

Please keep your comments down out in the public, please. Thank you.

So to clarify, there's a piece of property next to west of Central Bank in the office building that's undeveloped that when you look at the area plan map, follows the thing that's called C. But because the area plan allows density transfer between districts, there's 75 units left between the combined districts, but those units can be transferred anywhere within those districts as long as they don't exceed the 20 units per acre maximum.

So why can they transfer those 75 units elsewhere and still build something here? Why isn't there some eating of those quantity of units for what they're trying to build here?

And I guess you could, I mean...

I know we can, but why wasn't that part of staff? Why didn't we, I mean, that seems natural. They're asking for something more. They say, hey, we want these 75 units as well, but we also want to build something else here. Why wasn't that part of the discussion from staff, at a staff level?

The whole idea of this is they're proposing a change to the plan. And the unions are flexible. And like what I was saying before, again, not that we should be concerned with their profitability. But from their side of things, if you can spread those 75 units out on more area, you can build larger units, which is more profitable for them. They still keep those 75 units, but they're smaller or smaller lots. They're less money that they get out of it, but they're making that up with the commercial grant. So from a land use point of view, the reason that we as staff would like to change more like this is putting housing along a busy highway like SR-92 is not ideal. I've heard complaints from the view apartments being so close to the highway there, and it's just not good planning practice. Even though it's been done in a lot of places, it's not good planning practice to put housing so close to a highway. Personally, I had Piner Crossing in my backyard, and I can tell you it really does affect your quality of life, and noise pollution does a lot more to us than you realize. So commercial access is kind of a buffer between the highway and where the housing is over there. It's too late on the view apartments. They're already built up next to the highway, but that's some of the, I guess, land use practice that I would mention as part of this.

I'm getting into my opinion here. From a straight land use perspective, I agree. I mean land use, commercial land use versus residential, if I were to actually weigh those out and say which one makes more sense right next to the highway, I agree. Commercial makes more sense. I don't love the way that we're going about this. I mean we've heard several. of these proposals of wanting to move things around in this area. I know we are not thinking about or talking about the other proposals that have come forward recently or in the past. But this seems to be a trend, particularly with one developer that has brought these forward several times. I also take offense to your comment that someone from the public coming up here is a de facto member of our commission or our council. That is factually incorrect, and every member of the public is welcome to come and give public comment. So that was... Not great to hear from you. We invite anyone to give their public comment, and we encourage the public to come and comment. This individual that you have mentioned multiple times, yes, has come and spoken a lot, but we welcome that, as well as anybody that would like to come and speak to the items that are on. So I did not love hearing that from you tonight. It did put me a little bit on defense, to be honest. It's OK. I don't need you to rebut. It's OK. I understand what you're saying as well.

We're offended by him for the same reasons. So I just don't want to be one-sided in this presentation. I just want to keep it to the facts of land use policy. That's all we're asking.

Understood. There was that individual as well as 19 others as well as another woman that came forward today. And we welcome the public comment. I do not want that to ever be discouraged.

And I'm not discouraging it. I just wanted to set the record straight that there were numerous things that were just not true. And that's fair. That were expressed. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions for staff? Comments? Deliberation.

Sure. I'll just go ahead and throw out my thoughts at this point. I am very sensitive to the fact there are strong emotions on both sides of this matter. I want both sides to understand that. And Perry Homes has every right to make requests. Also, we do have a standing agreement. And moving the needle, changing it, Yeah, it does require demonstrating that Lehigh City stands to benefit in a meaningful, significant way, or that the change in plans in and of itself, whether it's Lehigh City getting, whether it's a park, or if it is simply that this was bad, a bad concept, and we have a demonstrably better plan. considered on its own, I don't know that I would look at this change and say that it is worse. But from what I can see, I see a very neutral, potentially minimally positive, and to change an agreement For me as a commissioner, I need to see something more than an abstract sense of an increased tax revenue that comes in. Certainly not against a developer making money. That is sometimes villainized in incorrect ways. It is how... It's how things move forward. But for me, I would need and I would suggest, Mr. Swain, as you go to the city council, that there be a stronger demonstration of how this is going to really be a significantly better situation. I'm not seeing that currently. And when I see a resolute opposition from all the citizens in this area to it, I'm disinclined to alter the agreement as it currently stands. OK. Thank you.

Further input, or I'd entertain a motion?

I'll make a motion. For item 3.1, a public hearing recommendation of Perry Commercial's request for review of an amendment to Trevor's mountain area plan, changes approximately five acres at Timpanogos Highway and Mountain View Road from high-density residential to highway commercial. I move that we send a negative recommendation to city council. with the findings that this proposal does not significantly, demonstrably create a better scenario situation for the city than what currently stands and that the current plan does reflect the sentiment of the citizenry. And as this is a legislative action and not an entitled right, it behooves us to reflect the will of the people.

Yeah, I'll second that.

Motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay, this goes forward to City Council. When does it get there?

The 22nd, September 22nd.

September 22nd. Item 3.2 has been withdrawn, so if you were here for item 3.2, we still welcome you to stay, but we will move forward to 3.3.

All right. Item 3.3, public hearing and recommendation of Jan Walker's request for review of R-122 zoning for the pasture walk annexation on 4.4 acres located approximately 900 north, 1,000 west. So this is the aerial for context. Wanting to annex in those 4.4 acres. Just a reminder, for annexations, it first goes to city council for a resolution of intent to annex. And then it comes to you for review of the zoning. So they're proposing the R-122 zoning on it, which is consistent with the general plan designation of VLDR, Very Low Density Residential Agriculture. It would be about half acre watts. DRC comment to be aware of is a comment to include this UTA parcel in the annexation. It would come in as TH5, but just totally clean up that county island. So if you could include that in your motion. And with that, I'll turn it back for any questions.

Thank you, Brittany. Any questions for staff? Is the applicant present? You're welcome to come up and add anything or leave it as is. OK. OK. Thank you. This is a public hearing. We will invite anyone from the public here to speak to item 3.3 to come up and do so now. Just to check, I don't believe there were any comments online. Nope. Seeing none, we will close the public hearing and bring it back for further deliberation or a motion.

Ready to put forward a motion for item 3.3, public hearing recommendation of Jeanne. I apologize if I mispronounced your name. Jeanne, thank you. Walker's request for review of R1.2 zoning for the pasture walk annexation on 4.4 acres located approximately 900 north, 1,000 west. The recommendation being that we approve this particular item because it does conform with the goals and policies of the general plan, and please include those various DRC comments.

Second.

Greg?

If you could just repeat who does the second, that would be helpful.

So we have a motion from Beau and a second from Greg. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. And will this also be on the 22nd?

Tisha, can you verify that one? Because it's the annexation. I don't know what day it has to go because of the spacing.

Oh, let's see. This one, I am not sure. Let's see. Oh, yeah. So this one will be, we do have to schedule a public hearing. So this will not make it to the 22nd. It'll have to be that first meeting in October.

City Council in October. Thank you. Item 3.4. Okay.

Item 3.4, public hearing and recommendation of Nick Nelson's request for review of the Nelson zone change, changing the zone from TH5 to A1, located at 1193 North, 2300 West. So this is the General plan, very low density residential agriculture. So the A1 zoning is also consistent with that, one acre lot. It's approximately 1.7. Well, I think it is supposed to be 1.75 acres that will be changing. But they're doing a lot line adjustment So this lot doesn't currently reflect it, but it won't be what's shown as all this. But yeah, it'll be that 1.75 acres so they can build one single family home on it. And with that, I'll turn it back to the commission for any questions.

Thank you, Brittany. Any questions for staff? Is the applicant present? Is there anything you would like to add?

This is a public hearing.

Anybody here to speak to item 3.4? We will open the public hearing now and invite you to speak to this item. Confirming there was no public comment online?

No, there wasn't. Thank you.

Then we will close the public hearing and bring it back for further deliberation or a motion.

Go ahead.

Sorry. I'll make a motion on item 3.4, public hearing and recommendation of Nick Nelson's request for review of the Nelson zone change, changing the zone from TH5 to A1, located at 1193 North, 2300 West. I move that we give a positive recommendation with the findings that the effect of the proposed amendment on the character of the surrounding area is positive. It's consistent with the general goals and policies, sorry, the goals and policies of the general plan. And please include all DRC comments.

Second. We have a, excuse me, a motion by Nicole and a second by Polo. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. Will this also be the first one in October, Tisha?

No, this can be September 22nd. Oh, September 22nd. The annexation just has state required.

Understood.

And so, yeah, it has to be.

Okay.

Okay, thank you. City business.

Do we have anything?

Are we doing the work session? Are we deciding if we're doing the work session or not? We might cancel work session next week.

I will entertain a motion to adjourn.

It's my turn.

Can I make a motion that we adjourn? You may make a motion.

Second, Stan.

All right. We have a motion by Polo and a second by Nicole. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed?

Exactly right.